EXPERT REACTION: COVID-19 Response Inquiry Report

What happened to the QR code data gathered during the COVID-19 pandemic; and for what it's worth the COVIDSafe data also gathered? We still don't know exactly. We can only speculate it was destroyed. We can only have privacy by design when we know where our data is being stored, and how it is being stored, and who has access to it.

This inquiry has done well to speculate that we need better technical infrastructure preparedness before a future critical event happens nationally or internationally, but it has provided limited information on timeframes and when that investment might take place. Yes, privacy, trust and human rights need to be emphasized but I would also add the mention of the co-design methodology has to be more prevalent in building new complex sociotechnical systems using a human-centered approach with citizens and not for them.

Too much tech fails because the end-users and other stakeholders are completely ignored. Let's not let that happen again at a national scale for large-scale technical systems that are supposed to serve the public interest and national security.

It’s excellent to see that the fundamental importance of public health communication has been highlighted by the COVID-19 Response Inquiry Report. Effective communication is essential for a successful pandemic response, and importantly, the need for information tailoring, coordination and two-way exchange with the public are also clearly recognised. The role for high-quality, timely evidence to inform decisions and work to build public trust are also critical and highlighted.

Planning for an equitable pandemic response is additionally, and rightly, a major pillar of the report, but it’s not clear that this extends far enough to account for those who are chronically ill and at heightened risk living in the community. For many of these people, the current pandemic has not ended.

The need for tailored information and tangible support for these groups has never been more pressing in this fifth year of the COVID-19 pandemic yet is still - remarkably - largely overlooked. Future responses to national health emergencies need to learn from this and to act so that no-one is left behind. 

One of the report's medium-term actions is for teacher educators to develop and deliver training on remote learning, and for this to be included in the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers  (see page 25). This is a useful recommendation, but the devil is in the detail. My experience as a teacher educator in digital technologies - as well as a parent of teenagers who lived through the COVID era in locked-down Melbourne - bears out the reports of young people's isolation, lost opportunities for connection, and mental health impacts that are outlined elsewhere in the document.

The change to COVID-era remote learning was sudden and brutal, and did not provide families, teachers and students with the ability to adjust. I propose that any such training should not only provide teachers with the technical ability to run remote learning activities, but also the explicit skills to help students mitigate impacts such as finding positive ways to connect with friends, creating routines that incorporate off-screen activities, physical activity, and healthy social media engagement.

In other words, a digital literacy that deals specifically with pandemic conditions, aims for balanced living in less-than-balanced times, and includes advice from health and wellbeing professionals as well as technology or learning experts.

The report is comprehensive. There are no surprises. It shows that Australia was not well prepared for a pandemic of the duration of COVID-19 and its extent, moving well beyond the domain of health to affecting the cohesiveness of society itself. Despite this, we did well in comparison to other nations, thanks to strong decisions by our political leadership early in the pandemic, and the populace's initial compliance with restrictive measures and wonderful uptake rates of the COVID-19 vaccines.

As the pandemic continued, the perceived lack of transparency about restrictions, and the evidence for them, and the open disagreement amongst State/Territory and Federal leadership, eroded trust. Vaccine mandates appear to have had a similar effect.

Communication about vaccines came from various government sources, and could have been better. And while many of the implemented measures had a positive impact on the pandemic itself, the collateral damage was inequity of the effects of the pandemic on women and Culturally and Linguistically Diverse groups, casualties amongst systems with fundamental problems such as the residential care system, and possibly reduced uptake of vaccines in general.

The importance of a united State and Federal leadership presenting evidence-based messages in a transparent manner is vital for the next pandemic. The report places a big burden on the new Australian Centre for Disease Control to be at the forefront of providing many of these solutions. But as a Federal organisation, having to get autonomous State and Territories on board with agreed strategies for the next pandemic, it will be an unenviable task for the CDC's first Director-General.

The COVID-19 inquiry report has found that scientists and health experts were the most trusted sources of COVID-19 information in Australia, but it also found that many of our key experts were prevented from fully engaging with the media and the public. This fuelled distrust and allowed commentary by everyone except the experts best placed to explain.

I'm pleased to see the report focus on the need for more open and transparent communication and to have the evidence communicated to the public by the people who best understand it. Scientists and other experts from universities and research organisations around Australia played a vital role in helping the public understand the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trusted communication relies on openness and we welcome any steps to improve the transparency of the advice that informs government decisions.

It is also important that the report acknowledges the increases in online harassment, bullying, and threats directed at health experts during the pandemic.  The report makes clear that this could affect expert's willingness to publicly engage in a future crisis. The AusSMC has recently developed resources to help experts deal with this issue but more must be done to support experts who engage with the media and the public.

The Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases (ASID) commends the key recommendations arising from the Australian Government’s COVID-19 response inquiry report, released today. We strongly support the immediate recommendation for the permanent establishment of an Australian Centre for Disease Control (CDC), a key vehicle that ASID considers critical for enhancing Australia’s response to pandemics and other emerging infectious disease threats.

We also applaud the emphasis on vulnerable groups, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, children and young people, persons from diverse backgrounds, the homeless, and persons living with a disability.

Inclusion of health communication expertise in the CDC is an essential component in bridging the gap between health experts and the community to help build trust in healthcare interventions, including immunisations and novel therapies. Given the extensive stakeholder input into the review and importance of the advice to the Australian population, ASID considers all the recommendations should receive bipartisan support.

It is very good to see the emphasis in the report on the mental health impacts of the pandemic, its particular relevance to key subgroups (most notably children and young people) and the ways in which various government responses may facilitate better mental health or at least help to reduce the longer-term impacts of the viral illness itself or its social consequences (such as prolonged isolation, loss of opportunities for normal social development).

In the future, these factors need to be upfront in terms of decision-making, planning and provision of key support services. Its clear that alongside social responses we need a well-functioning mental health system to be in place to provide the essential safety net for those who are in greatest need.

This is a report of an expert panel convened by the government to undertake a comprehensive inquiry into Australia’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the development of recommendations for the future. The panel reviewed published evidence, met with stakeholders from a broad range of settings, and considered the views expressed in thousands of written submissions from community groups and individuals.

In terms of the pandemic response, the panel found that early management was well led and cohesive across jurisdictions. However, this approach fragmented over time under the pressures of over-stressed surveillance and health provider services, stockpiles of protective equipment proving inadequate for the extent of the emergency, as well as jurisdictional-specific political imperatives. The impact of this on the public was reduced trust in the authorities and scientific evidence, with pandemic activity often perceived to be at odds with freedom and human rights.

In addition to building structural capacity to collect, identify and monitor epidemiological data, many of the more important recommendations of the report are about improving collective action by centralising pandemic management, particularly through the establishment of an Australian Centre for Disease Control. It is difficult to argue with the establishment of such an institution. A single scientific authority would also greatly facilitate the recommended national communication strategy for use in national health emergencies, particularly if specific efforts are made to allow for culturally and linguistically appropriate messaging for all Australians.

The COVID-19 response report represents an important way forward in terms of preparedness for a future pandemic. It captures and highlights many of the concerns experienced with the recent COVID-19 pandemic which need to be considered carefully before a future pandemic. It is not clear how some of the actionable items will be achieved and where these will overlap between federal/state health departments and the establishment of a Centre for Disease Control (CDC). This document is a first step in the right direction, but considerably more detail is required to ascertain if actionable items are achievable in the time frames provided before another pandemic.
 
While all the considerations raised in the document are of importance perhaps the most crucial is having a clear way to disseminate information as to what action to follow in a pandemic. In the recent pandemic this direction varied, changed regularly, and came from federal and state health authorities, specialist groups (ATAGI) and considerable disinformation from social media often from outside the country. This left the public confused as to which approaches to follow and suspicious of others. Centralised Australia-wide action plans need to be implemented for the next pandemic. This is highlighted in the report but how (or if) this will be implemented quickly and effectively is still uncertain.

Australia’s COVID-19 response inquiry report adds to the national knowledge contained in reports chronicling and discussing the performance of governments, institutions, and the community at large in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The report clearly emphasises the importance of a comprehensive, coordinated approach that considers health, economic, and social impacts of pandemic decisions, and rightly so. The need for better preparedness, an emphasis on protecting priority populations, and addressing health inequities are welcome recommendations, as is the recognition of the need to rebuild public trust in government and scientific advice.

From an infection prevention and control (IPC) perspective, the report highlights the necessity of flexible, evidence-based decision-making processes that can adapt to evolving risks. It also underscores the critical role of cross-sector collaboration, including government, community groups, experts, and industry.

With the report stating that “Infection prevention and control can be an effective tool to manage virus spread; however, clear guidance must be provided to ensure all Australians can access information on how to appropriately enact it” (p244), it is vital IPC is included in the remit of the Australian Centre for Disease Control to ensure industries and areas outside of the healthcare setting have access to contemporary and appropriate IPC information.

In response to the rather inadequate planning and governance we experienced during the recent pandemic, the Commonwealth Government's COVID-19 Response Inquiry Report is well-received in terms of the nine recommendations and 26 actions that are predicted to be foundational for pandemic preparedness and community resilience. What is potentially lacking in the nine recommendations and likely to have an equal impact on all nine recommendations is a "data-centric and data sharing" approach to informing and managing the direct of a pandemic and the subsequent social and economic fallout in individual states and across the country.

The limited transparency on data relating to infection trends, transmission pattern, virus associations, as well as the data and impact of decisions, evaluation of such decisions related to policies implemented at the state and federal level. Data driven approaches could have informed operational and strategic decision making, for instance how much transmission could be suppressed through lockdowns, optimised vaccination strategies and communities of care for high transmission areas.

Also, more effective data sharing would have enabled comparison of state-based strategies, federal strategies with strategies adopted in other OECD countries. Therefore, I would like to propose "data-centric and data sharing" as a potential tenth recommendation for Australia's preparedness for future pandemics.

Conflicts on how to respond to COVID-19, as it was happening, were commonly about a clash of ethical values. In other words, the main conflicts were about what was the right thing to do at a given moment in time given various degrees of uncertainty, e.g., closing schools and playgrounds, border control, vaccine mandates, etc.

Ethics - and key values such as justice and solidarity - are practicably absent in the Prime Minister's COVID-19 inquiry report. It's a missed opportunity that will gravely affect Australia's response to future infectious disease outbreaks and pandemics.

These are very good ideas especially surrounding the establishment of the Australian Centre for Disease Control. I think it is important to stress that research on long COVID is essential, especially to understand its long-term impact on our brain and to better manage the brain’s deterioration as a consequence of COVID.

The COVID-19 pandemic underscored significant gaps in equity and support for many university students, especially those facing additional disadvantages. These two reports make it clear: we must prioritise preparedness that includes all students, regardless of background, by ensuring digital access, economic support, and mental health resources, among other things.

It is striking that so many students had to switch to an online and remote experience almost overnight. But this leap revealed that many disadvantaged students were ill-equipped, providing us with useful insights about better managing the higher education system in a period of severe crisis.

The Australian Centre for Student Equity and Success (ACSES) stands ready to support efforts that close these equity gaps. We are committed to working with government, universities, and community leaders to build resilience and secure equitable educational opportunities, ensuring every student can thrive—even in challenging times.

Key positives from the report:

The report emphasises Australia's achievement in mitigating health and economic impacts compared to global counterparts, showcasing early adoption of cross-jurisdictional coordination and decisive action through the National Cabinet model. This body allowed for unprecedented, rapid collaboration between federal, state, and territory governments, streamlining responses and ensuring consistency in public health guidance.

The economic relief package, notably JobKeeper, safeguarded employment and economic stability, providing timely support to households and businesses alike. Australia's approach to transparent and accessible public communication was particularly effective in building public trust and compliance with health measures.

The inquiry commends the Commonwealth for its dedicated public health workforce and supply chain adaptations, which enabled rapid mobilisation of resources to vulnerable communities and essential services. The strategic use of evidence-based decision-making underscored Australia’s commitment to safeguarding the health of priority populations, including culturally and linguistically diverse groups, First Nations communities, and people with disabilities.

Medium-term Actions and Enhancements

Building on these successes, the report identifies medium-term actions that would further bolster Australia’s preparedness:

1. Data Systems and Surveillance: A significant recommendation is to advance Australia’s health data and surveillance infrastructure, enhancing its capacity for real-time response and adaptability. Expanding cross-sector data integration across economic, health, and social domains would enable Australia to respond with even greater precision and timeliness.
2. Pandemic Simulation and Training: Routine national pandemic simulation exercises across government tiers are advised to ensure a responsive, agile workforce. Leveraging learnings from international best practices, such as South Korea’s rapid and well-coordinated contact tracing, Australia’s public health response could benefit from ongoing inter-agency training that aligns with global models in pandemic agility.
3. Community Trust and Transparent Communication: Recognizing the value of public trust established during the pandemic, the report suggests developing permanent advisory structures for ongoing engagement with diverse communities. These structures would ensure timely, transparent information sharing and enhance public compliance in future emergencies. The focus on transparency in decision-making, particularly through co-designed communication strategies, would strengthen community trust in government directives, ultimately supporting broad-based health compliance.
4. Supply Chain and Domestic Resilience: Recommendations to fortify supply chains emphasise enhancing local manufacturing capabilities and increasing stockpile management. Inspired by nations like Germany and Japan, which maintained strong supply resilience, Australia’s focus on strategic reserves and diversified supply channels is highlighted as key to future resilience.

In addition to local successes, Australia’s response framework could benefit by adapting certain practices from nations like Taiwan and Singapore. These countries effectively used digital contact tracing and real-time community feedback mechanisms to limit virus spread. By enhancing existing systems with similar rapid-response digital tools and decentralised data collection methods, Australia could strengthen its localised response capabilities, preparing for varied future health threats. Additionally, New Zealand’s culturally nuanced approach to public health messaging helped foster community trust (a model Australia can expand upon in its communication with Indigenous and rural communities).