There's always room for all types of journalism - from tabloid screamers to the plodding broadsheets; sensationalist claims or specialist deep-dives. What makes a story really interesting, however, is the cross-over. This is the moment when, after emotional descriptions of what's occurred or after wading through reams of dense detail, the conclusion arrives with a rush. Everything that's gone before suddenly floats into context.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
That's the situation today, a year after we began hiding from a microscopic virus that has created such havoc around the world.
The largest viewership of any National Press Club event last year was not the prime ,inister, nor the Opposition leader: it was when public health experts got behind the microphone to explain the facts about COVID-19. This week saw a rematch and again, although we've learnt so much about the virus, our desire for more knowledge, more simple nuggets of fact, remains huge.
The difference is that now the experts are beginning to draw some conclusions, ranging from the obvious to the more sophisticated.
The British Medical Journal's The Lancet, for example, has examined China's successful control of the virus by comparison to the basic failure evident elsewhere. In, respectively, the UK, Czech Republic, Italy and the US for example death rates now range from 173; 166; 152 or 144 per 100,000 people. China, with its huge population has only lost 3.45 people per million; Australia's death rate per million is, however counter-intuitively, more than 35.
We can do one of two things with the statistics. Compared to (some) similar democracies Canberra's measures have proved triumphant and it would be churlish not to give credit to the government where it's due. We can excuse initial mistakes by admitting the evidence just wasn't clear about how dangerous the virus was and accepting there was confusion about how it was spread.
On the other hand, however, we can also engage our critical reasoning. Take face masks, for example.
By this time last year there was no real doubt the virus could spread through aerosol droplets. Equally, it was apparent masks would inhibit - even if we didn't know how significantly - the spread of this hugely contagious disease. A study released this week has again proven better masks (or masks with more layers) are more effective at preventing contagion. Is this really a surprise?
Yet look at the way some of our politicians procrastinated in mandating the use of masks - not to protect the wearers but to safeguard other people from the spread of disease. It's time to engage our critical facilities again and start expecting more from politicians: because they're failing and the risks are huge. It's outrageous that Australian frontline workers aren't being protected by vaccines which are being widely distributed overseas.
Every new case of transmission is preventable. It's time to hold politicians to account.
- Nicholas Stuart is a Canberra writer
Nicholas Stuart
Nicholas Stuart is a Canberra writer.
Nicholas Stuart is a Canberra writer.
