Costly coronavirus lockdowns doing more harm than good

Qantas has measures under its Fly Well campaign to bring peace of mind to domestic travellers but borders need to be reopened first. Picture: Qantas

Scientific data published in The Lancet last month shows that lockdowns and border closures do not make a difference in avoiding critical COVID-19 infections nor deaths. And when considering the cases of Sweden (no lockdown), the UK (three months’ hard lockdown), Queensland (softer lockdown) and Victoria (hard lockdown), it is clear lockdowns, hard or soft, do not appear to be very effective. What does appear effective is targeted broad testing, then effective contact tracing and containment – and learning to live with the virus.

Assuming the main purpose of COVID-19 containment is to minimise the deaths and, later, get reasonable economic outcomes, it make sense to spend money and other resources on prevention – protecting the vulnerable such as the old and the unwell, particularly those in aged care and hospital. In Sweden and the UK they failed to do this and suffered the consequences, as has Victoria. Had a tiny fraction of the $100bn cost of JobKeeper been spent doing this from the start we’d all be much happier and living with this viral outbreak. The economy would also be in a much better position.

All Australian governments have a policy of suppression or containment – not elimination or eradication. Remember, the whole reason for suppression was so our ICU beds were not overwhelmed; in other words, living with COVID-19 in one way or another. Can we trust our leaders and health officials that living with this virus is the aim rather than eradication, which is the same as no community transmission. According to experienced epidemiologists, eradication is destined to failure, as we have seen in Victoria, NSW and now New Zealand and Queensland.

Seeking eradication probably entails shutting a state (such as WA) off from the rest of the world for many months, possibly years.

Everyone is hoping for a vaccine and there appears a reasonable chance of one with some efficacy in the first half of next year. However, chances are the chosen vaccine or vaccines will have some limits in their effectiveness and duration. That means possibly being vaccinated every year or two for healthcare workers and those at risk, and for those travelling or visiting our vulnerable in aged care or hospital. Initial vaccines will probably be effective in only some cases. Widespread vaccination would still work to help suppress the infection rates but not eradicate the virus.

So we will need plans to live with COVID-19. A country like Australia needs to start accepting there will be skills and practices that we need to be honing now so we can become more proficient at testing and tracing. Practice makes perfect. We won’t have those skills if it appears to have been eradicated, but perhaps only for a short period. Then we might find ourselves off balance and overconfident should the second or third wave come. And it will.

We must accept this virus is not going to be eradicated globally too soon. So let’s learn to live with it.

If we have a vaccine with moderate efficacy (say 60 per cent effective for two years) and we have widespread community vaccination and co-ordinated global travel protocols this virus will end up a bit like another flu – just more contagious and more dangerous for the old and unwell. But we – and others – must develop and retain the skills and resources to be able to test widely at identified hotspots, become experts at contact tracing and make sure the community is on board and co-operative in being tested and self-isolating. Scaremongering and threats of punishment for minor infractions will not help anybody.

Having learnt to live with the virus and becoming good at tackling hotspots without hard lockdowns, it is now important for business to know the process and goals for border openings. We know there are going to be further outbreaks and we know the main goal is containment not elimination. Information about border openings that is transparent and easily understood is important for business and the community. This is what the national cabinet agreed to in the beginning. We also need fast, effective processes at our airports. The UK travel industry is putting a plan to Westminster that involves a quick blood test at the airport before departure. If the traveller is negative then at their UK destination they self-isolate for three days before another test. This will capture more than 90 per cent of infections while easing the burden of a 14-day isolation as is required for travellers from some countries today. The UK uses data on countries of active cases per 100,000 to decide what countries’ travellers must isolate or not and this could be adopted internationally.

Queensland and Tasmania have economies and workforces heavily reliant on tourism, travel, events and hospitality. As we learn to live with COVID-19, these states desperately need borders open. Airports and airlines are in a great position to control people crossing borders through testing, wearing of masks and contact tracing if needed. But we all must know what are acceptable and workable protocols at airports, and what are the goals for state and international borders to open.

Graham Turner is founder and managing director of Flight Centre Travel Group.