The most predictable recommendation of the recent Inquiry into the response to the COVID pandemic—some would say panic-demic—is to establish an Australian Centre for Disease Control. Many of the institutional submissions to the Inquiry recommended it. They got their way: more money and more power for the people who locked us up and kept us in fear while waiting for the vaccine cavalry.

When the handbook for managing a pandemic was trashed in 2020 in the face of the COVID panic, would a CDC have held fast against panicking pollies, arrogant medical officers, eager editors and greedy media proprietors?

Why don’t we ask the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention? It started in 1946 with research on malaria control in war zones, plague suppression, rabies and Ricketts, polio immunisation, smallpox vaccinations, severe malnutrition, and many other topics. Now, it is bullying, healthy weight, diabetes, quitting smoking, high blood pressure, overdose prevention, Alzheimer’s, climate change, organic carrot outbreaks, youth violence, firearm deaths, alcohol use, attention deficit disorder, environmental justice, distracted drivers, abortion, elder abuse, e-cigarettes, ergonomics, intimate partner violence, workplace violence, mental health, seat belts, and sex trafficking.

The US CDC may have a more comprehensive brief than the Australian, but the Australian will grow and grow. Institutional and mission creep is not the worst of it. The measure that counts most is how it is guided by science. The COVID response suggests that control and arrogance will strangle the patient-doctor relationship, privilege vaccines with too great adverse reactions, and condemn outliers among medical and scientific researchers. ‘Science’ will be for insiders only.

Witness not only the Australian government’s COVID response inquiry but also these remarks from the latest editorial of US Science magazine, 7 November 2024.

Dr H H Thorpe penned the following,

‘The re-election of Donald Trump … underscores a reality: Although his success stems partly from a willingness to tap into xenophobia, sexism, racism, transphobia, nationalism, and disregard for the truth, his message resonates with a large portion of the American populace who feel alienated from America’s governmental, social, and economic institutions. During Trump’s previous term in office … almost 20% of Americans refused to get the COVID-19 vaccine.’

In response, an eminent Australian scientist wrote.

‘Your editorial said, ‘Although his success stems partly from a willingness to tap into xenophobia, sexism, racism, transphobia, nationalism, and disregard for truth,’ If the Democrats hadn’t lied about President Biden’s health, for years, and held a proper Primary to select their best candidate, Trump might well not have won.

Well, maybe they would have, if Democrats continue to imply that the 76 million who voted for Trump are xenophobic (does that include all the Latinos who voted for him?), sexist (does that include all the women who voted for him?), racist (does that include all the Blacks who voted for him?), transphobic (does that include all the parents who are petrified at the prospect of medical transition of their children who voted for him?) liars with no regard for the truth.

One of the things you might want to promote to regain the public’s trust in science is a serious discussion about the likely origin of COVID-19.’

The editors of Science did not publish the letter.

There is a great deal that could be said of the abuse of science during COVID, from the cruel treatment of doctors who stood against the vaccine mandate, the assertion that vaccines would prevent the spread, workers denied employment because they objected to mandatory vaccines that were barely tested, mask-wearing when it was ineffectual, lockdown when outdoors was the safest place, the harm of school lockdowns to the mental health of children and on and on it went.

The task is to construct a decision-making apparatus that may prevent the overreach of the next pandemic response. I have no confidence that Australians will not cop lockdowns again. We learned too many were wont to follow their masters and dob on their mates. Rules need to be designed to prevent the power of panic. More sources of advice, parliamentary scrutiny, and laws to prevent ‘emergency measures’ that apply in non-emergencies must be constructed.

Society is not a hospital ward. Doctors must work alongside but not ahead of others who must assess the costs and benefits. Politicians need space to make decisions for the public’s benefit, not to look strong in a faux panic-demic.

Gary Johns is chairman of Close the Gap Research