| > to the point that newborns actually died as a result of movement restrictions I'm a Victorian, and I've heard this claim before. I assume it's referring to the newborns in Adelaide that died after not receiving critical heart surgery. The article that I read[1] (from The Daily Mail, no less) had claimed that under normal circumstances, these cases would be airlifted to Melbourne which has the facilities necessary to treat them, but the Victorian lockdown prevented them from doing so. This is misinformation. Emergency care was an exception to the rules throughout the entire lockdown. Dan Andrews was asked to clarify this on the following day the article was published, and said exactly as above - there is no reason that they could not have been airlifted. It was down to individual clinical decisions at the hospital in question, and had nothing to do with the lockdown restrictions. I realise that I'm critiquing a single claim in what was a torrent of falsehoods, but this one was particularly offensive. Using the death of babies as political fodder is notably egregious in what was an unending campaign against one of the few political leaders that listened to science, and successfully suppressed a second wave. 1: https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/why-victorias-lockd... |
For whatever reason, the sheer disorganisation and lack of communication resulted in death.
You erroneously stated that I claimed they died as a result of being denied entry to the state, a claim I never made. Would they have died with zero travel restrictions? Very likely not.
Functionally, being denied entry to the state and one side not bothering to even try to enter them into the state is a distinction without a difference (either way, they die).