This was despite it being based on the advice of an expert medical panel and that, in the words of Chief Medical Officer Professor Brendan Murphy, "a couple of days either way" wouldn't make a noticeable difference.

That was because of the low number of infections at the time. As of late yesterday, Australia still had less than 500 cases. Only five deaths had been recorded.

Following Monday's news that what had initially been a recommendation was now a ban; that all people arriving from overseas must self-isolate, and the rollout of the public information program, the controversy seems to have subsided.

Confidence in the quality of advice being delivered by Professor Murphy and his peers is still high. There is a general consensus the course being charted by the federal, state and territory governments, working in co-operation through the "national cabinet", is well-meant, well-informed and defensible.

There has been a robust debate but, if anything, it has made people more aware of the actions being taken and what they should do.

This is in stark contrast to what has taken place in the United Kingdom over the same period.

Public confidence in the ability of the recently elected government of Boris Johnson, and of its chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance, to cope with the crisis is at rock bottom.

On Friday, Vallance appeared to suggest the government's policy was to allow the virus to run its course, largely unchecked, in order to generate a so-called "herd immunity".

The only way, in the absence of a vaccine, for this to occur is for at least 60 per cent of the population to become infected.

Given COVID-19's mortality rate is about one per cent, and the UK has just under 68 million people, this could result in up to 408,000 deaths.

The UK's failure to adopt similar tough restrictions to those in force in Italy and other European countries lent some credence to the belief this was policy.

One critic, Birmingham University's Professor Willem van Schaik, said the UK was the only country in Europe adopting a "laissez-faire attitude to the virus".

He warned up to 36 million people would need to be infected and that the human cost would be unacceptable.

Within 12 hours, more than 200 scientists had signed an open letter criticising Vallance's views and urging stronger controls. The scientists also rejected the government's view people would become "fed up" with such restrictions if they were imposed too soon.

While in the early days of the pandemic the UK and Australia had a similar number of cases, the British figures have mushroomed. There are now more than 1500 known infections, and at least 53 deaths involving COVID-19.

Johnson's government was forced to respond quickly, announcing tighter controls and denying "herd immunity" was part of its response.

"Herd immunity is not part of our action plan, but is a natural byproduct of the epidemic," a Department of Health and Social Care spokesman has said.

The trouble is, the damage has been done. In times of crisis it is vital people have confidence in those who are leading the response. Once confidence is lost, it is hard to regain.

Australia's leaders need to be very aware that unless they continue to respond quickly, and communicate clearly, the same thing could happen here.