Choosing to go out is a gut feeling

People tend to venture from home when they feel safe, not just because restrictions ease, explains Martyn Goddard

AS restrictions slowly ease, economists and governments assume consumers will go out to shops, restaurants and workplaces as soon as they are allowed to. But will they?

Some will. But there is now good evidence from several countries that unless consumers feel it’s safe to go out, they’ll stay put.

An indication of this is that the sharp increases, almost everywhere, in the number of people staying at home, began well before official restrictions were introduced.

In Singapore, where shops, restaurants, offices and most other commercial activities remained open, retailers reported a downturn in revenue of at least 50 per cent. For restaurants it was more like 80 per cent. There were similar findings in Sweden and South Korea: people didn’t wait for the government to ensure their safety. They did it themselves.

In the United States, there is now detailed evidence that this was the pattern in every state. In other words, the restrictions made little noticeable difference.

And although it’s too soon to know how long this behaviour will continue after lockdowns are lifted, early data from the US and elsewhere shows most people continue to stay home. Spending has shown only minor increases.

If our economy is to get going again, people will have to feel safe going out. At the moment, many probably don’t.

With every new cluster of cases, that reluctance is reinforced. And we can’t be certain about how much virus is in the state because we aren’t doing enough testing.

Tasmania has the lowest testing rate in the country. Victoria has conducted 41,200 tests per million of its population. The comparable figure for Tasmania is 6200.

You can’t find cases if you don’t look. At the moment, the only people being tested are those with respiratory symptoms who come forward.

What’s happening to those who don’t come forward, or are asymptomatic, remains a mystery.

If the community is to feel safe again, we have to initiate frequent and regular testing for the virus in the obvious vulnerable settings — hospitals, aged care homes, detention centres and in workplaces where personal distancing is impossible, like abattoirs.

Just two such outbreaks, in Tasmania’s North-West and at Newmarch House in western Sydney, accounted for 34 per cent of the nation’s deaths by the time the last fatality was reported. But other clusters will inevitably emerge in unpredicted places, like the McDonald’s outlets in Melbourne.

Broad-community sentinel testing is urgently needed, but the laboratory-based assays now being used are not available in adequate numbers.

The only current alternative — rapid point-ofcare antibody tests — could have a role here. They’re not accurate enough to give someone a firm diagnosis, but in large numbers they could be used to detect a community outbreak before it got too far out of hand.

They’re cheap, easy to use, and the Federal Government has a million of them sitting unused in a warehouse.

These tests aren’t ideal and better ones will eventually appear. Right now, though, they’re all we have.

THE ONLY PEOPLE BEING TESTED ARE THOSE WITH RESPIRATORY SYMPTOMS WHO COME FORWARD. WHAT’S HAPPENING TO THOSE WHO DON’T COME FORWARD, OR ARE ASYMPTOMATIC, REMAINS A MYSTERY