CoronaCheck is RMIT ABC Fact Check's weekly email newsletter dedicated to fighting the misinformation infodemic surrounding the coronavirus outbreak.
You can read the latest edition below, and subscribe to have the next newsletter delivered straight to your inbox.
CoronaCheck #99
This week, we look at whether a new study pushed by Coalition backbencher George Christensen tips the balance in the debate over ivermectin.
We also dig into the cost of rapid antigen tests and investigate whether a friendly builder — let's call him "Bob" — really was a casualty in the convoy to Canberra.
Ivermectin still unproven, despite MP's claims
Outspoken Nationals MP George Christensen has taken to Facebook trumpeting a Japanese study that he says vindicates the promotion of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19, but experts say this is wishful thinking.
"A certain anti-viral drug was BANNED in Australia by the [Therapeutic Goods Administration]," reads a February 2 statement posted by Mr Christensen that has received more than 5,000 likes.
It went on: "A Japanese company is reported to have just found the drug to have anti-viral properties against a certain virus.
"Media and politicians ridiculed those like myself who wanted the ban against [the] drug dropped as promoting ‘horse de-wormer' despite the fact the drug is a human medicine."
Firstly, it's important to note that rather than banning the drug, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, Australia's drug regulator, has since September mostly restricted the use of ivermectin to treating specific non-COVID conditions, despite its popularity among some COVID-19 conspiracy campaigners.
Fact Check has written in detail about ivermectin and the lack of rigorous evidence to date supporting its use in treating COVID-19.
So, what does the new evidence show?
The study in question was conducted by Japanese conglomerate Kowa and Kitasato University, with the results announced in a media statement (written in Japanese) from January 31.
It made waves after Reuters misreported that it had shown ivermectin to be "effective" in human trials, a fact seized upon by high-profile US podcaster Joe Rogan and others.
However, the story was later corrected to say the drug showed an "antiviral effect" in non-clinical trials.
Details are scant, but while Kowa's announcement states that ivermectin showed some effect against Omicron and previous COVID-19 variants, it also makes clear the trial did not involve humans, leading experts to throw cold water on the idea that it proved anything groundbreaking.
As Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong, told Fact Check: "There have been several similar studies, the first published early in 2020, that showed ivermectin had some activity in cells in Petri dishes, but what we really care about is treating actual human beings."
"Many things have vaguely defined antiviral properties, and [for ivermectin this was] not really disputed," he added.
"So the buzz about this particular press release makes very little sense."
Nial Wheate, an associate professor in the University of Sydney's pharmacy school, said it had "never been in dispute that in laboratory conditions ivermectin had some efficacy against COVID".
But, "what we've seen in the lab has not translated to what happens in humans", he said, before adding: "The trials that have reported ivermectin as being efficacious in humans have had serious flaws in their design."
"In my opinion, the press release … does not add any extra weight to whether ivermectin is effective with COVID."
Both experts said the only way to know for sure if ivermectin provided some benefit to COVID-19 sufferers would be to conduct large-scale phase III clinical studies in humans.
Some studies are underway, including the University of Oxford's PRINCIPLE trial, which claims to be "the world's largest clinical trial of possible COVID-19 treatments for recovery at home and in other non-hospital settings".
RATting out Labor on the price of tests
The federal government's announcement this week that workers would soon be able to claim a tax deduction on the cost of rapid antigen tests (RATs) will be unlikely to appease Labor, which has called for the tests to be made free for everyone.
The party argued in a graphic posted to Facebook that tests were free in the UK and the US. By contrast, it said, the cost in Australia was "$20-30 per test".
Certainly, UK residents can order seven free tests per day, while the US offers a one-off delivery of four free tests per household.
However, Labor's graphic does not fairly represent the price of tests in Australia.
It says the $20 to $30 figure was drawn from a 9News report quoting the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).
The ACCC released a statement in mid-January detailing its "significant concerns" about the price of tests, which it said were "often costing between $20-30" each despite wholesale prices of between $3.95 and $11.45.
Importantly, though, the commission is tasked with investigating breaches of consumer law, meaning its numbers will almost certainly be skewed towards overpriced tests.
As it noted in an update on February 1 that reported similar numbers, "consumers are unlikely to report more reasonable prices to the ACCC".
The commission's latest estimates were based on nearly 4,000 complaints over the month to January 26, more than two-thirds of which came from NSW.
"Since mid-January … pharmacy complaints were less than 25 per cent of total reports, as many more complaints were received from smaller stores which would not usually sell such items," the ACCC said.
Indeed, Fact Check surveyed some of Australia's biggest supermarket and pharmacy chains, including Chemist Warehouse, MyChemist, Amcal, Discount Drug Store, Priceline, Woolworths and Coles, and found no prices in the $20 to $30 range.
Rather, prices ranged from $12 to $15 for tests sold individually, or $10 to $15 per test in a twin pack. For larger boxes, the price per test was $10 to $12, though some prices were restricted to online sales, and not all retailers had tests in stock.
'Convoy to Canberra' supporters fooled by Bob the Builder death post
A Facebook post claiming that a builder named "Robert" had died in a car crash while he and his wife "Wendy" were on their way to join protesters in Canberra prompted an outpouring of condolences from "Convoy to Canberra" supporters this week — as well as many tongue-in-cheek responses.
"Please spare a thought for Robert and Wendy who were on their way to Canberra," reads the post, which was added to a Facebook group dedicated to the convoy.
"Sadly they were involved in a horrific accident and Robert didn't survive. He will need remembered [sic] as a mate, husband and builder."
A photo of an upturned white sedan accompanied the message, while a comment made by the poster suggested the accident had taken place in the Melbourne suburb of Footscray.
But the post is satirical, as are many of the responses to the "news". A builder named "Robert" (AKA Bob the Builder) did not die in an accident as alleged by the poster, who has since told Fact Check that, as far as he knows, the children's TV character is "alive and well".
In an email, he added that the photo had been posted to a Footscray community Facebook page a day prior and showed an accident unrelated to the Canberra protests.
That accident does not appear to have involved a fatality, with a spokeswoman for Victoria Police confirming to Fact Check in an email there was no record of a fatal accident occurring in Footscray on the day the Facebook post was published, nor the day prior.
So-called "Convoy to Canberra" protesters, who are railing against vaccine mandates, emulating similar protests in Canada, have been gathering in the capital city since early last week.
As for the purpose of the post, the author told Fact Check he found the idea of the Convoy to Canberra "hilarious" and believed that the members of groups dedicated to such protests "don't really read things thoroughly".
"So while I didn't want to make a fool of anyone, I did want to point out how ridiculous this whole situation is and I only know how to do such things through humour," he explained.
"It doesn't take much analysis to see that this post was a Bob the Builder joke."
Scott Morrison caught and bowled on Richard Colbeck's senate committee attendance record
With the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services, Richard Colbeck, facing criticism over his decision to attend a cricket match rather than a sitting of the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19, Prime Minister Scott Morrison recently stepped in to defend the senator from Tasmania.
Asked by Brisbane radio host Neil Breen whether Senator Colbeck should have appeared at the committee hearing, rather than attending an Ashes test, Mr Morrison responded: "He has appeared, as you know, at that hearing on many, many occasions… he's appeared before that [committee] on countless occasions."
Fact Check this week found that claim to be wrong.At the time of Mr Morrison's claim on January 28, Senator Colbeck had appeared at only two of the 55 public hearings of the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19.
In other news: Anne Ruston says the government's proposed federal integrity commission would have powers 'well in excess' of a royal commission. Is she correct?
With the federal election fast approaching, the Prime Minister has not ruled out delivering on one of his 2018 election commitments: the establishment of a federal anti-corruption body.
Late last year, Social Services Minister Anne Ruston defended the strength of the government's proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission in an interview on the ABC's Insiders program.
"Our particular bill suggests that the powers of the commission are well in excess of a royal commission," she said.
Fact Check this week found that claim to be overblown.
While the new body would have some powers comparable to those of a royal commission, it cannot be said that its overall powers would be "well in excess" of them.
The Royal Commissions Act is relatively brief, leaving scope for commissioners to use their powers broadly. By contrast, the much longer CIC bill imposes many constraints on the proposed new body, including how investigations can be initiated and carried out.
In particular, there would be significant limitations on the powers in the proposed "public sector division", covering most of the public service, parliamentarians, higher education providers and research bodies.
There are also limitations on what types of conduct can be investigated in the public sector division, who can be investigated and how much of its work can be reported publicly, in contrast to royal commissions.
Experts said these restrictions undercut the new body's powers in a way that did not apply to royal commissions.
They also pointed out that the CIC would have less ability than a royal commission to exercise the powers it did have, because its proposed annual budget fell well below the cost of many single-issue royal commissions.
Edited by Ellen McCutchan and David Campbell
Got a fact that needs checking? Tweet us @ABCFactCheck or send us an email at factcheck@rmit.edu.au
