The increasingly partisan nature of politics coupled with the social media echo chamber has led to increasingly tribalist behaviours across both sides of the aisle. The public reaction to almost anything Victorian Premier Dan Andrews does is testament to this.
I’ve been critical of Andrews in many respects, but you have to support a good call when you see one: the Victorian government’s decision to proceed with the Australian Open was brave and correct.
The risk of a serious outbreak in summer, with Victoria’s vastly improved testing and tracing regime, is relatively low. And, if Andrews had banned international players, the risk of losing Victoria’s most significant sporting event would have been extremely high.
Andrews’ critics, of course, point to the government’s double standard: why are Victorians in Sydney (and until a few days ago, also Brisbane) banned from entering their own state even if they quarantine, while wealthy tennis players coming from genuine COVID-19 hotspots are welcomed with open arms?
NSW has had 62 COVID cases per 100,000 people since the start of the pandemic. Switzerland, Croatia and Belgium have had more than 5000 cases per 100,000 people. (Side note: the UK is sitting at around 4600.)
But that is conflating two issues which are mutually exclusive: Andrews can be utterly wrong on banning Victorians entering from Sydney, but also right on the Australian Open.
The #IStandWithDan gang were equally culpable earlier in the year when they blindly supported Victoria’s Peter Dutton-esque expansion of public surveillance and quasi-imprisonment of public housing residents.
All leaders get decisions right and wrong. But criticising the brave decisions leads to even worse government.
Adam Schwab is a commentator, business director, and the co-founder of LuxuryEscapes.com. He is also the author of Pigs at the Trough: Lessons from Australia’s Decade of Corporate Greed.
“…the Victorian government’s decision to proceed with the Australian Open was brave and correct.” – if you are making money out of it, otherwise it is a gateway for another outbreak and extended lock-down.
The well known anti-authoritarianism and irresponsible behaviours of many in the world of sporting competition is well known; letting them in with the high possibility of some of them being infectious is madness – unless you’re making money from it, of course.
Which is why I take anything which this contribor writes with a very large pinch of salt.
I take everything that Swab says with a grain of salt.
Recently, his rejection of the virus becoming more virulent and going back many years to his published beliefs that renting your home was a better option than buying.
With such a short time left before we (hopefully) have some normality returning with a vaccine rollout should we risk an outbreak now? I agree it is a ‘double standard’ with the money making business of Tennis being ruled more important that some peoples lives. Time will tell I guess but with the number of Tennis hero’s testing positive before it even starts I think the writing is on the wall. A potential disaster in the making.
It is a strange risk for Andrews’ to take. Shutting the border with NSW and cutting thousands of peoples’ holidays short was a big call that is bound to have created some (more) resentment. But given that things were quickly brought under control I suppose people can understand. However, if there is an outbreak around the tennis there are going to be some mightily pissed people.
The tennis is totally separate form the issue of returning travellers. They aren’t taking up flights or quarantine places. the government should not be out of pocket for any of it. If tourist want to come home, maybe they need to form a “World Tourist Tour”, submit a covid-safe plan, charter some planes and contract for health services like other big businesses do.
No, I don’t agree with Adam in this case. I believe that the tournament should have been postponed at least until people have been vaccinated. The traveling “circus” of players, trainers, managers, the support teams involved poses far too great a risk. To say nothing of the spectators.
We Aussies have a pretty good record Covid-wise compared to so many other countries and I hate to see this being put at risk before the tournament even begins.
No surprise that Adam would be on board. Must have hurt to say something nice about Dan.
The housing commission lockdown was an error, in hindsight, or could have been done better, and should have been. The lockdown was horrible but inescapable, it had to be done, a tough call from a tough politician.
The Open, it’s a risk, no doubt about it, but those same Melbourne people who would hate to go back into lockdown are the same ones who love their sport.
I think it’s a manageable risk, it just doesn’t look good.
And he should be allowing Victorians back, which he has done. That was over-cautious, but those are the sort of mistakes I’d generally like our politicians to make.