The Australian Inquiry Into Covid-19: More Of The Same

In 2024, the Australian Government established the COVID-19 Inquiry Response Report to assess the effectiveness of the country’s pandemic response, identify lessons learned, and provide recommendations for future preparedness.

The first sentence of the Foreword reads:

“Pandemics are predicted to occur on average every 20 years – and the likelihood of us seeing another significant event is growing.”

However, there is no mention of the possibility that COVID-19 may have originated from a gain-of-function laboratory in China. Instead, the report presents the standard narrative of a naturally occurring virus, despite increasing evidence that challenges this view.

Later, the report states:

“This inquiry aims to use the benefit of hindsight to guide future actions: not to ‘fix’ the actions taken during the last pandemic, or deride the decisions that were made, but rather to harness the innovations that helped us and identify ways to maximise the success of our response whilst ensuring it is proportional to the threat.”

This suggests that even if governments overstepped or violated civil liberties—as some would argue occurred in Victoria—there is no intention to hold anyone accountable. Where is the discussion of legal responsibility or consequences for overreach? The tone seems to reflect a "nothing to see here" attitude.

The report continues:

“There was no playbook on what actions to take in a pandemic, no regular testing of systems and processes to make clear who would lead parts of the response, and no arrangements on sharing resources and data.”

In reality, there was a playbook. Medical professionals around the world were treating COVID-19 using existing, repurposed drugs and unconventional strategies—often with positive outcomes. But public health policy was dominated by government and pharmaceutical interests. Doctors who advocated for treatments like Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin were dismissed and labeled as conspiracy theorists.

Under the section on Minimizing Harm, the report states:

“Establish structures to ensure young people and their advocates are genuinely engaged, and impacts on children are considered in pandemic preparedness activities and responses to future emergencies.”

It was clear from early on that COVID-19 posed minimal risk to children. Lockdowns, school closures, and mandatory masking were harmful to their development. The impact on children’s IQ and social skills has since been well-documented.

‘Huge impact’ on Aussie kids finally revealed

It didn’t take a scientist to predict that isolating children and disrupting their education would have lasting consequences. Yet here we are, acknowledging the damage after the fact.

One recommendation in the report is to create a CDC-like public health agency for Australia. Given how poorly the U.S. CDC performed—many would argue catastrophically—this proposal is concerning. Expanding bureaucracy and diverting more taxpayer funds toward centralized control is hardly a forward-thinking solution.

“Finalise establishment of the Australian Centre for Disease Control (CDC) and give priority to the following functions for systemic preparedness: to become trusted and authoritative on risk assessment and communication, and a national repository of communicable disease data, evidence and advice.”

Additionally, the report recommends expanding surveillance and data collection over the next 12 to 18 months during national emergencies.

“Commence upgrade to a next-generation world-leading public health surveillance system.”

This is a concerning development. Calls for greater surveillance under the guise of "health preparedness" edge us closer to an Orwellian state.

On a more promising note, the report mentions increased monitoring of long COVID and adverse vaccine reactions. However, there are no details on how this would be implemented.

In the section on Trust, the authors write:

“Develop a national strategy to rebuild community trust in vaccines and improve vaccination rates.”

Notably, there is no acknowledgment that, in some cases, vaccination may not be the best course of action. Nor is there any mention of the harm caused by the mRNA vaccines, which have had serious impacts on the lives and health of many Australians.

What about communication during the pandemic? Who defines a health emergency? Is a seasonal illness like the flu or measles now considered justification for emergency powers?

“Develop a communication strategy for use in national health emergencies that ensures Australians, including those in priority populations, families and industries, have the information they need to manage their social, work and family lives.”

It feels like the public is being conditioned to accept frequent "health emergencies." A true emergency would be something like a biological or chemical attack—not a respiratory virus with low mortality for most people.

Under Minimizing Harm, the report recommends:

“Prioritise additional mental health funding and investment in services for children and young people, to help manage the ongoing mental health impacts of the pandemic on this cohort.”

Ironically, the mental health crisis they now seek to address was largely caused by the very policies implemented during the pandemic. This is akin to administering a drug with known side effects, then funding programs to treat those side effects without reevaluating the drug itself.

Another proposal gives the Chief Paediatrician more authority through inclusion on the Australian Health Protection Committee. This likely means more focus on increasing childhood vaccination rates, even as concerns about side effects persist.

The report states:

“Pfizer had announced its vaccine was 95 per cent effective against COVID-19 illness after phase 3 trials.”

But that figure refers to Relative Risk Reduction, not Absolute Risk Reduction, which paints a much less impressive picture of efficacy.

The report goes on to commend the vaccine rollout:

“In June 2021 Australia became one of the first countries to mandate COVID‐19 vaccination… with limited exceptions, effective 17 September 2021.

The publicly stated rationale was evidence showing the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing transmission and protecting against severe illness and death…”

Despite this glowing review, there are only three short paragraphs discussing adverse vaccine reactions:

“The Australian Government acknowledged that, while serious adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines were rare, there should be a safety net to support those affected…

To be eligible for compensation… a claimant must have suffered an eligible clinical condition and received hospital treatment… with losses exceeding $1,000.”

This token acknowledgment is grossly inadequate. The report fails to meaningfully address the surge in myocarditis, neurological issues, and other serious side effects. Many people personally know someone who suffered a life-altering reaction—how can that be considered rare?

Regarding treatment, the report neglects to mention the success of affordable, repurposed medications. Instead, it focuses on expensive antivirals and monoclonal antibodies, while admitting these approaches fell short of expectations.

The remainder of the 912-page document is focused on economic recovery, industry impact, and includes pages of references. In the end, it feels like a whitewash—an attempt to justify past actions while preparing the ground for more of the same.

If the opportunity arises again, it seems likely that the same playbook will be followed—only this time, it may be even harder to question it.