Victorian Covid target amounts to elimination, which is not realistic

It’s possible life will never return to normal in Victoria under a Daniel Andrews government. While the fortnightly pandemic case number continues to hover around nine, almost double the benchmark of five required to ease restrictions, the goal of zero cases over a fortnight, which is Victoria’s benchmark to be met before we can dine inside a restaurant or pub or attend a wedding of up to 50 people, might never be achieved.

Yet as Chris Kenny points out (“We’re sailing into the eye of an unimaginable storm”, 10-11/10), Australia has achieved its two main goals of flattening the infection curve and ensuring normal hospital operational capacities. So why is Victoria pursuing a society-destroying elimination strategy? Before long there will be few businesses left to take advantage of the generous investment incentives on offer from the federal government.

Ron Hobba, Camberwell, Vic

It appears obvious Daniel Andrews is again going to retreat into his safety bubble of COVID eradication rather than take the pragmatic approach of containment (“Restrictions won’t be eased as much as hoped in Victoria”, 11/10). Almost every world expert epidemiologist has said the target of five is a target for elimination, which with COVID is so unrealistic as to be impossible. It would seem Andrews will continue on this manic course and not be satisfied until he has obliterated all small businesses in Victoria and created a mental health issue that will blow out his budget for years to come. His model flies in the face of medical experts worldwide but he and his local “experts” know better. Meanwhile, Victorians sink even deeper into the morass of despair.

Julian Smith, Melbourne, Vic

Trump and us

I read Greg Sheridan’s article “Strange but true … Trump is better for us than Biden” (10-11/10) with interest. While Sheridan’s arguments are well-reasoned and acknowledge the difficulties associated with predicting the direction of a Biden presidency, of some concern to me was the omission of any real assessment of the negative impacts of the Trump presidency on the US-China relationship, which in my view has not served Australian interests well at all. Currency devaluations by China and tariff wars brought on directly as a result of policies pursued by Trump have hardly helped the national interest of a middle power such as Australia, heavily reliant on these two key partners and free trade.

Jon Morley, Caulfield North, Vic

Albo and us

Troy Bramston is right. Labor under Anthony Albanese has been uninspiring, even pedestrian (“Listless Labor in danger of becoming a zombie party”, 10-11/10). Albanese’s honest and well-meaning approach is comforting to some, but it does not focus voter attention. There are no mind-grabbing, well-designed policies, and there is no move away from Labor’s traditional reliance on high taxes and a big public service. Its recent reply to the budget, essentially an election pitch and in stark contrast to what the Morrison government is trying to achieve, lacks economic insight. From what we know so far, Labor will need to do much better to be a solid contestant come election time.

Michael Schilling, Millswood, SA

Labor has proposed increasing the childcare rebate and has said that doing so would kickstart the economy by creating thousands of jobs. I wonder where these mythical jobs that will be created and filled only if mothers get a higher rebate are going to come from? Or, in reality, will the rebate recipients be filling jobs already taken by other women and men?

Also, Anthony Albanese wants to give the rebate to families earning up to $530,000 a year. At that level of income surely they can fund their own childcare and not increase the burden on the taxpayer.

Ken Scott, Mount Eliza, Vic