Originally Posted by
Icarus2001
Exactly Keg, there is no consistency or overall logic but our leaders have the cheek to say that they are following medical advice, as they all do something different.
I'm reminded of a joke I read somewhere maaany years ago.
A bloke goes to a party with his Doctor wife and gets talking to the other quacks. He casually mentions he's got a pain in the chest occasionally.
The cardiac specialist says "It could be angina which can lead to a heart attack, you'd better come and see me next week!"
The Orthopaedic specialist says "It could be anything from a cracked rib to a spinal injury, you'd better come and see me next week as well!"
The Oncologist says "It could be cancer or a tumour, you'd better come and see me next week, too!"
His wife overhears the conversation and casually says "It's just heartburn, the silly bugger knows what causes it, but won't stop eating spicy food, no matter how much I tell him not too! A glass of Gaviscon and he's right as rain!
The problem with blindly following what a CHO describes as "Medical advice" is it is just that.
Medical advice. It does not consider the broader socio-economic consequences
of that advice! And that is where the Premiers need to have the cojones to say "the
medical advice says
<This> but the consequences of following that advice will lead to
<That> so we're going to compromise and do
<This> instead". In a similar vein Scone Airport recently tried to implement an 8-foot-high, barb-wire-topped fence between the airport and residential properties adjoining the airport, based on the recommendations of a "wildlife expert". The Council's
own data showed there was less than 1 roo on the airport per month. Several residents argued against the proposal in the Council meeting, that the proposal was bollocks and Council agreed, overruling the recommendations in the "expert report" and going with a 5-foot fence. The point being, just because someone is an "expert" at something doesn't make them
right! Experts built the Titanic, a lone amateur (reportedly) built the ark.....
Anyway, if the Politicians (and CHO's) were "sooooo concerned" with preventing fatalities, they would immediately ban tobacco products, a
proven cause of many thousands of Australian deaths
every single year! But will they? Pfft! Not a chance. Why? Because 5000+ deaths from smoking is socially acceptable. 1000+ deaths in motor accidents is socially acceptable for the convenience of the motor car - yet we blindly accept lockdowns & border closures on "medical advice" when the health system is capable of handling the expected case load should we not do any of those things.
So why is COVID different to the previous norms?