Now I'm not a fan of Daniel Andrews for many reasons ... however, the question is has he done a good job or not in handling covid-19?
Or, perhaps, the question could be phrased as, given that he has NOT done a good job, has it really made a difference?
There is so much data to wade through both here in Victoria and beyond. Anyway, with reference to my questions, here's an article from September last year (pre-covid) about a nasty flu virus with a death toll of over a 100. This includes youngsters -
https://7news.com.au/news/health/victorian-influenza-death-toll-tops-100-c-450512.
This time last year the Victorian death count attributable to flu was 50.
https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/national-flu-toll-tops-250
If I look at the current stats, 42 people in Victoria are recorded as dying of covid-19. Very few of that number are under the age of 50.
So, much as l dislike Daniel Andrews, if he has been incompetent, we must recognise that he has kept the death toll below last year's reported death toll from flu - so far at least. Additionally his government appears to have done a lot better this year than last when no statewide concern existed and very little negative publicity was raised, certainly compared to 2020. Alternatively, you could try and argue that he IS an incompetent buffoon who has done nothing to reduce the death count and yet, miraculously, no one under 40 has been affected (and very few under 60) and in total 42 have died which compares favourably with last year's reported flu deaths.
In my view, you can argue a case for saying Daniel Andrews's government is incompetent OR you can argue a case for saying the virus is lethally dangerous to a much broader section of society than was seen in last year's flu season. However, I really can't see how you can easily argue in favour of both of these cases.
