Thoughts on economics and liberty

My forthcoming book’s message in a nutshell – from the DRAFT manuscript

This book’s message in a nutshell

  • The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is not a once in a 100 year event but is closer to a once in 30 years event. My ballpark estimate is that it is at least 50 times less lethal than Spanish flu, and likely up to 100 times less lethal. Further, by protecting the elderly, most deaths can be easily averted.
  • The scientific literature on pandemics has considered public health measures for pandemics for decades. Science has outright rejected lockdowns which are considered to be a menace. The WHO’s 2019 guidelines on managing pandemics do not recommend lockdowns “in any circumstances”.
  • All Australian governments had pandemic plans. These were focused on risk and proportionality. No plan included heavy-handed measures like 5-kilometre prisons, 23-hour curfews, prohibition on social visits (solitary confinement for many), masks outdoors or shutting down Melbourne to wait forever for a vaccine.
  • We need a Royal Commission to find out why these approved plans, prepared at great taxpayer cost, were abandoned within days of the onset of the pandemic.
  • Instead, repressive experimental measures previously rejected outright in the scientific literature (with such new experiments not approved by any ethics board) were introduced and the power to smash people’s head with their boot to send people into induced coma was handed over to an over-zealous police force that ran with this new power and meted out brutal “punishment” to innumerable law-abiding citizens, creating a full-blown Police State.
  • In doing so, a wide range of State, Commonwealth and International laws were ignored including the specific prohibition on the exercise of arbitrary power by a Chief Health Officer in the Victorian Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.
  • Overzealous suppression of the virus (perhaps elimination?) was attempted without disclosing it publicly as a goal. ICUs across Australia remained largely empty for the past six months.
  • At the same time, the elderly were ignored, not protected fiercely, leading to hundreds of entirely avoidable deaths.
  • These heavy-handed measures that attack civil liberties and human rights and violate the Nuremberg Code impose catastrophic direct and indirect costs on society that have not been publicly identified and published by governments, leave alone considered as part of a consultative decision-making process that is mandated by the laws.
  • There is a very significant and fundamental difference between loss of life arising from an Act of Nature (the virus) and from an Act of Man (the lockdowns). Governments are never authorised by any law to, illustratively, burn down additional homes and kill unaffected people in order to save those who might be engulfed in a bushfire.
  • Evidence of the catastrophic collateral damage of the lockdowns is pouring in every day, among others: suicides, deaths from not seeking urgently needed medical attention (leading to increased cancer and heart disease), increased stillbirths, children harming themselves, domestic abuse, rise in homelessness, and alcohol and drug abuse.

We need to:

  • Immediately revert to Victoria’s original risk-and proportionality-based pandemic plan. All lockdowns and excessive restrictions should be immediately lifted. Public health guidance and recommendations should be issued for voluntary compliance. The government should put 80% of its focus on protecting the elderly. The industry should be guided to adopt a risk-based approach. Targeted quarantine to keep hospitalisations within ICU capacity should be developed, without the kind of mismanagement we have recently seen in Melbourne.
  • In the medium and longer term: Implement constitutional and legal reforms to ensure that the public health terrorism witnessed in 2020 doesn’t happen in Australia again; and criminalise the acts of Ministers or their authorised representatives who cause, through public health measures that they issue, even a single additional death.
Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author
One thought on “My forthcoming book’s message in a nutshell – from the DRAFT manuscript
  1. BP

    Hi Sanjeev,

    I have been following your story and reading the summaries of your upcoming book – and have the upmost respect for the stance you have taken for something you believe in so strongly!

    I also have been dismayed at the lack of critical thought and the avoidance of looking at the scientific evidence that goes against the government’s narrative – and really struggle to understand why this is the case.

    I have read a couple of pieces this morning out of the UK that I though may be be of interest – which shows how the media communication of information is being controlled. It looks like Ofcom – the UK’s communications regulator – introduced COVID broadcasting guidelines which basically stops the media from running stories that question or go against the current health policies –
    “Accuracy or material misleadingness in programmes in relation to the virus or public policy regarding it.”
    From what I understand, most media organisations are very fearful of doing anything to put their broadcasting licence at any form of risk!

    If you combine this with the amount of advertising dollars being spent by the government with these media organisations (probably their largest sources of revenue at this point in time), it helps to explain why there is such a lack of critical thinking and broadcasting of the thoughts of highly intelligent and highly qualified people that have a different point of view.

    I haven’t seen any evidence of this occurring in Australia via ACMA – but I am confident that there is some form of coercion going on. What I am getting at is that “Government control of the media” may be another point to add in your book.

    Another interesting point is the use of physiological behavioural modification techniques used to develop the messages that are then communicated by the media to create fear and aid in compliance. There was another interesting article from the UK about the advice provided by SAGE (The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) via an advisory document they produced providing methods for rolling out the social distancing restrictions. A couple of their recommendations included “Use media to increase the sense of personal threat” and “Use media to increase sense of responsibility to others” – and then suggestions of the messages and wording to use to help create the fear ie. “Stay at home or people will die”.

    I often question why we are being so controlled at the moment and constantly being lied to – and try to avoid any of the conspiracy theories getting around. Maybe I am naive, but I put it down to the government is just trying to stay in government and win the next election – so try to be seen to be strong and decisive to gain votes even if it is not the most scientific approach. Unfortunately it seems to be working in their favour with a very gullible population!!

    Happy to provide any links or further details on the points I have mentioned – and keep up the great work you are doing!

    Regards,

    BP

    PS: I have a scientific background and spent 10+ years working in sales and marketing in the pharmaceutical industry and saw first hand the manipulation of data from company sponsored scientific studies – as well as the efforts to persuade the medical specialists who write the treatment and prescribing guidelines in Australia – so developed a healthy scepticism of how any medical information is communicated!!

     
Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial