Historically, AUS has over 10% CT. Most of the current VIC cases are CT. They did well with less lockdown than us, but as we see, if you have just 10% CT you can never really eradicate it. You can only manage it. And when they then go to even looser lockdown, hosts are aplenty.
They are still blaming some of the the outbreak on security guards at quarantine hotels https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/coronavirus-updates-victoria-records-77-new-cases-mostly-in-hot-zones-20200702-p558b3.html
Maybe it is a political thing?
They are also blaming schools, with child to child transmissions. IMO schools have always been an area of concern for me with this virus and how it is transferred in community.
The question is, financially which leaves regions financially better off long term? Is it better to live a normal life with the virus eliminated, which has an initial higher cost? eg $100 billion per 5 million people. Or to only suppress the virus, with weaker lockdowns, which still has a big initial financial cost, but also an ongoing cost, although things remain more open and then to go in and out of lockdowns to control it?
Also remembering that a vaccine or effective treatment may be years off. Some businesses can't operate in a socially distanced environment, as it is not financially viable, and there are so many knock on effects that can cause. Also in terms of mental health, living with the virus in the community, and always fearing getting it , and needing to wear masks etc, IMO isn't good either.
IMO this also goes to show that borders between states are a vulnerable area, if the virus can jump states like this.