Ok, in that case I agree with you that it only delays re-introduction. By, like, a hundred years. I'll take that. Obviously the bigger risk to Australia et al

Ok, in that case I agree with you that it only delays re-introduction. By, like, a hundred years. I'll take that. Obviously the bigger risk to Australia et al is reintroduction from other countries. So Australia's borders will continue to require 14 days of quarantine until there is a good enough vaccine. However, New Zealand has now seen three re-introductions, and they have managed to suppress them just fine so far. So if this is what delaying the inevitable looks like, I'll take it too. Seems like it can be delayed an awfully long time. Maintaining quarantine at borders is an option, if a country decides they want to do it. Australia decided it wanted to. I see no reason why this can't be sustained indefinitely, it's merely a matter of how long Australia is willing to have a border quarantine system in place (which comes with all kinds of costs due to reduced international travel). There's no epidemiological reason the virus can't be suppressed and kept out of a given region. The only remaining question is how soon we expect a vaccine such that this isolation is worth it in the long run. If a vaccine never comes then it is not a viable strategy, otherwise, it does seem like a good call. Just want to remind you that I'm writing this from Australia where there is practically no virus in the community and are freedoms are increasing rather than decreasing. I don't expect there'll be widespread COVID in Australia ever again, as we've gotten quite good at suppressing small outbreaks now.