Lessons Ignored: The COVID-19 Inquiry Report
As the hangover of the COVID-19 pandemic fades, the COVID-19 Response Inquiry Report rears its head, promising to position Australia for the next pandemic. The Inquiry, published on 29 October 2024, examines Australia’s pandemic response, offering prioritized recommendations and actions to refine preparedness. While the report acknowledges the need for greater transparency, data, and broader consultation, it is curiously silent on accountability for heavy-handed and blunt mandates and regulations that led to the greatest violation of civil liberties in my lifetime. The report focuses on expanding governmental infrastructure and readiness, signaling a disturbing trend toward even more centralized control. Let’s take a brief look at this report (I do not have the time to read it in its entirety – 877 pages) and discuss why it may not address the lessons we should be learning, and why we must stay vigilant to prevent future government overreach.
You can find the full report at COVID-19 Response Inquiry Report.
The Inquiry highlights the importance of considering broader impacts in future pandemic responses; yet, its recommendations focus primarily on creating more bureaucratic tools rather than examining the consequences of past policies. As Thomas Sowell correctly points out, “There are no solutions, only trade-offs.” Lockdowns and restrictions during COVID-19 were enforced with a singular focus: reducing infection counts. While aiming to control the virus, these policies sidestepped crucial considerations of mental health, domestic abuse, economic stability, and physical well-being. Lockdowns confined us to our homes, where sedentary living and vitamin D deficiency, compounding factors in immune health, went largely ignored. Obesity, one of COVID-19’s most significant comorbidities, was exacerbated by policies restricting outdoor activity to a single hour a day. Instead of empowering citizens to make informed, healthy choices, the government enforced rules that worsened public health. The Inquiry recommends “minimizing harm” by “considering social and economic impacts,” but fails to address the harm done by ignoring these factors in the first place. The takeaway here is that we don’t need a larger government playbook; we need a commitment to respecting personal agency and well-rounded public health strategies.
I am under no illusion about the state of civil liberties in Australia. There are no protections for civil liberties, and they are simply at the whim of the government of the day. Having said that, I think Australians assume civil liberties, even if they are not explicitly protected. The COVID-19 lockdowns and movement restrictions were amongst the most restrictive measures Australia has ever seen, and some of the most restrictive in the world during the pandemic. People were confined to their homes under the guise of public safety. Benjamin Franklin comes to mind: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Yet, the risk of transmission outdoors was extremely low, making such severe restrictions seem not only unscientific but also an unnecessary encroachment on civil liberties.
The Inquiry does not critique these policies in any form. Instead, it suggests creating more “flexible” frameworks for lockdowns and establishing escalation points to reduce restrictions sooner. However, “flexibility” within a framework of forced compliance still prioritizes state control over personal freedom. The Inquiry has such little self-awareness that it seems to acknowledge the lack of trust in government and institutions due to their violation of our freedoms, and then claims that in order to violate them again, it must rebuild that trust. A truly balanced approach would prioritize individual liberty, recognizing that citizens can—and should—be trusted to make health-conscious decisions without coercive lockdowns. The government’s role in a pandemic like this is to create an environment that supports the decisions of the individual in relation to steps they may or may not take in response to the pandemic.
Throughout the pandemic, politicians were on television every day holding up vaccination rates as a panacea to end lockdowns. This was the one and only pathway out from under the foot of an oppressive regime. Politicians went so far as to tie the lifting of restrictions to vaccination rates, creating a climate in which the public felt pressured, if not blackmailed, into compliance. The COVID-19 vaccines were promoted with little room for critical public discussion about individual risk factors, side effects, or alternative treatments. The coercive environment undermined individual choice, fostering resentment rather than trust.
The Inquiry’s response to this eroded trust is to recommend rebuilding it through a communication strategy aimed at restoring confidence in vaccines. But restoring trust isn’t just about communication; it is about respecting our rights to make informed, voluntary decisions regarding our health. The Inquiry seems to assume that the decisions made by the government were correct and that the erosion of public trust is due to the public not understanding. This is extremely arrogant and insulting to the Australian public. As Friedrich Nietzsche once said, “Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.” This reflects the government’s failure to recognize its own shortcomings, leading it to blame the public for its loss of trust. A truly balanced approach would recognize that open dialogue, transparency, and freedom of choice foster trust, not mandates.
Throughout the pandemic, politicians frequently deferred to “expert advice” when making policy decisions such as lockdowns and mandates. While health advice is valuable, it is not the sole factor a government should consider. Public health responses must balance various priorities—social, economic, and psychological impacts included. Politicians, as representatives of the people, are supposed to weigh competing interests and make balanced decisions, not hide behind the cover of “following the science,” much of which remains contested, while ignoring the larger picture.
The Inquiry makes a small nod to this, recommending that the future governance structure bring in a wider range of experts. Yet it stops short of holding politicians accountable for neglecting their public duty by relying solely on health experts without considering other critical perspectives. It is important that politicians are held to account for decisions affecting millions of people. Simply stating “we followed the experts” is an insufficient excuse for infringing on individual rights and is quite simply cowardice.
One of the most disturbing developments during the pandemic was the government’s self-assigned role as the ultimate arbiter of “truth.” Policies aimed at censoring “misinformation” blurred the line between public health guidance and control of speech, setting a dangerous precedent. Governments labeled as “misinformation” any content that questioned official narratives, effectively shutting down meaningful debate and critical inquiry. The initial response to the lab leak theory is a good example.
As the government sought to control the narrative, it inadvertently raised questions about its commitment to free speech. Empowering these same governments to censor speech under the guise of fighting misinformation risks creating a feedback loop of official narratives unchecked by public scrutiny. If governments can decide what is and isn’t fit for public consumption, who’s holding them accountable? Granting governments the power to police misinformation is anti-democratic and fundamentally at odds with the liberties that sustain a free and informed society.
The Inquiry’s recommendations are fundamentally bureaucratic. They focus on increasing government preparedness without examining its role in such scenarios and without acknowledging the failures and overreach of past policies. True preparedness for the next pandemic doesn’t lie in more centralized control, expanded surveillance, or “public trust” strategies. Instead, it requires a balanced approach that prioritizes individual freedom and personal responsibility, keeping government power in check.
As we consider the Inquiry’s recommendations, we must reflect on what true preparedness looks like. Do we want a future where more bureaucratic control is seen as the answer to every crisis? It is crucial to engage critically with the Inquiry’s findings. A genuinely effective public health policy must respect individual rights, promote open dialogue, and avoid authoritarian overreach. If we allow governments to wield greater power in the name of preparedness, we risk losing the very freedoms that define us.
The COVID-19 Inquiry Report, while well-intentioned, misses the mark in crucial areas, failing to learn from the heavy-handed measures that characterized the pandemic response. By neglecting the broader implications of its recommendations and prioritizing bureaucratic solutions over individual freedoms, it risks perpetuating the very mistakes that led to widespread discontent and distrust.
As citizens, we must remain vigilant, questioning the motives behind policy decisions and advocating for a balanced approach that protects our liberties while ensuring public health. The lessons of the past are clear: true resilience lies not in expanding government power but in empowering individuals.