Compared to the rest of the world, Australia’s COVID-19 restrictions seem draconian. A single case of the highly contagious strain which infected a cleaner at a quarantine hotel caused Brisbane to go into a sharp three-day lockdown (which will be lifted this evening).
Yesterday, NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian took a swipe at Victoria’s harsh border restrictions, urging states to talk to one another before making rash decisions affecting hundreds of thousands of people.
The rules are so strict because — without ever actually saying so — most states and territories seem to be pushing to eliminate COVID-19, rather than just suppressing it. Yet the state not pursuing elimination is also Australia’s most populous.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has called NSW the “gold standard” for outbreak response. The state recorded three new local COVID-19 cases this morning, all linked to the Berala cluster.
Where did elimination come from?
Officially, Australia is pursuing an aggressive suppression strategy with the goal of no community transmission, as agreed to in a July 2020 National Cabinet meeting. Deputy chief medical officer Nick Coatsworth said at the time pursuing elimination would present “false hope”.
But University of South Australia biostatician Adrian Esterman told Crikey Australia’s aggressive suppression approach is just elimination by another name.
“Elimination doesn’t mean the virus won’t come back, it means aiming for an extended period of time, such as 28 days, with no cases,” he said.
States and territories have interpreted this differently. WA Premier Mark McGowan has openly gone against a suppression strategy, saying last week he supported elimination.
Victoria opted for a hard lockdown during its second wave, only easing restrictions once the state recorded 14 consecutive days of zero cases.
NSW on the other hand has taken a localised approach, with Berejiklian reiterating this morning there is no way to eliminate the virus without stopping all overseas travel.
When the Avalon cluster hit, NSW shut down part of the Northern Beaches rather than the entire greater Sydney region. NSW only closed its border to Victoria in July when the state was recording 120 cases a day.
Unity could limit confusion
The differences in approach have caused regions to react faster than they might have if everyone was on the same page, Esterman said.
“You could argue if everyone took the same approach as NSW things would be fine with clusters coming every few weeks,” he said.
But NSW has a track record of fast contact tracing, while other states do not. Victoria has once again struggled. There was confusion following the latest outbreak, with venues not notified of positive cases.
Esterman said that, in light of the new virus variant, NSW might want to consider changing its approach.
“[It’s] the big joker in the pack,” he said. “As we’ve seen in the UK, hotspot and cluster suppression does not work with this strain … it’s just too contagious.”
States need to have faith in the system
Sydney University infectious diseases expert Adam Kamradt-Scott told Crikey that while he wasn’t sure if these states were pursuing elimination, he didn’t think their approach was the right one.
“What we’ve seen in recent months has been a tendency for premiers and chief ministers to have a knee-jerk response to announcements of new clusters. This speaks to a fundamental distrust in other jurisdictions’ public health capacities,” he said.
Kamradt-Scott added that while this approach may have been appropriate during the start of the pandemic, better control and contact tracing systems had since been implemented.
“We need to see a more nuanced approach where state border closures are used as a last resort when there’s evidence of widespread community transmission.”
He added that Australians need to keep adhering to social distancing and health guidelines for this approach to work, especially in the face of the new mutant variant.
“All it takes is a momentary lapse [at the borders]. We need the public to recognise we’re in a pandemic and behave accordingly with social distancing, face masks and handwashing.”
“But NSW has a track record of fast contact tracing, while other states do not. Victoria has once again struggled.” Nonsense! Victoria’s recent tracing has been every bit as good as NSW’s.
Agree, this article is well behind the current state of play.
“state of play”..you must mean India 5-299.
Craig,
Like the Lockdown debate – accurate at the time but now out of date. Too many journalists trying to outmaneuver the Politicians. No facts here?
I agree, the Victorian response this time has been very good, evidenced by the short time it has taken to identify, isolate cases and then suppress the spread.
I live in NSW and it appeared that Victoria was picking up infected people dar quicker than NSW where there are now two clusters coming from Hotel Quarantine. For a time I doubted the NDW numbers coming up. They still are coming up now and we are not out of the woods in NSW. There is too much Scott Morrison in NSW which does not give us much confidence. We’d be like Europe if he had his way
Shambolic, timid and aspiration-less, the Australian approach to Covid. Oh, and then there is the NSW ‘acceptance-State’ approach. New Zealand by contrast has been effective, decisive and successful. Sure, there’s been quarantine leakage, but each instance has been recovered from, quickly. It’s sad that with all of Australia’s assets and wealth a ‘oh well, we just have to live with it’ resignation has been accepted. No we don’t. NZ isn’t, nor should we!
Well said, thank you.
WA?
My comments apply at the national level and include all states and territories. Yes, some have achieved good outcomes but contribute to the mess.
So no comments on the completely successful WA approach. Of course Morrison doesn’t want to mention it, he’s committed to trying to pretend that only liberals know what they’re doing 🙂
Your ignorance of of the topic is illustrated by the those whom you interview to conform your (it seems) own perspectives. Just HOW MANY other epidemiologists wold concur with the remark “Elimination doesn’t mean the virus won’t come back, it means aiming for an extended period of time, such as 28 days, with no cases”. Have you consulted even a basic text on the matter: Frankly, such could not be the case.
Oh indeed : scientific fraud is ubiquitous; the exemplary example being Andrew Wakefield over MMR. It took a while but the truth, as it always does, did win in the end.
Join Janine and consider writing for “new idea” or some such but until you possess a recongnised scientific qual I’d leave it alone if I were you.
This is an excellent article by Amber Schultz. Fact checked and balanced.
Unfortunately, “balance” is a rare commodity among some of my fellow commenters. They prefer the main-stream variety of agenda driven news. Due to their ideological political bent they won’t be happy with any article unless it’s pro lock-down of any kind in lock-step with Klaus Schwab and their great “reset”…and Heaven help us if we ever criticize Dan the Man.
Just ignore them. Everyone else does. Keep at it Amber. You have gone from strength to strength year in year out.
Pray provide an example of your endorsement.
For my part, should you choose to accept my invitation, I shall quote (cpy ‘n paste) from Standard epidemiological texts to refute her, albeit quoted, claims.
Now that would be interesting. Will you quote from “embedded” epidemiologists or the ones outside the circle who have very different views? ..but then again there is always your fall -back position of Fairfax and News Ltd…..and oh dear me lest I forget, The Lancet or the BJM. Yawn.
Facts, Craig, facts. That is how science proceeds. I don’t mind alternative views but there is such a animal as peer-reviewed authority. I have made this point to other writers.
My offer still stands.
Your reliance and dependence on the “Peer Review” speaks volumes of your insecurity.
“Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. Yet it is hard to define. It has until recently been unstudied. And its defects are easier to identify than its attributes.” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.
Look to my first post on this matter where I identified a principal instance of scientific fraud – but, equally, the TRUTH prevailing.
Correct (have you just discovered? ) : we don’t live in a perfect world. Yet there is a research process otherwise you would not have any communications devices at all. Frankly, there is rather little evidence of your impartiality.
Rather than swinging from tree to tree, pray DO justify YOUR endorsement of the article. I’m waiting patiently.
It is actually you who is engaging in bluster.
Did Andrew Wakefield commit fraud?
Would you say that the Pope is Catholic? The guy was fired from his position and struck off from the UK Medical Register.
Agressive suppression is not the same as elimination. Smallpox has been eliminated, it no longer exists in the wild, anywhere on the planet. We are hoping to be able to do the same with polio. Covid can be suppressed, no local transmission, perhaps even not a single case anywhere in the country, but as it is still circulating in the wild and can be reintroduced, it cannot be eliminated.
The difference is not just semantic, we longer need smallpox vigilance, inoculation or public health measures because it has been eliminated, whereas surpassed viruses still require an ongoing public health response.
A remark of counterpoint Prof. It is something of a “call” do declare smallpox having been eliminated. True : there
have been no instances of the virus for quite some time; at least not in 1st world countries. Yet, as we (I’m sure) learned in 2nd year : ‘absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence’. Smallpox was detected from the remains of a Civil War soldier whom had been inadvertently unearthed by a farmer in the 1930s. The virus can hang about for a long time. Such *is* a characteristic of viruses.
However, even if we decide not to ‘bog down’ on the point, given the characteristics of viruses, if we accept the hypothesis that smallpox has been eliminated then it is the only virus (ever to appear on the planet) that has been eliminated. Moreover, its specific characteristics, in respect of immunisation, can be distinguished from other viruses.
Some have made the fallacious claim that if smallpox can be eliminated (that word) than so can the current virus. Thus, taking your last paragraph broadly, the informed would agree. The major issue being the apparent increase (continual?) of Ro which will necessitate ever greater percentages of immunisation just to arrest it.
As to it it being worth the bother : such is politics intermixed with community fear.