Incredibly, the Australian state of Victoria remains in the midst of the most draconian Covid-controls globally, as the State reports 5 new cases.
Yes, you read that correctly. 5 (FIVE) new cases, for which no supporting details of demographics or asymptomatic features are provided, are the basis to keep a State of 5million people locked in their homes for 22 hours per day.
The Victorian government has, on Sunday, removed their highly controversial curfew, and allowed some key industries such as construction to return to 85% capacity, from the earlier 25% capacity.
The State government, in response to Supreme Court action lodged by a Melbourne based cafe owner and Liberal Party Member, Michelle Loielo, was seeking to conceal files relating to the September 14 curfew extension.
Incredibly, as the case was set to be heard in the Supreme Court on Monday 28th of September, the Premier advised that the curfew would be abolished, naturally, purely on the basis of scientific evidence. The State assured its subjects that the curfew was eliminated due to science, and not the pending legal action.
Thankfully, the lawyers fighting the curfew have confirmed they will continue to push on with their case, albeit reduced to a request of the court to determine whether or not the curfew breached human rights.
As part of the Supreme Court trial the government has been forced to hand over secret data it relied on to extend the curfew on September 13. It was seeking, unsurprisingly for the Andrews government, to hide these documents from the public.
Professor Giles, who imposed the extension of the curfew, has told the court it was a necessary measure.
Prof Giles has told the court she relied on government data that proved “a clear and direct correlation” between stage 4 restrictions and a reduction in case numbers. Lawyers representing Ms. Loielo will now have the opportunity to press Prof. Giles on the evidence supporting this claim.
Incredibly, part of the adjusted government controls in Victoria is the effective banning of any face-covering which is not a ‘fitted, commercial’ mask. This is in stark opposition to the direction provided by the government 8 weeks ago, where it imposed fines of $200 upon any person who did not furnish themselves with ‘some form of face-covering’, which allowed bandanas, face shields or other coverings.
It seems that the coronavirus in Victoria is now able to penetrate the previously allowed face-coverings. Although, the mask narrative is also beginning to fray at the edges, with the CDC having reversed its stance on whether the coronavirus is airborne, days after it warned that the virus spreads most commonly through the air and is more contagious than the agency had previously suggested.
Language explaining that the virus is airborne, published Friday, was a “draft version” posted to the agency’s website in error, according to a note published on Monday morning. “CDC is currently updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2,” the note says, adding that a version of the Friday language will be posted once the process is complete.
“This was an error on the part of our agency and I apologize on behalf of the CDC,” John Brooks, chief medical officer for the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response, during a call Monday with providers and state and local health officials. “We weren’t ready to put it up.”
So, as the US medical authority admits that the virus may not even be airborne, (but they don’t really know), the State of Victoria has now backflipped on its ‘medically based advice’ regarding face-coverings, and how has effectively banned anything except a ‘fitted commercial’ mask. You can read more about this amazing development, here, courtesy of Politico.
The farce in Victoria continues, with Health Minister Jenny Mikakos stepping down over the weekend, and rebuking the Premier’s statements.
As the comical mismanagement and economic destruction continues in Victoria, the state’s leadership treats the public with contempt, and policy is generated on the run, at best.
Chart of the Day
Face masks: do they really work?