Navigating the Complexity of Border Closures: WA’s Vaccination Strategy and Democratic Choices

Recent discussions about border closures in Western Australia (WA) have highlighted a complex debate between public health measures and individual freedoms. Some citizens advocate for more open borders, while others support WA's current approach to protect against the Omicron variant. This article explores the rational behind WA's decision and provides advice for those opposing the current measures.

The WA Government's Approach to Border Closures

The Western Australia (WA) government, inspired by the success of international travel re-openings, has maintained strict border closures until the state reaches a double dose vaccination rate comparable to Eastern Sydney. This strategy is based on scientific evidence and public health guidelines. The rationale is to avoid overwhelming the healthcare system and to prevent the potential influx of cases that could lead to a significant increase in hospitalizations and mortality from the Omicron variant.

Challenges of Border Closures

While the scientific rationale behind WA's border closures is strong, some argue that such measures delay the inevitable. The Delta outbreak in Perth, which shows no signs of abating, suggests that the borders may open sooner rather than later. However, the government's cautious approach allows time for vaccination rates to rise and for the healthcare system to prepare for any potential influx.

So, What's a Citizen to Do?

For those upset with the current measures, the most effective action is to participate in the democratic process. If you disagree with the government's decisions, your voice can be heard at the next election by supporting a different candidate or party. Additionally, you have the option to relocate to a jurisdiction with policies more aligned with your values.

It is important to note that WA's decision was not made with malice or selfishness. Rather, it was a calculated and evidence-based approach to protect public health and the healthcare system. The government's actions are a reflection of their commitment to ensuring the well-being of their constituents.

The Role of Public Health and Personal Freedom

Public health measures often face criticism from those who prioritize personal freedom. The debate between these two values is essential, but it is also important to recognize the long-term effects of pandemics. When the realities of a serious illness or the loss of a loved one come to light, the concept of freedom takes on a different meaning. The fear of illness and death can change one's perspective on what constitutes personal freedom.

Furthermore, the impact of the healthcare system on personal freedom cannot be ignored. Hospitals that are overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients cannot provide adequate care for other medical emergencies. This is a stark reality that many individuals may not consider until faced with such a situation.

A Call for Patience and Understanding

The government's goal is to protect the community and ensure that the healthcare system is not overwhelmed. This is a noble and necessary objective, and it is important for citizens to understand and support this goal. WA's efforts to eliminate the virus may not succeed, but the attempt is commendable and reflects a commitment to public health.

In conclusion, while the debate over border closures and vaccination strategies remains contentious, it is crucial for citizens to approach the issue with understanding and respect. The WA government's approach is a democratic and evidence-based response to a global pandemic, and it is important to recognize the validity of their actions in light of public health concerns.