Elimination vs suppression - in this discussion, I’d like to hear less from epidemiologists and politicians and more from ethicists.

I think the science is clear that elimination is scientifically achievable.

But what is the human cost of trying?

We are not NZ. We have as many people in Melbourne alone as in all of NZ. We have more divisive politics and greater social inequity. We have more people returning to our shores, and more industries reliant on people returning to our shores.

We are materially different to NZ

That doesn’t mean elimination is impossible. Just that it will look different.

We might need to quarantine people for longer. We might need to tell some industries like universities and tourism that the impacts on them will be huge, maybe irrecoverable.

This is not a disagreement with the expert epidemiologists - if course elimination is possible. But should we do it, and at what cost, and to whom? And most importantly, is it ok to ask some parts of our society to disproportionately bear that cost?

We already know that hotel quarantine has felt dangerous and punitive, and has had massive mental health consequences on many people. At least one person has died of suicide due to hotel quarantine. Will the increased restrictions on returned citizens be ethically justifiable?

We know the impacts on tourism and university sectors has been immense, as has the mental impact on those with family overseas. If we restrict non-citizens coming back to Australia, or make their detention on arrival more punitive - is that cost ethical?

We know that under lockdown the well being of women and children has disproportionately suffered, that domestic violence has increased markedly, as has suicide among all groups. Is a long lockdown in pursuit of elimination ethically justified?

I find it frustrating that scientists, media presenters and some members of the public talk only about the costs of a suppression strategy, and not the costs of an elimination strategy - costs that will, as usual, be borne by a minority on behalf of a well insulated majority.

This is why I’d like to see ethicists front and centre of this conversation. Not scientists, or politicians. An elimination strategy cuts to the heart of societal inequity, and our comfort with potentially benefitting from the suffering of others.

As an aside: I am not an epidemiologist, a politician, a bureaucrat or an ethicist. I don’t know the answer. I’m not proposing an answer.

I’m just an observer of an argument that seems to be striving so hard for hard facts that the nuance and ethics has been ignored.

To add: I am NOT anti-elimination. I literally have no idea or position on this. I appreciate that in a pandemic, both strategies have crap impacts on many people.

I just want to hear an actual plan, based on ethical assessments, and actual debate, not catch phrases.