Andrew Bolt: There is a better way to beat this virus
Daniel Andrews claims his brutal lockdown of Victoria is driven by “the very best medical advice”. Yet, unfortunately, for Victorians being smashed by his bans, the evidence is growing that “the data, the very best medical advice” tells us not to do what Andrews has done, writes Andrew Bolt.
Andrew Bolt
Don't miss out on the headlines from Andrew Bolt. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Daniel Andrews claims his brutal lockdown of Victoria – with police arresting even grannies on park benches – is driven by “the very best medical advice”.
On Sunday the Premier said he’d extend that lockdown after having numbers fed through a “supercomputer”: “You can’t argue with sort of data.”
What bull. This is as false as those boasts of other hard-Left despots about “scientific socialism”.
Andrews has imposed on millions of Victorians a coronavirus lockdown tougher than seen now in any other state or country.
A curfew. Stay-home laws. Bans on visitors. Masks outdoors. Most shops shut.
And all enforced by police who arrest or menace people who dare to oppose it —
a pregnant woman in her pyjamas who posted about a rally in Ballarat, an ex-soldier whose door was smashed in after saying he’d check out a protest in Melbourne, a journalist tackled to the ground and then given a night-time knock-on-the-door for covering that protest for Rebel Media.
This is guided by a “supercomputer”, “the data” and “the very best medical advice”? Really?
If so, why has no other Australian state done the same?
If so, why has Victoria had four times more people die of the virus than the rest of Australia put together?
If so, why does no other European nation or American state today have anything this harsh? Why hasn’t Singapore? Japan? Taiwan?
Can it really be true that Victoria is the only place on earth with this “very best medical advice”?
Unfortunately for Victorians being smashed by his bans, the evidence is growing that “the data, the very best medical advice” tells us NOT to do what Andrews has done.
A study by the University of Toronto and University of Texas of badly-hit nations concludes that lockdowns make little difference: “Border closures, full lockdowns, and a high rate of COVID-19 testing were not associated with statistically significant reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.”
In Victoria, more than 550 medical experts, including professors of medicine, now say the same in a petition to the Premier spelling out their “alternative medical response to COVID-19”.
They say turning Victoria into a police state hurts more than helps, and there is “no apparent scientific reason” for maintaining the lockdown.
They point out the suffering it causes — despair, unemployment, social isolation, family violence, ruined schooling — and conclude: “The medical, psychological and social costs of the lockdown are disproportionately enormous compared to the limited good being done.”
They recommend the obvious: basic social distancing and hand-hygiene, along with strict quarantine of the infected, faster contact tracing and better protection of those most likely to die. But the lockdown of the young and fit must go, and “the data” backs this up.
That’s because — as the doctors note — Andrews’ claim that this virus “does not discriminate” is completely false. And that false claim is the great flaw in his strategy.
Yes, this coronavirus is most likely to infect people in their 20s. Yet not one Australian under 30 has died from it. This virus instead tends to kill a very precise group of people — the very old and frail.
In Victoria, 76 per cent of the 596 dead were in aged care. In Australia, just 15 of the 753 dead were under 60, and only 41 aged under 70.
(In England, a quarter of all COVID-19-related deaths were of people with dementia.)
Of the Australians who died relatively young, many had other serious illnesses. As Victoria’s Chief Health Officer admitted, some “died with” the virus, not necessarily “from” it.
This data should tell us what should have been obvious since this panic started.
First, a lockdown of the young, fit and work-ready can’t work for long. They know this virus will almost certainly not kill them, and many will eventually rebel.
More positively, they can be allowed back to work without much fear. These bans do not protect them from dying.
Second, as the 550 medical experts say, we can cut most of the dying simply by better protecting aged-care homes and the very old at home.
Sure, many of them will hate being isolated, but perhaps we could make it their choice whether to risk having visitors.
Some Andrews backers in the media foolishly claim his critics just want his government to “lift its foot entirely off the COVID-19 brake”.
Nonsense. Most want it to do what works, but dump what doesn’t — or what does more harm than good. Just check the data.