CV and mad panic behaviour

[mateinone]

I don't have a particular issue with regards to what you said, only that I would say most of my friends think I am left wing when I think I have moved to the center, but you are right being introspective is not always the easiest thing and I can openly say at times I have realised I have shown biases in conversations I have thought I have been impartial in.
But that is different than having an agenda in any case.

But back to the only real main issue I have problem with there.
Dan didn't have to work out how a lockdown would look with only a moments notice, not by any stretch, not did he need to do it without support.
June 30th.. This is the date that drew me back into statistically analyzing data again for this virus. July 23rd we went to stage 3. It was already apparent that steps taken at that stage would only start to impact when the virus was at a rate 3 times higher than in the peak of the first wave.
Now Dan had the 2nd half of June to start to show real concern and should have already had a clear plan in place come July 1, but as stated I worked mine out on what would have occurred with stage 3 a little over a week after that.

Dan acted much more swiftly in the first wave and deserved every plaudit thrown his way at that stage.
But you don't have weeks on end to respond in a situation like this, because it costs lives.
I think the vast majority of Victorian's supported the lockdown and again I am in that boat, but the inaction of the government to respond in an efficient manner cost hundreds of lives, that is not just a hypothetical, that is a fact. If a government was responsible for decisions resulting in this many deaths in any other situation they would face criminal charges ( not that I am suggesting Dan should actually face any charges), but at a minimum I think it is absolutely appropriate to question the response.
Apart from the death and infection rates, of course it also directly resulted in a longer period of lockdown.

There was very very little doubt that the situation was out of control by June 30th, but by 7-10 days later, it was irrefutable.
Dan found level 2 lockdowns in the first phase were not appropriate enough to resolve the issue, when the majority of cases were international travelers or contacts of international travelers. Knowing there was more of an unknown factor in the community spread it is impossible to believe the government could be clueless enough to not realise it had to act, but still it implemented soft leaf restrictions that were not enough. Some of these were okay and they did impact the degree of spread, but they were not hard enough and the government had enough information at hand that they should understood this.

If this happened in wave 1, I would understand it more (well I would have had serious questions as I was also calling for an early lockdown in wave 1), but in wave 2, with the knowledge of the virus at a more mature level, I find it inexcusable.

Somethings would seem straight forward
Lockdown Aged Care from any visitors when the virus was in the community
Have an advanced track/trace method in place
Have tests that are returning results to patients in a expedient manner.

These are just a few things that should have been in place, but also.. why was there not already a roadmap on restrictions..
We hit these trigger points, we will do this, then this.. etc
These could have been (and should have been) worked out and distributed to different sectors of the community, specifically business leaders.

Failing to prepare in the midst of a global pandemic seems negligent to me.
Dan didn't need to just look and say "okay this looks bad" and then shut things down, this could very easily have been predetermined... and again it would have saved a lot of lives and a lot of hospitalizations.

That being said, immediately after you and I had this debate the other day, you started a 'who would you vote for' thread, so this is weighing on your mind politically, even if it is indirectly

Well it is true I don't think Dan should be in government, but probably I would vote labour if Dan was gone (as it stands now), but I could swing to Labour is Dan fixes the situation still, just because the Liberals are so screwed as well.
But.. my interest was more general than you suggest.. Dan would have won an election in absolute landslide at the end of April, I was interested whether or not the public still felt this way or whether there was a strong or slight switch away from him. I wondered in the context that I had personally experienced this.

Also I am not against anyone voting for or against Dan. I am not against anyone thinking he done a great job or a poor job, in reality both sides have merits.
But from my perspective, I am more interested in putting the tough questions to anyone in charge.
And it happens of course that data and statistics happens to be the area I worked for a very long time, so analyzing situations and stats and facts frustrates me when I see things I don't like.