Something close to normal life won’t return in Victoria until at least October 26, with curfews lifted, home visitors allowed, and restaurants and cafes open — though this is contingent on case numbers dropping to less than five a day on average.
New infections continue to fall: this morning, Victoria recorded a 10-week low of 41 new cases.
But experts are divided over whether such harsh restrictions are the right way forward, whether elimination is feasible, and if lockdowns are the way to do it.
Is Victoria’s strategy essentially elimination?
Victoria is calling its strategy “aggressive suppression”. But under Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews’ plan, Victorians won’t get to enjoy “COVID-normal” until there are no new cases for 28 days straight.
That looks a hell of a lot like an elimination, rather than suppression, Australian National University professor and infectious diseases physician Peter Collignon told Crikey.
“The final stage is basically no community transmission for 28 days,” Collignon said. “I think that’s very difficult to achieve, and I don’t think that’s sustainable.”
Deakin University epidemiology chair Catherine Bennett said the goal of complete elimination was farcical — especially with daily flights arriving into Australia.
“We won’t pick up every COVID-19 case,” she said. “There’s always the risk you have asymptomatic cases, and cases arriving from abroad.”
Waste water testing, for instance, has found COVID-19 in Victoria’s Apollo Bay, where there have been no recorded cases.
“But we can shut down local transmission … especially if we sort out aged care and health care transmission,” Bennett said.
Does science support the restrictions?
World Health Organization expert Dr Maria Van Kerkhove has said blanket lockdowns are no longer the preferred response to COVID-19 outbreaks — calling them a “blunt, sheer force instrument”.
Instead, she said, countries needed to adopt a “tailored, specific, localised” approach.
In the same vein, Bennett said Victoria’s broad rules ignored epidemiological data.
“I’m surprised we’re staying with a strong blanket approach to lockdown. The approach could be more specific,” she said.
“We have rich data we could base restrictions off on where transmission happens most.”
Outbreaks have most commonly be reported in residential aged care settings, workplaces, educational facilities and healthcare facilities.
Victoria uses the number of new daily COVID-19 cases, averaged across 14 days, as the key to lifting restrictions. This approach has also been used in Denmark.
Other Australian states did not make their lifting of restrictions contingent on specific case numbers.
New Zealand used the likelihood of community transmission to determine restrictions.
Bennett stressed that flexibility was key to enforcing Andrews’ plan.
“According to the road map, if regional Victoria still has four cases on average, metropolitan Melbourne has no room to move … We need a nuanced approach to enforcing the steps. There’s still a bit of work to do.”
But University of South Australia biostatistics chair Adrian Esterman told Crikey that Victoria’s data painted another picture.
“If anything, Victoria should have gone harder. In hindsight, they should have gone into stage four lockdown when they went into stage three,” he said.
“Lockdowns have worked, and we’ve seen it work … I think Victoria is doing the right thing. Cases have dropped substantially.”
In contrast, Grattan Institute’s health policy expert Stephen Duckett said restrictions should be less specific — not more.
“The good news is the road map aims for zero,” he said, though added it was more complex than necessary, with some criteria based on politics over science. Curfews, for example, have a weak evidence base.
“Simpler is better for criteria,” he said. “In the meantime, we need to ramp up testing.”
But Victoria’s success also relies on good, quick contact tracing. That’s an area where Collignon says Victoria’s record has been “really poor from the start” compared to the rest of the country, the result of a highly-centralised and under-funded public health structure. Even now, Victoria has cases from weeks ago without a known source of transmission.
NSW, overseas tell a different story
Still, Victoria’s plan seems more draconian than any other state in the country. Under the plan, NSW, which has so far managed a low but steady number of new infections, would still be locked down.
“NSW is in a different situation, they don’t have the levels of community transmission that Victoria’s got, they haven’t have the kind of numbers we’ve had to move through,” Victorian chief health officer Brett Sutton told ABC News Breakfast this morning.
“Wherever there are grumbling cases that just continue along, there’s always a risk of it taking off again, is it did in South Korea, in Singapore.”
But Collignon said the NSW approach, to accept and manage low-level community transmission until an effective vaccine is widely available, was more sensible and realistic.
“I reckon a good strategy is to have suppression down to really low levels,” Collignon said. “And by doing that, you’ll get elimination in some areas.”
New Zealand appeared to lead the way in COVID-19 elimination — for more than 100 blissful days, the country recorded no locally-acquired cases of COVID-19.
That all changed on August 11, when a new case emerged in Auckland and quickly spread to a cluster, forcing the city back into lockdown.
Taiwan and Fiji both successfully pursued an elimination strategy, though have had limited numbers of imported cases.
Collignon said the outbreaks in New Zealand and Victoria — jurisdictions which both favoured an elimination approach early on — added to the growing body of international evidence that managed suppression was a more sustainable approach than hard lockdowns.
“Hard lockdowns haven’t correlated with medium- to long-term success,” he said. “Look at Japan, look at Korea. Meanwhile, New Zealand and Victoria had the hardest lockdowns and not necessarily the greatest success.”
South Korea, cited by Andrews and Sutton as a cautionary tale about opening up too early, did not go into lockdown when cases started rising again in late August. Instead, churches, outdoors rallies, nightclubs and bars were closed. Since August 27, daily case numbers have continued to fall.
Help us keep up the fight
Get Crikey for just $1 a week and support our journalists’ important work of uncovering the hypocrisies that infest our corridors of power.
If you haven’t joined us yet, subscribe today to get your first 12 weeks for $12 and get the journalism you need to navigate the spin.
Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey
Leave a comment
Sometimes the media does seem to “overthink things”.
Why should trying to get the spread back under control/manageable = “elimination”?
Victoria is completing almost all case interviews within 24h and contact tracing within 48h of notification, and reporting this publicly.
https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-common-operating-picture
They are now, but during the surge of cases a few weeks ago, they weren’t coping.
And it’s doubtful Sydney would have either.
Irrelevant. They didn’t have a quarantine fiasco.
Ruby Princess?
We need the time taken for a test result to be short enough to identify an infectious person before their contacts during that time drifted out of reach. If everyone who climbed on a plane was tested before it took off, a timely detection – before it landed – would allow the whole plane load to be tested again and cleared before they were released into the community. This would at least allow air traffic to resume.
This is happening to an extent in the EU with on air/land (formerly open Schengen Zone) borders being used to demand tests for crossing, hence, better information and control.
Citizens, residents and visitors alike must then (home) quarantine (with local controls e.g. daily/random police/council visits) if no test, and can leave quarantine before 14 days if two negative tests.
Air arrivals into Australia had shown incompetence at various levels from airlines not knowing where passengers were seated and/or how to contact them, lack of social distancing of arrivals, airport/agency personnel not wearing protective gear etc.
Peter Collignon has some valid points but to describe The NZ outcome as not necessarily being a success is failing giving credit where it’s due. Despite two additional deaths, the outbreak from an unknown source is being successfully contained. The NZ overall death rate is remarkably low and even with the disappointing failings in Victoria, Australia is still tracking very well compared with similar countries.
Yes. WA has had no community transmission since April and when I mentioned how popular our closed border was to my daughter in law I was startled at how emphatically she supported it, reminding me of the stressful weeks of our lockdown and how “normal” things are here at the moment.
South Korea is racking up over 100 cases a day at the moment. Doesn’t sound like they have it under control at all. Japan & South Korea also have pitifully low levels of testing per million people.
100 cases, easily managed. Very much under control.
Shonkseer, you obviously have no clue what your talking about, but then this seems to be par for the course, from the other comments I’ve seen on other articles that you’ve made. Your obviously one of the RW foil tin hat brigade so sad you lack any basic understanding of what’s really going on… I suspect the fact that Indonesia & Bali’s numbers are out of control 1000 plus everyday well, what reasoning would you make of this…
Put the matter in percentage (and not absolute) terms and compare that to elsewhere (of your choosing). Taking their populations into account the cases are slight indeed.
The thing is community transmission will increase numbers at a greater rate than this, if it gets out into the community, once the health care system becomes overwhelmed, that will mean they will find themselves in the same situation, that Italy, Spain were in & the US are currently struggling with…