The four modelled responses included "aggressive" and "moderate" elimination - both which aimed to stamp out the virus altogether, but at different paces. Blakely described aggressive elimination as "going hard", and likened it to New Zealand's rapid, zero-tolerance approach. The total cost to the economy was estimated to be relatively similar between all strategies, but, from the perspective of health-system related costs, aggressive elimination proved the best option. For instance, health expenditure costs for the first year came in at $3.7m for aggressive elimination - compared with $117m for loose suppression. Insights add to elimination caseThe new study wasn't the first to take a retrospective look at whether elimination had proven the right choice.

Source: New Zealand Herald March 22, 2021 03:33 UTC