One of the most fascinating aspects of the pandemic is the unexpected side effects. Not all of them are bad.
The perturbations let us glimpse the possibilities of a new way of living and hint at how we might approach the future. The pertinent example in many people’s lives is the potential to work from home.
But the example I’d like to draw attention to is the crushing victory we’ve won over flu and pneumonia deaths in 2020. For years we’ve accepted hundreds of deaths each week in winter — a burden far higher than the road toll we expend so much effort to suppress.
But with a bit of handwashing, social distancing and hygiene practices we’ve managed to avert hundreds of deaths each week in winter 2020, as the above chart shows. In the depths of winter, that’s a fall of a third to a half. I’ve included cancer deaths as a frame of reference. They are up by 3% across the year to August. (Net deaths in Australia are down this year, despite COVID-19!)
The pandemic has reminded us of the high value we place on preservation of human life. I’d like to imagine policymakers can be convinced by epidemiologists to treat seasonal flu with the seriousness it deserves from now on.
Saving hundreds of deaths among the elderly and immuno-compromised every week in winter is a goal worth pursuing.
Other media outlets are celebrating Victoria’s 28-day milestone as achieving a generally agreed threshold for virus elimination.
But Crikey has gone quiet. I am wondering how Crikey should repair its reputation for publishing the dreadful series of articles by Adam Schwab earlier this year. Sadly, I will not renew my subscription in March unless Crikey acknowledges those failures of journalism. Why were they written? Why didn’t the editor intervene? What changes will Crikey make to prevent publishing similar articles in the future? Is Crikey just hoping that we will all move on and forget? Does Crikey not take some ownership of the articles it publishes?
My apologies to Jason Murphy as this comment is not directly related to your article. I am very happy for my subscription to fund articles like this one.
But knowing that my subscription funded the Adam Schwab diatribes against epidemiologists is too much. I want to support independent journalism, but I will have to spend my money elsewhere.
I almost made a facetious comment on the recent article about Sweden’s increasing Covid curve, that we needed an article by Adam Schwab reviewing that and the Victorian Government’s irresponsible method of getting their outbreak down to zero community transmission over this period, instead of opening the state to travel to the rest of the world and embracing the cruise industry.
I won’t be effectively cancelling my subscription over articles I disagree with, while there are certain Crikey contributors whose articles I read with more than a grain of salt. And while my above thought was facetious, I would actually be curious to read Adam Schwab’s views on those subjects by this point, whether they are mea culpas or not.
BECAUSE the pollies has made C-19 a political issue (and not permitted the medical issue to be conducted by public sector Healthcare services) its going to be a long game.
The public perceptions that exist now were not in existence 8-10 months ago. A host of factors exist which explain the considerable variations within States of the USA.
However, the trend is to put more emphasis on the economy (Joyce, Forrest and Schwab – for that matter). It will be another 12 months before there is a clear perspective.
I see your point AndrewP, but I’d say it’s also good to read to wide variety of points-of-view. That doesn’t mean giving credence to all the crazy conspiracy theories floating around, but perhaps it’s good to have some variety in the news-diet? It’s a bit of a grey area, I suppose. I note the Schwab articles were widely (and often comprehensively) criticised in the comments.
It is certainly necessary to consider other points of view, subject to their sanity and probity, but one should not be so open minded that ones brains fall out.
I would like to see some mea culpa from the editor for publishing Schwab or Ralph but accountability is not in this organ’s vocabulary.
True, there was lot of knee-jerkeking with regard to the articles but, equally, a few examined Schwab on what he actually wrote. It seems to me that the latter suffices as a metric of varacity.
Yes, I want to read opinions and views that I disagree with. Otherwise I will not learn anything. I always read in the hope of being pursuaded to change my mind. But that requires that the article is logically sound and does not misrepresent facts or expert opinions. I am not happy to pay for an article based on cherry picking data and misinterpreting scientific models. And I expect that Crikey would be embarrassed to publish such an article, and would promptly correct any such mistakes as soon as it was brought to their attention.
“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.”
How much of what is in the public domain has a basis in reality (even ‘alternate (sic!) facts’ and how much is delusion, at best?
Or, more & more frequently, utter unhindered falsity unsupported by reason but bolstered by prejudice & ingorance?
It is a bit insulting to suggest that a bit of hand washing and social distancing made all the difference. Whole sections of society have been shut down for months, hundreds of thousands thrown on the unemployment scrap heap. Australians banned from returning to their country (or state) and if by chance they are let in, they are imprisoned for two weeks, charged for the privilege and may actually catch covid while they are there. This is not something we want to replicate again next year.
Whatever may be your wishes “don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world, kid.”
Without apologies to the Bog.
I have undertaken a similar tone to Murphy regarding topics of days gone by but to little effect. Only a Yr9 education is assumed by the writers at Cky otherwise the standard would be a good deal higher.
Good news about the flu/pneumonia .I’d like to see some graphs/data ( total deaths ,excess deaths ,etc ) in a few years time down the line ..Geez, that sounds unintentionally bloody ghoulish. Well done to our State CHO’s/Premiers/Scientists …and people of Australia..so far… ..Not so much the Feds..
It has provided real insights, or more accurately proof of what was a quite reasonable hypothesis, that our normal way of life pre Covid gave too much scope for sharing communicable diseases. Whether it was public transport to and from work, or those holier than thou martyrs coming to work when they are sick. Much of our western way of life gave scant regard to what is really basic hygiene.
So the Asian way of wearing masks outside whenever you have a cough or cold, washing hands thoroughly, not working long hours cooped up in air conditioned office towers. There is enough evidence to suggest a societal re-think is in order, and now that the working from home paradigm has shifted, perhaps we should just ban anyone who can work from home from coming in when they have even a small sniffle.
If I was from the Business Council I would jot out a press release saying that recent studies have shown that business would save $87 Kajillion per annum if we took this seriously.
A slightly higher standard of article, Jason, but by little margin. At about Yr11 the better students are encouraged NOT to extrapolate beyond the domain (a word with a technical meaning) of the data. More generally, it is a tad naive to present implications from a single graph.
The correlation with the common flu was evident by May. No doubt, some of the characteristics that you identify have contributed but it is a tad too soon to be definitive.