DEAR News Of The Area,

THE confusion about the management of Covid increases by the day.

How much confusion, anxiety and hardship will be tolerated before it is recognised that we are at war with a formidable, invisible enemy and as such, the Principles of War apply: the more relevant principles are “selection and maintenance of the aim”, “concentration of effort,” and “administrative support”.

Just like a conventional war, there will be casualties and some collateral damage as a few people have severe reactions to vaccinations.

In considering the “selection and maintenance of the aim”, we need to realise that regarding the enemy too casually can give the virus the ability to overload our hospital system and exponentially increase the loss of life.

On the other hand, the more harshly we take defensive action (closed borders), the more severely our economy will be depleted, and our ability to provide hospital beds, care and services will be severely strained: if care services breakdown it would be a serious loss in the war effort.

Therefore, is it not reasonable to assume that the national aim should be to have the most knowledgeable people complete the appropriate scientific analysis and determine the most efficacious balance between loss of life and acceptance of a depletion of the economy?

Because the balance between economic damage and enemy suppression will vary, flexibility and prompt response in the “administrative support” is essential.

In considering “concentration of effort”, the National Cabinet does not seem to be able to make advances in getting agreement between states to maximise the benefits of cooperation.

Do we need a centralised Commander with the authority to force people to get immunised because this enemy has many destructive consequences in its arsenal, and because of this, must citizens be prepared to sacrifice a degree of “freedom of choice” if victory is to be achieved?

Is it time to take politics from the equation and give authority to a commander who can work quickly to establish definitive economics/health criteria as the basis for arriving at the most appropriate balance between economy and casualties, with the purpose being the good of the nation as a whole?

And if this war is won or an acceptable compromise ‘negotiated’ (such as annual injections?).

I suggest that all Australians need to enquire and determine the reasons why so many businesses are so vulnerable to unavoidable fateful events, and why so many children and adults are developing mental illness because of their unpreparedness for, and inability to cope with, stressful situations.

Commercially, the concept of a provisional account in budgets seems to have disappeared from commercial practice: commercial history shows that there are cyclical events that will stress businesses and should be planned for, rather than depending on the generosity of the community to bail them out.

Should Peter Costello’s suggestion of establishing appropriate emergency funds be given serious consideration?

The current level of self-indulgence by many citizens suggests that there would be ample discretionary funds available to establish emergency funds – maybe less self-indulgence and more help to those in need would have social advantages?

Should governments, parents and universities examine the concepts of parenting education so that parents can teach their children the life skills of coping and self-reliance in times of emotional stress from which no one can escape during a lifetime?

I suggest that contemporary society is struggling when they try to solve 21st century problems with pre-global, 20th century thinking.

When this ‘war’ is over, do we all need to think at a deeper level of moral principle, as we ask, ‘why are families breaking down’, ‘why are there over 100,000 (and increasing) children in care or foster homes’, ‘ why is domestic violence still increasing’, ‘why is sexual harassment increasing’?

Regards,
A J TURNER.