This is what I found bizarre about NZ's approach. Their goals was 0 _cases_ in the entire country. It's a great accomplishment but perhaps unnecessary.
Because zero is magic. If you know your number of cases doubles every week when you aren't locked down, it seems as though it hardly matters what you do right? Five cases, six cases, ten cases, it's going to get out of control no matter.
But if your base is zero then double that is still zero. That's why they've pursued elimination and why it has worked.
On an island nation with an 80%+ urban population, your choice is either to aim for 0 cases, or to expect unbounded cases and new more virulent mutations (for the whole world to deal with the consequences).
This was predictable in advance, and with hindsight I still would prefer 0 cases.
At 0 cases you can fully return back to "normal" life. If you have a small amount of cases, this will always grow exponentially without countermeasures.
That's true. They do have outbreaks, about half a dozen people this time, perhaps related to a job at a laundry working with quarantine facilities.
For several days Auckland residents couldn't go to the pub.
Normally of course they can go to the pub. Or a night club. Or a packed stadium to watch sports.
But it's true that for several days last week in Auckland they weren't allowed to do that. And the same back in... September maybe? And according to you that isn't "mostly back to normal" so we can assume you believe it isn't "mostly back to normal" anywhere and never will be. That's just not a very useful benchmark.
Still, I think you're right when you say perhaps unnecessary: some countries have successfully suppressed COVID without eliminating it. That said, it's some but not many countries.
I'm a bit ambivalent. Regardless, it certainly wasn't necessary for NZ to close their border to asylum seekers.
But if your base is zero then double that is still zero. That's why they've pursued elimination and why it has worked.