BMX track needs urgent attention

What a great photo on the front of The Gazette on January 11. Pity the photo didn’t show the state of the BMX track.

My husband took our three grandchildren there and apent all his time picking up glass and junk. It was a disgrace, you would think our shire would go and have a look.

Whoever approved the new filling lacked respect for the people who use the track.

Perhaps the shire’s health and safety representative should take note and conduct an onsite inspection.

They say go outside and have fun, exercise and be safe!

Dawn Campbell, Warragul

Sutton St delay

So we are four weeks into the rebuild of Sutton St (Hope St to Bowen St) which started December 13, 2021 and still not a machine in sight.

At this rate the pot holes will need repairing again before the construction begins.

I guess it has only taken 10 years to get to this stage so obviously time is only important to the residents of this area that hear the banging and clanging of utilities and trailers bouncing on the repair patches at 5am in the morning.

Peter Driessen, Warragul

Editor applauded

Unlike Keith Gilliam, (''Conservative Dilemma,'' Gazette 11/1)], I totally and unreservedly applaud and support the stance of the editor in her policy of rejecting letters containing anti vaccination misinformation, following conclusive and accepted science.

I applaud it because : a. despite the cherry picking of some, the science is palpably not “often wrong'', and particularly in this area;

b. this pandemic is putting our health system under ongoing incredible, even untenable, stress, which I witness daily;

c. we are dealing with matters of life and death, every day, so simply cannot afford complacency; and,

d. there is no middle ground, and you, Mr Gilliam, are part of the problem, instead of the solution, as seen in the actions of more than 90 per cent of this state,

So, well done to The Gazette and its editor, and please know your community supports you.

John Duck, Trafalgar

Identity politics

Keith Gillam (January 11 edition) says “it is so easy for the unscrupulous to use ’science’ as a means of convincing the masses of things that are not true but which promote their own ideologies".

He is attempting to cast doubt on vaccines and global warming.

He says “Tim Flannery used the science to declare in 2007 that even the rains that fall will not actually fill our dams and our systems.” He goes on to say the claims have proved false. He feels this is great victory in the fight against global warming.

The actual context for Flannery's statement was that he was asked a hypothetical question by an interviewer “What will happen if we do nothing about global warming?

Flannery’s answer was long and extensively quoted the falling rainfall trends over more than a decade as recorded by official statistics.

The evidence clearly suggests that if this trend continues some dams will dry up at some stage in the future. He doesn’t say when.

Flannery is at pains to point out that the experts give a range of possibilities for a given outcome, anywhere from 60 to 95 per cent.

If you read his full answer it is clear that in some areas rainfall will continue to drop and in other areas it may increase. Clearly many areas will eventually have a crisis for water supplies. Flannery’s statement will most likely be true.

Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun is a champion of the climate change denialists and seized on Flannery’s comment, took it out of context and has repeated it ad nauseam for years now as have many of his followers.

He asserts that Flannery is saying that all dams will dry up within a year or so. He and other denialists such as Mr Gillam believe this is a great victory in the fight against ‘warmists’. Flannery said no such thing. This is the ‘gotcha’ mentality that has replaced rational debate in politics and sadly now in science.

This is not how to have a rational debate. If you wish to discredit global warming go back to the evidence. Every decade for the last five decades has been the hottest ever recorded.

These findings are verified by independent groups all over the world.

But no this is silly identity politics and twisting context and semantics and has nothing whatsoever to do with any debate on climate change.

Mr Gillam next attacks Dr Anthony Fauci the director of the National institute of infectious diseases in America. He claims Fauci said “when people are vaccinated they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected”.

I couldn’t find that quote in Google and I suspect it is either a misquote or taken out of context. Unlike the vast majority of antivaxxers Fauci and anyone interested in the truth rely on the data from large randomised trials and these showed mRNA vaccines resulted in a 70 per cent reduction in infections and a 93 per cent reduction in death and hospitalisation when compared to placebo.

Bizarrely Mr Gillam then quotes Bill Gates as some kind of expert to demolish. Gates is not an expert on COVID or vaccination. His statements are irrelevant to any debate about the science behind vaccination.

Mr Gillam suggests that vaccination does little to reduce transmission. Yes, true, someone who is vaccinated and gets infected can indeed excrete virus from the nose at the same rate as infected unvaccinated people.

However they are 70 per cent less likely to get COVID and they excrete the virus for a shorter time so a vaccinated person sitting in my waiting room is 10 to 40 per cent less likely to infect others with COVID than a fully vaccinated person.

This is why Australia has pushed so hard to have the highest vaccination rate possible. We are world leaders for our vaccination rates and have one of the lowest COVID mortality rates in the world.

We rely on high vaccination rates to reduce spread and to reduce death and hospitalisation.

Attempting to discredit scientific debate by selectively quoting comments made by an expert during a live interview and taken out of context is not scientific debate it’s identity politics.

As Mr Gillam stated in his letter with so much irony “it is so easy for the unscrupulous to use ’science’ as a means of convincing the masses of things that are not true but which promote their own ideologies.”

Dr Brett Forge, Warragul

Moral obligation

Baw Baw residents have overwhelmingly opted for COVID vaccination.

Apparently they have evaluated the various opinions and decided to give weight to the views of the acknowledged experts who are honest, intelligent, highly trained people.

A tiny, but often very vocal, group of people find difficulty in comparing and assessing the various opinions and suggest that all views should be given equal exposure regardless of their credibility and the threat they pose to public safety.

I suggest that the media have a moral obligation to make a common-sense appraisal and not publicise the most irrational and dangerous of those opinions.

Eric Mainard, Jindivick

Mindset shift

I really hope that this pandemic will create a long-lasting shift in our society’s mindset.

Perhaps in the future, if we are sick, regardless of whether it is COVID, it will be expected and socially appropriate that we stay at home until we are better.

Not because we are wimps or can’t handle a runny nose or a stomach ache but because we are considerate and don’t want to risk spreading it to our friends or colleagues.

We used to tough it out when we were sick. We’d dose up on Panadol or cold and flu tablets so that we could deal with our symptoms and carry on as normal.

Commonly this would be justified with comments like: “I don’t want to leave my workplace short-staffed”, or more selfishly, “I don’t want to use up all of my sick leave.”

I am a teacher and before the pandemic, I used to hear regularly “my child has a cold but will be okay for school today, just remind them to drink water when they are coughing.”

Three days later, half the class would be absent. Surely preventing others from getting sick is the better choice for everyone.

The lockdowns showed us first hand that staying at home is our best infection prevention strategy.

Let’s hope that our future actions and mindset reflect what is morally right and protects others.

Megan Woolfe, Warragul

Not independent

Voices for Monash are pushing for an independent to stand at the next Federal election.

What expertise or qualifications do the group, including ex and would-be Baw Baw Shire councillors have in coaching and selecting a candidate?

How can that person be independent if they are chosen and supported by the Voices of Monash?

Is it true that VfM and other "Voices for" groups that have sprung up around the country, are only targeting Liberal held seats?

If that is true then these people are only Labor and Greens stooges.

After the debacle caused by the four so called independent members of the Victorian government, who voted for dictator Dan's Public Health and Wellbeing (Pandemic Management) Bill 2021, who in their right mind would vote for an independent.

Irene Broadbent, Darnum