Rita Panahi: Data doesn’t reveal true cost of restrictions
The “respect the science” mob has suddenly become very selective on what science they will accept. And the strict lockdown restrictions will have unintended consequences — some of them fatal, writes Rita Panahi.
Rita Panahi
Don't miss out on the headlines from Rita Panahi. Followed categories will be added to My News.
We’re not in this together. That is becoming abundantly clear with each passing day of onerous coronavirus restrictions that are destroying the livelihoods of some while leaving others just temporarily inconvenienced.
More than 780,000 Australians lost their jobs in the first three weeks of April while others, including tens of thousands of public servants, sit at home and collect their full salary regardless of their output.
It’s also clear the coronavirus crisis has not elevated the level of public debate. One can’t question the merits of illogical restrictions, such as the absurd fishing ban in Victoria without being accused of wanting to sacrifice the old and infirm.
Australia is doing better than most countries, with an average of three deaths per million of population, compared to 172 in the US, 311 in the UK, 357 in France, 446 in Italy, 503 in Spain and 622 in Belgium. Australia’s per capita average is even lower than New Zealand, which imposed much harsher restrictions and at an earlier stage.
Whatever your view of the current lockdown, it is worth considering the unintended consequences of the measures being employed to combat a virus that has thus far killed 84 Australians with a median age of 79.5 years.
There’s been some focus on the mental health costs of the restrictions and the resultant job losses and economic hardship, but not much said about the loss of life we can expect because the world has become entirely preoccupied with one virus with a fatality rate that has turned out to be far lower than first feared.
Scientists at a number of leading universities, including King’s College London, have released a report warning of a surge in cancer deaths as a result of the response to coronavirus.
Professor Mark Lawler of Queen’s University Belfast warns we need an urgent change in approach to avoid a cancer epidemic.
“We are already seeing the indirect effects of the COVID-19 crisis on cancer care. Urgent referral numbers are dropping, endoscopies and other surgical procedures are being postponed and many cancer specialists are being redirected to COVID-19 specific care,” he said.
Director of the Institute of Cancer Policy at Kings College, Professor Richard Sullivan, fears the singular focus on coronavirus and disruption of medical procedures will lead to a dramatic increase of “years of lost life” and “a huge amount of avoidable mortality” that will likely outweigh the number of deaths from the coronavirus itself over the next five years. Those who blithely argue we are better off “safe than sorry” need to open their eyes to the full cost of the current strategy.
Close to 10 million people a year die from cancer and about 9 million from ischaemic heart disease. There is growing evidence people have become reluctant to investigate symptoms that may lead to the diagnosis of these serious health conditions.
Professor of obstetrics at Monash University Ben Mol and Flinders University Medical Institute Prof Jonathan Karnon explain that fewer people are presenting with “acute heart problems, stroke and other serious illnesses, which is causing unnecessary deaths”.
It’s curious the “respect the science” mob are suddenly very selective on what science they will accept.
The best available evidence-based medical advice calls for schools to reopen and yet we have Premier Dan Andrews listening to the teachers’ unions rather than experts including Australia’s Chief Medical Officer Brendan Murphy who has been unequivocal about the issue.
Why do we expect builders, bus drivers and those stacking shelves in supermarkets to turn up for work but not teachers? Teachers should be in the classroom unless they are elderly or have an underlying condition.
Research released this week reveals the urgency of the education crisis.
A University of Tasmania study found 46 per cent of students are “at risk of having their learning and wellbeing significantly compromised by not being at school” and there was “an urgent need to reconnect these students to the physical context of school-based learning”.
A report by the Mitchell Institute found online learning was particularly harmful to children with complex needs or from low socio-economic backgrounds, with most mothers and fathers in low-income households having not completed school themselves.
World Vision has also warned schools must re-open to prevent more than a million disadvantaged Australian children from being further entrenched in poverty, with fears some will be “lost to the education system permanently”.
And last week Victoria Police revealed the lockdown has seen a “significant” surge in family violence and child abuse including online child sex offences.
If Victoria is going to go it alone then we should know the full cost of keeping stringent restrictions in place and not just the number of coronavirus infections.
Rita Panahi is a Herald Sun columnist