Covid report highlights failure of leaders, ‘experts’

I was not expecting much from the release of the Covid-19 report, and was not disappointed. As Judith Sloan eloquently described earlier this week, it consists of 868 pages of verbal sludge that manages to leave the most critical questions unanswered (“National pandemic pain deserved more than hollow words”, 30/10).

But most concerning of all is the response of the Albanese government to “invest” $251.7m in a new Centre for Disease Control. Apart from the ludicrous precision of the number, this agency is exactly what we don’t need. It threatens to bring together information and experts to provide coherent, timely and trusted health advice for all of us.

I hope they are not the same experts that got the big decisions so wrong, and I certainly hope the proposed censorship bill, which they will no doubt be weaponised in a future pandemic, is defeated so that some alternative voices will be heard. This is managerialism not leadership, and further evidence of how elected representatives are subordinating themselves to technocrats.

Speaking of alternative voices, it was good to hear that Jay Bhattacharya, who was so vilified for his public statements during the pandemic, but was ultimately vindicated, has just been award the top individual freedom award by the American Academy of Sciences. I doubt that would happen in this country.

Jim Wheeler, Agnes Water, Qld

The recent Covid-19 response inquiry report and the subsequent government response have sparked considerable debate. While hindsight provides a view of past missteps, it is insufficient for preparing us for future crises. We must delve deeper into understanding human nature, especially in assessing risk coupled with the ratcheting effect that shapes legislation. Humans inherently exhibit an asymmetric approach to risk; we react more strongly to potential losses than equivalent gains.

Our legislative processes reflect a ratcheting effect – it is significantly easier to enact new laws than to repeal existing ones. Once legislation is in place, it becomes entrenched, adding layers of complexity and rigidity to our legal framework. These two aspects have profound implications for responding to pandemics. In times of crisis, the urgency to mitigate risk leads to swift and often sweeping legislative actions. We must recognise these aspects to build a resilient system capable of effectively managing future pandemics.

Paul Asnicar, Camp Hill, Qld

From early in the pandemic, Mirko Bagaric was a vocal and erudite critic of Victoria’s panicked, draconian and occasionally farcical response to Covid-19. The Covid-19 response report emphasised the erosion of trust in government and scientific advisory bodies resulting from federal and state pandemic policies. But I do not agree with Bagaric’s statement Covid-19 was a “material risk only to the aged”.

Of the deaths worldwide due to Covid-19, 20 per cent were in people less than 65 years old; thousands of children and young people were hospitalised in Australia, and hospitalisation and mortality rates for Covid-19 significantly exceeded other respiratory diseases such as influenza and RSV.

Persistent symptoms following Covid-19 infection occur in 50 per cent of children and young people. An adequately funded and independent Centre for Disease Control to optimise the response for the next pandemic and to advise on prevention and mitigation of infectious diseases is the most important outcome of the inquiry.

Andrew Whyte, Mt Martha, Vic

Judith Sloan again wrote a very good article on the Covid-19 inquiry response. Sadly, the Australian public has been let down by this government yet again, all in the name of political expediency.

Whether it’s fighting inflation, effectively managing migration, taking a firm stand on anti-Semitism, the list goes on and on. What makes it worse is it’s not just about today but about tomorrow and the next day. By having no comprehensive inquiry into what went right and what went wrong, it means we have no plan for addressing a pandemic in the future.

In other words, saving the reputation of some of those involved in the response and saving a few electorates is more important than looking after the interests of not only this generation but future generations.

Ian Murray, Cremorne Point, Vic