Should we do more to halt coronavirus?

Better late than never won’t cut it if we don’t take drastic measures now to slow the spread of COVID-19 in Australia.

Illustration: Eric Lobbecke.

To borrow a phrase from John Howard’s anti-terrorism campaign, when it comes to the coronavirus the government wants Australians to be “alert, not alarmed”. However, they really should be both, because the likely spread of COVID-19 is going to be incredibly alarming unless more is done to contain it.

The government wants to avoid panic, which is entirely understandable. Panic doesn’t help anyone. The problem, however, is that when delivering mass messages to national audiences the goal of stifling panic can risk underplaying what is ahead of us. The Prime Minister said he would attend the football this weekend, for the purpose of calmly managing the economic fallout. However, from a health and containment perspective that was deeply irresponsible.

If the government does too good a job of preventing panic, complacency may take its place.

I have spoken with ministers who are incredibly focused on this crisis, working long hours to study international responses where the virus is more advanced.

One minister says the coronavirus has gone from taking up 5 per cent of his time to 95 per cent. And he isn’t alone.

Contingency planning is in place for scenarios the health system never envisaged as necessary.

My worry is that Australians are either panicking and not helping the situation, or complacent to the risks and what may be about to happen. I worry the government may not be doing enough to contain the spread of COVID-19. International arrivals continue from all but a handful of countries. On domestic air travel, economy-class passengers are still crammed in like sardines. No hand sanitiser is mandatory at entry and exit points of public transport. Few people walking the streets are wearing masks. How many people really are adequately washing their hands?

Laws to enforce social distancing are not being used. Schools — where illnesses spread with ease — overwhelmingly remain open.

I am not saying all of the above needs to happen. But if such ­options are adopted, because the virus is out of control, the public has a right to ask why such action wasn’t taken earlier.

The answer (not the one publicly provided) will be that the government didn’t want to panic people and increase the strain on the economy. Are these adequate reasons for failing to stop the spread of a deadly virus?

Ministers and the Prime Minister like to point out that up to 90 per cent of people who catch the coronavirus will only suffer relatively mild flu-like symptoms. That sounds encouraging, especially for the younger with a clean bill of health.

But it is the mortality rate ­attached to this virus that worries me, alongside projections that millions of Australians may become infected. All of the international evidence suggests somewhere between 1 per cent and 3 per cent of sufferers will die from the virus.

Experts hope that figure can come down, but there are no guarantees. The numbers are higher in some parts of the world.

Britain anticipates 13 million citizens will contract the virus, meaning between 130,000 and 390,000 Britons will die from it. In NSW we are told the first wave of the virus will infect 1.7 million people. The high virus mortality rate among the elderly is a particular concern in societies with ageing populations, including Australia and many other Western countries. Italy’s ageing crisis helps ­explain why it is suffering so badly.

The most alarming aspect of a rapid uptake in the virus is what it will do to the health system. Yes, the economy will sharply contract, but the health system will be pushed well beyond its limits and may be unable to help everyone. The strain on the system will reduce the quality of care for people suffering from other conditions.

Such a nightmare scenario would see doctors forced to use wartime triage methods: withdrawing treatment from some people to provide it to others who have a better chance of survival. That is not something even the generations in the age bracket most at risk of this virus are used to — much less younger Australians watching on as older loved ones die. They will inevitably ask whether more could have been done earlier.

The government says we don’t need to shut down our borders. But it said we didn’t need a travel ban on Italy. Now we have one. It denied the need for a large-scale stimulus package. This week one was announced.

Scott Morrison claimed this crisis wouldn’t match up to the GFC. Now he says it could be worse. Early on the Education Minister criticised private schools for insisting students returning from China self-isolate.

Think about how often the government shifts — perhaps too late — before you accept what it is currently telling us. No movement yet to shut borders, or to force social separations, a late ban on major public events. No forced closure of schools and universities — or at least shifting to online learning. Such actions would have enormous ripple effects as parents are forced to stay home and look after children. But is fewer people at work such a bad thing as we try and contain this virus? Other than nurses and doctors needing to stay home to supervise their children.

If such moves happen down the track, will it be too late to stop millions of people catching COVID-19 and tens of thousands of Australians dying from it?

This government has been late when it comes to necessary action right across the public policy spectrum for years now. On this issue, the old adage “better late than never” won’t cut it.

Peter van Onselen is political editor for the Ten Network and professor of politics and public policy at the University of Western Australia and Griffith University.