Eliminate and not flatten the curve: New Zealand has results with a more aggressive strategy against coronavirus | World

But there is a recent slowdown in the emergence of new cases of Covid-19, and primarily the number of deaths since the start of the pandemic – just one.

One explanation may be that the government, led by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, made decisions considered more aggressive than other developed countries, such as the confinement of its entire population for a month and the complete closure of the borders.

It was also a differential that these Measures have been taken since the beginning of the cases and the notion that the “mitigation” of the disease was sought, but its “elimination” as far as possible.

What does he do The goal is not to flatten the curve, but to destroy it.

“If successful, the plan points to a clear exit route, with a careful return to normal activities,” says a scientific article on the New Zealand strategy published by a group led by epidemiologist Michael Baker.

However, experts from the University of Otago are cautious in celebrating the victory, as there is still no time or data to consolidate the results.

The first days of April indicate that the country is on the right track.

As of Thursday (9), there were 992 confirmed cases of Covid-19 in New Zealand. It was February 28 when the first one was detected.

The only death in the country, that of an older woman who contracted the virus abroad, occurred on March 29.

But the number of cases, on the other hand, has seen a noticeable increase in the past two weeks, from 189 cases on March 25 to nearly 1,000 on April 9, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

In addition to the recovery of almost 300 patients and the record of a single death, raising the hope that the strategy of “elimination” of the disease is working is to reduce the appearance of new cases.

Compared to the 76 new infections registered on April 2, for example, there was a steady drop to 23 on Thursday.

What is the “elimination” strategy?

In the mitigation strategy, applied in countries like the United States, measures and restrictions increase as the epidemic progresses, seeking to “flatten the curve.”

On the other hand, the strategy of “eliminating” the curve “reverses this order, in part by introducing more aggressive measures at first,” says the article published by Baker’s team.

“This approach aims at border control (…) and emphasizes the isolation of cases and the quarantine of contacts to ‘eliminate’ transmission chains,” they highlight.

Although some of these measures have been followed by other countries, the experts point out five essential keys to obtain good results:

• Border controls with effective isolation of passengers;
• Rapid detection through generalized testing;
• Isolation and monitoring of contacts;
• Intense promotion of hygiene and strict compliance with social distance;
• Effective communication strategy for the population.

But what exactly did New Zealand do?

The country began quarantining all foreign travelers on March 15. Just four days later, politics grew toward closing the borders.

On March 23, the Prime Minister announced “the toughest movement restriction in modern New Zealand history”, advancing to level 4 of his four-week contingency plan.

No one can leave the house, except to buy food or medicine, or to exercise at home. Contact is only allowed in the domestic circle and authorities constantly tell you how to get out safely.

The service professionals considered essential are the only ones who may be on the street.

“Having a strong and punctual stance has given the government and the health industry time to prepare for the worst, including the installation of test stations and the expansion of hospital capacity,” he told BBC News Mundo (Spanish service of BBC) Professor Ella Henry, Auckland University of Technology.

“In general, New Zealanders followed the rules and isolated cases of misbehavior, such as illegal gatherings and the violation of confinement, were exposed and subjected to public restrictions,” explains Henry, isolated for three weeks.

A police hotline received hundreds of complaints from neighbors that pointed out who was breaking the rules.

Health Minister David Clark himself was demoted after it was discovered that he went to the beach with his family days after confinement had already been ordered.

“Under normal conditions, I would have fired the minister. What he did is wrong and he has no excuse. But now my priority is our collective fight against covid-19,” the prime minister said in a statement.

New Zealand’s geography is also part of the country’s apparent success in containing the disease.

As a nation made up of two large islands, there was already good control over established borders.

Furthermore, having a population of 4.8 million means that the authorities have more control and that people are also monitoring each other.

A country with similar characteristics could also follow the “elimination” strategy, but measures would have to be taken before the appearance of community transmissions (those not related to the importation of the disease by travelers).

“The blockade has great social and economic costs and is likely to be particularly difficult for those with fewer resources,” says Baker and his team.

The government launched financial support programs for businesses and self-employed workers, mortgage payments were suspended, and even low-income families were given devices to access the Internet.

In other countries with other conditions, this type of aid may be difficult to maintain, but “islands” of stability can be created, says Henry.

And while some New Zealanders are already celebrating their country’s rapid response, Baker’s team cautions that the country is not safe from worsening.

“The success of the elimination strategy is far from certain in New Zealand.”