We need a plan B because vaccine not certain to prevent future outbreaks

Your editorial “Green shoots suggest a rebound” (18/9) praises our federal government’s COVID response. This has been based upon the expectation of an effective vaccine reasonably quickly so that support measures can be stopped. Our Prime Minister and Treasurer are even suggesting a vaccine by the end of the year.

The likelihood of one with greater effectiveness than the present influenza vaccine is not backed by scientific evidence. Mutations of that virus affect its efficacy nearly every year. Many develop severe influenza despite vaccination and this is very likely to be the case with COVID-19 as well.

A plan B is required to deal with the likelihood of continued outbreaks causing far more economic disruption than we have so far experienced. Considerable international evidence is showing community immunity developing in nations that have not shut down their economies. A middle path appears to be the optimal strategy: protecting the vulnerable while opening borders and meticulously tracking and isolating all contacts for a 14-day period. Lockdowns of the scale and scope we’ve had to date cannot be continued as a rational strategy.

Dr Henry R. Glennie, ENT surgeon, Toowoomba, Qld

On every objective assessment your paper and your contributors are right in questioning the extreme measures taken by the Andrews and Palaszczuk governments in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Economically and socially the approaches taken by those governments spell very significant long-term pain, not only for those states but the nation as a whole. But will most people there listen to sound reasoning? The forthcoming election in Queensland will tell us. The big wild card is the fear factor, and it will take sustained effort and solid scientific reasoning on the part of Canberra to overcome that.

Michael Schilling, Millswood, SA

Mideast peace

There is a paradigm shift in the Middle East. The Arab-Israeli conflict is over. The signing of diplomatic agreements between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain signals that the Arab world will no longer be held hostage to the Palestinian cause.

Other Islamic countries are expected to come out publicly. Many of them have had dealings with Israel, the world leader in water and agricultural management and a technological giant.

The Palestinian Authority is invited to the discussion, but has angrily refused to acknowledge its weakening position. It has lost its veto.

The American Peace to Prosperity plan recommends Israel extend full sovereignty over 30 per cent of Judea and Samaria, giving the PA border security. It offers the PA a little more land than Egypt and Jordan occupied between 1949 and 1967 plus a $50 billion development fund.

The exact borders will be determined by Israel and the PA. The starting point for discussion is no longer the 1967 armistice lines. It is the American map. It is time for all the players to compromise and move forward together for a brighter future.

Len Bennett, author of Unfinished Work, Ottawa, Canada

Truth or fiction?

Doth it smack of protesting too much when the Booker Prize decision-makers claim, “No one wins the Booker Prize because of who they are. A book wins because of what it does”, and that the shortlist “came together unexpectedly, voices and characters resonating with us all” in “a wondrous and enriching variety” (“Mantel shelved in Booker revamp”, 17/9)?

If all that is true, and the Booker Prize has not been infected with diversity and inclusion quotas, then the equivalent of a wine blind tasting should be acceptable. Let candidate novels be submitted under plain packaging — and let them truly stand or fall according to their merits.

Deborah Morrison, Malvern East, Vic