Comment permalink

How does Australia’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic compare with New Zealand’s? Kevin McCracken assesses how our transtasman neighbours are faring.

Fighting the Covid-19 pandemic is a colossally complex and difficult task and it is easy to critically snipe at official efforts from the sidelines.

The best efforts and intentions of medical, public health and political authorities need to be fully acknowledged. But that doesn’t mean official actions have always been the most appropriate or best implemented.

In Australia, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has consistently couched Government pandemic control decisions "in terms of the best medical advice".

Contrary opinions expressed by medical and public health experts not part of the official pandemic control team have trouble getting oxygen.

By dint of its far larger geographic and demographic size, plus the complexities and challenges of working within an often less than harmonious federal system, the task of fighting the Covid-19 epidemic within its territorial bounds is a more difficult exercise for Australia than New Zealand.

That said, some actions within Australia to this stage can at best only be said to have been puzzling, and even worse, dangerous.

Looking back on the early weeks of the outbreak, more urgency and appreciation of the virus’ dangerous potential would have placed the country in better shape to attack the disease.

For a while it seemed to many that making sure the scheduled Australian F1 Grand Prix in Melbourne was run, and international race spectators allowed into the country unchecked, was the prime priority.

Likewise, Morrison’s announced intention to go and watch his favourite rugby league team at the coming weekend, despite the same day announcing intended social distancing regulations to come on the following Monday, scarcely sent a powerful message to the general public that there was a very dangerous public health threat at hand they should try to avoid.

Inadequate virus testing protocols have been another major weakness.

For weeks air travellers walked out of Sydney and other Australian airports without any temperature or other testing for the virus, then disappearing off to their homes fostering possible Covid-19 spread to families, friends and communities across Australia.

Large numbers of people have indeed been tested compared with many other countries, but many with Covid-19 symptoms have almost certainly slipped through the surveillance net, not satisfying the strict international travel requirements initially in the testing protocol.

Testing of asymptomatic persons has likewise been largely bypassed, likely missing significant numbers of potential spreaders.

The scale of the virus testing ideally desired is clearly enormous and probably impossible to achieve, but more flexibility in the official virus testing protocol has been argued for by many independent medical experts,

Lack of co-ordination between regulatory authorities has also caused problems.

Prompting most alarm and community anger has been the close to 2700 passengers on board the cruise ship Ruby Princess being allowed to disembark at Circular Quay in Sydney without any Covid-19 testing, despite several sick passengers on board.

Now more than 650 positive cases (including several deaths) from the ship’s passengers have been identified, scattered to the winds across Australia, plus a few overseas. A large number of crew have also gone down sick.

Allowing such a dangerous, unregulated disembarkation to occur not surprisingly has triggered considerable angst in the general community, matched by buck-passing on the part of New South Wales State Health Department and Federal Australian Border Force authorities as to responsibility for the catastrophic error. A criminal inquiry into the mistake, headed by the NSW Commissioner of Police, has now been established.

Whether to close or not close schools has been another point of difference between federal and state authorities, the former publicly arguing to keep schools open, the latter arguing for closure.

Mixed messages and public confusion ran high; for example, the NSW state government simultaneously informed parents that schools were open, but that children should be kept at home.

At the other end of the age spectrum, seniors were left uncertain by Government pronouncements whether they had to stay within their homes or were just urged to do so.

A number of changes from one day to the next in what are and are not classified as essential services and activities have also caused some confusion.

Whether Australia should follow New Zealand with a total lockdown of non-essential services has also been a matter of contention. ‘‘On best medical advice’’ Morrison and advisers have opted for an incremental approach to introducing restrictions on personal movement and physical grouping, as opposed to a sharp, full New Zealand-style lockdown.

Encouragingly the suite of restrictive policies have been accompanied by a substantial drop in new confirmed daily Covid-19 cases, the earlier feared flood of cases not eventuating.

As it now stands the national tally of cases is just over 6350, with 61 deaths.

Prior to the restrictive measures being introduced totals several times this were being countenanced at this time.

To sum up, it has to be said that from a slow and somewhat less than convincing start overall Morrison and his National Cabinet colleagues have done a generally good job in confronting the pandemic crisis, given its enormity.

There is no shortage however of challenges remaining. When and how to relax restrictions without opening up a new wave of cases and precipitating further economic pain will become increasingly critical.

Another major challenge over the coming months will be to keep the population satisfied they are not being subjected to overly prolonged and zealously policed limitations on usual civil liberties.

Keeping the general public on side will be vital.

• Dr Kevin McCracken is an associate professor at Macquarie University and an Otago University graduate. He is co-author of Global Health (Routledge, 2nd ed, 2017).