To A Good Person Who Did Not Understand

I have just had a conversation on social media with somebody who I have known since childhood, and who I know to be a lovely, and true and honest spirit.

It was not just that conversation, however, that prompted me to publish my comments in full here. Last night I was informed about a discussion that took place with somebody in a position at such a high level that they should have understood well, and had been trained also, to not make the statement that they believed all lives matter after having discussed diversity and inclusion in the workplace and the murder of George Floyd. It almost beggars belief that a person in such a position would be so ill-equipped for that discussion. To say any more of it would be to betray trust so I cannot, but it does prove to me just how far we still need to go!

Finally, just to get an indication of exactly how difficult are these concepts to understand, on the drive home from school today I asked my 12 year old and 15 year old sons whether the statement “all lives matter” is a good thing to say in today’s context, and why. They both immediately said “no”, it was not a good thing to say, and they made all of the key points that I would and have made. The reader can infer from that what they will, but I will say that I infer that a reasonably intelligent and open-minded person should understand by now why it is inappropriate to make such a statement.

Below is the conversation I had with my friend after she very sincerely stated that she was confused and wanted me to explain it to her. Please feel free to share this or to use the text if you find yourself in a situation where you need to explain the significance and symbolism of Black Lives Matter.

---

I know you don’t have a mean bone in your body, so I would be happy to explain (and perhaps some others might follow and understand too).

Can you hang in with me while I explain?

That message [her post stating “Police Lives Matter (share if you are brave enough)”] is actually like walking around town smiling and waving with one hand, but looking at some and giving them the finger with the other hand.

I know you thought you were being inclusive by saying something like “hey, I care about police officers because I care about all people” – right?

But what many people are doing by sending this message around is attacking the sentiment and people protesting for Black Lives Matter.

So sending a message that causes hurt amongst some of course is being divisive, even if that was not your intention.

How can I infer all of that – well we all do it all of the time – infer things from all sorts of gestures (on the face, body, images/symbols or in slogans).

Can you imagine living in a place where people don’t understand what is “flipping the bird” – people would just laugh at you wondering why you are poking up a middle finger. Believe it or not, in some countries the rudest thing you can do is take off your shoe and wave it at them 🙂 We might laugh if someone did that to us, but somebody from that culture would be highly offended.

One harmless example of the power of symbols – when my first-born was still 3 on a Friday night he saw me watching the channel 9 crew talking about the upcoming game, and just from seeing the commentators and footage of the empty field he asked “who is playing footie tonight, the telephones and the beers?” He knew from the people and the field that a football game was likely to be played and he already associated the Telstra symbol with telephones and the VB symbol with beers 🙂

The point is that these symbols and gestures are deeply embedded in our minds, including from young ages…

I will pause for a second here and continue on in another message – but while I do I ask you to think about what was the most evil symbol of the 1900s and think what about that symbol depicts the atrocities committed under it (blood, guns, gas chambers?) – nothing – but most people, especially those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis, feel fear and anger towards the symbol…

---

OK so I hope that you have followed and understand how symbols and gestures can send powerful messages.

So to understand why ….. Lives Matter, including All Lives Matter, is hurtful we need to recognise a few things.

Firstly it is important to understand that the symbolism behind Black Lives Matter existed first, so all of these other statements followed, and they are not stand alone statements.

They are, in reality, a response to Black Lives Matter.

Then we have to think about what is the symbolism behind Black Lives Matter. Well the first thing is that there is a fourth word inferred in the statement at the end – which is the whole point of it. Do you know what it is?

“Also”

It is again inferred in the “response” that you posted, except because it is said by many in anger and disapproval at Black Lives Matter, for them it is underlined and/or bolded (not in reality, just inferred remember).

So why is it necessary in this day and age to make the point that Black Lives Matter?

Well because of the history of America and Australia and other countries where racism has been so embedded in the culture since Europeans arrived in the country.

For 450 years in America and almost 250 in Australia black people have been treated as if their lives don’t matter as much as others.

Black American slavery treated people as commodities (like loaves of bread, bought and sold) and today racism deeply affects their lives. In Australia many Aboriginals were killed by settlers, it was only in the 60s that they were accepted into law as citizens of Australia, and of course racism deeply affects their lives.

The history on that is undeniable, even though racists do deny it and aim to confuse the issue (many racists also deny that the holocaust occurred).

The murder of George Floyd bought all of this to a head last year. Do you know how he was killed? A policeman stuck his knee into his neck for 9 minutes as he lay pinned unable to move and as he tried to say “I can’t breath”. 

Can you even begin to imagine that? Perhaps you might want to set a timer and wait in silence to understand just what a long time that is, let alone if they were the last minutes of your life as your lungs are gradually deprived of air.

Can you even begin to imagine the hate in that person’s heart to do that to another?

In most developed countries we are so concerned about animal cruelty that we insist that food animals die quickly and painlessly.

I hope that explains exactly why there is such strong symbolism behind Black Lives Matter and why responses against it are so offensive.

But I know you and I know you are a good person who cares about people… just one final post to come

---

So finally, if you did not mean to be offensive why should you do anything about it?

Well if you did walk down the street flipping the bird at everybody but not meaning to be offensive, would you not feel bad once it was explained to you and then try to make up for it by apologising and ensuring you understood why it was offensive and make sure you didn’t do it again?

You already started that by asking me why it was offensive, right 🙂

People who say others should not be so sensitive about these issues are as much as saying to people who suffered at the hands of the Nazis they should just forget about it and move on. The problem is that we know that if we do not learn our lessons then we are sure to repeat them, and as I said above, racism has been with us for a very long time. What is more, if we do nothing about it things will never improve and likely they will get a whole lot worse again.

People who spread these posts fall into 3 categories – those who understand all of this and spread these responses deliberately to be offensive and counter the Black Lives Matter message, those that understand it is not entirely polite (they understand the double meaning to “share if you are brave enough” and take up the “dare” aspect) figuring it can’t really hurt anyhow, and then there are others that have a very honest spirit and just do not understand the offense, instead thinking that they should be “brave” to stand up and say that I care about all people including …. (whoever was the group of people before “Lives Matter”).

On the internet people do not know you and they cannot determine in any way what category you belong to and most people assume that it is a statement of support for racism (even if people will deny that they are racist – that is the strange thing about it – most racist people, besides those who are actively involved in far right movements and who feel righteous in their racism, actually consider themselves to not be racist). These messages are shared and shared – going viral – so that in the end, regardless of your intention, you end up contributing to increasing division.

So when you do want to express support for people you are better off doing it in your own way. And when you see posts that you think are likely to be racist or otherwise divisive, the role that you can play is by just ignoring it and not adding to the spreading of those divisive views.

Doing nothing with these messages – not sharing, not liking – is an important part of getting towards that inclusive world that you and I both want for ourselves and all of the people that we love and care about.

I sincerely hope that this helps you to understand what is definitely a complex situation, which is getting more and more confusing because the people who want to create division amongst us are getting more and more sophisticated in the way that they spread their messages.

If you want to talk it through more, don’t hesitate to message me or talk it through with other friends (perhaps including some Aboriginal friends).

Sincere thanks for asking me to explain this for you. I look forward to catching up next time.

---

Gained value from these words and ideas? Consider supporting my work at GoFundMe

---

© Copyright Brett Edgerton 2021

On the morning of Thursday 21 January 2021 in Australia I sat and watched transfixed on the television in awe as somebody spoke to and for all of humanity. That person described themself as “a skinny Black girl descended from slaves and raised by a single mother” who now knew it is possible that they might be President. As tears formed in my eyes all I could see was a brilliant and beautiful young woman who possessed the rare ability to change the world.

Amanda Gorman became my first hero of 2021!

In the days since the inauguration of President Biden, Ms. Gorman has never been far from my mind, her evocative words deeply enmeshed in my neural synapses already. I recall reading about how the aim of repetitive advertising is to link emotion with brands so that when we drink branded cola, for example, our brain fires up all of the neurons associated with emotions such as fun and excitement, not just taste.

When the stage is huge, and the timing momentous, just one brief moment is enough to embed and link those emotions forever. I will never forget the day I heard Amanda Gorman recite her “The Hill We Climb”, and it is for that reason that I will never forget President Biden’s inauguration.

That, I suspect, is exactly why she stole the show – she was meant to – and gee did she stand up with the courage she exalts from all of us to provide all of the youthful optimism tinged with mature (beyond her 22 years) realism that perfectly encapsulated the times.

The only problem for me as a writer is that her brilliance only proved to me my own inadequacy, for I have lamented this past year my inability to reach my contemporaries with my words. Then my own realism sets in and I know that Ms. Gorman is an exceptionally rare talent, and I find comfort in pondering on how we share such a similar view of the world and what our future must be. 

I also appreciated the use of the imagery of the bridge in this passage, “If we’re to live up to our own time, then victory won’t lie in the blade, but in all the bridges we’ve made”, immediately recognising the echo in my own writing in “The Great Reset: Building the bridge“.

---

I have also been reflecting upon my belief in my own writing, and something that I have understood intuitively since I was 16 years of age based on how my sister loved receiving my (admittedly rare) letters from home while she was at university. That I, as a male, have always had a rare ability to connect with my emotions and to express it in a clear – if typically “unconcise” – manner. For some reason I was a male who realised that he was emotionally “deep”, as my sister again recognised and described me as such to a friend when I was in my early 20s, and was proud of it.

When I was younger my innate shyness – that I can now observe with mature eyes as it is mirrored in my first-born – prevented me from sharing that depth of emotion and insight with others outside of my family, and even within my home I was often criticised for being “too sensitive”. Maturity and confidence, along with other opportunities to understand the world from studying for my PhD, strengthened my voice. 

As I explained in “How I Remade Myself After A Breakdown“, even though I was very muscular and fresh off the family farm as a lad, I was never a man’s man, or a blokey bloke, or however you might wish to express machismo. One of the sharpest reflections on that came at my brother’s buck’s (bachelor’s) night when everyone was crowded around the typical stripper’s performance cheering and, while not wishing to be singled out as being disinterested (out of fear of it being confused for being of ambiguous sexual orientation), I gathered with everybody looking upon the performance but all the while was wanting for it to be finished as soon as possible. Thankfully, an over-excited mate of my father rushed forward towards the performer bringing an end to the performance. When it was my turn for a buck’s night the one thing my mates knew for certain was off the table on the night was a stripper.

I dislike being within large groups of emotionally charged men. I feel uncomfortable with the unpredictability of over-excited testosterone. Perhaps it is one of the many consequences, together with post-traumatic disorder, of needing to bravely step up on a traumatic night at home when I was 15 years of age to take my father’s gun from his hand when he was overwhelmed with emotions – anger, hurt, confusion – at fear of loss of our family farm through foreclosure. The ambiguity of his intentions in that moment of rage has never left me, neither the image in my head of those 6 bullets sitting atop our fridge, as he left them that night, looking down upon our family table as we ate every meal for seemingly years.

None of that makes me less of a man than any other. It took me some time to realise it, but if the old stereotype that bravery is the reserve of real men, then confronting real emotions is the ultimate in masculine expression.

Of course the expression of courage is not just reserved for real men, but I use this to highlight just how cowardly are many men who fear emotion and so bottle it up, often to release, sadly, on those significantly less physically strong than them in women, children and youth.

The strength that I admire most is emotional strength, as embodied in Mandela’s definition of courage as being able to summon the strength to act even when scared, and that is in no way reserved for men. Off the top of my head some of the most courageous people to my mind are Rosa Parks, Malala Yousafzai and Greta Thunberg. And yes, Amanda Gorman, who stood on the brightest stage mere mortals have and courageously said that she knows the way forward if only humanity has the courage to be it.

---

Western society in general does now seem to be moving in the right direction with the challenging of gender stereotypes, and here, after being critical of the Australia education system over racism, I need to say that I have long been singing the praises for early educators for teaching a level of emotional vocabulary and intelligence that remains elusive to many adults. At least in the (public) schools that my children have attended, the level of conflict in the school grounds has been orders of magnitude less than I witnessed in my schooling several decades ago and much of that must rest not only with parents but with teachers.

The changing societal view of male gender identity, however, is something middle-aged men especially seem to be struggling with, and elected male politicians in Western nations have recognised there is significant advantage in appealing to the imagery around what it is to be a real (white) man.

That is especially true in my home country of Australia where the idolised image of masculinity is so tightly tied to “the bush” or “outback” in characters such as 19th century Bush Rangers and especially Ned Kelly, the fictional Crocodile Mick Dundee, or in many stories of the “larrikin” soldiers fighting in Gallipoli.

My role as a stay at home Dad has provided an opportunity for rare insights into Australian male identity. Early on I witnessed my father struggling to accept my new role which seemed so alien him – on occasions he introduced me to friends in an intentionally derogatory manner by describing me as a “house wife” – which drew us into argument where I told him that he needed to get over his own embarrassment about the role that I had chosen to play for my family. 

In wider society there were also challenges. I have found being a male home parent to be incredibly isolating as women in the primary caretaker role, and with free time to build connections within the school environment, were reluctant to develop closer relationships with males. 

Moreover, as a male frequently in the school environment, around young children, I felt extra pressure to always be exemplary and never place myself in a position where people might develop the slightest suspicion of improper behaviour on my part (in the early years, still very much recovering from a breakdown, that added extra anxiety). As one example both of my sons in Prep loved that I volunteered to assist in their swimming classes and liked me being on hand in the dressing room to help them. But I felt awkward going into the dressing room, recognising the risks to perceptions of me, and only did so briefly and for the first few weeks even though mothers frequently went into both male and female change rooms regardless of the gender of their own children. 

Still I accepted that this is the nature of current society, and it is preferable that people be alert to the risks of children being hurt rather than underplaying the risks and disbelieving hurt children as occurred in the past.

The truth is that the identity of the Australian male has been confused for decades with rural-urban migration conflicting with the popularised version of the fun and care-free knock-about Aussie man. Nothing exemplifies that more to me than the angry young men tearing around our cities in their rarely off-road 4×4 tradies utes, such as the one I discussed in “The Great Reset: Teaching what we left behind“.

Given that the rural-urban migration pattern is far from unique to Australia, such conflicting identity especially for less socially-adaptable men is likely an issue in many societies.

It is hardly any wonder, then, that many male politicians go to great lengths to contrive a “rugged” masculinity into their carefully crafted public image, which necessitates a rejection of vulnerability and sensitivity. That is how you arrive at a PM who infers that people, and especially men, anxious about the risks of contracting COVID-19 in the most severe global pandemic in a century, are “whimps” lacking the courage to “come out from under their doonas”. 

That is the definition of toxic masculinity, and the current Australian PM is especially prone to it as was another recent conservative Australian PM in Tony Abbott.

Even Mr. Morrison, though, came to understand that building such a persona comes with significant risks when interacting with authentic rural Australians, especially when emotionally fragile such as the people of Cobargo who suffered greatly in the fires last Summer.  

I have to admit that I consider having had a breakdown to be an advantage in developing a strong sense of self and emotional awareness. Whilst never a high testosterone man’s man my self awareness was poor. Much of that was a coping mechanism to deal with the pressure I lived under as a boy and lad, and through my recovery I realised it is characteristic of my family, but that flaw in my life skills stayed with me well into adulthood.

Having a breakdown stripped me bare emotionally and was frightening and confronting. But it did provide me with the opportunity, through absolute necessity, to rebuild myself with a far stronger foundation based on much introspection of myself and of the formative events and relationships in my life. Necessity, that is, if I was to achieve a good quality of life again and be the father and husband I aimed to be.

Still I would not recommend a breakdown to anybody and there is nobody happier than me that this period of my life is behind me.

Few have the ability to make major changes in the way they interact in and with society without first suffering a major shock or unless their incentives/reward system is seriously altered.

That is precisely why men need good role models in society, including our elected male politicians, who are able to authentically show their true self rather than attempting to cobble together a public image encompassing the improbable trinity of an urban man with the knock-about likeability of Mick Dundee who in diplomatic circles is smooth, sure-footed and worldly enough to chart a safe course for the nation in an increasingly fractious geopolity.

I would note, also, that in “The Great Reset: A letter to my Father and ‘Sliding Doors’ self” I stated that “an open mind is not dependent on the possession of a passport but on an open heart”. That is precisely why the much-loved Australian fictional character Mick Dundee was so relatable – his nature appealed to our better selves – but the ironies abound, not least of which is the lack of genuine openness in Australia, particularly in rural Australia, especially around race.

---

I am proud that I have come a long way in my life, but I know that I am not perfect – far from it. I am not any longer so ignorant to suggest that in the hypothetical survey that I put forward in “Racism and Political Correctness” I could honestly select the best level for diversity and inclusion attitudes no matter how much I may want to believe I could. I am aware that the faulty thinking that I learned from the overt racism I witnessed and participated in as a child right through to my early adulthood, and then the systemic racism to which we are passively exposed still daily, has impacted my thinking so that I undoubtedly am affected by unconscious bias towards all sorts of groupings within humanity.

In truth, in our global humanity at the commencement of the 21st century, I honestly doubt that very many people would be truly free from these unconscious biases. That is why I firmly believe that artificial intelligence technology must be employed within workplaces, for instance, along with quotas and other active measures, to address diversity and inclusion in an anti-prejudice program.

For me, Alan Joyce, CEO of Qantas, completely missing the point at the 2020 AGM that a truly diverse company had not been achieved just because they had a gay man as the CEO and several female board members demonstrates this point amply.

My experience, however, does suggest to me that belonging to, or becoming a part of, a minority is an advantage to understanding and becoming sensitive to issues surrounding diversity and inclusion.

The irony of racist attitudes, as I alluded to above, is that many of the most strongly racist and prejudicial people are likely to overstate, through ignorance, their acceptance of diversity and inclusion, while those less extreme on the spectrum are likely to be capable of a far more realistic self assessment.

---

A breakdown gave me an understanding of what it is to acutely and confrontingly address my identity. An unconfident young man, with a weak voice at expressing my views and my own identity, my confidence grew as I excelled as a research scientist and increasingly become identified as Australia’s expert in my field (as I was introduced at the World Aquaculture Society Symposium in Sydney in 2000) and as an emerging world leader (as was frequently being stated to me in person). With the clicking of the “send” button on the email announcing my retirement, all that was gone. A very key aspect of my identity was removed as if it were erased because it would have zero relevance to my life from that point onward.

Few people understand better what identity means to us as human beings as those who have had a breakdown due to an abrupt end to their career. Since my breakdown I have heard sports people, venerated within society especially when still competing, increasingly speak about their struggles with the challenges of retiring especially when done prematurely.

I have always remembered a line in an interview with Brett Kenny, who probably would have been considered one of Australia’s best ever rugby league five-eighths if not for a guy by the name of Wally Lewis, when someone in a bar asked him “didn’t you use to be Brett Kenny?” For me that sums it up so perfectly!

Male identity, wrapped up in testosterone and its byproducts of aggression and power, is vulnerable. Yet that is the one thing that is seen as emasculating to admit.

Male leaders who continue with this ridiculous cultivation of an urban or rural Mick Dundee identity for Australian men do a disservice to themselves and to Australian boys. 

But nobody can say all of this better than Amanda Gorman:

If we merge mercy with might, and might with right, then love becomes our legacy 

and change, our children’s birthright.

---

Gained value from these words and ideas? Consider supporting my work at GoFundMe

---

© Copyright Brett Edgerton 2021

I have a Media Pass to “attend” the World Economic Forum’s Davos Agenda Summit taking place virtually at the present. I have viewed a great many of the panel discussions, but I have not witnessed as much emotion and passion as was on display on Wednesday (27/1/21) in the “Mobilizing Action on Climate Change (Option 2)” panel and I recommend all to watch the discussion as a matter of urgency.

The panel discussion gives a glimpse at the path forward for humanity and has especially concerning elements for Australia, or at least the current Federal Government. For one, Australia was one of only 3 nations that were mentioned specifically (by name) – the other two, obviously, being US and China. While Australia was not singled out in terms of our (lack of) efforts on Climate Change, unlike the other 2, we were discussed because of our fires last summer. Be in no doubt, those fires are now emblematic of climate change and its consequences. Australia’s brand is damaged and the longer we are led politically by climate change sceptics the greater will be that damage. Secondly, coal is very much a dirty word world-wide, and the one moment of tension (in what was an evocative but entirely polite conversation) was when John Kerry (US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, National Security Council) disagreed with the importance of gas as a bridge to sustainable energy production (towards Ben van Beurden, CEO of Shell). Of course, Australia is focusing much of its post-COVID response on gas, and is protective of thermal coal exports, and is clearly a global outlier in that regard. Morrison’s Government is isolating Australia on this to an incredible degree, and like climate change, the damage might not be apparent at first but the consequences will be deep and long-lasting if not addressed promptly.

This panel will undoubtedly be considered one of the highlights of the Summit. Speakers along with John Kerry were Jesper Brodin (of IKEA), Feike Sybesma (of Royal DSM), Ben van Beurden (of Royal Duch Shell), Amina Mahammed (Deputy Secretary of United Nations), Alok Sharma (of COP 26), and moderators were Borge Brende (of the WEF) and Rabecca Blumenstain (of New York Times).

I have summarised the key statements of each participant down to the following:

John Kerry was very strong, apologising for the void left by the US in recent years, and emphatically stating that “the whole attitude [towards climate change] needs to shift”. Concerningly John stated that “Right now we’re on track to reach 4.1 to 4.5 degrees (Celsius above pre-industrial levels)… we’re already seeing what happens at 1.2 degrees let alone getting to 1.5, and most scientists will tell you that they fear we are going to blow right through 1.5”. In summing up he dramatically stated that “Glasgow is the last best chance to summon up the response… the world has high expectations and we need to meet them”.

Jesper Brodin (IKEA) stressed the need for consistency by politicians.

Feike Sybesma (Royal DSM) stressed that businesses needed to begin to live up to their rhetoric, and highlighted that American businesses are most at fault here due to the short-termism centred around shareholder interests and the profit imperative.

Ben van Beurden (Shell) stressed that his company is an integrated energy business. He highlighted how the COVID-19 pandemic has proven the size of the task in that the level of emissions reductions this year, because of stringent measures to address the pandemic, must be repeated year after year. Ben said that his focus will be on encouraging a sectoral approach so that each sector and business can work on decarbonising [Edit 8 Feb 2021, replaced “reducing its demand for hydrocarbons” with “decarbonising”], and stated that the market alone can not achieve this so “serious mandates” will be required (i.e. political will to enforce change).

Amina Mohammed (UN) is “not encouraged by short-term commitments at all”. She also highlighted that “finance matters” and so stressed the importance of recovering from the COVID-19 is critical to provide the financial platform to make investments, highlighting the need for private-public partnership. Amena was strong in saying that leaders need to have the courage and the will to act even though measures will be painful. Finally she stressed that it is not fair to enforce strict measures on developing countries when developed countries have polluted along their road to economic success (which I have highlighted in my writing on climate change).

Alok Sharma (COP 26) also highlighted the need for private-public partnerships and spoke about the enormous potential for private enterprise. He stated that not just billions of dollars of capital were required but trillions!

Regardless of the reader’s views on climate change or on particular politicians, viewing this should be uncomfortable for all Australians as we are heading in a different direction to the remainder of the world. While the second half of the panel discussion is where things really start to open up, the whole video is important. Personally, I took heart from it because people so practiced in public communication and diplomacy showing this much passion and emotion shows that the pressure really is now on to act.

Finally, I cannot conclude without saying that Ben van Beurden deserves a pat on the back for having the character and courage of his convictions to present his views as a leader in a sector which is often maligned in some quarters in discussions about climate change. For a few (mostly personal*) reasons I have been following Mr. van Beurden for a few years now, especially on the key issues covered by the Davos Agenda, and he has impressed me as a leader of genuine integrity and authenticity.

Also, I wish to draw attention to an article that I wrote early in the history of MacroEdgo entitled “Coming Soon: Product miles like food miles“, and the related post “Investment Theme: Product and food miles“, where I mentioned IKEA and suggested that their model would be increasingly challenged as the world moved towards adequately pricing in environmental sustainability. At the very least they need to recognise that there is much low hanging fruit in the furniture industry in quality control during production and shipping.

* For one his wife comes from an even smaller neighbouring town to my home town, and anybody who has the sensibility and spirit to marry a North Queenslander has to be alright in my book 😉

---

Gained value from these words and ideas? Consider supporting my work at GoFundMe

---

© Copyright Brett Edgerton 2021

I have steadfastly criticised and praised Governments and other actors in the COVID-19 pandemic when and where I felt it was due.

I agree with China’s sensitivity over Western innuendo about the origin of the virus that causes COVID-19.

I realise that many will immediately dismiss this on the basis of my friendship with Dr. Shi Zhengli, but I would counter that my logic is clear and undeniable. Moreover it is consistent with many highly regarded scientists including Australian Nobel Laureate Prof. Peter Doherty, that being that these studies are important for future management strategies (to reduce the risks of future pandemics) but were not a high priority given the resources that needed to be poured into managing the pandemic globally. What is transpiring this Northern Hemisphere Summer only supports that view. Prof. Doherty’s comments were even more strident than mine:

the whole thing is a distraction from the next United States election and it is pointless for anybody else to buy into it, in fact it is stupid

Prof. Doherty speaking on Bloomberg Television, 4 May 2020

Australian PM Morrison and other conservative Government officials are attempting to rewrite history and denying the geopolitical aspects inherent in their pursuit of the issue, but they cannot avoid the context in which they called for an inquiry into the origins.

In “The First Victim Of War Is The Truth” published 20 March I pointed out that “in recent days [President Trump] has returned to [pointing blame at China] by referring to it as the ‘China virus’”. And it was in April that Australia through Foreign Minister Marise Payne began pushing for an inquiry into the origins of COVID-19.

To suggest that the two issues are unrelated, given the close links between President Trump and PM Morrison, is a farce if for no other reason that Australian Government officials and politicians would have known for certain that China, and every other nation, would interpret it as such and so would have chosen to avoid the perception of joining with President Trump if they were at all concerned about China’s reaction.

Truthfully, the WHO team going into China this week should have been a story of scientific interest. Important, yes, but a purely scientific matter. Instead, because of the crass assertions of US President Donald Trump, now almost universally condemned within global political circles as being “unhinged” as if his election loss “suddenly” pushed him into psychopathy, along with the supportive innuendo from Australian Government officials, has turned the story into a fraught geopolitical issue involving limited trust, and suggestions of subterfuge and nefarious agendas.

It is important to note that even though SARS emerged in late 2002 tracking the origin of the virus took exhaustive research spanning a decade. It took three years from the outbreak to determine that bats were the likely original host when a 2005 paper showed that they were reservoirs of SARS-like coronaviruses. It took another 7 years of exhaustive research, painstakingly and methodically analysing samples collected by crawling through pungent guano-lined caves, to determine the exact origin of the SARS virus.

If the reader followed those links, and here is another for good measure, they might have observed an important fact. The scientist that led that research was none other than Dr Shi Zengli. 

Sadly lost in the perceived cloak and dagger game of deception is the one undeniable truth – that Dr Shi is an outstanding virologist and a world-leading authority on SARS-like coronaviruses – thus there was no better laboratory in the world to receive those initial samples from sick people in Wuhan a year ago, and the work of these scientists gave the world the best possible start in combating the pandemic.

---

I am the first to admit that my views on China have evolved over the preceding 24 months as shown in my writing on MacroEdgo. However, I see few who have been consistent across all important issues as the pandemic has shone a spotlight on societal values and leadership which has permitted or even necessitated deep reflection by all of us. Those few who have been consistent are likely so through inflexible ideology rather than having sound reasoning that has stood the serious tests of this time which I refer to as “The Great Reset” era. Moreover, my evolution has been as much about how I view my own nation and our allies as much as it is about China.

Quite simply, when the facts change I update my views.

Of course the ones with the most challenging decision on whether to stay the course or pivot are the conservative politicians who condoned, if not enabled, the erratic actions of President Trump for the past four years.

I even said in the past that I would not invest in Chinese companies out of concern for human rights and military involvement. I have long had similar concerns over western companies, and I have resolved to redouble my efforts – when value returns to global stockmarkets, whenever that might be – to carry out the necessary due diligence to ensure that I am morally at ease with activities of the companies in which I invest, whether they be domiciled in China or elsewhere. Anything less would be hypocritical of me.

---

Many Australians seem to come at disagreements, or “spats”, with other nations from the automatic perspective that we must be in the right. We are not always right, however, and we only have to look back at the second Iraq war to see that sometimes our national leaders just do what they want to do irrespective of what are the views and desires of Australian citizens.

I agreed with and supported a reframing of the relationship between China and the West. However, the moment that it was clear that global humanity confronted the enormous challenge of COVID-19, with China the first affected nation, that reframing should have been put on the backburner. What is more, that could have been done knowing that a tremendous amount of goodwill may have been derived from empathetic determination to be a good friend.

We should have done everything we could to help them. If they wanted, through pride, to be somewhat independent in their response then we should respect that for what it is rather than being suspicious. But most importantly, when it became clear that they successfully stamped out the infection in Hubei we should have praised them profusely for their achievement, and we should have gone to them to learn from their experience.

Instead of being a friend to China we seemed determined to show that we were antagonists, no doubt in large part due to the Trump Administration requiring overt demonstrations in support of them. The ironic thing about “big, tough” bullies is that their insecurities drive them to seek support for their actions leading to “ganging up” on adversaries.

Now China is determined to show not only that it does not need Australia, but that Australia needs China much more. I consider that all of the ways China has demonstrated this has been highly intelligent because, to the observant, they have clearly been demonstrating all of the ways that Australia has been hypocritical in the way it deals with China and the rest of the world. 

I will focus on trade issues which China is highlighting with widespread actions against many of our primary products, but will not entirely sidestep the very serious issues over human rights and our actions in theatres of war. I will simply say that it is preposterous to call their social media stunt – yes, a stunt and far from delicate – fake news because it was not a real picture as the same could be levelled at anti drink-driving or speeding advertisements which feature actors. They were making a point, and did not go as far as they could have by questioning why we went into the Middle-East to start with in our longest-lasting conflict ever – that if you are going to talk to others about human rights then you bloody-well had better come from a higher moral ground. But Australia and it’s allies fall well short of that. The point about the Middle-East conflict is all the more pertinent when a comparison is made between the number of innocent bystanders killed in the conflict to those killed in the 911 attacks, and also to compare that number with the number of Americans currently dying daily from COVID-19 because it is out of control and their politicians did little to stop it.

---

When I worked for Biosecurity Australia on developing import policy for aquatic animals and their products I learned that Australia had a reputation for using biosecurity as a technical barrier to trade which impacted our relationships with many nations including allies. There was always an issue that low-income developing and newly industrialised nations felt they lacked the expertise and resources to negotiate for fair arrangements, and/or fight cases in the World Trade Organisation. 

In reality it was alike a movie where a wealthy individual or corporation, with a huge legal team of Ivy league-trained lawyers, crushes the opposition that can only afford a pro-bono lawyer. Then we had around 80 policy analysts working on risk analyses for a broad range of animal and plants and their products, but in all actuality these analyses moved at snail’s pace (look at the Biosecurity Australia website some time to see the incredibly  long timelines for these analyses).

It was often discussed casually in-house that other similar nations, such as Canada for example, had far fewer staff and a much more streamlined process. Of course, the objective was not really to perform these analyses promptly, unless, of course, under duress of the threat of WTO-sanctioned penalties as a consequence of an adverse finding through their process (such as the Canadian Salmon case which was a major issue while I worked there – of 8 of us then in the aquatic animal unit, I was the only analyst not working on the response to the Salmon finding).

I have spoken about my experiences working for Biosecurity Australia in a number of posts including “Politics And Biosecurity“.

Australia did work at assisting our near neighbours to improve their biosecurity resources, including by running workshops and funding research as a part of foreign aid programs. 

During the prawn import risk analysis (IRA) I recall that in discussions with scientists and officials from a newly industrialised nation, one of the main exporters of prawns to Australia, they stated that they had grown suspicious of our motivation to fund research on biosecurity through foreign aid projects. Specifically they felt that by researching the health status of their aquaculture industry, and being open with their findings including in reports to our foreign aid funding agencies, that they had left themselves vulnerable to this information being used to restrict trade in those products.

They had some justification for thinking that way because, as I have made clear when talking about challenges that I faced in maintaining a career in research science in Australia, in my experience industry-aligned fish pathologists in Australia always challenged the more independent university researchers being clear that they had concerns over trade impacts from disease findings. And that concern was a continual challenge to obtaining research funding on the general health status of Australian wildlife and farmed stocks.

The truth is that all countries have their own favoured areas where they attempt to dodge and delay trade obligations from international agreements. 

I am in little doubt that one of China’s aims in these trade disputes is to expose Australia’s weaknesses that were being ignored when relations were more cordial and forgiving.

Be in no doubt, this growing trade spat is as much about our own failings as it is about China’s.

Unless we come clean ourselves, then there is little hope of the relationship improving.

I suspect that the relationship was much more redeemable before PM Morrison decided to add innuendo to President Trump’s crass assertions on COVID-19’s origins. Without some sincere statements from Australia around COVID-19 and it’s origins, which China will be able to parade domestically as a backdown or apology, and no doubt providing succour to my friend Zhengli, I believe that the relationship will remain troubled for a prolonged period.

Frankly, I would have little problem in doing just that because it was wrong of us to head down this path in the first place, and when so much is to be gained from closer relations. Then again, toxic masculinity is not an affliction that challenges my own reasoning.

---

Gained value from these words and ideas? Consider supporting my work at GoFundMe

---

© Copyright Brett Edgerton 2021

That the statement above the photo is relevant to me as an individual means that it is of equal relevance to my nation… We can never deal with our issues if we lack the courage to “pull back the carpet” and admit to our failings… Admitting errors and failings is what takes true courage, not the toxic masculinity crap that the racists’ “heroes” go on with on their pay tv megaphone… It is time for those with the real courage to stand up and use words, compassion and yes, love (that most frightening thing of all to the emotionally-challenged – vulnerability), to denounce the aggressive and divisive language from those whose egos prevent them from admitting they idolised an “unhinged” turkey in a suit for 4 years… they seem intent on growing their hate in our home so the time for timidity and fence-sitting has passed… It is time that racists really knew they are the true minority in our proudly fair and humble nation…

---

Gained value from these words and ideas? Consider supporting my work at GoFundMe

---

© Copyright Brett Edgerton 2021

It is time that I explicitly state my views on racism. The issue which I consider goes right to the heart of dealing with racism in Australia is political correctness, which is ironic because political correctness is perhaps the most often stated justification by racists for the need to express their beliefs. 

The racists’ argument infers that it is entirely natural for humans to be suspicious of others who are different, and that turns to anger and resentment when a “higher society” – of intellectual “elites” – enforces a moral political correctness upon all people to behave in a polite manner contrary to this nature. The racists blame this political correctness for causing a bottling up of emotion so that when it comes out in anger, whether from a bald-headed aggressive youth or in the quivering voice of an Ipswich fish and chips shop owner, it is all the fault of those in this “higher society” who impinged on their freedom of speech not through law but through societal pressure.

There is even an element of honour in openly expressing their dislike of minorities, from the racists’ perspective, in that it is morally preferable to behave consistently with their real values rather than to pretend to have the other “politically correct” values. They consider themselves more “authentic“.

Everybody who lived through the emergence of Pauline Hanson knows that her supporters frequently stated that she was just saying what everybody thought. Then living in conservative northern Queensland, I heard it often and I will never forget who were the members of my large extended family who proudly and defiantly told me, with my Asian-Australian wife at my side, how they were Pauline Hanson supporters.

The irony around political correctness and racism is that, while it most certainly is a major factor, the racists are actually benefitting or being aided from it. 

Racists are given a great deal of leeway in their comments and actions because others are timid and reluctant to call them out for what they are for fear of being offensive themselves.

This makes virtually everybody in society afraid of discussing racism and what constitutes racist beliefs and actions. It is impolite to even discuss it in company.

This is perhaps the most serious impediment to defeating the scourge as it is obvious that no problem can ever be truly addressed if there are only ever vague and obtuse references to the issues.

I have a particularly personal but pertinent anecdote to highlight this point.

Last year I received a call from my youngest son’s School Principal informing me that my son had stood up to another student by calmly responding to racist comments that the student made. When I discussed the incident with my son he confirmed it was the student who I knew, from previous incidents, was frequently in disciplinary trouble. The comments made were about Asians and coronavirus, but were not specifically directed at my son. I allowed my son to slowly discuss all of the events and how he felt. Eventually it became clear that this student had made racist comments before, and my son had relayed that as a part of his recount to the senior teacher who had addressed the problem first before informing the Principal.

The real issue became apparent when I asked my son how that senior teacher dealt with it, and how that made him feel. My son felt that the teacher down-played the actions and comments of the student, and that made him feel foolish for objecting to what was said so much so that he felt it was pointless, if not distressing, to stand up to this behaviour.

The next day I rang the Principal and informed him of how this senior teacher had reacted. My son was a School Captain so was highly regarded by the school and worked frequently with the Principal. The Principal defended his staff member, which on the one hand is understandable, but what he said was poignant: he said that it is a fine line for teachers to tread with beliefs taught at home, and so they usually try to steer clear of the issue. 

I informed him that the upshot of the interaction was that my son felt foolish for what was in fact very honourable actions, and that my son needed and deserved positive reinforcement from the school at least privately if not publicly. The other student and their class cohorts also received those weak messages about respecting diversity publicly. The Principal undertook to speak with my son to clarify that message, but never did. My son did, however, receive the leadership award for his cohort which was perhaps a veiled hat-tip to his honourable actions then and through the year. However, avoidance or obtuse acknowledgement is less than satisfactory.

Now in writing this I know that racists will suggest that it is not up to anybody to say who acted honourably in this specific situation.

Therein lies the problem with political correctness over racism – it is clear-cut in Australian society – racism is wrong and standing up against racism most definitely is honourable and should be praised by all.

That is not up for debate and anybody who suggests it is debatable is not being respectful of broad contemporary Australian society.

That political leaders are weak on this message is what breeds timidity – or “political correctness” – on spelling out what is racism in the broad context of Australian society.

---

This reluctance to explicitly call somebody racist in many ways emboldens racists because they revel in timidity, like all bullies. 

Take, for instance, Trump and his allies. I cannot recall any high-profile journalist or commentator calling Trump a racist, and it was not until late in the Presidential campaign when Biden did. There is also a timidity in calling others around Trump racists.

Trump often even goaded others to go ahead and call him a racist, which nobody did, also a frequent tactic of bullies.

It would seem that the strongest language those acting in a professional capacity use is to suggest that somebody has made comments with xenophobic undertones or that they are in some way associated with xenophobic elements. This is displaying timid political correctness at two levels – it dissociates the acts from that person and who they are or what they stand for, and the term “xenophobe” is a more timid term than “racist”.

The threshold for calling somebody racist is incredibly high.

Just imagine yourself saying the words, “you are racist”. Immediately you will recognise these as very strong words.

Most people have an aversion to hurting or insulting others, and will usually err on the side of caution rather than risking being overly harsh or judgmental.

What has become apparent to me over the years is that the unscrupulous most often commit wrong against others by using the goodness and trust at the core of human beings, whether it be a criminal who waits for an unsuspecting victim to open a door to them or stops their vehicle to help them, or cons who scam victims into providing personal details over the phone, through the internet or directly.

In the same way aggressive racists capitalise on and exploit our timidity in avoiding calling out exactly what and who they are.

---

This timidity in addressing racism must be counteracted from the earliest moments that children enter broader society and certainly within the education system. Racism is misguided thinking that must be corrected like any other misguided or anti-social behaviour that is addressed within schools by childhood education professionals. Unfortunately, the observations of my children again suggest this is not the case in Australia. 

Now I do not want to be, nor do I wish to appear to be – there’s that political correctness again – overcritical of my sons’ primary school, but this anecdote really does bear repeating.

Both of my sons were taught by an elderly, cantankerous supply teacher who actually used the racist version of Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe, which obviously incorporates the “N” word, in her classes. 

Here, I would not be authentic, myself, if I did not make a serious confession. This racist version was actually the only version that I knew from my childhood, and one day when I heard my children saying “Tigger” my initial impulse was to correct them, which of course brought on a conversation with my wife. I had never said this rhyme again since my early childhood, and so I had never thought about what the words actually meant. My initial reaction was to think that that is so shocking that we children would be taught this, and say it so openly in front of everybody – teachers, parents and other adults – that there had to be another meaning for the “N” word. As I sat there and thought about it with my wife, the realisation washed over me – especially as I thought of the context in which the words are said – that in deed it was an extremely racist rhyme. There is no other meaning for the “N” word and it is undeniably racist. It is incredible to think now that we children of the 70s in northern Queensland would recite that rhyme, made even more despicable since we grew up with many indigenous children who were our friends and team mates.

So I have to admit that I can understand a certain level of ignorance can exist. But once an adult says the words, even in their own mind, within a very brief period it should be entirely clear how utterly inappropriate it is. That any teacher in Australia would recite that rhyme to children in the 21st century is almost beyond belief. 

It shows that in Australia the education system must not take anything for granted when it comes to racism, and that rigorous diversity and inclusion programs for all of their staff as well as in the curricula which is taught to children must be implemented as a matter of urgency.

This is absolutely critical as there is a growing awareness of the importance of educating role models on diversity and inclusion as an intervention to racism culminating in radicalisation .

Research conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic showed that 1 in 3 Australian Australian school students were the victim of discrimination.

East Asian students reported the highest rate of insults or name calling on the basis of their background at 44%, while 30% of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island students surveyed reported having students spit, push or hit them on the basis of their race.

Among Anglo-Celtic students 15% said they had been insulted on the basis of their background, while 6% reported being subject to violence.

The report was compiled as part of the Speak Out Against Racism program, which is developing a program to encourage students and staff to address racism in schools.

“We need high-quality, whole-of-school programs – built on evidence and which are tested – that act to directly prevent and appropriately respond to racial discrimination and racism when it happens,” Priest said.

---

To be entirely honest, I believe this timidity goes even further in that it seems that very many Australians are reluctant to express open support for diversity and multiculturalism in their day to day activities such as on social media. For instance my experience is that few will show open support for underprivileged minorities, or for the poor in developing countries, or for refugees experiencing difficult circumstances.

Perhaps this is a part of the politicisation of refugees and migration by populists or populist-leaning Governments, especially by the Howard Government in the 2001 Australian Federal election, and then the reluctance by mainstream politicians to speak out against the racism inherent in such positions for fear of disenfranchising racist voters.

Thus a reluctance to show support for other struggling human beings, sometimes in desperate situations, is confused by some as being political.

Is it truly being political identifying these people as being worthy of empathy and help?

Or is it just a lack of courage to show explicit support for these people out of fear of being seen as having views outside the range of popular opinion?

---

Australia has long had a problem with admitting to our racist past along with our contemporary racism. There is a reluctance in admitting the injustices committed upon indigenous Australians and in the long enforcement of the White Australia Policy. Minorities in contemporary Australia face discrimination and bias in many forms, including in the workplace where research has shown that people with obvious minority names are significantly less likely to be contacted for interviews from submitting job applications. 

To get as many interviews as an Anglo applicant with an Anglo-sounding name, an Indigenous person must submit 35 per cent more applications, a Chinese person must submit 68 per cent more applications, an Italian person must submit 12 per cent more applications, and a Middle Eastern person 64 per cent more applications.

Within Australian society, I doubt that there has ever been a poll asking people about how racist they consider themselves – whether overtly racist; or racist within social circles (i.e. making “insider” jokes and snide comments but never expressing those views to others directly or indirectly such as online); or somewhat aware that unconscious biases affect their attitudes, behaviours and decisions; or not at all racist or biased against anybody from another ethnicity.

Now that the reader has likely responded in their own mind on how they might have answered in this hypothetical survey, I am going to challenge that response with personal anecdotes.

My wife and I had two close friends, in different social circles, who were unattached and we thought it might be nice to arrange for them to meet casually. I approached my friend to discretely learn whether there was any interest, only informing them that the person is a great person and is Asian-Australian. Quickly my friend responded that they were not attracted to that “type” of person, and given the only other information they knew was they are friends with us also, it was clear it was because they were of Asian ancestry. 

I am guessing that some readers will immediately consider that there likely was some other reason.

It has certainly been my experience that when I do raise the issue of racism and about racist actions displayed, including by somebody other than whom I am speaking with, the initial reaction very often is to deny that the actions were racist or biased.

So let me introduce a “sub-anecdote” where it was more explicit – not all that long ago a friend/acquaintance of my wife actually said to her “I’m not into Asians” when talking about meeting up with women from Apps.

So here is the simple question – can you imagine yourself developing feelings for and/or being attracted to somebody from any ethnic background?

If you cannot answer yes to yourself truthfully, then I suggest that you need to seriously and honestly look at why that is and consider that in the context of how you answered the initial question.

The other anecdote is something that was said to my wife several times as a young adult by friends in Australia. When the issue of her own differences have arisen in discussion, the friends, no doubt trying to express their affection for and connection with her, have said that they do not consider her black or Asian.

Now this statement is a real double-edged sword to somebody from a minority struggling to fit in. On the one hand it says that they are accepted. On the other it says that they have been accepted in the context in which the friend chooses to see them and not as they truly are. 

Most people from minorities in Australia will recognise this type of sentiment and that it comes with significant pressure to assimilate or conform to societal views on what it is to be “Australian”.

Now it is true that some may have clumsily attempted to express that all that matters is that my wife is a good person, and that her appearance which confirms her ethnicity is no more significant than her hair colour or height (or lack of it!)

Equally, it is worth pondering how the friend might have responded to, “that’s great because I don’t consider you white or Australian”, and whether that might have offended them or given them pause to consider whether that statement was racist or biased.

---

There are two things that I know with certainty: we as a nation and as individuals can not hold ourselves to account for our racist beliefs and actions if we are not honest with ourselves, and we can not eliminate racism if we do not lose our political correctness around calling out racism when we see or experience it. 

Finally, if the reader is wondering whether I consider my own extended family members who support Pauline Hanson to be racist, you better believe I do, along with others who were “politically correct” enough to not confrontingly tell me of their support for her and for what she stood. I do have to admit, though, that until now I was too politically correct to say so…

---

Gained value from these words and ideas? Consider supporting my work at GoFundMe

---

© Copyright Brett Edgerton 2021

I would rather make a difference than be acknowledged as being right

In the daily update I included my up to date “optimism scale”. This is a scale that can move daily depending on latest developments. Extreme pessimism of 1 would entail confirmation that the virulence of the virus is such that infections result in a mortality rate of 1% or greater (10x the virulence of severe flu) even under optimal conditions, continued indications of very high transmissibility (a reasonable proportion of infected individuals infect several people), and a lack of effective treatment and/or prevention (vaccination). An increase in optimism would necessitate clear evidence that outbreaks outside of China were being contained, evidence supportive of a virulence attenuation resulting in a mortality rate of below 1%, or strong indications of successful therapeutic treatments that can be administered widely and rapidly.

My optimism/pessimism level – from 10 to 1 in decreasing optimism – was increased today to 2.

This is my equal highest level of optimism since I commenced writing updates on 9 February and I have raised the level to 2 because there have been (mixed but overall) positive developments around vaccines and already nationwide vaccine programs have commenced in the UK and USA. The reader should, however, consider the nuance around these developments below.

18 December

WHO  dashboard shows that as at 5:05 pm CET 17 December, there have been 72,851,747 confirmed cases globally with 1,643,339 deaths.

It is with much sadness that I discuss the current situation. It is a bleak Winter in the Northern Hemisphere, to say the least, and the festive season is undoubtedly the most sombre in decades, probably since the depths of WWII. Sadly politics has impeded the pandemic response in many nations – usually based on a divide between conservatives placing higher importance on the economy (or at least perceptions of measures impacting on the economy) and parties left of that position placing a higher value on human life. When those differences are expressed across the layers of Government – e.g. Federal v regional – paralysis has been common. For example, the lack of leadership at the Federal level severely impeded the US response, and threatened to do likewise in Australia (but the vestiges of State autonomy ensured the Premiers could not be strong-armed by PM Morrison, thankfully), whereas Angela Merkel’s efforts in Germany to protect people from the ravages of the pandemic have been hampered by obstructionist regional politicians.

In my earliest reports I discussed potential seasonality to the pandemic as I was acutely aware that the Southern Hemisphere would be the first to face a full Winter with the global pandemic. Seasonality has very clearly been a major factor in the major temperate population centres in the Northern Hemisphere. The Summer lull in the pandemic, especially in Europe, was brought to a shuddering end as case numbers exploded in mid-Autumn catching virtually all nations off-guard. While the sharing of information on best practice for treating COVID-19 developed through the year has resulted in slightly better outcomes for severely ill patients, these gains are threatened by the sheer numbers of hospitalised patients such that hospital systems in most European nations and North American regions are on the brink of being totally overwhelmed. Exhaustion amongst the real heroes of this crisis – the health care workers – is a major concern everywhere.

National political leaders are attempting to balance the need to impose tougher and tougher restrictions to lessen the pressure on their health systems with pandemic fatigue, despondency or out and out anarchy amongst certain groups of citizens (in some cases which they, themselves, played a part in stoking – hey Borris?) While the overnight news that yet another national leader, French President Macron, has been infected is a reminder that nobody is immune, the knowledge that such elites within society will receive an entirely different standard of care to the majority only proves the necessity for change through this period, which I began to call in March “The Great Reset“.

Those who celebrate Christmas this December will be hoping that, while experiencing a grim festive season, they might find in their gift stocking not coal but a solar panel and the hope of a brighter future…

---

As foreshadowed in previous Coronavirus updates, this will be my final one.

Firstly I will point out that this is now the only update on this landing page. All previous updates are on the linked pages (in reverse chronology starting here) because I updated the material at the head of the page which had stayed constant since much earlier in the pandemic. 

In those first few weeks of the pandemic I initiated an “Optimism Scale,” which in my first update was at the penultimate level of pessimism until 24 February when I downgraded it to 1 indicating extreme pessimism, when the WHO Situation Report No. 34 listed 17 COVID-19 deaths outside of China. In doing so I stated 

this could be upgraded with some unexpected development, but the information emerging out of especially Korea, Italy and the middle-east is very concerning which confirms rapid and widespread transmission, including in well developed countries, with the clear suggestion of high mortality rate

Having left my optimism level at 1 for almost 10 months, I have now raised that rating to 2.

That is in no way indicative of the current situation with the pandemic raging globally, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, including in the developed nations within North America and Europe.

It is an indication of my optimism that, on a global basis, things may be set to improve once the Northern Hemisphere passes the critical Winter/early Spring period.

While my own optimism is genuine, I do need to note that it is not nearly as strong as sections of the Australian media and broader society have allowed themselves to indulge in. While a certain level of optimism is both “earned” and understandable, at times it has bordered on euphoric which is ill-advised.

What follows is my honest optimistic view for the way forward, but it is heavily qualified by significant nuance in both volume and salience.

---

In my 30 June Coronavirus Update I said that I knew the pandemic was a multi-year event from the outset, but leaving the year from the heading of my updates was intentional as “I simply had no intention of writing updates beyond the first year of the pandemic because I knew it would be too depressing”.

In my previous Coronavirus Update I said that for my final update I would recap all of my Coronavirus updates and other writing on the pandemic before going on to give my views on the year(s) ahead.

I have decided to drop the first part because I think to do so is inappropriate. Such a conspicuous lack of humility, in this difficult time for humanity, is not really authentic to my true self. In my writing, where I have quoted myself from earlier papers, it has mainly been to show that I have been prescient in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic to implore the reader to take on board my views.

Most importantly I prefer to devote my energies to looking forward to the future.

Before I do that, however, I do need to briefly mention an upcoming post. As a complete outsider it is difficult if not impossible to gauge the impact of my works and words. I noted in “Evidence of MacroEdgo Impacts” that an Australian researcher based in Singapore led a team which showed that the concerns that I raised earlier about the potential for meat processed in facilities where there are large numbers of infected workers is a risk for seeding clusters was justified.

Now I note that in June the World Economic Forum (WEF) launched an initiative they have titled “The Great Reset”. This initiative is essentially identical to the approach that I called for in my essay of the same title which I posted on 30 March.

I will discuss these developments in a post which I will release next week. But at this early stage let me just say that no, I have never had any contact with the WEF, or anybody else about the initiative or any other similar initiative; and yes, I am pleased to see that many global actors have increased their activities to argue openly about what shape we want to emerge from this major global humanitarian event.

Given the friable environment in which these discussions are occurring I feel I need to pre-empt some of what I will say in that upcoming post. To the conspiracy theorists on either and all sides, I need to tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree in believing others who tell you that all of this is part of an orchestrated strategy.

Rare and unpredictable shocks to individuals usually cause them to reflect on their lives, and when that shock occurs to societies collectively people will naturally question whether our societies are heading in the right direction.

That is nothing to be feared. It is to be embraced as a human being because much good can come from it when there is authentic open engagement. 

I will discuss this in much greater detail in my post, but it should be clear to all that joining a social media group that adopts extreme positions that are simple and clear-cut on these very complex issues, and where participants do not engage in open respectful dialogue with any and all others that show them respect and who raise valid points, is not a way to become genuinely informed and participation on that basis is unwise. 

---

The criteria for my optimism scale are mortality rate (i.e. infection fatality rate – IFR) and progress at developing cures (including vaccines).

The reason for upgrading my optimism level is based almost exclusively on vaccine developments.

The virulence (or lethality) of the novel coronavirus has been one of the most contentious issues from the earliest days of the pandemic, worsened by a disappointingly large number of political leaders downplaying this aspect. 

I chose a rather arbitrary (and round number) of 1% as the bar to fall below to raise my optimism level. Early estimates of the IFR varied significantly, but with a year passed I doubt that estimates will be any more accurate (though I expect that debate over these estimates will never be settled).

Of course, also, the IFR experienced in different regions will be impacted by an enormous range of factors from natural (e.g. weather/environmental) and socioeconomic (including dispersion/homogeneity of those factors  – i.e. societal inequality). Moreover, treatments (including “incomplete cures” or “cures under development”) and their interaction with these other factors will also affect the IFR over time. All of this has been discussed in early “Coronavirus updates” and my other reports.

I will point out, however, that even in developed countries in the Northern Hemisphere many countries are approaching full capacity in their intensive care wards from COVID-19 patients. I was shocked to learn that Sweden, a country known for having one of the highest standards of health care in the world, has recently sent patients to other Nordic countries. Of course, Sweden is well known for their adoption of very light social restrictions through the pandemic which they have persevered with until only recently. The point is that even in countries with excellent health systems the IFR can increase when their well provisioned and staffed hospitals are overwhelmed. And on that point, sadly Sweden now faces a crisis amongst their health workers who are resigning due to exhaustion.

I have consistently placed a high value on the research out of the Imperial College London, and this is from their latest report on the subject: 

we estimate the overall IFR in a typical low-income country, with a population structure skewed towards younger individuals, to be 0.23% (0.14-0.42 95% prediction interval range). In contrast, in a typical high income country, with a greater concentration of elderly individuals, we estimate the overall IFR to be 1.15% (0.78-1.79 95% prediction interval range).

I would not become less pessimistic based on these figures. Moreover, history would suggest that, and it will undoubtedly be repeated unless the world changes a great deal and rapidly, the IFR in low-income countries is unlikely to fall appreciably in the near future (though I am getting ahead of myself).

Now to the vaccines and I must start with an admission. A week earlier when I began thinking of drafting this final update I was toying with increasing my optimism level by 2 places to a level of 3. That was due to just how surprisingly positive was the run of data releases on the vaccines under development. There has been a run of setbacks since, which has brought us all back to Earth a little, and it was a lesson to me also on the need to keep optimistic emotions in check.

I will detail all of this below, but let me just say very clearly that even two months ago if you dumped all of these data on me to consider at the same time, I would have come away feeling cautiously optimistic and thinking that the vaccines show greater potential than I had dared to hope previously.

Perhaps it is unavoidable, but receiving updates in drips and drabs leaves us all prone to feeling like we are riding roller coasters. That is why I believe it is incumbent on political leaders and health officials to be calming voices of realism when positive developments occur, and to store the optimism mainly for use when we receive setbacks.

Unfortunately many modern politicians seem only capable of cheerleading and pulling blinkers over eyes in a vain attempt to create (consumer) confidence, whether it be justified or ill-advised. Here I do have to note that this refers mainly to male leaders and it reminds me of my desire to expand on the gender differences in leadership through the pandemic as an extension to my article “Toxic Masculinity and Political Footballs“.

The new class of vaccines based on mRNA (messenger RNA, a type of nucleic acid present in all cells of all living organisms in the world, like DNA) shows enormous promise with both the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine and the Moderna vaccine achieving an efficacy of over 90% at preventing COVID-19 disease (but not necessarily preventing infection) across age groups and ethnicities.

There are flies in the ointment, however: will vaccinated people still become infected and transmit infection to others (including potentially unvaccinated people); how long will protection from developing COVID-19 last; because this is new technology significant quantities of this type of vaccine have never been produced so what will be the production rate over the next year or two; given protection might wane, will production ever be able to meet the demand for people who want/need to be vaccinated (including with booster shots); being a new class of vaccine and requiring quite specific handling which requires significant logistics, just what proportion of humanity could realistically receive this type of vaccination; on the first day of rollout in the UK two people who had severe allergies had adverse reactions – how common might this be, and what other complicating factors will emerge as the vaccine is rolled out to millions of people.

Note that I have little concern over safety for these vaccines, but we should always expect that we are going to learn of complicating factors, which hopefully will be relatively minor and/or rare, when hundreds of millions of people receive new treatments.

It is difficult to escape the view, however, that while this class of vaccine will likely become the gold standard for preventing COVID-19, it may only be given to the highest risk (of developing severe disease or of exposure to the virus) members of society in high-income developed countries. Even that is dependent on further developments being broadly positive which is not guaranteed. 

I found this to be a brilliantly clear explainer on early COVID-19 vaccine efficacy data and especially how the final efficacy could be markedly different depending on how long the immune response lasts.

But again, this is a great start and we would have much less reason for optimism without it!

It follows that the majority of humanity will likely be highly reliant on success with the other vaccines. And there are very many of them – almost 200 in fact – being developed both in Western developed countries as well as in India, China and Russia. I will just concentrate on what is known from the final stage trials that have been released as well as the pertinent to Australia UQ/CSL vaccine.

The most promising – to this point – of the remaining vaccines is one by Oxford/AstraZenica. Unfortunately its data release was not well handled, which given the febrile environment, has led to a degree of scepticism in even informed sections of the general and scientific community. The issue is that around 20% of participants who received the vaccine received a half-strength initial dose – which now appears to have occurred because of an error in manufacturing – and those who received the lower initial dose displayed a higher level of efficacy. However, there are further issues in that most of these were younger. In short, these missteps, that were always going to become public knowledge due to the extreme level of interest in vaccine development, have made it clear that we really are in an accelerated development mode and that mistakes and vagaries, especially when dealing with a pathogen known to mankind for just one year, are highly likely to occur.

Nonetheless, it should not be lost that the statistical significance and the overall efficacy rate of around 70% is quite acceptable. In fact, this was about the best result that I dared hope for before the data on the mRNA vaccines was released. Moreover, this is a cheap vaccine which requires no unusual storage or supply conditions so this may be a vaccine “for the masses” including in the developing world.

Researchers have started another full trial to determine the efficacy when all participants who receive the vaccine received a half dose initially, so that might suggest that the work is incomplete. But in reality all of the vaccines will continue to be the subject of further research to continue to determine the finer details, such as how effective they are at reducing infections and transmission.

The Russian and Chinese vaccines have been rolled out in their respective countries. To be used in most western countries I imagine that they will be required to undergo trials in those countries. Whether that occurs will largely be determined by success with the other vaccines. These will likely have a higher uptake in low-income developing countries as and when confidence grows in them from use.

Finally we have some more disappointing results. The GlaxoSmithKlein/Sanofi vaccine suffered a serious setback last week as it failed to produce significant protection in the vulnerable 60+ year cohorts, and this has knocked their timeline to release back by at least 6 months.

Disappointing for Australia especially, the UQ/CSL vaccine has been abandoned because its use resulted in false positives for HIV. I understand that researchers will persevere with the technology, but the setback was so serious that it is unrealistic that it will play a part in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic.

To finish this section on a positive note, it is great to see that within a year of the onset of this pandemic residents of the UK and USA are already receiving injections as a part of a national vaccination program. That is an enormous feat for humanity!

All of this was made possible by the excellent work of the scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, led by Dr Shi Zhengli, who first identified the virus and made the entire genetic sequence available to the world within weeks. To those who have not read that original article in Nature, I suggest you do so even if you have no virology or even a science background – the enormity of the studies that these scientists performed in the space of just a few weeks is readily apparent and is nothing short of remarkable.

To conclude I will expand on my views on how the pandemic is likely to progress next year and after.

---

In “How Society Will Change If A COVID-19 Vaccine Is Elusive” I dared to wonder about an Australia where we have a new normal that is closer to the life that we have lived in 2020 than the one we had before it. Until the preliminary final stage vaccine trial results for the mRNA vaccines were released, I feared that such a reality was an uncomfortably high probability. And when I undertook to put together these thoughts I believed they would be more sobering.

Right now it appears that the more concerning scenario is less likely because scientists, standing on the shoulders of those around and before them, have performed an incredible feat in developing excellent and safe vaccines in under a year from the commencement of the pandemic.

That is not the end of the story, unfortunately, as above I discussed some of the many questions that remain unanswered about how the vaccine works and interacts with the human immune system. While these are significant questions, which will not be fully answered by the end of next year, even more critical questions relate to the virus itself.

From my earliest updates and reports I have discussed the reality that the virus will mutate as it spreads and these mutations could have implications for how quickly it spreads or how ill people become. Those mutated strains could be advantageous for our management, or they could complicate it and thus worsen the pandemic.

Scientists are finding that for an RNA virus this coronavirus is not mutating as much as it might have, which is good news. It is now so widespread, however, that the potential for mutation is very significant. That is further complicated by an additional factor.

In “COVID-19 Risks With Animals” I discussed that the virus has a very broad potential host range, meaning that the virus has infected many different animal species and predictions are that it could potentially infect very many more animal species if conditions for exposure existed. The more the virus spreads in humans, the greater the chance of exposure to a broader range of animals. And the more other animals are exposed, the greater the chance of them acting as reservoirs for further infections in humans, and the greater the chance of more significant mutations occurring so that more different strains re-emerge in humans.

While the news media is reporting vaccine successes, we are also learning about new strains of the virus that have been detected which may be different enough from the initial strains that they have implications either for how many people may become seriously ill and die, or, perhaps even more important now, how effective will be the vaccines against these strains because the vaccines were made using much earlier strains of the virus.

This quote from a UK scientist explains the urgency around a recently detected strain:

We think there’s a mechanism for the virus to start escaping,” said Ravi Gupta, professor of clinical microbiology at the Cambridge Institute of Therapeutic Immunology and Infectious Disease at the University of Cambridge. “We need to crack down on it. We don’t know what it’s going to do long term but we can’t take a chance on it. It’s unlikely it’ll make people sicker, but it could make it harder to control.

These mutations are being monitored by the scientific community. Of course the vaccines can be reworked to be more effective against emergent strains, but that will still take time even in a streamlined process. In an all too plausible scenario, and given the reality that we do not yet know the production rate for mRNA vaccines, we may find ourselves continually behind if the vaccines must be continually reworked (as is required for flu vaccines).

This novel coronavirus is now highly unlikely to ever be eradicated because that would require a very cheap and easily delivered vaccine effective against the full range of strains, which prevents infection, being delivered to almost all humans and potentially exposed animal populations.

That is highly improbable.

I do wonder what will be the way forward in low-income developing countries, where the effects of the pandemic are already under-reported in the media compared with wealthy developed countries, especially once the shock to humanity begins to subside.

History has shown that wealthy countries tend to quickly lose interest in assisting developing nations, because when citizens’ focus moves their elected officials feel no incentive to assist, and the hard work of engaging wealthy countries in vaccination and other health programs is left to activists and their organisations.

There is one factor, however, that currently exists which has not been the situation for decades; that is the battle for hearts and minds, and ultimate geopolitical influence, between Western nations and China that I discussed in “Investment Theme: Developing Asia ex-China“. (Briefly re-reading this post reminds me of how necessary it is that I quickly complete the post that I am drafting restating my views on China in light of the pandemic and Trump’s exit.)

For humanity in aggregate, and especially the wealthy developed nations with older age-structured societies making them more vulnerable to COVID-19, the best management strategy for COVID-19 is to minimise its spread everywhere on Earth, thereby cutting down its opportunity to mutate sufficiently to perpetuate or reignite a pandemic. However, if the pandemic were even briefly arrested in the developed world it would be consistent with history for the developing world to be left to their own devices to battle COVID-19 impacts. I am more optimistic than I normally would be that high-income countries will remain engaged with battling COVID-19 in low-income developing countries. But there are even bigger question marks on how successful those efforts might be.

As detailed above the vaccines that have shown the highest efficacy at preventing COVID-19 thus far are expensive and require logistics and facilities that will preclude their use outside of developed countries. How beneficial to the developing world will vaccination be is dependent on the effectiveness of vaccines that can be easily rolled out in challenging circumstances. And the significantly lower mortality rate (IFR) from COVID-19 observed in low-income developing nations may mean that, unless the efficacy is very high, the benefits of a vaccination program to the individual and the low-income nation may be limited.

Ultimately how widely COVID-19 vaccines are administered in the developing world will depend on the balance of costs and benefits of the vaccine program, and the willingness of the developed nations and other geopolitically active nations to derive goodwill from such programs.

---

We head towards the closing of 2020 in a truly terrible situation, and I constantly find it disheartening that still there are human beings who suggest that their own desires and beliefs outweigh the pain of so many other human beings.

Through this year my subconscious has struggled to come up with a single, simple statement on this and I only achieved that in recent weeks:

Those who argue for minimal or no measures against COVID-19 are in reality saying “the extra risk to everybody’s health is worth it to me”.

Obviously there has been much said this year about the collective good versus individual rights, and this debate will surely go on in earnest for many more years. My views are clear in my writing and need no further explanation here.

I will simply make two points. Firstly that the innocuous yet invaluable hygiene device of a face mask has become the symbol of individuals’ rights will in retrospect be seen for what it is – plain stupid – and not unlike burning books!

Secondly, the plain numbers of confirmed cases and deaths on various dashboards, while shocking in their enormity, can in no way ever begin to reflect the true loss to humanity. That loss extends well beyond the people who these numbers represent to the years of life cut shorter than otherwise, and to what they might have done and achieved in that time.

The British anthropologist Robin Dunbar is known for developing a guide for the typical number of relationships that humans maintain through their lives. He found that on average each human being maintains relationships with an average of around 150 people at any one time. Of course there are different depths of relationships that we maintain, with our nearest and dearest amounting to 3 to 5 people, and then a further very close 15 friends with whom we maintain ongoing close relationships. Nonetheless connection with all the approximately 150 people in our circle provides us with the feeling of connectedness with the community.

Of course as in all things research, others have come up with different numbers, some less, many larger.

The point that I am making, however, is that if one multiplies the number of people who have died from COVID-19, the official figures for which are likely understated, by their number of contacts then we will begin to develop a truer picture of our human loss. Of course the extent is greater again because the contacts of all who have faced serious challenges against the disease have been anguished. And I think all people of good character have felt a great deal of anguish and pain for their fellow human beings who have experienced direct loss.

I know that some will talk about the anguish and pain associated with apparently lost or diminished ambitions as a consequence of measures in response to the pandemic. To that I would say that perspective needs to be given to the fact that those ambitions are not necessarily lost or diminished but delayed. 

The ambitions of those people who pass in the pandemic most certainly are lost. And the pain of loss for those left behind will persist for their entire lives.

I have attempted to be clear and thorough about the issues that will determine how humanity progresses with this pandemic in the years ahead. Vaccines have always presented our brightest of hopes, and while progress there has been truly remarkable, we need to remain duly mindful that, without an unlikely level of luck, vaccines will not take our lives back to the way they were in 2019.

Besides the fact that we are forever changed for this experience – and that is something that I implored my readers in February to accept as soon as possible, that “the world has changed” – our road back to living a life without a thought of the novel coronavirus creeping into our minds on a daily basis, like when we greet somebody whether they be friend or acquaintance, or when we shop, remains several years away.

However, and it is a big however, I do believe that once this northern hemisphere Winter has passed then we probably have passed the worst of the pandemic impacts on us, if for no other reason than our expectations have been reset.

My predictions on how and when we might be able, or perhaps might feel safe, to do things such as travel internationally are pointless because the answers to those are in part related to politics and otherwise are dependent on our own views on risks and rewards.

What is clear is that increasing proportions of citizens – not necessarily inhabitants or residents – of high-income developed countries will have the opportunity to be vaccinated with vaccines that are highly effective at preventing disease at least in the short-term. What proportions of citizens in each country are (or remain) protected from either disease or infection at the end of 2021 is impossible to know.

The one thing that I do know for certain is that next year, and likely for several more years, high-income nations where residents want to minimise human loss will need to guard against complacency and be prepared to continue to be adaptive and innovative in responding to the pandemic, along the lines that I outlined in my campaigns “Make This Summer Count!” and “We Mask Because We Care“. 

While I realise that a reader disinclined to agree (in general) with my views is unlikely to have read through to this point, if they have I would point them to an article co-authored by Prof. Ian Frazer AC which makes some of the points that I have made above and strongly recommends the very same approach that I have been advocating since launching these aforementioned campaigns.

Thank you to the scientists who have given their all this year. Thank you, also, to the authentic leaders in this world who may be elected decision-makers, appointed Government officials, members of the business community, and members of the broader community. (Yes, implied in my statement is a view that those who do not believe in the primacy of human life do not meet my definition of authentic.) And finally, thank you to my fellow residents of Australia, and of many other nations, who in their great majority did authentically show that they cherished human life and connectedness.

---

Gained value from these words and ideas? Consider supporting my work at GoFundMe

---

© Copyright Brett Edgerton 2020