Melburnians have experienced their first taste of freedom. Shaggy locals can get their hair cut; joggers can go for as many runs as they like; up to 10 people from two households can meet outdoors for a picnic or to play tennis; and two guests can visit at home in regional Victoria.
After more than 100 days of one of the strictest lockdowns in the world, it’s a breath of fresh air. But the new rules have left epidemiologists divided, with some arguing there’s no evidence to support the slow-moving easing of restrictions.
Epidemiologists divided
In an opinion piece in The Age yesterday, three public health experts criticised Melbourne’s slow response, arguing there was no logic behind the radius bubble.
University of Sydney public health Emeritus Professor Bruce Armstrong told Crikey the Victorian approach was overly cautious.
“They’ve got to the position where the system is performing well and they should be able to maintain [low case numbers] providing there are no massive mistakes,” he said.
Meanwhile, University of South Australia biostatistics Professor Adrian Esterman told Crikey the approach was the right one to take: “Other epidemiologists have not agreed with me … But they’ve taken a very sensible approach and it’s worked. Why risk that?”
There’s no evidence for anything, actually
Monash University medicine Professor Paul Komesaroff told Crikey there was little evidence to support the 25km radius bubble.
“There’s nothing convincing one way or the other,” he said.
But that sentiment isn’t limited to travel bubbles — evidence for most COVID-19 social measures is scant.
“You’d have to devise a study with two different populations and compare the rate of propagation,” Komesaroff said. “Collecting data for anything like that is very difficult, governments have to depend on rational arguments or inferences … The rules are based on value judgements.”
Victoria’s success in curbing COVID-19’s spread isn’t down to one factor or another, but the effect of all of them. Komesaroff likened the easing of restrictions to moving off medication — a doctor would reduce the dose rather than take the patient off a drug altogether, to help moderate variables.
“Whether an individual element of the response package had efficacy, or whether it as a whole was effective … no one knows and I would say no one will ever know,” he said.
“The question is not how variable are factors A, B or C, but how prudently do we adjust a complex system.”
How does Victoria compare to the rest of the world?
Melbourne’s lockdown has been called one of the harshest in the world.
While the city’s targets may be stricter than most, the roadmap looks pretty similar to a lot of other countries.
Travel radiuses have previously been implemented in Europe. Italians weren’t allowed to travel between regions when lockdowns were eased in May, while French citizens were limited to a 100km bubble.
Outdoor gatherings have slowly been allowed in Hong Kong, with groups of four allowed to meet outdoors, and weddings limited to 20 attendees — though there’s no food or drink allowed.
South Korea has similarly barred sit-down dining at cafes, bakeries and ice cream parlours, while also limiting outdoor gatherings to 100 people.
Curfews aren’t uncommon either, with the UK and France implementing night time movement restrictions amid a second wave.
Komesaroff said comparing Australia’s restrictions to case numbers showed how well the country was faring.
“Was the response appropriate or inappropriately rigorous? Well, it was a genuine emergency and serious disaster,” he said.
“The overwhelming consensus in the medical community is we won’t get another chance at this, and the government’s strategy of dealing with it forcefully has been the appropriate one.”
It seems that no matter what Dan Andrews decides, largely based on advice received from medical experts, he comes in for a shellacking. The Murdoch press is frothing at the mouth and produces a relentless barrage of outrage in opinion pieces and editorials with the clear intention of bringing the premier down.
Dan is tired and it is obvious this daily battering is wearing him down, but he turns up each day to deal politely with the same nasty accusations from the same cohort of embittered reporters.
Several mistakes were made when major decisions involved in developing and implementing strategies had to be made within hours. These errors were mainly due to inept oversight and blurred lines of responsibility, The results were catastrophic by our national standards, but even now Victoria’s statistics are quite respectable by international comparison. The State is now tracking NSW in case numbers and control but, quite sensibly, Dan wants to consolidate for a week or so to confirm that these numbers are reliable before easing further.
Quite disgracefully, the outbreak in Victoria has been an excuse for political game playing at a quite sordid level by the LNP, goaded on by its media ally, News Limited.
Victoria is enormously resilient and If all goes well, will come bounding out of confinement in late November to supercharge Australia’s recovery. Dan will then be seen as a stalwart hero who worked doggedly towards this goal despite the execrations and undermining he has had to endure.
He will retire as premier when he chooses, not as a result of the deluge of crap heaped upon him. There will be no challenge to his leadership. If he decides to contest the election in two years, he will be returned to office.
It’s called character.
Something this article misses entirely is the importance of testing, testing, testing of sample populations both controlled (e.g. short sharp lock downs) and random to allow deep data testing, analysis and informing.
Related to leadership, if the Libs are not careful, Andrews may retire early after reopening the door for a return of Bracks…… Unlikely, but it is often the good MPs who retire from politics early e.g. Combet, Wong (threatened) et al.; most have significant bipartisan support.
Character? Yeah, the same sort of character that weak people possess but hell bent on proving they’re strong. Usually at other people’s expense.
“Where’s the Science?”
What science, exactly?
A virus so newly emerged is undergoing scientific study as the pandemic and its cause continue to evaolve.
Ipso facto, the “Science” is, as yet, without conclusion.
“The rules are based on value judgements.”
The value of a ‘life worth living’ as opposed to that of ‘making a living’.
“Healthy, Wealthy and Wise” rarely coincide.
One way of determining “the science” is to do it and see the result. At the beginning of the crisis in Victoria daily cases were rising by around 700. Now it’s 1 or 2. The result seems to confirm the policy that produced it.
From a Melburnian, Victoria’s pandemic has been a drama in 3 acts. The first, a fair to middling effort to dampen down the first wave in which the public health system that has reportedly been run down by this and predecessor governments (and take a look at 30 years of the Commonwealth Grants Commission treatment of Victoria) managed to hold up, bar the Cedar Meats blip that was quickly extinguished. The second, a four week unholy failure in control of hotel quarantine that seeded a hundred or more undetected cases into the community which overwhelmed contact tracing, testing and everything else, probably as it would have done to the bigger and better but still not perfect NSW system. And the third act,one of the world’s most effective suppression achievements driven by a ‘don’t get angry, get even’ performance by a Premier who doesn’t give a stuff about who does or doesn’t like him and who has applied an exceptional level of intellectual consistency to the task. Try tracking the statements of the higher profile epidemiologists over the last 3 months – most of them move up, down and sideways by the week: too lax, too tough, not trusting enough, go for elimination, don’t go for elimination. With due respect to the scientists, political leadership takes phenomenal guts and emotional stamina. Andrews will have to answer for his past actions in health policy and resoucing at the next election if he gets to it. But I for one am eternally grateful for his Act 3 to date. If you want the see the alternative look at Boris. Or look at our Prime Minister who checked out of the National Cabinet process several months ago when he proved that unlike Hawke on the economy, or Howard on gun control and national water policy, he is incapable of the political leadership to build a grudging but workable consensus with his State counterparts when they aren’t natural allies and he doesn’t have any co-ercive powers.
Almost like epidemiologists aren’t a monolithic hive mind.
The ones quoted here are being far more nuanced than you or the comment above from Rais make out. The point isn’t ‘Did the stage 4 lockdown work in Victoria? The science is out!’
Kudos for reporting the nuance of Komesaroff’s remarks. Everyone else would have run with the headline “No evidence to support the 25km radius bubble” followed by a quote from a “business leader”. Actually, some of them did!
True. I have had quite enough of hearing from business leaders regarding pandemic responses. Short term, totally myopic and selfish opinions from business run counter to their own well-being. The best economic response is to shutdown until very small numbers are achieved and then re-open, and not a minute before. You can argue about the timing now, but having gone those few months it makes sense to progress slowly.