A New Zealand government expert advisory group has said the country should continue to pursue an elimination strategy to COVID-19 even when the majority of its population has been vaccinated.
The advisory group’s chair, epidemiologist David Skegg, called the Sydney cluster a “disaster,” advising borders stay shut for another six months while New Zealand drives up vaccination rates, which are currently lagging behind Australia’s with just 15% of the adult population fully vaccinated.
The news has made headlines for its criticism of Australia and drastic approach — but despite Skegg’s criticism, New Zealand’s strategy isn’t all that different from Australia’s.
Australia is taking a very cautious approach
Australia has long pursued an elimination strategy toward COVID-19, despite state and territory premiers labelling it as different things. Lockdowns are often only removed when a region records one or more “doughnut days” of zero locally acquired cases.
Vaccinations change this: in countries with high levels of vaccination like Israel, the UK and the US, the focus has shifted away from case numbers to hospitalisations and deaths.
This is a little different to Australia, where we’ve been spared from high COVID-19 fatalities, with less natural immunity to the virus as fewer people have been infected. In other countries, the tolerance for high case numbers may be higher.
The government’s four-phase plan for a vaccinated Australia, based on modelling by the Doherty Institute, lacks a lot of detail. While there are vague references to increasing freedoms for vaccinated Australians and increasing border caps, with limited snap and targeted lockdowns, our strategy isn’t as clear-cut as New Zealand’s. Our current phase of the plan focuses on controlling and suppressing the virus — though again, most regions are pursuing an elimination strategy.
Still, University of Melbourne epidemiologist Professor Tony Blakley told Crikey that the strategies are pretty similar.
“New Zealand is a little more risk-averse and they’re talking more openly about maintaining elimination, whereas in Australia the idea seems to be if there’s an incursion you stamp it out,” he said.
It’s too early to tell whether Australia will maintain this strategy of stamping out COVID-19 cases once more than 80% of the adult population has been vaccinated, as the Doherty modelling only focuses on the first two phases of Australia’s post-vaccination roadmap. The roadmap focuses on keeping case numbers low to ease the burden on health systems and, like New Zealand, estimates border caps will remain low for the next six months.
Blakley said New Zealanders, having lived mostly virus-free for the past 18 months, wouldn’t tolerate even a very low number of hospitalisations or deaths. Their small population, combined with their distance from other Pacific countries, made it easier for them to hold on to an elimination strategy.
NSW’s approach is a bit more ruthless
NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian has said the state will have to reach 6 million vaccine doses by the end of August for restrictions to ease — a challenging but possible number going by current vaccination trends. That would bring NSW to an average vaccination rate between 50-60%.
This approach has been questioned. Having just half the population vaccinated isn’t likely to drive down transmission. NSW Health Minister Brad Hazzard has signalled that NSW may pursue a suppression rather than elimination strategy if the virus isn’t brought under control as a “plan B”.
This could have wide-ranging implications, with states with a more conservative approach to COVID-19 numbers possibly blocking travel to NSW.
South Korea is currently pursuing a similar approach of suppressing and living with the virus, though reached record-high new daily COVID-19 case numbers this week. The country also has low vaccination rates of just 15%.
Berejiklian has said along with high vaccination rates, community transmission would also have to drop for restrictions to ease — but didn’t provide further details.
Berejiklian has always been the outlier in Covid management, and now a stronger variant has come along to take advantage of her ideological stance and weakness. The mantra since Day 1 of Covid-19 has been, and remains – go hard, go early, go fast. Aotearoa New Zealand has stuck to that, Berejiklian has never embraced it nor practiced it. One can only hope that the state which gave us Covid via the Ruby Princess and now Delta, punish her for the mishandling she has overseen, which now includes more deaths than Aotearoa New Zealand has seen during the entire pandemic.
I’ve been hoping, in vain, that Gladys could come out and say something like – “I’m sorry, we got this one wrong.” I think she would have garnered respect for that sort of admission, no one would have marked her down for it, the opposite is probably true. I watched every single daily 11am (our time) press conference last year from NZ (for about 2 months during March-April-May) and Jacinda Adern said on more than one occasion “yep, we got that one wrong but we’re aiming to fix it.” Who would say that here? There has been constant obfuscation and cover up here that frustrates everyone. NZ is taking no satisfaction in happenings here – they want us to get this right but if Gladys keeps playing both sides of the street she risks being run over. The PM won’t get run over, he’s hiding behind the grassy knoll.
For some people are under the erroneous idea that Gladys Berejiklian has a shred of integrity morality and is acquainted with the truth her image has been cultivated by the mainstream media and her corruption has not been widely publicised
The starkest difference between the Australian & Aotearoa strategies (apart from the latter..err, having one) is that in this country the government is not just beholden to but the creature of big biz.
The Shaky Isles are a lot more stable, socially, economically and ethically than this country in having the strange idea that the prime duty of government should be to look after its citizens rather than its owner donors.
Great idea but it will never catch on in a Murdocracy – another major difference being that Moloch has no claws into the body politic in the Land of the Long White Cloud.
Shoddy faux journalism. If this so-called journalist bothered to check her facts, did she watch this morning’s NZ forum? I did, all of it, she would have deduced that Aotearoa’s approach is very different to Australia’s. For a start, they have clear communication – Australia doesn’t, they have clearly understood alert levels – Australia doesn’t, they have a Prime Minister who is trusted – Australia doesn’t – they have a transparent process – Australia doesn’t. They went for targeted and sustained elimination and achieved it – Australia didn’t. They have automatic Level 4 lockdowns that Australia and NSW talk about but don’t have the courage to implement. Their economy is in significantly better shape than is Australia’s – their unemployment rate is under 4.5% – their GDP growth rate is ahead of ours during the Covid period. Do some homework and apply some intellectual rigour to your lazy inaccurate, ill-informed journalism. As if I needed another reason to cancel my subscription. Describing, also, NZ as an isolated island is more patronising bilge from Australia. Further, this morning’s NZ forum was not seeking to pile on Australia, they referenced numerous other countries that they are looking at to garner knowledge, as anyone should be doing. They have learnt lessons and done their research, we have not. Yes, Professor Blakely did suggest Australia’s and New Zealand’s approach was “pretty” similar but for God’s sake, do your homework, he has outlined on many other occasions how the two approaches differed. He knows very well the different approaches they’ve taken and so should you. DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
What on earth justifies this rant? Did you actually read the article? I felt it was pretty clear in explaining that there are differences between AUS and NZs approach, but that in the larger scheme of things both countries have followed, in practice not necessarily in rhetoric, a fairly similar approach relative to the rest of the world.
But keep shouting about how you are cancelling your subscription because not everything matches perfectly your own opinion, I guess.
Yes, I did read the article, after I read the hyperbolic headline. Did you watch the forum? I doubt it. New Zealand did not, I repeat, did not, “slam” – as the author put it, Australia’s approach. She has got this wrong, completely wrong. I am not expressing an opinion here, I am relaying [a] the differences between the two countries approaches and [b] pointing out that NZ did not “slam” Australia’s approach. I cannot find a reference in Amber’s piece outlining the differences in the two approaches, indeed, she claims, incorrectly, that Australia has pursued an elimination approach, it hasn’t. Certainly some states have, by proxy, decided to pursue one but at a national level, there has been a complete leadership vacuum.
And David Skegg did not suggest borders stay shut for a further 6 months, she has verballed him and should apologise. He said border restrictions should be eased slowly but suggested borders could be open to fully vaccinated people from low risk countries. Rather, she went with a lazy headline without, like you, putting it into the context in which it was communicated this morning. Again, lazy journalism and shoddy commentary.
Tell me where exactly has Amber enunciated the approaches being different. You’re wrong. In fact she has tried to conjoin them by stating the approaches are similar. So, tell me where she clearly outlines the differences? A bit of intellectual rigour on your part on this particular piece wouldn’t go astray either.
Your response this time is a lot more reasonably put. And, having read a bit more about the report from other sources now, I think you make a fair point about the headline being hyperbolic. Probably ‘Skegg criticises NSW’ would be more accurate.
So let me explain in more detail what I took issue with in your comment:
Firstly, I absolutely agree with you: the difference between the approaches of the Prime Ministers of AUS and NZ have been significantly different. In fact, I would characterise Morrison’s strategy as ‘no strategy’, as his government has routinely failed to take any leadership at all and constantly shifted their rhetorical position to suit whatever they think the current public mood seems to be.
But as I said, in practice, Australia’s actual approach, lead by the states (with the exception of NSW), has been one of strict lockdowns aimed at, and successful at, achieving elimination. This is the same as NZ, in spite of the differences of leadership from the Prime Ministers. NZ has been more successful at it overall (possibly because of the federal leadership factor, but also because they are a smaller and even more remote country than us), but the actual on-the-ground approach of the countries has effectively been in line with one another. This similarity in approach is what allowed the formation of the NZ-AUS travel bubble, until, of course, NSW dropped the ball.
In your original comment you made a series of statements about the differences between NZ and AUS. However, most of these were not examples of differences of strategy or approach, rather they were differences in outcome:
You also said:
These are differences, yes. But they are not differences in COVID elimination strategy. Strategy is what the article is talking about.
Right here:
And:
You also say:
Yet the reporting from NZ seems to confirm that Skegg’s report says exactly this:
Source: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/126031427/covid19-nz-government-advisory-group-says-borders-can-open-in-2022-without-forgoing-elimination-strategy
Admittedly, I have not read the report myself, so perhaps this is incorrect. If so, please feel free to demonstrate this.
In summary, you seem to be misconstruing differences in the leadership capability between the two countries as equalling differences in their in-practice strategy for controlling coronavirus outbreaks. You then launched a flurry of hyperbolic criticism based on this. That is what I took issue with in your comment.
Now, enough procrastinating for me, back to working on my uni assignments ^_^.
Thank you Sir for our little contretemps – you are a gentleman and even if we may disagree at the margins, I appreciate your thoughtfulness (intellectual rigour applied). Although, if I may, I would hesitate to say that David Skegg criticised Australia – he did say it was a “disaster” but it was said out of a sadness, not a criticism. Kiwis actually do like Aussies a lot.
You are right in saying that he cautioned against opening before 2022 (4 months away) but also said he’s in the fortunate position of not having to make the decision. Jacinda Ardern outlined the phasing of opening the borders vis a vis low-risk/medium risk/high risk countries. You are also right in saying that it’s been left to the States in Aust. to pursue their own version of elimination, which in some respects, speaks to the meaning of Australia as a federation.
Having said all that – we all hope we can visit each other’s magnificent countries sooner rather than later. I have a sister buried in New Zealand whose grave I am desperate to visit.
Here are some links that may give context to what I see as the (slightly) different trans-Tasman approaches. I haven’t scrambled to grab these – I have a 5,000+ library of articles collated over 2+ years as part of a project.
https://grattan.edu.au/news/why-australia-should-switch-course-and-try-to-eliminate-covid-19/
https://theconversation.com/eradication-elimination-suppression-lets-understand-what-they-mean-before-debating-australias-course-142495
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-14/calls-for-coronavirus-elimination-strategy-replace-suppression/12452660
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-20/new-zealand-level-four-restrictions-compared-with-australia/12164798
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-22/coronavirus-eradication-suppression-new-zealand-australia/12172100
https://theconversation.com/scott-morrison-indicates-eliminating-covid-19-would-come-at-too-high-a-cost-135857
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/does-stage-4-shock-and-awe-in-melbourne-mean-we-should-have-gone-for-elimination-of-coronavirus-after-all
All the best with your assignment – go get a Distinction. Another time. Stay safe and well.
I agree with you. Another example of ‘shoddiness’ is the vaccination rate. The author says it’s only 15% fully vaccinated. In fact it’s much closer to 20%, not that far behind our 24%. We do seem to be creeping along in the twenties. New Zealand is moving slowly but steadily, using only the Pfizer vaccine, and has been slightly ahead of it’s roll-out plan since the vaccinating began, albeit with district variations.
To even speak of ‘Australia’s approach’ is stretching – and the New Zealanders can understand that – since, as you say, there has been a leadership vacuum at the federal level, leaving the states to develop or default to their own approaches. That’s where Gladys and her ‘gold standard’ comes in, the ‘woman who failed Australia’, according to the excellent Rachel WIthers article in the Monthly (you can read one free article per month) today.
And NZ is only using Pfizer which means that there should be a lot less transmission from the vaccinated, Whereas, Our Prime Minimal and Gladys are spinning the AZ for all its worth.
This means all the Moderna will need to be directed to those with 2 shots of AZ as a booster to achieve almost Pfizer parity.
Now that the slack lockdown has allowed the Covid19 outbreak to get to the rural aboriginals who are mostly unvaccinated, I feel a real humanitarian domestic tragedy is about to occur.
Shame on you Smirko and Gladys..
Same attitude Trump had that coveid would wipeout afro-americans Latinos and the democrats
You are conflating the federal government’s duplicity and ineptitude with vaccine efficacy. The AZ vaccine is a perfectly good vaccine – it doesn’t warrant your scaremongering. May I suggest you lack an understanding of what a vaccine actually does – all vaccines are designed to provoke an immune response, which is exactly what the AZ vaccine is doing. Whilst mRNA technology (Pfizer and Moderna) works slightly differently (mRNA research has been applied to cancer treatment for a good couple of decades) – there is and never has been (apart from the Small Pox vaccine) a perfect vaccine – it relies on the body’s immune system to build an immune response and AZ does that. It doesn’t excuse the government’s multi-level ineptitude but dissing the AZ vaccine is not warranted. I have been reading about immunology for some years, as part of publications for a cancer support organisation I published some years ago. I ran a support group for 2 years, so in that respect I have a certain knowledge about these things. No vaccine is perfect. Oncology News would be a good place to kick start your education before you try and propagate misplaced ideology. In the meantime, if you haven’t been vaccinated – please do.
I’ve posted a long response detailing why I think your criticisms are largely inaccurate, but it’s been trapped by the auto-moderator. It should hopefully come through sometime tomorrow. Have a good night.
I am yet to notice your “long response”. In the meantime, watch the NZ forum and see for yourself. Amber was incorrect in her reporting. I pointed it out. I have watched every Covid news conference/forum from New Zealand – they stand in stark contrast to those here. I recommend them to you.
It should be visible now. See further back up the comment chain.
My response is going through the same process – awaiting approval. All the best with your assignments – stay safe.
Thanks to Crikey’s incompetence – my response to you still hasn’t been approved – it had a few links. Give this a try – it contains the links that confirm that Australia’s approach has been very different to New Zealand’s. One has worked, the other has self evidently not. I have tried telling you suppression, not elimination, has been Australia’s mantra and now the neo-liberal governments are looking for scapegoats and excuses as far as the eye can see.
These confirm what I’ve been trying to say. Suppression Is NOT elimination. Morrison has trumpeted the suppression mantra, as has Gladys, thinking they were protecting the economy, now it is biting them in rear end. It is false dichotomy that neoliberals still do not get.
I have appreciated our discussion however and wish you the very best with your studies.
https://mailchi.mp/1c5bea7f491d/covid-covid-covid
Thanks for the links. I’ve only had time to have a brief look so far, but they look like a great collection of reliable info, and I will definitely be saving some of them.
I absolutely agree with you in regards to the differences between the federal governments. Morrison has f***ed the pandemic response since the very first days back in February 2020, and has only been saved by state premiers doing his job for him. All the while chastising lockdowns and successful elimination strategies in Victoria and Queensland, while holding NSW and their suppression strategy up on a pedestal.
In that sense it’s true that Australia was until recently (and in NSW still are) pursuing suppression instead of elimination. I think we probably agree on most things regarding the pandemic. I think we really only differ in the interpretation of Amber’s article, where I read the references to ‘Australia’s response’ as referring to the actual on-the-ground approach of most areas of the country (which in most states, excepting NSW, was an elimination approach whether they used the word or not), rather than the official stances of the federal governments, which for Australia was largely Morrison p***ing in the wind at press conferences while most of the Premiers got on with the job.
I appreciated the discussion too and hope you stay safe as well.
The recent Brisbane Delta outbreak demonstrates that we need to stop talking about vaccination rates of people over 16, and start counting the population 12 and above – the Brisbane Delta outbreak was rapidly transmitted through a series of schools, kids being the new super-spreaders. Berejiklian’s talk of easing restrictions in parts of Sydney if 50% of over 16s are vaccinated is dangerous in at least three ways – the age limit is now wrong; she hasn’t learned that locking down bits of Sydney and not others doesn’t work with Delta; and the health system will already be at full stretch before any restrictions are eased.
our strategy isn’t as clear-cut as New Zealand’s
Thats an understatement, meanwhile NSW (gov) are squabbling amongst themselves about just what is their plan.
NSW is a slow motion car crash, in which the strategy changes from day to day, in the first couple of weeks there were (Gladys said) green shoots. It’s all political. Nothing they say means anything, they’re all attempting to save their legacy and political skin, that includes Morrison.