Dear mhaze,

You opined; "We can say hooroo to the tourism industry. We aren't going to get too many people visiting if they need to spend the first fortnight in seclusion. The great export earner that was education will similarly be knee-capped."

Oh come on mate, try and squeeze a thinking cap on for once. If this is your real concern then we are surely on the correct path. China is by far the single largest source of foreign students and tourists for this country. China has done what it could to eradicate the disease. Do you really think they will be sending tourists and students into infectious plague riven wells like the US or will they prefer places which have virtually stopped the disease spreading through their communities.

I was mocked for claiming the US would become the world's largest infector. It has become just that and given its policies of its venal president it will be so for years to come.

It may well be the countries like China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, New Zealand and Australia will be able to forego quarantining for visitors between their respective countries.

For the foreseeable future any traveler from the US should most definitely be forced into two weeks isolation.

1. That the Federal Government has coordinated strategies with the States that have been demonstrably successful in minimising COVID-19 spread and deaths:

- doesn't mean the strategy was wrong, and

- doesn't mean the strategies should be lifted early.

________________________________

2. Looking at Graham's first Table. COVID-19 friendly cold weather has certainly boosted COVID-19 in northern hemisphere countries that first encountered that virus in their Winter-time.

So the risk of COVID-19 being heightened by the virus-friendly cold weather, that Australia is moving into, is a good argument to continue the Federal-State anti-COVID strategies.

Perhaps lockdown has an effect only where the virus is not already well ensconced in http://www.spiked-online.com/2020/04/22/there-is-no-empirical-evidence-for-these-lockdowns/

I support the planned Swedish strategy up until poor planning and control become obvious through the health system becoming overwhelmed by caseload. That hasn't happened, despite a recent rise in cases through the virus getting a hold in some nursing homes, as it has here in our smaller scale facilities.

On the other thread, Steelie has me supporting UK and USA (oh, which state, particularly, BTW?) strategies, or lack thereof. I didn't say that and it just looks desperate to say I did to win a point. I will assert, however, that wherever a health system isn't overwhelmed the process will have similar mortality outcomes, in the end, to Australia's elimination pathway.

I have to ask again, why are we cranking up for a world war level healthcare response when we are so confident in the elimination experiment? I think we all know the answer.

That's me done, on both threads.

Lets be clear loudmouth. I care about the 700,000 and their families who lost their jobs and probably more who will lose their jobs if we don't make the right choices. I care about the people who are going to miss out on better hospitals and schools because we have overdone the fiscal rescue operation and gone into more debt than we need to.

You infer that all I care about is something trivial like golf or footie. Maybe that is how you think, but that isn't the way I think when I'm arguing for the best policy for my country.

The best policy for my country is to get people quickly back to work safely, where we can. There are about 3000 deaths a week in Australia. We've had seven days in a row with about 12 deaths that involve (are not totally caused by Covid-19). The odds of getting Covid-19 in Australia now are low and of dying from it even lower. Those odds are much lower than the high probability that many people will die from all the causes typical of unemployment and financial recessions (Well described in this article and the attached references).

Secondly, if the number of infections does increase significantly, the restrictions can be tightened again. Relaxing restrictions does not have to be an all or nothing choice. My hope is that the government cares about the risks for the many who have lost their jobs and not just the few who are at risk from Covid-19.

SR,

" or will they [China] prefer places which have virtually stopped the disease spreading through their communities."

What China 'prefers' is utterly beside the point as regards what we do with prospective incoming tourists. They might prefer to come here but we, if we achieve eradication, and want to maintain that, will want to ensure that every incomer is clean.

It would take a special kind of naivety to think that China is anywhere near eradication of the disease they created or that we could ever trust their assurances if they claimed they had.

Dear mhaze,

You write; “What China 'prefers' is utterly beside the point as regards what we do with prospective incoming tourists.”

Oh is that why we spends hundreds of millions of dollars trying to attract tourists and students from that country?

We can certainly do our own testing of arrivals and 1 hour test kits look like a reality. But what I am talking about is the approach they will take to returning citizens from our shores. Just as Australians had to have cholera and typhoid shots before travelling to certain parts of the world to stop the introduction of those diseases into our populations the Chinese authorities will undoubtedly be looking to do the same.

I know Israel left closing down travel from the US until very late because they didn't want to upset the child president they have just suffered their highest daily death toll.

I certainly wouldn't like to see our hard work go up in smoke by easing travel restrictions from the US to soon and even though I hear what you say about the Chinese authorities I would be more comfortable with welcoming a visitor from China than from the US right now.