The Pandemic and the Media

 

Australia - Total Cases - Courtesy Worldometers* 

I'm sure that you remember, gentle reader, the daily news conferences (at state and federal level) that were broadcast during the first two years of the pandemic.

In most households they were routine viewing.  Usually the premier or PM (flanked by a coterie of health officials) would go into great detail about the significance of the daily figures.

During this period (March 2019 until about November 2021) the daily cases, hospital admissions and deaths were read out with the frequency of the football scores. We saw graphs and analyses to burn.

Take a look at the graphs here.

The first one above, shows a dramatic rise in cases on December 1st 2021 to 211,654, a figure about seven times higher than the average between August 2020 and July 2021.

 

The second graph (total deaths) shows a similar trend. We are losing between about 80 and 100 Australians daily to this virus, which is far in excess of the figure one year (and two years) ago.

The daily rate is shown below -

So what is going on? Why is this case and death rate no longer newsworthy? Is the media convinced that we are over it, and news about the pandemic no longer rates? 

Or perhaps the various governments are relaxed in the knowledge that the health system has, more or less coped with the increase in cases, and they are no longer at electoral risk through mismanagement of the pandemic.

Whatever, with two of my family already affected, I won't be relaxing the previously mandated precautions so loudly proclaimed during the last two years.

You, gentle reader, can please yourself.

*You can check this site here.

Comments closed.

 

 

Benevolent Disregard?

Pic courtesy Daily Telegraph

I'd wager, gentle reader, that most Australians, if asked, would not be able to recall that Papua New Guinea achieved its independence from Australia on 16 September 1975. 

1975 is a long time ago, I'll admit, but I doubt that the question would probably not have been answered correctly by most Australians even during the eighties or nineties. Our Pacific neighbours do not figure strongly in the Australian consciousness, and never have.

Those that would probably have a clear recall of PNG independence are the surviving "Chalkies", those national servicemen who became part of the Army Education Corps tasked with providing educational programmes for members of the PNG Pacific Islands Regiment between 1966 and 1973. 

Darryl Dymock, a nasho who was in my recruit platoon at Singleton in 1969, has written a very engaging book about these three hundred or so diggers. One of the themes explored in that work is the contribution these men made to the peaceful transfer of power in PNG, a country that many considered to be at risk of succumbing to violence during this period of transition.

I would gladly have been one of them, but the army obviously believed at the time that I would make a better contribution in Infantry.

The PIR had a strong role in maintaining law and order in this somewhat boisterous country, and the values and protocols instilled in its members through their education at the hands of young Australian teachers was important.

Perhaps this small piece of history can (excuse the pun) teach us something if we consider the tensions surrounding recent events in the Solomons. Maybe if Australia had set out, through a range of initiatives, to strengthen the political and cultural institutions in the island nation during the last couple of decades, as it did in PNG between 1966 and 1973, we would not have landed (with a thud) where we are now.

Denise Fisher's 2014 piece in The Interpreter echoes, to some extent, this sentiment, and notes the degree to which France regards the significance of the status of New Caledonia to its influence in the Pacific, and bankrolls it accordingly. I have stolen the title of her piece and applied it to this post, as it's a good fit.

Perhaps we could learn something from the French, or (perish the thought) the Chinese.

Comments closed.