Cutting COVID isolation and mask mandates will mean more damage to business and health in the long run
Nancy Baxter, The University of Melbourne and C Raina MacIntyre, UNSW Sydney
From Friday, the isolation requirements for people with COVID and no symptoms will be cut from seven days to five days. Masks will no longer be required on domestic flights.
While Australian Medical Association president Steve Robson called for the release of the science behind the National Cabinet decision, the change shows we are now rapidly pushing towards a ‘business-as-usual’ pandemic. This political strategy requires the elimination of protections or restrictions, so that life and business can go ‘back to normal’.
But life is nowhere near normal. COVID is the third most common killer of Australians, with 11,746 deaths so far this year. And there is mounting evidence survivors of COVID face the risk of long-term health effects on the lungs, heart, brain and immune system.
In reality, there is no going back to normal now we are living with COVID.
Balancing risk
So what is driving these changes and what will the impact be?
First and foremost, there is no scientific basis for the change. We know that people vary in terms of how long they remain infectious with COVID after testing positive.
Setting a reasonable duration of isolation depends on balancing the risk to the community of ongoing transmission and the benefit of enabling individuals with COVID to go back to work, school and normal activities as quickly as possible. Seven days was already a compromise. And now New South Wales premier Dominic Perrottet has called for isolation to be scrapped altogether. Has the evidence changed with respect to this balance?
There are a number of recent studies in vaccinated people in the Omicron era evaluating how long people shed virus and are potentially infectious after testing positive for COVID. This fresh research shows a significant number of people (between one-third and one-half) remain infectious after a five-day isolation period. Another study shows two- thirds are infectious after this time.
So, of the 11,734 people reported to be COVID positive on 1 September, at least 3900 would still be infectious on day five. If released from isolation, they could infect others.
With onward transmission, this could result in many additional COVID cases that would not have occurred if an isolation period of seven days had been retained.
While the reduction of in the duration of isolation applies only to people who do not have symptoms, it is well accepted transmission without symptoms occurs. Unfortunately, our politicians have equated the absence of symptoms with the inability to transmit the virus to justify the changes. Decision-makers clearly need to be better informed.
But what about businesses?
Mandatory isolation places stress on people and businesses. But with numbers of COVID cases falling from the peaks of the BA.4/5 wave throughout Australia, fewer people are now testing positive for COVID than at any time this year. The pressure on individuals and businesses due to mandatory isolation is at a low point for 2022.
So why make the change now? Perhaps the hope is that while we are experiencing reduced transmission due to the large number of people recently infected with COVID, easing our protections will not lead to an immediate increase in cases.
In this confidence trick, politicians can make these changes with no apparent impact. They will continue to do so until all mitigations against transmission are gone. This is all part of a strategy which, in the words of the NSW premier, has “less reliance on public health orders and more reliance on respecting each other”. As if the two concepts are mutually exclusive instead of mutually reinforcing.
Unfortunately, reinfection is common, and we will face another epidemic wave in the future, likely before the end of the year. Then our systematic dismantling of all existing protections will make the next wave come on sooner and affect more people.
Gerrie van der Walt/Unsplash, CC BY-SA
Mitigate transmission instead
Allowing a substantial proportion of people to go back to work while still infectious is not a solution to solving the workforce disruptions COVID is still causing. This is because there will be an increase of infections in workplaces and schools due to the shortened isolation. When our next wave comes, this will result in even more people being furloughed because they are sick with COVID or caring for others, defeating the ultimate purpose of the change.
And, as we have learnt with the BA.5 wave – the highest number of people hospitalised with COVID in Australia since the beginning of the pandemic – reintroducing mandates once they have been removed does not happen even when medically advised. Once a protection is relaxed there is no going back – it’s a one-way road.
The best way to protect business interests and keep the economy productive is to mitigate transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID) as best we can using a vaccine-plus strategy.
In other countries that have shortened the isolation and then abandoned it altogether, such as in the United Kingdom, transmission has only been worsened and the economic impacts compounded.
Removing mask mandates on planes will mean a greater risk of having your travel disrupted by COVID and also of airport disruptions because of flight crew off sick from increased exposure.
By reducing isolation and thereby increasing workplace transmission, we make the workplace less safe. The rights of people to a safe workplace must be considered alongside business continuity.
Allowing increased transmission will impact the economy by resulting in higher numbers of people affected by long COVID. In the UK, the model we appear to be emulating, up to one in four employers are reporting their productivity is affected by long COVID.
The move to a business-as-usual pandemic leaves us unnecessarily vulnerable and will ultimately disrupt business even more.
The emergence of COVID variants that are more and more infectious and increasingly vaccine-resistant, along with the simultaneous removal of mitigations such as isolation and masks, dooms us to recurrent and disruptive waves of disease.
Our best chance of business continuity is not the one-way road to a disruptive business-as-usual pandemic but a layered strategy. This would include improved booster rates, safer indoor air, masks in public indoor settings and maintaining the current isolation period for those with COVID. 
What’s your view on the reduced isolation rules? Will you continue to use masks wherever it seems sensible? Share your views in the comments section below.
Nancy Baxter, Professor and Head of Melbourne School of Population & Global Health, The University of Melbourne and C Raina MacIntyre, Professor of Global Biosecurity, NHMRC Principal Research Fellow, Head, Biosecurity Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licenselicence. Read the original article.
Cutting COVID isolation and mask mandates will mean more damage to business and health in the long run
Nancy Baxter, The University of Melbourne and C Raina MacIntyre, UNSW Sydney
From Friday, the isolation requirements for people with COVID and no symptoms will be cut from seven days to five days. Masks will no longer be required on domestic flights.
While Australian Medical Association president Steve Robson called for the release of the science behind the National Cabinet decision, the change shows we are now rapidly pushing towards a ‘business-as-usual’ pandemic. This political strategy requires the elimination of protections or restrictions, so that life and business can go ‘back to normal’.
But life is nowhere near normal. COVID is the third most common killer of Australians, with 11,746 deaths so far this year. And there is mounting evidence survivors of COVID face the risk of long-term health effects on the lungs, heart, brain and immune system.
In reality, there is no going back to normal now we are living with COVID.
Balancing risk
So what is driving these changes and what will the impact be?
First and foremost, there is no scientific basis for the change. We know that people vary in terms of how long they remain infectious with COVID after testing positive.
Setting a reasonable duration of isolation depends on balancing the risk to the community of ongoing transmission and the benefit of enabling individuals with COVID to go back to work, school and normal activities as quickly as possible. Seven days was already a compromise. And now New South Wales premier Dominic Perrottet has called for isolation to be scrapped altogether. Has the evidence changed with respect to this balance?
There are a number of recent studies in vaccinated people in the Omicron era evaluating how long people shed virus and are potentially infectious after testing positive for COVID. This fresh research shows a significant number of people (between one-third and one-half) remain infectious after a five-day isolation period. Another study shows two- thirds are infectious after this time.
So, of the 11,734 people reported to be COVID positive on 1 September, at least 3900 would still be infectious on day five. If released from isolation, they could infect others.
With onward transmission, this could result in many additional COVID cases that would not have occurred if an isolation period of seven days had been retained.
While the reduction of in the duration of isolation applies only to people who do not have symptoms, it is well accepted transmission without symptoms occurs. Unfortunately, our politicians have equated the absence of symptoms with the inability to transmit the virus to justify the changes. Decision-makers clearly need to be better informed.
But what about businesses?
Mandatory isolation places stress on people and businesses. But with numbers of COVID cases falling from the peaks of the BA.4/5 wave throughout Australia, fewer people are now testing positive for COVID than at any time this year. The pressure on individuals and businesses due to mandatory isolation is at a low point for 2022.
So why make the change now? Perhaps the hope is that while we are experiencing reduced transmission due to the large number of people recently infected with COVID, easing our protections will not lead to an immediate increase in cases.
In this confidence trick, politicians can make these changes with no apparent impact. They will continue to do so until all mitigations against transmission are gone. This is all part of a strategy which, in the words of the NSW premier, has “less reliance on public health orders and more reliance on respecting each other”. As if the two concepts are mutually exclusive instead of mutually reinforcing.
Unfortunately, reinfection is common, and we will face another epidemic wave in the future, likely before the end of the year. Then our systematic dismantling of all existing protections will make the next wave come on sooner and affect more people.
Gerrie van der Walt/Unsplash, CC BY-SA
Mitigate transmission instead
Allowing a substantial proportion of people to go back to work while still infectious is not a solution to solving the workforce disruptions COVID is still causing. This is because there will be an increase of infections in workplaces and schools due to the shortened isolation. When our next wave comes, this will result in even more people being furloughed because they are sick with COVID or caring for others, defeating the ultimate purpose of the change.
And, as we have learnt with the BA.5 wave – the highest number of people hospitalised with COVID in Australia since the beginning of the pandemic – reintroducing mandates once they have been removed does not happen even when medically advised. Once a protection is relaxed there is no going back – it’s a one-way road.
The best way to protect business interests and keep the economy productive is to mitigate transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID) as best we can using a vaccine-plus strategy.
In other countries that have shortened the isolation and then abandoned it altogether, such as in the United Kingdom, transmission has only been worsened and the economic impacts compounded.
Removing mask mandates on planes will mean a greater risk of having your travel disrupted by COVID and also of airport disruptions because of flight crew off sick from increased exposure.
By reducing isolation and thereby increasing workplace transmission, we make the workplace less safe. The rights of people to a safe workplace must be considered alongside business continuity.
Allowing increased transmission will impact the economy by resulting in higher numbers of people affected by long COVID. In the UK, the model we appear to be emulating, up to one in four employers are reporting their productivity is affected by long COVID.
The move to a business-as-usual pandemic leaves us unnecessarily vulnerable and will ultimately disrupt business even more.
The emergence of COVID variants that are more and more infectious and increasingly vaccine-resistant, along with the simultaneous removal of mitigations such as isolation and masks, dooms us to recurrent and disruptive waves of disease.
Our best chance of business continuity is not the one-way road to a disruptive business-as-usual pandemic but a layered strategy. This would include improved booster rates, safer indoor air, masks in public indoor settings and maintaining the current isolation period for those with COVID.
What’s your view on the reduced isolation rules? Will you continue to use masks wherever it seems sensible? Share your views in the comments section below.
Nancy Baxter, Professor and Head of Melbourne School of Population & Global Health, The University of Melbourne and C Raina MacIntyre, Professor of Global Biosecurity, NHMRC Principal Research Fellow, Head, Biosecurity Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licenselicence. Read the original article.
I will retain my mask, and keep getting vaxed if it’s advised by my doctor, as I have many health problems. You can’t simply “wish” the virus away and pretend everyhing is normal, the virus is still with us, and all this lessening of restrictions will make it harder for business, not easier, as more and more staff go off sick with the virus!
I’ll follow the guidance of my general health professional. So far, their recommendation has been 3 x vaccinations and keep wearing masks, avoiding venues with very high concentrations of people, constant hand washing and sanitization and general care. The recommendations that have included avoiding unnecessary exposure to people of unknown health has supported us well. We haven’t caught COVID, despite being in high-risk categories.
China took a virus to the UN as a suggestion for population control. It got rejected, but then Covid happened. One can’t help but think while it was publicly rejected, it was quietly let loose to provide a level of population control.
If governments remove the weaker and less ‘productive’ cohorts in their populations, they reduce the need for medical services, free up housing, reduce the need to support the older population groups, and put money back into circulation. Many decisions around Covid seem to be simply about supporting this.
We saw decisions about who could have vaccines flip-flopping, we saw availability issues and we saw a lack of controls over aged care facilities. And now, the government recommendation for older people or people with risk factors to get their next booster, while at the same time removing restrictions makes one think something sinister is going on.
In 2019 we knew there would be a demand on the hospital system, but governments did not boost staffing levels, simply restricted who could get treatment. Almost every decision that has been made is to ‘get by’ until our existing infrastructure is enough to support the revised (read reduced) population. The only way this works is to reduce the population!
The public globally have seen a drop in their economic position, while businesses have seen incredible increased profits, albeit on lower sales volumes. A classic example of redistributing the wealth in nations to the select few.
Where are the air purification systems other than in the offices of senior government officials? What has been done to cleanse the air on trains and buses the way it is supposedly been done on aircraft? Which schools got air purification systems? Which major venues such as shopping centers or even lifts got air cleansers? What happened to the obligation of providing a safe workplace?
The systematic dismantling of all existing protections is simply about bringing on the next wave sooner so it can affect more, less vigilant people and help politicians everywhere, grapple with the population issue.
China still has rampant Covid. Much of the world does, but to quote the mayor of Amity Island, “don’t scare people; let them go back into the water. The economy is more important than a few unfortunate deaths.” He was talking about sharks but, could have been talking about Covid. I suspect we are not being told the truth, simply played as pawns in a bigger game.
Interesting for a call on the science. We were never given the “science” for much of the restrictive mandates to start with. There is no verifiable “science” that supports the wearing of masks as being of any benefit.
The US CDC tells us that over 90% of the deaths attributable to the SARS-CoV2 virus were people who also had an average 2.5 co-morbidities. Of these, over 90% were over the age of 60. The average age at death has been found to be as much as 2 years older than the average lifespan.
Compared to the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1919, this has been but a will-o-the wisp.
When looked across Australia, the number who have tested positive is still less than 15% of the population. Of those who have tested positive, less than 10% have required medical intervention.
Unless you are in a high risk category, normal hygiene practices should keep you safe.