We are rarely happy with our choice of leaders (these days, at least) but these characteristics provide us with some protection from the more extreme elements affecting other Western democracies.
Well, huh. Today I learned something. Thanks.
The alternative angle to "lockdowns that looked like China" is "public health measures that weren't corrupted by corporate interests". Both are highly arguable, and as usual the truth is in the middle.
That's the main advantage of the Australian system - it keeps us somewhere near the middle (or is at least more difficult to shift away).
And overall, the pandemic was handled acceptably OK (there were a few problems and mistakes, such as the cruise ship ruby princess).
Now most of the population had their vaccination, and re-opened, the spread of covid is starting to be large, but the amount of people getting seriously sick and needing hospital is not that high.
It's pointless trying to bring politics into public health - doing so is a sign of political agenda. Comparing a country's pandemic handling to another's, and using the political system as the argument for efficacy (or lack thereof), is just a means to further one's political ideology and not for furthering public health.
Strange how these lock downs remained popular. People were happy to see them go once vaccination rates were up, but the governments who instituted them still poll strongly.
Something about people offering to sacrifice you on the alter of capitalism tends to turn voters stomachs.
And if you really think our lock downs can even remotely be paralleled by China's you're just plain wrong.
If the seat of Durack in Western Australia (1,629,858 Km2) was a country it would be ranked 19th in the world by size.
[1] https://www.worldometers.info/geography/largest-countries-in...
