ALTRAV,
Obviously a vaccine would be of great use if we had it (and I'm baffled as to why you presume I think otherwise). But we don't have one yet, we don't know how long it will take to develop one, and vaccines are not the only way of stopping viruses.

False negatives are certainly a potential problem, but that can be managed with repeated testing.

Of course COVD19 is a very aggressive virus. But so was the original SARS, and quarantine stopped that.

JBowyer, I am so relieved and heartened by commentors like yourself, unlike some who I dare not name, but she insists on pushing the boundaries of ignorance and naivety, always quoting the obvious and never even attempting to offer any useful, viable or real information or solutions, just plagiarising or patronising.
Your view is well founded, as I believe that if the vaccine is not available soon and even then it may not be as hoped, we are wasting our time with all these seemingly viable precautions.
As I have said before, what is the point of all this when the virus will not be eliminated, and we will end up with the same deaths and those left alive, struggling to stay alive, because of loss of incomes and all that flows from it.
The ignorance or the unwillingness of some to see the uncomfortable truth leads to lies and mis-information.
Anyone quoting NZ's model as being the epitome or the leading example of how to conduct ourselves under such circumstances, is beyond stupid, as they forget that NZ is a smaller population and with different social and internal geographical elements which have led it to have fewer deaths than us or anyone else for that matter.
I must confess, I too had wondered whether Trump, in his possibly strange way, has in fact seen that this virus is not going to go away any time soon and thought that hiding from it will only prolong the obvious.
But then the medico's must have gotten into his ear and convinced him that the public will turn on him if he did not appear to do something, and so he did, knowing full well that any action would be futile for the public but disastrous for the economy.
I suppose one view is, those people who are in the firing line, are eventually going to die, even with precautions.
The only difference is that with the precautions, the economy IS going to die, and even the healthy people, in some cases, are going to die, as victims of the dying economy.

kinda funny but sad to see the state with the most draconian measures now with the biggest problems. The Chairman who encouraged every woke degenerate to protest but banned 2 people playing golf. The Chairman's Government so full of corruption now blaming families for hugging. We have many many dumbed down voters and Victoria seems to take the cake.

Altrav,

OR 'clean' countries quarantine themselves from infected countries, as long as it takes for the infected countries and regions to clean themselves up by rigorous testing and tracking, and bringing case numbers down to zero by isolating positive cases.

In that way, a virus-free 'bubble' could soon happily include countries Australia, New Zealand, other countries in our region, Denmark, Iceland - and of course larger economies once they have done the right thing, as above.

Of course, countries or economies which are making little effort to control and suppress - and within their boundaries, eliminate - the virus, such as the US, the UK, Sweden, most of Europe, Brasil and most South American countries, will be outside that favoured 'bubble' for a long time yet.

Perhaps years. And it's only four months until the US elections.

Wait and see :)

Joe

Why are people arguing about Laws that have
obviously been properly scrutinised, and found
to be necessary in the circumstances. Laws that
are fair and apply to all of us in order to
save lives.

We need people to obey the laws in order to stop the
spread of COVID-19.

Taking action by the government in implementing laws
that are fair, necessary, and have been properly and
democratically scrutinised, is a key element in
dealing with the pandemic.

What's more important - whinging about so called
burdensome laws, or saving lives?

Rather than looking at the rule of law as a burden on the
ability of the government to deal with the pandemic,
we should be seeing it as a way of maintaining public
confidence in the government and that the compliance
with the laws as being the only way that the pandemic
will be contained.

It's a no-brainer. Not brain-surgery.
It's a means of saving lives.

We were fortunate that we pulled up the drawbridge early in the event.
As I remember we got criticism from China and friends for doing that.
One stance we should examine is leaving the drawbridge up indefinitely.
It would require making Australia really self sufficient.
Food, energy, clothing and a multitude of industries would need to be
fired up very quickly.
As international trade would virtually stop shortages would develop.
Pharmaceuticals might be the only import.
We might have to build a way of life that accepts that no vaccine will be found.
After all no HIV vaccine was found, and if so our present arrangements
could be permanent.
To start from that point then adapt to reality as it hits us.