Australia Could Achieve COVID-19 Elimination — But it’s Not Common Knowledge

There are two major reasons why Australia is unlikely to eliminate the coronavirus

Most Australians are unaware that we are currently in a position to achieve elimination of COVID-19. Disease elimination occurs when there have been zero detected cases within a defined geographic period for a specified time period (generally related to the incubation period of the disease). An article in The Lancet recently reported that New Zealand has eliminated community transmission of COVID-19, the only country in the world to actively pursue this strategy. Australia could do it too. But we probably won’t.

On April 29th 2020, The Group of Eight (a collaboration of top academics from eight of the nation’s leading universities) delivered their Roadmap to Recovery Report to the Australian Government. The report “is the most comprehensive analysis performed on the economic, social and health trade-offs involved in the national recovery from the pandemic”. The report outlines two alternative strategies for rebounding from COVID-19: elimination or controlled adaptation.

The elimination strategy would require strict lockdown to remain in place until approximately mid-June, possibly longer. Whereas, the controlled adaptation strategy would see the easing of restrictions from mid-May. The report clearly states that the elimination strategy “should lead to fewer total infections, hospitalisations, and deaths, and better protection for vulnerable populations than any of the alternatives”. The report also states that if elimination is achieved, “the psychological sense of safety and social well-being that would result from elimination of all local transmission would allow for a fuller and more vigorous recovery of the economy”.

Whereas, the controlled adaptation strategy “accepts a slightly higher number of cases, hospitalisations, and deaths”. According to the report, this strategy acknowledges that “there is also a risk that the number of infections could spike, and some of the spikes could lead to more extensive surges which may require resumption of some stricter social distancing, as has occurred in Singapore”. Additionally, the report states that it is “hard to predict how confident the public will feel when restrictions are lifted with new cases ongoing, therefore economic and social life may resume slower, even though the restrictions may be lifted earlier”.

To summarise, the elimination strategy predicts better outcomes than the controlled adaptation strategy on three main outcome variables: (1) saving lives, (2) psychological well-being, and (3) economic recovery. Plus there are additional benefits of the elimination strategy with regards to Australia’s most vulnerable populations (e.g., Indigenous, disabled, and elderly populations).

The Australian Government has explicitly stated that saving lives is a priority. However, the easing of restrictions has begun, in line with the controlled adaptation strategy which openly accepts greater loss of life. The Australian Government has not, however, explicitly stated that saving lives via elimination is currently a viable option. The easing of restrictions combined with lack of transparency about available options indicates that the Australian Government does not prioritise the lives and basic human rights of the Australian people. The Liberal party has already demonstrated that they are not fit to lead Australia through times of crisis (e.g., the recent bushfire catastrophe). Therefore, questions need to be asked about who and what is driving this decision making, given the clear advantages of the elimination strategy over controlled adaptation.

Such an investigation requires deeper analysis. However, at face value, there appear to be two major reasons why Australia is unlikely to achieve elimination like our neighbour, New Zealand.

1. Australians are undisciplined. We have now been in lockdown for about two months, but apparently that is long enough. This past weekend saw protests across Sydney and Melbourne, with demonstrators rallying against lockdowns, tracking apps, and vaccines. In fairness, there are many self-disciplined Australians who have demonstrated self-governance and voluntarily locked down, those who share my incredulity at those protesting for their “right” to contract a virus. Also, in fairness to my fellow Australians, the restrictions have been confusing and unclear, and insufficient financial support has been provided to facilitate a stricter or prolonged lockdown. There is also lack of trust, particularly regarding tracking apps and vaccines. Which leads to the second and, in my view, most salient reason why Australia will not achieve elimination.
2. The Australian Government does not prioritise the elimination of COVID-19. This translates to the Australian Government not prioritising the saving of Australian lives over the reopening of the economy. Despite the fact that the Road to Recovery Report specifies that economic recovery is predicted to be slower and less vigorous under a controlled adaptation strategy. This begs the question as to who exactly will benefit from the earlier reopening of the Australian economy? And what other benefits does a controlled adaptation strategy offer to the government? Many businesses are keen to reopen because they have no viable financial alternative, not because they don’t care about contracting or spreading the virus. The ultimate gaslighting has already begun here, with the urging for Australians to save the economy over their own lives.

Australia’s general lack of collective discipline may be due to the fact that we are a young nation. As one of the wealthiest nations on earth, we are also privileged and do not like our freedoms impinged. We have not experienced major national trauma (of course, our First Nations people have a different story to tell, but this requires a separate discussion), like that of other nations who have successfully flattened the curve. New Zealand has been able to draw on the 2011 Christchurch earthquake, which required a city-wide lockdown. New Zealand’s success is also attributable to progressive leadership, transparency, and national trust. Other countries (e.g., Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan) successful in flattening the COVID-19 curve have previous epidemic experience to call upon, such as SARS.

Australia has just recently suffered a national trauma, by way of the worst bushfire season the country has ever seen. But does this offer sufficient experience upon which to call? Or has this just resulted in a freshly traumatised nation, faced with another inconvenient truth, willing to fall back on the same government whose demonstrable inability to successfully navigate national crisis has already unearthed their tendency towards blatant gaslighting and greedy corruption? Have we simply been reduced to frightened, yet defiant, children whose lack of national discipline will facilitate the gambling of our lives by a government who really doesn’t give two shits about us? The average, quiet Australian is pretty disengaged in politics, allowing governmental abuse to occur insidiously.

In conclusion, the Group of Eight’s Roadmap to Recovery Report provides evidence that elimination of COVID-19 is both possible and optimal for Australia to achieve. Australia’s response to the virus has enabled us to flatten the curve, which is commendable. However, an undisciplined population combined with a greedy, inept government will likely mean that we do not eliminate the virus anytime soon. The outcomes are likely to include further loss of life, slower economic recovery, and increased incidence of mental illness. Our most vulnerable populations remain at prolonged, increased risk.

There is more to unearth as we dig deeper into the government’s decision not to pursue elimination. Therefore, the question that all Australians should be asking at this time is: WHY?