Our position on the disproportionate public health response from the Government - and our plan to reopen Australia

Since March 2020, both the Liberal and Labor parties have been clearly shifting towards totalitarianism. Initial signs of such approaches were evident even before 2020, but now the continuous surveillance, lockdowns and mass imprisonment of Australians within the international border have brought us in full totalitarian territory.

Human rights have been subverted but apparently this does not matter anymore: there is a mistaken sense of satisfaction that they have somehow “protected” the community from the biggest pandemic since the human species was created... one with a survival rate of 99.6% under 65 years of age (and since those who develop an infection after exposure represent only a portion of the total population, the effective survival rate per 100 people is even higher).

One of the tell-tale signs of totalitarianism is a significant (and widening) disconnection between the political elites and the citizens – particularly those who use reason and believe in freedom and unalienable rights. People in Australia know that they are no longer being represented or even listened to, and that elected members just follow the party lines, actual scientific data be damned.

An example of that disconnection is this: after one and a half year of abundant data that proves otherwise, our politicians are still falsely claiming that this pandemic is 80 to 100 times larger than it is in reality and that lockdowns are necessary and beneficial. When we look at the actual data, it is plain to see that the total number of deaths per year is essentially the same as in the years before 2020, even in a country like Sweden that did not implement any lockdowns at all:

Source: PANDA institute, March 2020

Is that overestimation just an honest mistake in the face of an unprecedented event? Hardly so. The COVID-19 Pandemic plan for the Victorian Health Sector published on 10 March 2020 stated on page 6 that “COVID-19 is assessed as being of moderate clinical severity” and was essentially ignored, just like the huge corpus of now publicly available data that confirm such statement. Something is not right.

Governments, not the virus, created havoc

In total contrast with their own data and purportedly looking after “public health”, governments have adopted heavy-handed policies and caused havoc with the mental and physical health of millions of Australians. Not to mention the economic damage of lockdown policies, that left tens of thousands of small business destroyed and even more families without an income.

Interestingly enough, after destroying thousands of companies and jobs, the Government offered help in the form of subsidies (JobKeeper and JobSeeker) that have made our public debt skyrocket and have put the entire Australian economy on an unsustainable path.

To be excessively clear: it was not the virus that forcefully closed businesses, borders and schools - governments did. It was not the virus that caused financial hardships either: governments did and still do. And it was certainly not the virus that closed our churches while large retail chains and liquor stores were deemed essential and allowed to operate normally.

A vast number of concerned people in Australia have been made fearful to express their views for fear of reprisal. Business leaders, pastors and small business owners alike are concerned that they will be labelled a danger to society if they dare challenge the false narrative of (1) a deadly virus sweeping the planet (2) spread by asymptomatic people (3) for which there is no therapeutic cure and (4) to which nobody is immune.

Even doctors and other medical professionals are unable to perform their age-old Hippocratic oath out of fear of deregistration if they dare follow scientific evidence and depart from the State-sanctioned narrative. A group of brave doctors who have taken the risk to speak out have been ignored by governments as if they did not exist, just as it happened to the great Dr Ignaz Semmelweiss in 1848.

Quarantining of the healthy (aka "Lockdowns") is not based on scientific evidence

COVID-19 brought a sudden rewriting of well established disease management principles as virtually every country (with very few exceptions), disregarded existing pandemic plans and replaced them overnight with policies of "lockdown".

None of the policies implemented since 2020 in Australia, in fact, are mentioned in the manifestos of the Liberal or Labor parties, in any officially approved pandemic plan or in scientific literature. Where did they come from?

Lockdown policies are unequivocally the personal invention of Chinese president Xi Jinping in January 2020. In the words of WHO chief of China, Dr Gauden Galea, on 24 January 2020: “trying to contain a city of 11 million people is new to science. The lockdown … is unprecedented in public health history”. He also said clearly that the lockdowns are “certainly not a recommendation the WHO has made”. Tedros Ghebreyesus of WHO said on 28 January 2020 that “China is setting a new standard for outbreak response”. It was clearly an untested standard.

Did lockdowns made any positive difference at all? Absolutely not. Live data from PANDA (Pandemics Data & Analytics) still show that, just as in Sweden, there is no inverse correlation between lockdown stringency and deaths on a worldwide basis.  If anything, they show a direct correlation: more lockdowns are followed by more deaths!

The false equation "vaccines = freedom"

A central component of the false narrative is that we have to lock down and wear masks until everyone is vaccinated.

The first fallacy in the reasoning above is that there are already several low-cost, effective therapeutic protocols for COVID-19.

The second fallacy is that, of the very few people susceptible to generating severe disease, the vast majority is 65 and older, per the Department of Health's data:

Sourcehttps://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/03/coronavirus-covid-19-at-a-glance-14-march-2021_0.pdf

Therefore, at the very minimum the vaccine program that is being rolled out should be:

  1. risk-based
  2. completely voluntarily
  3. not recklessly imposed on all sections of the population.

The age stratification of deaths was known from mid-February 2020. Cost-benefit analysis, anyone?

When enough is enough: a plan to reopen Australia

Building upon the foundations laid by groups such as the COVID Medical Network and PANDA - Pandemic Data&Analytics (who published a seminal work called "Protocol for Reopening Society"), Australia's Representatives calls for the immediate adoption of the PANDA's protocol in Australia.

"PANDA believes that, at this juncture, the science is quite clear on what key policy responses should be—or should have been. The cure should not be worse than the disease. It is critically important that societies are reopened, whilst protecting those who may be vulnerable to serious illness from SARS-CoV-2. Human agency must be upheld, and individuals should be empowered to make their own choices.

PANDA’s Protocol for Reopening Society builds upon existing pandemic frameworks and incorporates current scientific understanding of Covid-19, to provide a road-map out of the damaging cycle of lockdowns."

(Watch our senior leader Sanjeev Sabhlok discuss with Panda's founder Nick Hudson - excerpted from this podcast of 17 March 2021)

To reach the goal of reopening and go back to normal, we need to mount a massive awareness campaign to reverse the false narrative and reduce the fear.

We need your help: join Australia's Representatives today and opt-in to donate some of your time.

Beyond the pandemic

Australia's Representatives was formed in early 2021 to reclaim representative and participative democracy in Australia. Its mission starts with reopening Australia but ours is hardly a one-issue party.

Safeguarding our liberties and unalienable rights is an ongoing battle for which we must envision a new type of political party.

One that represents the people, not the elites.

One that is accountable to its constituents through total transparency in the decision making.

One in which elected members have the right of informed dissent (conscience voting) based on truth and evidence, in opposition to the top-down, strictly hierarchical structure used by virtually all other political parties.

If, like us, you believe that truth does not come from authority, join us today.

Sign in to comment


Don't have an account? Become an Associate Members of AusReps today, free of charge