Coronavirus cases: Victoria’s fake virus modelling disaster
The Victorian government said the state was heading for 20,000 new coronavirus cases a day — far more than than the peak of 1100 forecast in other modelling. So who to believe, asks Terry McCrann.
Terry McCrann
Don't miss out on the headlines from Terry McCrann. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Our fellow newspaper, The Australian, has been attacked for headlining that virus cases in Victoria could have been heading for a peak of 1100 — yet the claim from the state government’s own (acting) deputy chief health officer that the state was heading for 20,000 a day has passed without a murmur.
Hmm, 1100 is irresponsible scaremongering, which had to be rejected as it was by Premier Dan Andrews; but 20,000 was not only entirely sensible but the basis of Victoria going back to Lockdown 2.0 on the way to the even more savage Lockdown 3.0.
No one seemed to notice the utter, utter implausibility of the 20,000 number — an exercise in modelling gone mad.
How exactly were 20,000 cases going to be identified?
As Victoria tends to do around 20,000 to 25,000 tests a day — apart from a couple of interesting step-ups, apparently only rather than never on a Sunday — finding them would require nearly 100 per cent of tests to prove positive.
That is to say, we were not just getting 20,000 infections a day — as revealed in tests — but maybe 200,000 or more really every day.
That really would be a pandemic. It would also virtually immediately deliver the “herd immunity” that would allow everyone to go back to work and all-in carousing, maskless.
The further question is whether or not that absurd projection was a valid basis for going to Lockdown 2.0, how did that justify swinging so quickly on to Version 3.0?
That could only have been validated by internal modelling showing that even with version 2.0 in place, that daily identified infections were still heading for peaks well above The Australian’s mocked 1100 number.
What we are now seeing in falling identified numbers is that Version 2.0 was actually “working” — in its terms of focus only on cutting the virus numbers — and that arguably the more savage version 3.0 was completely, insanely hysterical “modelling” aside.
What’s the total granular cost benefit of Version 3.0? Apart from the damage to the economy and to lives, the virus had already “escaped” to do its worst harm — in aged-care facilities.
Version 3.0 does zero to stop the deaths there.
Originally published as Coronavirus cases: Victoria’s fake virus modelling disaster