Coronavirus: Government must walk a fine line between honesty versus avoiding panic

The government is forced to walk a fine line between being honest with Australians about the risks of the coronavirus, versus trying to avoid panic. It has to be careful not to lose the trust of the public by downplaying risks in order to prevent panic.

The difficulty comes from the fact there is good reason to be worried, even if panic helps no one. Panic inevitably induces further panic, and widens the ambit of damage the virus will do. Beyond the health risks, that is.

Today the Reserve Bank is expected to drop interest rates to a new historic low. Falling interest rates are a sign of economic weakness, and the coronavirus is only feeding that trend. That said, the expectation was already there that rates would fall further this year, but in the second half of the year.

Labor is at pains to point out that while the bushfires and the virus are further weakening the economy, it was already in a dire state because of the decision making of this government.

That is certainly true, but the arrival of these shocks not only has the potential to wipe out the surplus, but a recession may be on the cards too. Tomorrow the December quarter of GDP numbers will be released, but it’s the March and June quarters that have the potential to go into negative territory. And two negative quarters equals a recession, which Australia hasn’t had since 1991.

So preventing panic is also partly about keeping the economy safe, not just keeping people healthy.

Why are people beginning to panic about the virus? The reason is simple: its mortality rate is somewhere between one and three per cent, and experts are suggesting the infection rate — because it is so contagious — could be huge. Reports have suggested if it spreads out of control in this country, anywhere from one fifth to four fifths off the population could catch it.

So let’s crunch the data, and do so being highly conservative rather than inflammatory. If the mortality rate is only one per cent, and if it does spread but only at the lower end with one fifth of the population catching it, 50,000 Australians would die.

That is a startling number, and it is at the low end of the range. If the virus spreads out of control.

So where does that leave us? For a start it highlights the importance of ensuring the contagion doesn’t catch on. I would suggest that must be the main focus, almost at any cost. Officials and politicians (and the population) need to ensure it is contained. Which means doing all we can to prevent its spread. Which may require draconian powers.

Hence why some experts are demanding far reaching travel bans, even if the economic impact of that would be debilitating. I therefore question why the government has not acted more quickly to shut down travel from nations with rising rates of infection.

Next, the importance of developing the vaccine as quickly as possible is obvious. But the quickest I have heard that being possible is six months, and most scientists say it is more likely to be 12-18 months. So if the virus spreading quickly is on the cards, the development of the vaccine appears unlikely to be quick enough to play a role in preventing contagion anyway.

The above is why some people are understandably weary of the government telling us not to panic. Because 50,000 Australians dying, as a conservative estimate, is very scary stuff. Let’s hope, therefore, that doesn’t happen.

While the virus disproportionately hits the elderly and the sick, we all know people who fall into that category. They are our friends and our family. It is not a comfort for anyone, especially people who fall into those two categories.

There is no value in deliberately sensationalising the risks, but people need to be aware of what may be coming.

Peter van Onselen is Political Editor for Network 10 and professor of politics and public policy at the University of Western Australia and Griffith University.