Related Articles
coronavirus,
This month, about as many people have died with COVID in Australia – more than 1000 – as usually die in the whole of a bad year from influenza. “Because of extraordinarily high virus transmission, we’re getting more deaths now in this ‘enlightenment’ COVID time than in the ‘dark ages’ time,” says Brendan Crabb, research scientist and director of the Burnet Institute. “On a seven-day average, we are now seeing more than 60 deaths every day, with no sign yet of a decline. Lessons from the UK and US are that without effective controls we may settle on a high baseline toll beyond the Omicron peak that is not much below this.” Yet as deaths suddenly spiked in the past few weeks, attention on them doesn’t seem to have spiked proportionately. The pandemic news of January has been been dominated by the shortage of RATs, supply-chain problems, and pressures on the health system. We’ve not learnt to live with the disruption of Omicron, or as yet to strike the most effective response to it – but we are not, it seems, traumatised by its current death toll. At least, not most of the country. This week West Australian Premier Mark McGowan justified delaying his plan to open the state border by highlighting the deaths elsewhere. “As you’re seeing over east, huge numbers of people are dying,” he said. He’s copped plenty of criticism for his turnaround. In COVID’s early days in Australia, deaths were very much front and centre in public attention. Now, despite a highly vaccinated population and a less lethal variant of the virus, the substantial death numbers are higher than the narrative of late 2021 led us to anticipate. However, they aren’t leaving such a deep imprint on the public consciousness. The earlier dire warnings to the unvaccinated about the risks they ran were absolutely accurate. But the statistics are also showing many of those dying were vaccinated. Clearly vaccination is not the be-all-and-end-all it once might have sounded like. Anyway, the authorities have quickly changed their messaging from the importance of being doubly vaxxed to the necessity of the booster. On various fronts, Australia’s journey through Omicron has not been managed effectively, reinforcing the already strong argument for a royal commission into how the pandemic in general has been handled. Anthony Albanese this week took his “small target” strategy to the extreme when he was asked whether if he becomes prime minister he would set up a royal commission. The Labor leader declined to commit. There’d need to be an “assessment” of what had been done, he said. He conceded Labor had considered a royal commission, but the matter hadn’t been though its “process”. But the case for a commission is overwhelming, especially to inform us about what needs to be done to be ready for pandemics in the future. It needs to investigate all fronts: health, economics and governance. Especially in the early stages of the pandemic, everyone welcomed “health advice” being followed by governments. But the term “health advice” concealed some sharp differences that occurred among experts. These continue today, as we grapple with Omicron. A royal commission would enable better understanding of the debates that have gone on, and go on, within the health establishment, including at the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee (AHPPC), the group of federal and state advisers to the national cabinet. Unreadiness and slow reactions have led to some of the serious problems in handling COVID. These have included the initial slow rollout of the vaccines, and latterly the tardiness in obtaining RATs. Political failures account for part of these problems, but what about the bureaucracy? The “pink batts” royal commission identified faults in the Environment Department. Has the federal Health Department been found wanting in this crisis and what changes are needed? And what about the responses of the state health systems? In general the Australian economy has held up well during the pandemic, and that has been substantially due to government programs. At the same time, some funds have been wasted and an outside investigation would be instructive on how things could be done better if circumstances repeat themselves. A detailed probe into the supply-chain issues could lead to more belts and braces for the future. MORE MICHELLE GRATTAN: The debate about governance has been fraught during COVID, which exposed just how much power the states have in the federation. Morrison’s innovation of the “national cabinet” has run side by side with premiers taking their own courses on matters from schools to borders. Critics of the states would have liked to see Morrison able to exercise near-total authority. Conversely, many of Morrison’s critics believe tough premiers were what held the deaths in check for so long. How the federation has operated during COVID and what adaptations are needed would be major issues for a royal commission. And then there’s Australia’s international response. Much attention was on the government’s call for an inquiry into the pandemic’s origins, but what about Australia’s role in a co-ordinated global response? Like Albanese, Morrison’s line is that the time to talk about “reviews or whatever” is not now. But calls for a royal commission are coming from across the political spectrum. Some of those against such an inquiry point to the drawn-out nature of royal commissions. The investigation, however, would not divert from current efforts and could be staged, reporting progressively. To the argument “not another royal commission”, the answer is that such comprehensive investigations look under the rocks, produce a wealth of information, and concentrate the attention of policymakers. Who would say the royal commissions into banking and aged care were not worth the effort? A royal commission would not take away from Australia’s undoubted successes in dealing with COVID. Rather, it would be a form of insurance, putting us in the best position to confront a possible Mark II pandemic.
/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/XBxJDq6WLub2UphQ8wEq23/4194298f-03ec-4212-a9d3-00b72156ae2c.jpg/r0_4_5000_2829_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg
This month, about as many people have died with COVID in Australia – more than 1000 – as usually die in the whole of a bad year from influenza.
“Because of extraordinarily high virus transmission, we’re getting more deaths now in this ‘enlightenment’ COVID time than in the ‘dark ages’ time,” says Brendan Crabb, research scientist and director of the Burnet Institute.
“On a seven-day average, we are now seeing more than 60 deaths every day, with no sign yet of a decline. Lessons from the UK and US are that without effective controls we may settle on a high baseline toll beyond the Omicron peak that is not much below this.”
Yet as deaths suddenly spiked in the past few weeks, attention on them doesn’t seem to have spiked proportionately.
The pandemic news of January has been been dominated by the shortage of RATs, supply-chain problems, and pressures on the health system.
We’ve not learnt to live with the disruption of Omicron, or as yet to strike the most effective response to it – but we are not, it seems, traumatised by its current death toll.
At least, not most of the country. This week West Australian Premier Mark McGowan justified delaying his plan to open the state border by highlighting the deaths elsewhere. “As you’re seeing over east, huge numbers of people are dying,” he said. He’s copped plenty of criticism for his turnaround.
In COVID’s early days in Australia, deaths were very much front and centre in public attention. Now, despite a highly vaccinated population and a less lethal variant of the virus, the substantial death numbers are higher than the narrative of late 2021 led us to anticipate. However, they aren’t leaving such a deep imprint on the public consciousness.
The earlier dire warnings to the unvaccinated about the risks they ran were absolutely accurate. But the statistics are also showing many of those dying were vaccinated. Clearly vaccination is not the be-all-and-end-all it once might have sounded like.
Anyway, the authorities have quickly changed their messaging from the importance of being doubly vaxxed to the necessity of the booster.
On various fronts, Australia’s journey through Omicron has not been managed effectively, reinforcing the already strong argument for a royal commission into how the pandemic in general has been handled.
Anthony Albanese this week took his “small target” strategy to the extreme when he was asked whether if he becomes prime minister he would set up a royal commission.
The Labor leader declined to commit. There’d need to be an “assessment” of what had been done, he said. He conceded Labor had considered a royal commission, but the matter hadn’t been though its “process”.
But the case for a commission is overwhelming, especially to inform us about what needs to be done to be ready for pandemics in the future. It needs to investigate all fronts: health, economics and governance.
Especially in the early stages of the pandemic, everyone welcomed “health advice” being followed by governments. But the term “health advice” concealed some sharp differences that occurred among experts. These continue today, as we grapple with Omicron.
A royal commission would enable better understanding of the debates that have gone on, and go on, within the health establishment, including at the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee (AHPPC), the group of federal and state advisers to the national cabinet.
Unreadiness and slow reactions have led to some of the serious problems in handling COVID. These have included the initial slow rollout of the vaccines, and latterly the tardiness in obtaining RATs.
Political failures account for part of these problems, but what about the bureaucracy? The “pink batts” royal commission identified faults in the Environment Department. Has the federal Health Department been found wanting in this crisis and what changes are needed? And what about the responses of the state health systems?
In general the Australian economy has held up well during the pandemic, and that has been substantially due to government programs. At the same time, some funds have been wasted and an outside investigation would be instructive on how things could be done better if circumstances repeat themselves.
A detailed probe into the supply-chain issues could lead to more belts and braces for the future.
Morrison’s innovation of the “national cabinet” has run side by side with premiers taking their own courses on matters from schools to borders.
Critics of the states would have liked to see Morrison able to exercise near-total authority. Conversely, many of Morrison’s critics believe tough premiers were what held the deaths in check for so long.
How the federation has operated during COVID and what adaptations are needed would be major issues for a royal commission.
And then there’s Australia’s international response. Much attention was on the government’s call for an inquiry into the pandemic’s origins, but what about Australia’s role in a co-ordinated global response?
Like Albanese, Morrison’s line is that the time to talk about “reviews or whatever” is not now. But calls for a royal commission are coming from across the political spectrum.
Some of those against such an inquiry point to the drawn-out nature of royal commissions. The investigation, however, would not divert from current efforts and could be staged, reporting progressively.
To the argument “not another royal commission”, the answer is that such comprehensive investigations look under the rocks, produce a wealth of information, and concentrate the attention of policymakers. Who would say the royal commissions into banking and aged care were not worth the effort?
A royal commission would not take away from Australia’s undoubted successes in dealing with COVID. Rather, it would be a form of insurance, putting us in the best position to confront a possible Mark II pandemic.
- Michelle Grattan is a press gallery journalist and former editor of The Canberra Times. She is a professorial fellow at the University of Canberra and writes for The Conversation, where her columns also appear.
