Aidan, the difference with Covid 19 is that we don't have a vaccine yet.
There is no question about it spreading, it's just that this one is much more aggressive and there is nothing to stop it right now, where-as the ones you mentioned may have a different transmission regime, this one is proving to be far more elusive and we don't have a "magic bullet" yet, so until we do no end of distancing or isolation is going to help, because when you do go out into the community, and you will have to at some point, you will be vulnerable, and dangerously so if you are older.

Altrav,

The point about any virus is that, in order to catch it, it has to be 'out there'. If a country locks down, there is no way that a virus can 'get in' once all cases have been identified and treated, except the odd fly-in from outside. Once Australia and NZ have tightened up their entry restrictions, even on humanitarian grounds, there's no way or a virus to show up. That's hard enough.

Of course, the US, with its two million cases, has lost that battle long ago. It will just have to ride out an unrestricted plague somehow. Long way to go yet.

Joe

There is enough to comment on and worry about in Australia without concerning ourselves with other countries.

"But I'm wondering if attitudes on the right have changed on this. Have those who touted Sweden's performance changed their minds or are they still wedded to it?"

The 'right' touting Lefto Sweden? I don't think so.

The only thing about other countries we need to concern ourselves with is keeping their citizens away from our country, something the Morrison government was too weak and indecisive to do early enough; they blew our island advantage, then wrecked our economy. All the craven gratitude to Saint Scotty will go when the results of his lockdowns and closure of businesses and medical procedures, and the psychological effects of isolation, come to light

Loudmouth2, as I understand it, even if we lock down and isolate or insulate ourselves from each other, the virus and the risk of catching it, is ever present in those people who are "carriers".
So my point is, that even if they are isolated for months, once those carriers are out and about again, they will infect once more.
Therefore, I wonder if we should be isolating till a vaccine is ready, because to allow people to interact once more, even if only a few, it only takes ONE case and the cycle begins once more.
Now I realise the conundrum, which is that we will suffer financially as the shut down leaves businesses and therefore, people in dire straits, as there will be no money to live off.
On the other hand do we do like Sweden, and others, who have done a very bias assessment risk study and decided, it would seem, that the death of the elderly and infirm, was an economical and practical plus to the country, in that they would be able to keep businesses open, therefore people employed, and the death of the elderly and the infirm was to be seen as a positive, in the belief that sacrificing the life of a few old and sick to save the many lives of the young, viable and healthy, was probably a worthwhile view or decision.
Also, it would all happen so quickly that things would get back to normal sooner.
Macabre, I know, but I have to wonder why any country would keep it's businesses open when the threat of death was so obvious and ever-present.

Joe,
There are about a hundred strains of the common cold. But the mutation rate is very slow - it took MILLENNIA for the virus to mutate enough to produce that many strains. So although it's technically possible that COVID19 could mutate into something that's resistant to COVID19 antibodies yet is still serious, it's not a likely outcome.

Nobody gets the same strain of cold twice... except bone marrow transplant recipients, as their immune systems are destroyed before receiving the transplant. I expect people with weakened immune systems (such as those with AIDS) may also be at some risk of getting a cold strain twice, though I don't have any evidence of that.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Foxy,
Agreed, but I think we should have gone a lot further. IMO as soon as COVID19 was detected in Australia, the government should have spent billions of dollars building testing kit factories, so that we could quickly manufacture enough to test the entire population multiple times. That way we could have quickly eliminated the virus, gone back to (almost completely) normal, and then exported testing kits so other nations could do likewise.

BTW did you hear what Trump said today (or in his timezone, yesterday)? He wants to see LESS testing! I think he may have just committed electoral suicide!

_________________________________________________________________________________

ALTRAV,
>Aidan, the difference with Covid 19 is that we don't have a vaccine yet.
No, that's not the difference. There was no vaccine for SARS or MERS either, but both were stopped with quarantine.

AIUI it's only bacterial diseases where asymptomatic carriers remain infectious for moths or years. Unlike bacteria, viruses can't spread without attacking their hosts, and sooner or later the host's immune system will notice the attack.

Aidan, I can agree, but my overarching point is that, I do not believe that by isolating, the virus will die off.
Not when it has already happened that someone who was supposed to be clear of the virus, has suddenly got it and has infected others, and now the govt is trying to put out another outbreak.
From what I understand, Covid 19 is a very aggressive virus, and if a vaccine is truly of no use, then why is the world flat out trying to produce one.
Or is it some kind of a con to fool the public into believing there is hope at the end of the tunnel, when there really isn't?