If I truly believed this I might agree, but I think there’s a logical fallacy somewhere along the way.
We are concerned, I assume we can agree, about a hypothetical variant which is
all four of:
- Highly contagious
- Causes death/hospitalisation in a high %
- Not protected for in terms of transmission by current vaccines
- Not protected for in terms of severe outcomes by current vaccines
Now consider that Australia has to keep going into lockdown based on three or four cases, as they have not accepted endemic transmission. They can stay on top of any new variants (except a hypothetical one that is so transmissible lockdowns don’t work), albeit at huge cost.
We already know that cases escape Australia’s quarantine procedures with some regularity, which if left unchecked would result in endemic transmission. And that is based on far more stringent procedures where every country is equivalent to our red list. Our system is more leaky with red list arrivals mixing in immigration or flight connections with no social distancing with “normal” countries.
The U.K. has accepted endemicity. If a new variant meets all four criteria above, it will find a way in because Australia has proved this under tighter controls. There is no way to aim for Covid zero just for one particular new variant (despite the efforts of surge testing in my local borough) and therefore I don’t see how we prevent such a new variant becoming dominant in the U.K in such a doomsday scenario.
My conclusion from this is that all travel controls are futile unless you are going for both an Australia-style travel ban, and Covid zero at home. Do the former without the latter (or even a half way house) and it’s just an ineffective political point.
(Lucky the concern is merely a hypothetical one! The real solutions involve more worldwide vaccination, and probably vaccine boosters).