top of page

Scorecard on National Plan

After six weeks of election campaigning, we couldn't help but notice that government handling of the COVID-19 pandemic seems to be a question that is completely off limits. In fact the mainstream media have said virtually nothing about it the entire time.

After more than two years of restrictions, border closures, lockdowns, business closures, forced masking and vaccination mandates, one has to wonder why Covid had disappeared from the public debate. Considering daily confirmed cases are currently regularly exceeding 50,000 and the virus is now the second most common cause of death, you would think this is newsworthy, right?

The collateral damage caused by State and Federal government handling is there for all to see. Ongoing isolation requirements are causing massive problems in the workforce and a domino of supply-chain and inflationary problems.

So, we decided it was time a full appraisal of the National Plan to transition Australia's National COVID-19 response, was overdue and the eve of the election, a good time to deliver it.

This report card:

  • assesses the successes and failures of the National Plan criteria in each phase against quantitative real-world official data on vaccination doses, and on Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations, ICU admissions and deaths, and

  • looks at the stringency measures, namely test, trace, isolate, mask and quarantine, to determine whether stringency measures worked, or whether they only delayed transmission.

These yearly comparisons based on daily averages will give you a hint that things are not so great.

COVID-19 deaths rates rising in correlation to vaccine dosage, raises some serious questions. Why isn't the media reporting on this and pressing our 'leaders' for answers?

Many of the National Plan measures were achieved, including lockdowns, border closures and obtaining maximum vaccination coverage, but how did they fare in the overarching objectives to:

  • reduce susceptibility to the virus to lower transmission

  • minimise serious illness, hospitalisation and fatality, and

  • protect the sick and elderly?

We have made our assessment and we ask you to look at the results and judge for yourself.

To see our report card, click here.

To view all prior reports, click here.

To support our ongoing work, consider becoming a member today.

1,871 views2 comments

Recent Posts

See All


Sandy Barrett
Sandy Barrett
May 22, 2022

Well said. Deaths are defined if the person happens to test positive. The Australian Bureau of Statistics covid-19 report gives a more in-depth look at numbers dying with as opposed to from the virus, but this is not stipulated in the daily numbers reported. We discussed this in supplementary report 2. We covered our concerns around the PCR tests and the RAT tests and the way they were being used in our first report. The comment about COVID-19 now being the second most common cause of death comes from the Australian Bureau of Statistics all-cause mortality report, which was covered in an earlier supplementary report number 5.


Who says the "virus is the most common cause of death"? I would have thought that Barrett would at least have put that allegation in quotes.

As I wrote on Mr Barrett's other contribution recently:. who is defining deaths from Covid?, because even Morrison admitted recently what some of us said in early 2020, that death with Covid is not the same as death from Covid.

Secondly. who is filling out the death certificates in a medical murder system whose flunkies are under the AHPRA gun of 19 March 2021 enjoining them to support the jabs.

Third, given the recent media habit of inventing new diseases to cover up jab deaths, e.g "Covid-related heart problems", how many of these ja…

bottom of page