Yes. Too many people want to be done with Covid: the appalling assault on our rights, the lies, the rubber bullets, the signal that democracy in Australia only exists if the ruling parties grant it. The scum actually followed the Communist Chinese model of control.

By trying to put the Covid atrocities out of mind, the drones are signalling that it is OK for our appalling political class to do the same thing in the future, and not just with a dose of super-’flu. They have left themselves wide open to authoritarianism next time the scum think that they know best.

I think the author is writing from a US angle on statistics and results of the mishandling of Covid. And American citizens were treated much better than Australians were when it came to the behaviour of servants of the people turning into masters

Seems this joker got his economics degree from the bottom of a cereal box.

The piece works, sure, but only if you accept a whole series of assumptions that never actually get demonstrated. The main one is that lockdowns are the dominant cause of the economic problems we see today.

Okay. Compared to what?

Pandemics damage economies even without restrictions. When a contagious disease spreads widely, people get sick, supply chains break, consumers avoid public spaces and businesses cut activity. Economic contraction happens regardless. Ignoring that counterfactual makes the argument pretty shaky from the outset.

The jobs numbers cited don't really prove what the article suggests either. A single monthly report showing job losses doesn't establish some long-term structural collapse in the labour market.

Labour data moves around month to month all the time.

The inflation claim has a similar problem. Inflation didn't just appear in countries that had strict lockdowns. It turned up almost everywhere after the pandemic. Countries with very different policies all saw the same spike, which suggests the drivers were broader things like disrupted supply chains and energy prices rather than lockdowns by themselves.

Then a whole grab-bag of other issues gets folded into the same narrative: tariffs, oil supply disruptions, Fed balance sheet policy, manufacturing trends. None of these are actually shown to flow from lockdown policy. They're just placed in the same story.

The vaccine section is probably the weakest part. The article suggests rising disability numbers might reflect widespread vaccine injuries affecting "millions", but it provides no evidence at all for that claim.

By the end the language shifts into calling the lockdown period "barbarism" and urging readers to sign a political campaign.

That's really the tell.

This article isn't a serious economic analysis. More just an argument looking for evidence after the fact.