Ah the lovely Jessica. James Arthur you lucky lucky bastard.
Why I quit rather than be silenced: Vic Treasury insider
A former Victorian Treasury economist explains how he quit to keep speaking out against policy blunders.
Sanjeev Sabhlok Contributor
Sep 16, 2020 – 3.05pm
Save
Share
Last week I quit my job as an economist in the Victorian Department of Finance and Treasury so that I would be free to speak out against the state’s management of the COVID-19 infection.
I had made a number of criticisms of the state government on social media. The head of human relations at Treasury asked me to remove them. I considered deleting the few direct criticisms, but they wanted all indirect criticism removed too. I resigned on the same day, the only honourable course for a free citizen of Australia. I never dreamed I would see some of the tactics being used to defend the state’s health.
The pandemic policies being pursued in Australia – particularly in Victoria – are the most heavy-handed possible, a sledgehammer to kill a swarm of flies. These policies are having hugely adverse economic, social and health effects, with the poorer sections of the community that don’t have the ability to work from home suffering the most.
Australia is signalling to the world that it is closed for business and doesn’t care for human freedoms. This will dampen business investment but also impact future skilled migration, the education industry and tourism.
The whole thing hinges on the scare created by politicians and health professionals. For instance, Victoria’s Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton claims this is the “greatest public health challenge since the Spanish flu”.
But this is no Spanish flu – we can verify that easily.
The Spanish flu killed at least 50 million people worldwide in 1918 when the global population was 1.8 billion. Proportionately, to be as lethal as Spanish flu, a virus would have to kill at least 210 million people today. Instead, only around 0.9 million have died so far (compare this also with the 60 million who ordinarily die each year).
What about a second wave? There has never been a second wave hundreds of times bigger than the first. We can be reasonably certain that while this virus may create further ripples, its ultimate magnitude will end up in the range of the 1957 Asian flu.
But even if the pandemic had been as big as the Spanish flu, lockdowns could never have been justified. There are strong scientific arguments against lockdowns too.
So what should the government have done? The data were clear from February itself that the elderly are many times more vulnerable to a serious outcome than the young. It was necessary, therefore, to work out a targeted age-based strategy and start aggressively protecting and isolating the elderly, even as the rest of the population was advised on relevant precautions. But that wasn’t done.
The need for good policy process does not disappear just because we face a public health crisis. In fact, it gets even more urgent.
The Victorian Guide to Regulation notes that “It is not possible for governments to provide a completely ‘risk free’ society, or to prevent every possible event that might cause harm”. Further: “The direct and indirect costs imposed by regulatory approaches may not be … immediately obvious. Risk regulation that is poorly targeted or costly will divert resources from other priorities.”strong text
Governments back in February needed to commission a cost-benefit analysis of alternative policy options that took into account different scenarios (such as with and without a vaccine). Thereafter, the best option had to be picked given the uncertainty, but consistent also with the need to intrude minimally into human freedoms. This cost-benefit analysis and policies needed then to be updated as new information emerged (such as the fact that epidemiological models have badly exaggerated the risk).
Governments should have also realised at the outset that they are hostage to chronic groupthink and actively sought alternative advice. I attempted repeatedly to raise my voice within my public sector role, but my attempts were rebuffed. The bureaucracy has clamped down on frank and fearless, impartial advice, in a misplaced determination to support whatever the government decides, (instead of performing its taxpayer-funded duty of providing forthright analysis of alternatives).
While there is scientific argument against lockdowns, there are divergent views on matters such as the effectiveness of masks. I am a mask fanatic but there was never any reason to mandate these debatable requirements. Voluntary, performance-based rules would allow the private sector to innovate, leaving people with the power of agency, to determine their own fate – thereby minimising economic harm, and harm to mental health and general well-being.
So what happens now? Billions of dollars in income and wealth have been wiped out in the name of a virus that is no worse than the Asian flu and which can (even now) be managed by isolating the elderly and taking a range of voluntary, innovative measures. All the border closures, all the lockdowns, all the curfews in Melbourne will not eradicate the virus from planet Earth.
The problem for politicians now is to reverse course without losing their job. I don’t know how they plan to do it but if they don’t do it sooner rather than later the damage to Australia’s future would have become so great it would undo the good work of decades of reform.
4 Likes
A belter of a piece. I don’t actually agree with it all (I still think an initial lockdown was worth it from a risk mitigation perspective), but he does show how policy building by governments has been thrown out the window.
Sorry to go back to this, but was I right in saying that Sweden basically did have a lockdown? What specifically did Sweden do that was different from Ireland, apart from the pubs and the schools? (and pub culture in Sweden is probably radically different from in Ireland). They had a 50 person limit on sports, just like us.
Sweden has basically been at our new stage two the whole time. And they think masks are a cod
Everywhere has had some restrictions and still does.
Listen to dopes on here youd swear we’re the only country with any imposition
I haven’t heard anything about Africa lately. I presume that’s because they are all dead?
There was an article I posted a while ago that talked about Kenya. Apparently quite a large spread there and fuck all deaths.
Here’s an update
A lockdown implies measures on the whole of society to restrict movement and services except for what are deemed essential services. Lockdown measures varied by country but essentially they involved closing all businesses that were not deemed essential and limiting movement except for essential reasons.
Sweden did not have a lockdown as defined above, they encouraged people to use common sense.
And imposed restrictions on gatherings, travel and events.
Well ok but by that definition Dublin doesn’t have a lockdown now, except for pubs and this thread is sort of just crying over spilt milk.
Correct, Ireland does not have a lockdown now. I think the main issue now is a lot of people are still adhering to essentially a lockdown, and I would attribute that to the amount of scaremongering and frankly deceptive reporting going on.
Out and about much in Ireland are you?
We can all be glad of one thing I guess. We don’t live in fucking Melbourne at least. Sounds mental over there. Mate of mine is packing up and coming home out of it after nearly 15 years.
I have my sources on the ground.
1 Like
What did you see there?
A good friend of mine in Melbourne said it’s insane. He’s just moved to another job in WA.
To do so he had to fly from Melbourne to Darwin, isolate there for two weeks. Pass a few covid tests, then apply for an exemption to fly from Darwin to Perth. He’ll then have to isolate for another two weeks in Perth before he can fly out to the new job somewhere up the coast.