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.

covid tyranny and the numerous deaths and maiming of the compliant public is the biggest crime other than murdering the unborn babies in my lifetime. The deceit, cover up and gas lighting has been unparalleled. Those who participated in the most evil were rewarded for it. We have a couple of gg's who should be totally ashamed of themselves. The good part is that anyone with half a brain can now see that public health, Pollies, media and many other lied daily to them as they served their filthy globalist masters. This is what dei has produced in this country. Thank God for the honest doctors and other medical professionals who put the patients first despite costing them their livelihoods. tga/aphra showed themselves as pure harlots even hiding the death of kids from the gene therapy. How they sleep at night astounds me. It's no wonder that all the grubs involved in mandates just want it to go away. To bad for the relatives of those killed and maimed from the gene therapy.

Even from the early days of the lockdown hysteria, it was clear that the economic impact of those decisions were going to be disastrous.

By far the biggest error was the decision to pay people to not go to work. The cost of that in financial (but also social) terms was catastrophic and as I've said many times on these pages will be paid for by the next generation(s). Add to that the effects on small business up and down the country where mom and dad stores, shops and other businesses were obliterated.

We also had kids locked out of school and parks for weeks on end. The long term effects of that are still and will continue to be monitored and debated. But even minor impacts on the next generation are to be abhorred.

Then of course there is the issue of the mess that was the vaccine. There's still a long way to go on that issue and the final verdict might be a decade away. That the vaccine wasn't a universal panacea is hardly now open for dispute. We'll probably never know how many people were killed by the vaccine itself and how many will suffer reduced quality of life. Add to that the vaccine reluctance here and in many other nations due to the people realising that they were lied to by the authorities and medical fraternity over the covid shot and therefore growing to distrust other vaccines as well (probably incorrectly).

All this before we even get to the attacks on individual freedom and the use of police and other enforcement bodies to implement a disputed government policy made in a knowledge vacuum.


The governmental reaction to the spread of the WuFlu was a monumental error. While those who boosted it and those who fell for the government line will continue to dispute that it was the greatest failure of leadership this century, we can be reasonably safe in assuming that no government will make the same errors if the CCP decides to unleash another virus on the planet.

mhaze,

You've bundled a lot of grievances together there, but most of them are assertions rather than demonstrated conclusions.

Take the claim that paying people not to work was "catastrophic". The alternative in early 2020 wasn't a normal functioning economy. It was a rapidly spreading pandemic where businesses were already shutting because customers and workers were staying home anyway. Programs like JobKeeper were introduced precisely to stop a wave of bankruptcies and mass unemployment during that period.

You can certainly argue those programs were imperfect or overly generous in some cases. But simply declaring them catastrophic doesn't show that letting the labour market collapse would have produced a better outcome.

The vaccine section is even more speculative. You say we may never know how many people were killed by vaccines. That's an odd claim given vaccines were administered to billions of people and monitored across numerous independent health systems. Serious adverse reactions exist with any medical intervention, but the evidence overwhelmingly shows the vaccines reduced hospitalisation and death from COVID.

Saying the "final verdict might be a decade away" just keeps the claim alive indefinitely without evidence.

As for school closures, there is genuine debate about their costs. But those decisions were made in the middle of a new pandemic with limited information and hospitals under severe pressure in many countries. Hindsight always makes policy choices look simpler than they did at the time.

Which brings us to the broader point. It's easy, several years later, to declare everything a "monumental error".

But that's hindsight, not analysis.

If you think the policy response was wrong, the question becomes: what specific alternative strategy would have produced a better outcome in early 2020, given what was known at the time?

WTF?

Let's take a look at Singapore. From 2002 -2004, Singapore, along with a number of other countries had to contend with the SARS outbreak.

While only suffering a few hundred cases the fatality rate of 13.9% of those who were infected was on great concern because of Singapore's high population density.

The Australian Journal of Medicine goes into considerable depth describing Singapore's post SARS response.

The Disease Outbreak Response System Condition framework was established as the foundation for the national responses to any future outbreak.

Singapore started screening for COVID19 on 2 January 2020 at a time where many were calling it "just the case of the flu" that had something to do with China.

Border control measures started on 3 January and were progressively ramped up.

From 7 April, all non-essential workplaces were closed, schools were physically closed but moved to home-based learning, and food establishments were only allowed to provide take-away and delivery services.

Singapore was well aware of the social and financial ramifications of their strategies before implementation.

In 2025, their economy grew 5.7 per cent. This topped 2024’s 4.4 per cent and is the fastest pace since 2021 when the economy rebounded from the Covid-19 pandemic with 9.8 per cent growth.

No doubt Singapore will have an even more swift and comprehensive response with any future pandemics. Let's hope that Australia takes note as well.

JD asserts that I've made a series of "assertions rather than demonstrated conclusions." And then proceeds to make a series of assertions rather than demonstrated conclusions.

"It's easy, several years later, to declare everything a "monumental error"."

Yes it would be. Except I was making these points on these pages (and elsewhere) within two months of the outbreak of the WuFlu hysteria when the lockdown mania was first kicking off.

mhaze,

Pointing out that you expressed similar views early in the pandemic doesn't address the substance of the discussion.

The issue I raised wasn't when you first said these things. It was the basis for the conclusions you're drawing now.

For example, you described income support programs as "catastrophic". But you haven't shown that allowing businesses to collapse and unemployment to spike sharply in early 2020 would have produced a better economic outcome.

Likewise on vaccines, you said we may never know how many people were killed by them. That’s a pretty serious claim, but at the moment it’s just speculation unless there’s evidence to back it up.

Which brings me back to the same question I asked earlier.

If the COVID response was really a “monumental error”, what should governments actually have done instead in early 2020, given what was known at the time?

Saying you opposed lockdowns early on doesn’t answer that.

JD says "It's easy, several years later, to declare everything a "monumental error"."

I point out that I wasn't saying it several years later but was actually saying at the time. JD retreats with alacrity but little finesse.

"Saying you opposed lockdowns early on doesn’t answer that." So now that I've pointed out that I was an early opponent of lockdowns he tells me that doesn't matter (although it seemed to matter a day ago!!) but what really matters is if those opposed to the lockdowns offered alternatives. Well they and I did offer alternatives from early on so we'll probably find out from JD that what was important today isn't important tomorrow.

"But you haven't shown that allowing businesses to collapse and unemployment to spike sharply in early 2020 would have produced a better economic outcome."

What makes you think that not locking down would have caused business collapse or unemployment? Now you're just making it up as you go.
And you haven't shown that spending billions so that people could cease being productive was good economic sense. Just saying that you believe whatever the government tells you isn't really convincing.

The nation has massive debt issues which is a total reversal of the nett government credit position bequeathed by Howard/Costello. Much of that is due to the monumental sums thrown at lockdown mania. That massive debt seriously restricts the policy option available today and will be paid for for decades hereafter.

But the pro-lockdown crowd will pretend not to notice

You're reading a retreat where there isn't one, mhaze.

Pointing out that you opposed lockdowns early doesn't establish that the policy response was wrong. Lots of people had strong views in early 2020. The question is whether those views were supported by evidence and whether the alternative would have produced a better outcome.

That's the point I raised before and it's still the one you haven't addressed.

You asked why I think the economy would have taken a hit without intervention. By early 2020 the damage was already happening. Travel had collapsed, businesses were closing their doors and people were staying home. The pandemic itself was driving the shock, not just government policy.

Income support programs were introduced to stop that shock turning into a wave of bankruptcies and mass unemployment. You can argue those programs were poorly designed or too generous in places, but simply calling them "catastrophic" doesn't demonstrate that doing nothing would have been better.

The same applies to your vaccine claim. Saying we may never know how many people were killed by vaccines isn't evidence of anything. It's speculation.

You've also shifted the discussion to government debt, which is a separate issue.

So the question remains the same one I asked earlier.

If the COVID response was a "monumental error", what specific alternative strategy should governments have pursued in early 2020, given the information available at the time?

"The pandemic itself was driving the shock, not just government policy. Income support programs were introduced to stop that shock turning into a wave of bankruptcies and mass unemployment. "

That's utter rubbish. The lockdowns were initially introduced to flatten the curve. Remember that? Obviously not. And then because people were being banned from partaking in any economic activity, the government had to offer alternate income. Hence the income supports. Places that didn't enforce lockdowns didn't need income support.

"The same applies to your vaccine claim. Saying we may never know how many people were killed by vaccines isn't evidence of anything. It's speculation."

No. The evidence that people died from the vaccine is established. The extent of that particular disaster is the only thing still being resolved.

"You've also shifted the discussion to government debt, which is a separate issue."

No. It was always about government debt (recheck the topic header!!) which was vastly exacerbated by the failed lockdown policy. That you obviously didn't understand that says it all.

"If the COVID response was a "monumental error", what specific alternative strategy should governments have pursued in early 2020, given the information available at the time?"

I've explained this many times in the past.
1. Sequester those truly endangered by the WuFlu - ie the over 65s and the immune compromised.
2. Allow the rest of the community for whom the virus was really just a bad flu to continue their daily lives, catch the virus, build immunity to the point where the society as a whole developed herd immunity.
3. Then allow those who had developed immunity to interact with the previously sequestered.

If we did that there wouldn't have been the urgency to rush an untested vaccine onto the community and enforce getting it. Oh it it would have saved the nations 100s of millions of $.

mhaze,

You've now outlined the alternative strategy you believe governments should have followed, so let's take a look at the assumptions behind it.

//The evidence that people died from the vaccine is established.//

Serious adverse reactions exist with any medical intervention. The question isn't whether they exist but how common they are relative to the risk from the disease itself.

The global evidence so far shows vaccines significantly reduced hospitalisation and death from COVID.

//1. Sequester those truly endangered… 2. Allow the rest of society to continue normally…//

That proposal assumes vulnerable people could be effectively isolated while the virus spread widely through the rest of society.

In practice many vulnerable people live with younger family members or depend on them for care. Once widespread transmission occurs it becomes extremely difficult to prevent it reaching those groups.

//build immunity… herd immunity//

In early 2020 we didn't know how durable post-infection immunity would be or how quickly hospitals might be overwhelmed if transmission was allowed to run unchecked.

Those uncertainties were exactly why many governments opted for broader restrictions while they tried to understand the virus and expand health-system capacity.

"In practice many vulnerable people live with younger family members or depend on them for care. "

Translation: some family settings mean its difficult to sequester all vulnerable people.

Therefore the entire society has to be locked down!!

Pretty much the dumbest excuse for the utter failure that was the lockdown mania that I've seen

Not even close, mhaze.

//Translation: some family settings mean its difficult to sequester all vulnerable people.//

The point was simply that your proposal assumes vulnerable people could be effectively isolated while the virus spread through the rest of society.

In practice that's difficult because many vulnerable people live with younger family members or depend on them for care. Once widespread transmission occurs it becomes very hard to prevent it reaching those groups.

That doesn't automatically mean "the entire society has to be locked down".

It means the targeted-protection strategy you're proposing may not have been workable in the real world.

That was one of the uncertainties governments were dealing with in early 2020.

"That doesn't automatically mean "the entire society has to be locked down"."

But that was what you were arguing....that the idea of sequestering the vulnerable was unworkable therefore lockdown was the better solution.

As I've mentioned elsewhere on these pages, I'm fully aware of how hard sequestering the vulnerable is. I had my wife going through chemo, and therefore utterly immune compromised, when the Chinese virus hit. Her specialist put it starkly. If she got covid she'd die, no possible other solution. I spent a year keeping her safe from all possible sources of infection while doing the same for my elderly father who was vulnerable due to his age. I wasn't easy but possible and successful.

But just asserting that some of the vulnerable might not have been fully sequestered therefore the entire society needed to be sequestered is rubbish.

mhaze,

I’m glad to hear you were able to keep your wife and father safe during that time. That must have been very stressful.

But the issue here isn’t whether some individuals were able to protect vulnerable family members. Many people did exactly that. The question is whether that approach could realistically have worked as a society-wide policy while allowing widespread transmission in the rest of the community.

Many vulnerable people live in aged care facilities, share households with working-age family members, or rely on carers who move between multiple households. Once transmission becomes widespread in the general community, shielding those groups becomes extremely difficult.

Pointing that out doesn’t imply that “the entire society had to be locked down”.

It simply means the targeted-protection strategy you’re proposing relied on something that may not have been achievable in practice.

That uncertainty was part of what governments were dealing with in early 2020.

"Pointing that out doesn’t imply that “the entire society had to be locked down”."

So now you're arguing that the entire society didn't need to be locked down?

Seems my work here is done.

That’s not what I argued, mhaze.

//So now you're arguing that the entire society didn't need to be locked down?//

The point is that the targeted-protection strategy you proposed assumes vulnerable people could be effectively isolated while the virus spread through the rest of the community.

Whether broader restrictions were justified or not, that assumption was one of the major uncertainties governments were dealing with in early 2020.

Back to you.

So actually you don't know what the government should have done, just what they shouldn't have done.