WHO and Australia’s unauthorized policies during COVID-19

Summary

The Australian government's response to the Covid-19 pandemic has been heavily criticized for its lack of scientific rigor, particularly regarding mask mandates, social distancing, and vaccine rollouts. Key figures like Professor Jay Bhattacharya, along with global examples from Sweden, have argued against the more authoritarian measures that were enacted. The public health inquiry, while acknowledging the damage caused by these policies, failed to address fundamental flaws and has been seen as promoting increased government control for future emergencies.

Background/Context

Australia, with its relatively low population density and geographical isolation, initially fared better than many other countries during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, the introduction of strict lockdowns, border closures, and mandates, including mask-wearing and forced vaccination, sparked significant debate about the effectiveness and proportionality of these measures. Critics have argued that the policies, while intended to protect public health, caused significant social, mental, and economic damage, especially with the sidelining of dissenting scientific opinions. The 2023 Australian inquiry into the pandemic response failed to critically analyze the efficacy and consequences of these policies.

Relevant WHO Policy/Action

The World Health Organization (WHO) has consistently stated that non-pharmaceutical interventions like masks and social distancing can have varying effectiveness depending on the context. The WHO’s guidance on masks, particularly prior to 2020, emphasized that there was "lack of evidence for the effectiveness of improved respiratory etiquette and the use of face masks in community settings during influenza epidemics and pandemics”. However, as the pandemic progressed, this stance evolved, with WHO recommending mask-wearing in specific high-risk situations, such as healthcare settings.

Legal or Regulatory Violations

The Australian response to the pandemic has been critiqued for violating established legal and scientific protocols, particularly in the areas of emergency use authorization for vaccines, mask mandates, and the suppression of alternative treatments. The accelerated approval processes for Covid vaccines like Pfizer and AstraZeneca bypassed the usual comprehensive long-term trials, raising questions about the safety and efficacy of these products. Similarly, the enforcement of vaccination under threat of job loss or restricted freedoms, has been seen as an infringement on civil liberties and human rights.

• Emergency Use Authorization (EUA): The rushed approval of Covid-19 vaccines, bypassing the typical regulatory frameworks, especially when no prior treatments were available.
• Mandatory Masking and Social Distancing: The imposition of mask-wearing and social distancing policies, without sufficient supporting evidence, potentially violated individuals' rights to bodily autonomy and freedom of movement.

Consequences/Impact

The consequences of Australia’s pandemic response have been profound. The strict measures, including lockdowns and the vaccine rollout, led to significant public health, economic, and social disruptions. Mental health issues, particularly among children and the elderly, worsened due to isolation and fear induced by the measures. The education system was severely impacted, with children’s learning and social development stunted due to prolonged school closures. Additionally, Australia saw a dramatic rise in Covid-related deaths after achieving high vaccination rates, challenging the narrative that the vaccine rollout was the primary factor in reducing mortality.

The inquiry’s failure to adequately assess these impacts and its recommendations to grant more power to health authorities in future crises has sparked widespread concern and distrust in the government’s ability to handle future health emergencies responsibly.

Relevant Documents

Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza

Infection prevention and control during health care when COVID-19 is suspected

WHO recommendations on mask use by health workers, in light of the Omicron variant of concern

Australia COVID-19 vaccine approval process

WHO Emergency listing procedure

Court Ruling (Queensland Supreme Court) Vaccine Mandates for certain positions unlawful

Relevant commentary

How COVID took over the world and (eventually) Australia

Australia’s Covid Inquiry Report Is Not Fit for Purpose

Lessons learnt during the COVID‐19 pandemic: Why Australian schools should be prioritised to stay open

COVID-19 and mental health in Australia – a scoping review