Just had a rare listen to the ABC's The World Today, with a Scary Mary reporting the worst stuff she could find on Covid and interviewing "experts" only their mothers have heard of. No dissenting voices, of course.

What was it all about?

There's an old saying derived from the Watergate story that to find the answer you should "follow the money".

Who did best out of the panic?

1. The medical multinationals have all made enormous profits from the various vaccines (funded by government) and the sale of masks etc. It is said that each 'test' costs government $100 - there have been 24million tests done in NSW alone since the scare started.

2. The credentialled class have done very well out of the lockdowns and handouts. Not a single public servant in the entire country lost a cent. Most white collar workers likewise. The real losers were the working class and private business owners. So rather than suffering in the lockdowns, those who made the decisions prospered, especially in comparison to the fellow citizens. "It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." Thomas Sowell

3. No government lost office during the panic. Based on opinion polls, pretty much all governments prospered as the populace sought safety provided by the authorities. Why wouldn't government embrace lockdowns when it meant more support. While 'saving' the populace, governments managed to massively increase their powers.

That's what the hell it was all about. Sadly that was obvious back in March last year but the majority are only just waking up to it.

Dear mhaze,

Rubbish.

It was about saving the 50,000 Australian lives and the hundreds of thousands who would have been blighted with long Covid if we had opened up like you had wished. I would happily see all the Premiers including Gladys get a gong for what they have achieved no thanks to a blinker, bumbling and beholden to big business PM.

Morrison claimed credit for saving 30,000 lives. All BS of course. There is no evidence that anywhere near that many lives needed saving. Computer models are not evidence. There is no evidence that anymore other than the relevantly few who have died (the old and the infirm) would have died if all the lockdowns and other freedom-sapping tyranny had never occurred.

It is is hard to decide whether the people praising our political class and puppeteers are merely extreme Marxists and control freaks or if they are clinically insane.

Sorry SR but you have zero* credibility on this issue, most definitely as regards trying to do these calculations.

Let's remember this is the bozo who tried to calculate the flu deaths in the US for under 50's and got it wrong by 300%. This is also the bozo who tried to do the same calculation for Australia and got it wrong by 57000% (yep...fifty-seven thousand percent).

And then, as if trying to demonstrate that he'd learned nothing and intended to keep it thus, he predicts that WuFlu deaths in NSW would be in the thousands by the end of October. Of course he was wrong by several hundred percent YET AGAIN. At least that time he was embarrassed enough to exit the group for a month or so, in order to avoid having to own up to that bit of moronosity.

So now we have the numeric illiterate SR trying to work out how many were supposedly saved via the lockdowns. So the 'thinking' goes like this - if we DIDN'T lockdown then we would have had the same death rate as those locations who DID lockdown. Huh? Yes, its completely illogical but SR will never understand that.

* the concept of 'zero' is relatively new in western thinking. Given your innumeracy, I'm unsure if you understand that concept.