Help
Quote
It all started with scientists. In Australia, as soon as China released the genetic code for the coronavirus in early January, pathologists in public health laboratories started sharing plans for tests. In every state and territory, they jumped ahead of politicians.
“It meant we could have a test up and running quickly that was reasonably comparable everywhere,” Dr. Collignon said.
The government then opened the budgetary floodgates to support suffering workers and add health care capacity. When infections started climbing, many of the labs and hospitals hired second and third rounds of scientists to help.
That collaboration set the tone. Many of the state and local task forces spurred on by Mr. Morrison’s early action have stayed in constant contact, drawing in academics who independently started to model the virus’s spread. Their findings, hashed out by email, text or group calls, have been funneled up to national decision makers.
The newly formed national cabinet has delivered a surprising level of consensus for a country with a loose federal system subject to high levels of discord among state premiers, whose roles and powers resemble those of American governors.
In late March, for example, Mr. Morrison announced an agreement to severely tighten restrictions, banning international travel and telling all Australians not working in essential services to stay home. Though there was some divergence, mostly over schools, state leaders expressed bipartisan support and have held the line even as case numbers plummeted.
In New Zealand, public health experts pushed for an even bolder move.
Dr. Michael Baker, a physician and professor at the University of Otago in Wellington, became a prominent voice outside the government pushing for elimination of the virus, not just its suppression.
He argued that New Zealand, an island nation with a limited number of cases, should think of the virus more like measles than influenza — something that should be made to disappear, with rare exceptions.
“The modelers said we had to go into lockdown for two months to have a high probability of eliminating it entirely,” he said. “You have to wait until the numbers are very low so you have the ability to stamp out an outbreak if it occurs.”
Worrying that the virus would spread too rapidly, Dr. Baker said he was racked with anxiety in the first few weeks after the initial case appeared in New Zealand. “We were on a knife’s edge,” he said. “Would we commit?”
Ms. Ardern announced on March 23 that the country would aim for elimination. Critics questioned whether it was possible, noting that there might be too many asymptomatic cases to guarantee elimination.
Dr. Baker responded by citing Taiwan, which has contained the outbreak to a point where socially distanced normal life has returned on a densely packed set of islands with over 23 million people.
“It’s a matter to get all the systems working,” Dr. Baker said. “The borders, the contact tracing, the testing, the surveillance.”
“It meant we could have a test up and running quickly that was reasonably comparable everywhere,” Dr. Collignon said.
The government then opened the budgetary floodgates to support suffering workers and add health care capacity. When infections started climbing, many of the labs and hospitals hired second and third rounds of scientists to help.
That collaboration set the tone. Many of the state and local task forces spurred on by Mr. Morrison’s early action have stayed in constant contact, drawing in academics who independently started to model the virus’s spread. Their findings, hashed out by email, text or group calls, have been funneled up to national decision makers.
The newly formed national cabinet has delivered a surprising level of consensus for a country with a loose federal system subject to high levels of discord among state premiers, whose roles and powers resemble those of American governors.
In late March, for example, Mr. Morrison announced an agreement to severely tighten restrictions, banning international travel and telling all Australians not working in essential services to stay home. Though there was some divergence, mostly over schools, state leaders expressed bipartisan support and have held the line even as case numbers plummeted.
In New Zealand, public health experts pushed for an even bolder move.
Dr. Michael Baker, a physician and professor at the University of Otago in Wellington, became a prominent voice outside the government pushing for elimination of the virus, not just its suppression.
He argued that New Zealand, an island nation with a limited number of cases, should think of the virus more like measles than influenza — something that should be made to disappear, with rare exceptions.
“The modelers said we had to go into lockdown for two months to have a high probability of eliminating it entirely,” he said. “You have to wait until the numbers are very low so you have the ability to stamp out an outbreak if it occurs.”
Worrying that the virus would spread too rapidly, Dr. Baker said he was racked with anxiety in the first few weeks after the initial case appeared in New Zealand. “We were on a knife’s edge,” he said. “Would we commit?”
Ms. Ardern announced on March 23 that the country would aim for elimination. Critics questioned whether it was possible, noting that there might be too many asymptomatic cases to guarantee elimination.
Dr. Baker responded by citing Taiwan, which has contained the outbreak to a point where socially distanced normal life has returned on a densely packed set of islands with over 23 million people.
“It’s a matter to get all the systems working,” Dr. Baker said. “The borders, the contact tracing, the testing, the surveillance.”
Quote
“This is certainly distinct from the United States,” said Dr. Peter Collignon, a physician and professor of microbiology at the Australian National University who has worked for the World Health Organization.
(How? Goodness only knows.)
