Led by donkeys

I did the same analysis confined to just Victoria. Here is the same, this time for the whole of Australia.

There are 25.0 million people living in Australia.

If 10% of the population had the CV-19, that would be 2.5 million people.

If 1% of the population had the CV-19, that would be 250,000 people.

If 0.1% of the population had the CV-19, that would be 25,000 people. That is one person in 1000.

If 0.01% of the population had the CV-19, that would be 2500 people. That is one person in 10,000.

The actual number of people in Australia who now have the CV-19 is 538. That is 0.002% of the population, one person in 50,000.

The number of Covid-19 deaths in Australia in the year to June, 2020: 102.

Number of road deaths in Australia in the 12 months to April 2020: 1135 which for the last four months comes to around 378.

The largest crisis we have in Australia is a crisis of political leadership.

Just do it or you won’t do it at all

Wall Street Journal op-ed:  The Dangers of Half Measures, by Sam Walker (author, The Captain Class: The Hidden Force That Creates the World’s Greatest Teams (2018)):

In the early summer of 1776, John Adams had grown profoundly exasperated.

King George had declared the 13 American colonies in open rebellion and sent troops to enforce his authority. A declaration of independence, and all-out war, seemed inevitable but still, holdouts in the Second Continental Congress kept clogging the docket with feckless half-measures and spineless appeasements.

“In politics, the middle way is none at all,” Adams fumed that March in a letter to an ally. “If we finally fail in this great and glorious contest, it will be by bewildering ourselves in groping for the middle way.”

One of the hallmarks of a great leader is the ability to convince others to do something difficult under maximum duress. For Adams, America’s loudest voice for independence, this test finally arrived on July 2, 1776, when the matter was put to a vote.

More than two centuries later, on March 29, 2019, British lawmakers convened in London to vote on a different kind of high-stakes divorce proposal: The United Kingdom’s long-planned departure from the European Union.

When Prime Minister Theresa May rose that day to support her Brexit deal, I couldn’t help but wonder if she’d spent any time studying the events of 1776. By the time she’d finished talking, I was fairly certain she hadn’t.

These two “exits” were vastly different, of course, but there were a few key similarities. In both cases, the will of the people was clear enough. In 1776, most colonists supported independence, or soon would, while British voters had approved Brexit in a 2016 referendum.

Political maneuvering had delayed both measures for months, and time was running short. The colonists had a war to prepare for, while the U.K. faced the prospect of expulsion from the EU with no accommodations at all.

The key difference was the outcome: The colonies opted for independence without a single dissenting vote, but Parliament rejected Mrs. May’s last-ditch Brexit proposal by a 58-vote margin. John Adams, hailed as the “Atlas” of independence, went on to become president in 1796. On May 24, with no Brexit resolution in sight, Mrs. May announced her resignation.

If there’s a leadership lesson in these two tales, it’s this: The best way to persuade people to do something hard is to present them with the hardest possible choice.

Although Adams lobbied his colleagues tirelessly, he also set limits. He didn’t cut deals to secure votes or waste time negotiating with the king. He wanted delegates to cast their votes on one question only: whether the colonists, and really all people, had a fundamental right to be governed by consent.

By framing the vote as a matter of principle, Adams boxed “the cool crowd,” as he called them, into a difficult corner. They weren’t weighing another bundle of deal points and compromises, they were ruling on the nature of government itself. …

From the moment she became prime minister in 2016, Mrs. May’s primary job, as she saw it, was to honor the Brexit referendum while negotiating the best deal possible from the EU.

Three years later, on March 29—the very date Britain had originally set for Brexit—she presented Parliament with a proposal that was starkly different from the one Adams had offered. It was, quite literally, a half-measure.

To exit the EU, Parliament had to approve two things: a negotiated withdrawal agreement laying out the practical, immediate details of a Brexit, and a political declaration that would define the U.K.’s relationship with Europe in the future.

Rather than dialing up the pressure, Mrs. May tried to make the vote less intimidating. The more-contentious political declaration, which would ultimately determine the scope and severity of Brexit, was withheld, leaving lawmakers to rule solely on the basic nuts and bolts. In other words, she postponed the tricky bit. …

Like it or not, the British public chose a difficult, treacherous road. Brexit isn’t an incremental issue, it’s existential. In a case like that, concessions and middle measures only give ditherers more pegs to hang their pet concerns on. …

[T]he most fateful moments in the life of a nation, or a company, can’t be micromanaged. When a leader arrives at the edge of a cliff, the best approach is to distill the debate down to one stark, unequivocal choice.

Are we going to jump, or not?

If it’s political leadership you want I have just the man for you

As soon as I saw the title – The West is in strife — and looking for leaders – I went looking for what I knew would be there:

Since Trump’s elevation to the most powerful position in the world, his supporters are finding it difficult to point out his achievements.

This is written like a typical leftist nonce – Graeme Richardson in this case – as he tiptoes past the graveyard of dead socialist ideas. And dead though they be, they live on within the putrid and decaying minds of those who believe that though they have ruined everything they touch, next time will be better. As for PDT, two items from just today:

Rand Paul: “Biggest Free Market Reform of Healthcare in a Generation”

U.S. to withdraw from Jewish-history-denying Islamic-supremacist-promoting UNESCO

As it happens, just yesterday pretty well everyone who had supported Trump publicly during the election met up together for dinner. It wasn’t a dinner about Trump, but just a get together but the President did get mentioned and all of us were still ecstatic that he won. But you do have to wonder what Graeme is looking for if he can write this:

It may seem hard to believe but I am horrified at the thought of ­Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn becoming Britain’s prime minister.

His brand of magic pudding economics will send the country broke, yet his appeal to younger voters is growing rather than ­diminishing. His vows to end austerity and start spending have a ready-made audience as many Brits consider they have been squeezed too often and for too long. Brexit will be difficult to negotiate and the power vacuum at the top in Britain is a real worry.

You know, if that really is the kind of thing on his mind, then PDT ought to be just the political leader he should want.