CV and mad panic behaviour

[mateinone]

Take the emotion out of it, Dan Andrews has done better than 99% of the world in dealing with this.....despite a very vocal minority refusing to do as their told.

If you are talking wave 1. I agree
But the 2nd wave has been rife with mishandling and (early on in it) mixed messages.

The hotel bungle should never have occurred
The tracing methodology was substandard despite the lead time we had before the 2nd wave.
The lock downs should have occurred earlier, knowing that the data for the next 10-14 days is almost already predetermined, there is no justification whatsoever for taking so long to act.
The lessons learned from the introduction of restrictions does not seem to have been quantified.
The statistics used seems flawed.

Dan has failed Victoria in this 2nd wave.
His governments decisions making directly impacted the livelihoods of the entire states population.
Not just in the hotel bungle, but in the other methods, in the tracing, in the failing to act quickly enough.
I done some stats about 1 month ago, but I will probably need to do them again, but if Dan acted even 3 weeks earlier, we would have been in lockdown for a considerably shorter period of time and many of those that died would still be alive now.

You mention in another post that calls for Dan to be axed are irrational/emotional, but when your decision making directly costs people their life, you have blood on your hands and I think it is quite reasonable and logical for there to be serious questions about your fitness to govern.

Also, considering there is a mountain of evidence suggesting that the previous level of restrictions had a considerable impact on the virus and it's spread, it is interesting to note that we need less than 70 cases in a fortnight to go to similar levels of restrictions, but we had more than 2100 cases in the week leading up to the the implementation of mandatory masks.

From early July until July 23rd, it would be fair to compare Dan to the oft quoted saying about Nero.

Quite aside from this and I am almost apolitical when it comes to Australian politics, but it is not emotional or irrational to questions a leader when they bypass the political systems and oversight. It is reasonable to expect that your voice is being heard in parliament through your locally elected member. By constantly closing parliament Dan has taken away people's right to be represented and that is not acceptable. Absolutely there can be times where you want their entire endeavours to be dedicated to the virus, this goes without saying, but there has to be full accountability and if parliament was to be shutdown, it should have been for weeks at the most and they should have implemented remote distance parliament to ensure this representation, oversight and accountability. I don't like either side playing politics when lives are at stake, but there has to be accountability.

That reason alone, should be enough reason for people to at least question whether or not Dan is fit for the job. It might be that you conclude that he is after that, but it is not unreasonable to have a dissenting view