It's remarkable how you've just conveniently ignored how the whole rest of the country sorted this thing out whilst making absolutely endless excuses and BS for victoria.
Wow. I'm starting to feel like I'm talking to a child. I haven't ignored it, I've addressed it. Victoria has literally had far more strict lockdowns than any other state. If you think that lockdowns are the answer and all else is irrelevant, your assertion is insane, because the reality is that the state with the most extreme lockdowns has by far the most cases. It should be clear to anyone, even you, that something else is going on. I've explained those obvious things.
It's also interesting how most of the rest of the country is completely reopened without all the deaths that sweden had, and equally as interesting is how you totally ignored the bit where I compared NZ's deaths per million vs Sweden's
Population density and climate are the biggest relevant differences between Sweden and other Australian states. It makes no sense to compare apples and oranges. You can see that Victoria has conditions sufficiently conducive to a viral outbreak (not that it's significant in itself, but it is a phenomenon which exists) as does Sweden, but despite the presence of the virus and little effort being put in, other states have not had similar issues. Sydney is the obvious second most likely to experience a big outbreak, but a warmer climate, lower surrounding population density and several smaller and/or controversial differences also make Melbourne more fertile for a virus.
Comparing NZ to Sweden is a ridiculous case of comparing apples to kumquats, but what you're not taking into consideration is that NZ is a group of small islands in a remote part of the southern Pacific while Sweden is literally on the world's largest landmass with land borders to other countries and much higher population density making eradication impossible and management completely different and far more challenging, plus the fact that Sweden has now reached and endpoint and has no need for isolation, while NZ must remain isolated and is vulnerable to reinfection. Sweden need not worry and can move forward without the issues NZ indefinitely has. NZ is an oddball case not relevant to almost any other country (with perhaps some relevance to Philippines, Iceland and maybe one or two others).
Lockdowns work. NZ and the rest of the country are very simple and very obvious proof. You are in total denial of reality.
If lockdowns work and are your only metric, why does the Australian state with by far, far, far the most extreme lockdowns have by far the highest virus incidence? You literally ignore the most obvious example of reality and accuse someone else of being in denial of it! It's incredible.
NZ and indeed almost all of the rest of AUS are in a similar position to sweden and yet have a death rate several orders of magnitude lower, and you know it. Don't tell me that victoria is so different to NZ or tasmania or the rest of aus that lockdowns couldn't work there. I know that you don't believe that.
Climate and population density are universally recognised as being two of the most important variables, and they are indeed very different. All official information agrees with this. Of course I believe it and it's absurd that you argue against it.
What I think is that you're bright enough to know all of this already. I think there's an ulterior motive to your posts. You've very clearly stated how much you (don't) value human life
What is obvious is that you're either not bright enough to understand this or you're so brainwashed by the hysteria narratives that you can't look at the situation objectively.
I've never said I don't value human life or said anything to suggest it and it is completely disgusting for you to say such a thing and you do deserve to feel ashamed for making the accusation.