Australians must know the truth - this virus is not a pandemic (Alan Jones)

Video Transcript:

As you may have already heard, it's all starting to unravel. It had to happen. At 305 PM today, an economist in the Victorian Department of Finance and Treasury, San Gives Sablock announced that he had resigned last week, I quote, at length, so that I would be free to speak out against the state's management of the COVID-19 infection. I made a number of criticisms of the state government on social media. The head of human relations at Treasury asked me to remove them. I resigned on the same day, the only honorable course for free citizen of Australia. He said, I never dreamt to see some of the tactics being used to defend the state's health. The pandemic policies being pursued in Australia, he wrote, particularly in Victoria, are the most heavy-handed possible, a sledgehammer to kill a swarm of flies. He went on, these policies are having hugely adverse economic social and health effects with the poorer sections of the community who don't have the ability to work from home suffering the most. Australia, he said, is signaling to the world that it's closed for business and doesn't care for human freedoms. This will dampen business investment, but also impact future skilled migration, the education industry and tourism. Now, echoing what I've been saying for months, this form of Victorian Treasury economist said, and I quote, the whole thing hinges on the scare created by politicians and health professionals. For instance, Victoria's chief health officer, Brett Sutton claims, this is quote, the greatest public health challenge since the Spanish flu. I quote, he writes, this is no Spanish flu. We can verify that easily. The Spanish flu killed at least 50 million people worldwide in 1918 when the global population was 1.8 billion. Proportionately, to be as lethal as the Spanish flu, a virus would have to kill today at least 210 million people. Instead, only around 0.9 million have died so far. Compare this, he says, with the 60 million who ordinarily died each year. Tangive Sadlock said quote, but even if the pandemic had been as big as the Spanish flu, lockdowns could never have been justified. There are strong scientific arguments against lockdowns. So what should the government have done? He said the data were clear from February itself, that the elderly are many times more vulnerable to a serious outcome than the young. It was necessary, therefore, to work out a targeted age-based strategy and start aggressively protecting and isolating the elderly, even as the rest of the population was advised on relevant precautions. But he said that wasn't done. He wrote, the need for good policy process does not disappear just because we face a public health crisis. In fact, it gets even more urgent. He wrote, the Victorian Guide to Regulation Notes, and he quotes, it is not possible for governments to provide a completely risk-free society or to prevent every possible event that might cause harm. It says risk regulation that is poorly targeted or costly will divert resources from other priorities. Governments back in February, he said, needed to commission a cost-benefit analysis of alternative policy options that took into account different scenarios such as with and without a vaccine. Sanjeev Sadlock said, thereafter the best option had to be picked, given the uncertainty, but consisted also of the need to intrude minimally into human freedoms. This cost-benefit analysis and policies needed then to be updated as new information emerged. He said such as the fact that epidemiological models have badly exaggerated the risk. He wrote, I attempted repeatedly to raise my voice, but my attempts were rebuffed. The bureaucracy has clamped down on frank and fearless and impartial advice, in a misplaced determination to support whatever the government decides instead of performing its taxpayer funder duty of providing forthright analysis of alternatives. Well, listen to this, he goes on. While there is scientific argument against lockdowns, there are divergent views on matters such as the effectiveness of masks. He wrote, I am a mask fanatic, but there was never any reason to mandate these debatable requirements. Voluntary performance-based rules would allow the private sector to innovate, leaving people to determine their own fate. Now, if I just interpolate here, this is what I've been saying, we can look after our own health. But the doctor goes on, quote, thereby minimizing economic harm and harm to mental health and general wellbeing. Now, cop this, he says, quote, so what happens now? Billions of dollars of income and wealth have been wiped out in the name of a virus that is no worse than the Asian flu, and which can even now be managed by isolating the elderly and taking a range of voluntary, innovative measures. He says all the border closures, all the lockdowns, all the curfews in Melbourne will not eradicate the virus from planet earth. And quote, now as I've said many times, politicians can't eliminate a virus. Well, the economist concludes, and I quote, the problem for politicians now is to reverse course without losing their job. I don't know how they plan to do it. He says, but if they don't do it sooner rather than later, the damage to Australia's future would have become so great it will undo the good work of decades of reform. That's Dr. Sanjeev Savalok, the senior manager of economic strategy advising the Victorian government, he's resigned on a range of efficiency productivity, market and regulatory reforms on cost of living issues and aspects of tax reform. He's got a PhD in economics from the University of Southern California. My point is simple. And without pumping up my tires, Adam Crichton and I have been saying this for months. So is Andrew Bolt. One question remains, doesn't it? How many others have been silenced across all arms of government, including in Canberra? Will this doctor now be condemned and does this failed strategy stay in place? I've warned over and over again that the political leaders who are the architects of this response will not be able to escape the kind of criticism that is now finding its way into the public place. In fact, it's worse than this. I have said we need a national advertising campaign to tell the public the truth about the fact that this virus is not a pandemic. Now some eminent opinions are being expressed through three sets of data, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada. That, listen to this, up to 90% of people testing positive carry barely any virus. Oddly enough, this was reported in the New York Times. Now all is emphasis on how many cases, how many people have tested positive I have said from day one is rubbish. But that will all keep for another night.