How exactly did Cook "decimate the population" ...what "terror did he create" and how did he force anyone to "sacrifice and change the way they live in order to survive"? How exactly was it an "invasion" when he was only here for a few months, only had a few relatively minor skirmishes that were either in self-defence or the result of cultural misunderstandings , left leaving no occupying force behind and no-one else arrived until nearly two decades later? 
Like most things the issue is more complex than the simplistic ramblings of the extremes of both sides of the argument. There's no doubt Cook was a brilliant navigator, cartographer and his three voyages were major achievements as they filled in large knowledge gaps of what existed on the "other side of the world" for ignorant Europeans at that time.
Where it gets murky is when it comes to his orders as far as claiming land:
Cook's Instruction (1768):
'You are also with consent of the natives to take possession of convenient situations in the country in the name of the King of Great Britain, or, if you find the country uninhabited take
possession for His Majesty by setting up proper marks and inscriptions as first discovers and possessors.'When Cook claimed eastern New Holland (which he renamed NSW) for the British crown he didn't follow this order as far as getting consent from the aboriginal population. It could be argued Cook had a more positive opinion of aboriginal people compared to say other English explorers like Dampier (who despised them) - "The natives of New Holland, they may seem to be the most wretched people on Earth, but in fact they are the happiest people I have ever witnessed" - and that Cook tried to communicate at Botany Bay by offering beads and fish his crew had caught but the locals didn't want a bar of them and just wanted Cook and crew to go away - "However we could know but very little of their customs as we never were able to form any connections with them, they had not so much as touch'd the things we had left in their hutts on purpose for them to take away." - Cook 6/5/1770. There's also no mention in Cook's diary of wanting to seek a treaty to take possession of the land either.
Cook didn't use the term "terra nullius" and did acknowlege he was the first European (as opposed to first human) to visit eastern New Holland in his diary but his final 'claim' at Possession Island on Aug 22 1770 followed the second half of the above order making no mention of the aboriginals being in possession the land nor gaining consent from them which Britain would use to claim "terra nullius".
Now it wouldn't be the first or last time a superpower didn't follow its own rules or rewrite the rules for their own convenience and benefit but that doesn't make it right either.
While it's unfair IMO to judge those from hundreds of years ago as simply "good" or "bad" in terms of our more advanced 21st century knowledge and values, it's us now who are left with the legacy of their wrong decisions and the cost of those decisions and correcting them. Nor does it help by perpetuating "terra nullius" nonsense that we were taught as kids such as "Captain Cook discovered Australia" or (name-)calling someone "unAustralian" or "Leftie" if they have the nerve to be critical of Cook or the British 250 years ago. Instead it should inspire mature debate and rebutal based on evidence (i.e. not quoting Andrew Bolt
) as the James Cook story is a complex mixture of both positive achievements and negative events and resulting outcomes which benefitted and disowned different people in Australia all interwined.
ps. First stop should be teaching people, especially those in the media and cultural cringes, the difference between the events of April 29, 1770 (Cook); Jan 26, 1788 (Phillip/First Fleet) and Jan 1, 1901 (Federation/Birth of our nation). Many mix them up
although it doesn't help when we have the wrong historical date as Australia Day
.
Also how exactly is the Coronavirus "decimating the population" when the death toll so far is still below 100 and less than 0.25% of the population has been infected? How many Australians are actually "living in terror" over it?
But yeah apart from all that -"factually correct"... .
Do you watch what is happening overseas?
Without the restrictions and the lockdown the death toll would be massive especially amongst the older generation which makes up one third of Australia's adult population as well as indigenous population who are more susceptible given the "gap" (a negative legacy effect). Older Australians are scared because they are more at risk of death from covid-19.
