It's a topsy-turvy situation. You're not a holder, your...

It's a topsy-turvy situation. You're not a holder, your interests are not being hurt, and you are against the strict lockdowns. I am a holder, my interests are being hurt, and I'm for the strict lockdowns. You've explained your position well and I see your point, but mine is different.

Instead of 'draconian', which has the sound of a measure that's unnecessarily harsh, I would call the lockdown severity 'strict'. I get it that from your point of view, 'unnecessarily' is the key word, but to me they are actually necessary. From what I see in England, Europe, America and elsewhere, where the virus is out of control, it's clear that one person can be the spark that starts the bushfire. And I'm not just thinking of the health and death statistics. The failure to control the virus in those places (contain, eradicate, whatever) will lead to further business losses that will dwarf what we're currently seeing in the travel industry. So, I think it's better to take the pain now and stay on the path that's seen us do so well.

I agree that eradication is not possible. We have to learn to live with the virus and get rid of the idea that vaccines are a magic wand. But if we stay strict on the lockdown course we're on until everyone is vaccinated (October), WEB and every business – the ones that survive – will benefit.