Australia is facing a crossroads in the path out of COVID, with an increasing voice calling for a review of the policies in light of an evolving virus and global outlook.
Last week, following the end of a fifth lockdown across the country, the UK government announced that pubs and bars are no longer subject to restrictions due to COVID-19, including caps on patron numbers, required check-in via the NHS app, mandatory table service or social distancing.
All pandemic measures have been replaced with guidance for individuals and businesses, and there are no longer any limits on social contact.
UK vaccines minister, Nadhim Zahawi, told the BBC it is the “right time to cautiously proceed”, as pandemic laws are replaced with guidance and people make their own choices.
This is despite the country currently recording around 50,000 new cases of COVID daily, predominantly of the highly infectious Delta strain.
Some pub groups have suggested they will retain select measures, such as providing table service and keeping screens between tables, and recommending staff and customers wear masks inside – but subject to the individual’s choice.
Last week the Pastoral Hotel in Echuca, in regional Victoria, made headlines around the country by defiantly refusing to shut its doors, despite being part of the state’s latest lockdown.
Publican Trevor Andrews told social media he had no option but to open the doors because he has been crippled financially by the repeated lockdowns, devoid of revenue while still facing bills amounting to thousands of dollars each month.
Patrons at the Pastoral were reportedly in agreement with the move, describing going to the pub as “a human right” and suggesting the law should be focusing on real criminals.
Andrews claims the hotel has been careful and diligent about its coronavirus practises, declaring “We’re COVID-safe … we should be allowed to open”.
Police visited the Pastoral the day before Andrews’ media spotlight, telling him people weren’t meant to be there. He doubted they would stop him operating his business, but thought patrons may get a fine.
Police subsequently returned, with three health inspectors. The Pastoral publican was taken to Echuca Police Station, where he was charged and bailed.
He has received two lots of fines, totalling nearly $22,000, and because he had been warned previously about adhering to lockdown regulations, he will face Echuca Magistrates’ Court on 14 December.
Victorian Police Chief Commissioner Shane Patton told media he has imposed conditions that if Andrews opens again, officers will arrest him and the prosecutor will ask for him to be remanded.
Andrews says he will definitely be fighting the charges, but for now the hotel is only operating takeaway and delivery, in line with the restrictions.
A large number of patrons were also fined. Police issued more than $100,000 in infringements to people who had attended the pub over the three days it was open.
Andrews had proclaimed it was his “constitutional right” to open the business, citing constitutional guarantee of 1946 Section 51.23a, but Commissioner Patton made it clear that this “is just not the case”.
Meanwhile, following announcement by the South Australian state government last Tuesday of a seven-day state-wide lockdown to begin that day, from 6pm, regional publicans are urging authorities to rethink how it applies to them.
Speaking to The Advertiser, they lamented how rural communities are being unfairly affected by restrictions caused by city outbreaks, despite no case in the areas.
The example was given of Stansbury, a town of 600 people 20 kilometres from the nearest town, with no cases within a hundred kilometres. Publican Rob Rankine, operator of Stansbury’s Dalrymple Hotel, suggests the town shutting down due to cases in outer Adelaide, 200 kilometres away, “seems a little bit extreme”.
SA regional pubs are currently subject to the same rules as in the city, limiting numbers to one person per two square metres. Advocates suggest maybe where there are no cases the metreage rate could be increased to three or four, or has been widely done in the UK, authorities consider creating a bubble or ring around safe precincts.
Pubs in regional Victoria are describing the latest need to put their now well-honed lockdown plan into practise as “total déjà vu”, after getting only hours’ notice of the fifth and latest set of state-wide restrictions.
Metung Hotel owner David Strange told the ABC he has the process down to a fine art, taking care of staff, cancelling orders, and selling off perishable food or giving it to staff.
Weighing up the impacts of varying public policy positions is a primary function of governance, and any significant policy will require consideration of the pros and cons.
Amid NSW’s recent and alarming COVID outbreak, NSW Liberals, led by treasurer Dominic Perronet, have begun pushing a policy of living with COVID, but Premier Gladys Berejiklian is following an elimination policy, forecasting a strict and sustained lockdown.
The Premier predicts living with COVID would lead to thousands of deaths.
The two emerging approaches of virus elimination versus mitigation lead to very different outcomes; while some, particularly those on guaranteed wages, may benefit from an elimination policy, this is less the case for casual workers and small business, often facing fixed costs despite income falling to zero.
Important considerations including suicide and domestic violence are not typically part of the conversation by politicians pronouncing the need for a lockdown, and the delay in public figures on these matters means they may not come to light for months or even years.
Australia already has high incidence of suicide and domestic violence, and should heed warning from the UK, where the Office of National Statistics reported a 65% increase in domestic violence reports during the time pubs were closed here nationally last year, through Q2.
On the other side of the equation, the global survival rate of COVID stands at more than 99 per cent, which puts into question Berejiklian’s claim “thousands” would die, although the long-term effects (“long COVID”) are still not fully understood.
In the immediate, governments must weigh the likelihood of COVID fatalities against known increases in domestic violence, suicide and depression, and other widespread impacts, notably the educational disruption, especially for underprivileged children, and the extensive economic turmoil.
Many see the vaccine rollout as the way forward, but while Australia’s recent performance in this has been ridiculed internationally, more than two-thirds of people over 70 have now had at least one dose. The key will be securing more doses of the Pfizer vaccine, given its preference for younger people.
From the financial perspective, most economists support policies of aggressive suppression or elimination, on the basis that clamping down on outbreaks and stopping more people getting ill is ultimately better for the economy.
The evidence on allowing the uncontrolled spread of the virus strongly concludes that strategy would have done more economic damage than temporary lockdowns, as well as causing many thousands of people to suffer through the disease and a large numbers of deaths, plus whatever long-lasting consequences others will endure.
Considering an alternative to lockdowns may currently be theoretical, as Australia continues an approach of elimination, but one thing that is certain is that no alternative would not find an economy unaffected and everyone happy.