While the PM's position is supported by Gladys Berejiklian, it has not gone down well elsewhere, particularly in the Labor states of Queensland and Western Australia.

The ACT government is rushing to reach a 90 per cent vaccine target for maximum security. The Chief Minister has said local lockdowns won't necessarily stop when the Doherty targets are reached. The Liberal South Australian Premier has been far from vocal in his support of opening up early.

This is because, with fears NSW case numbers could be running at 4000 a day by late September, it is widely acknowledged once restrictions begin to ease the whole country will see a spike in infections, hospitalisations and deaths far in excess of the Doherty predictions, which were based on 30 cases a day nationwide.

While the PM has been understandably coy about acknowledging the expected surge in deaths, saying "case numbers will likely rise when we soon begin to open up", the Treasurer has been much more frank.

Mr Frydenberg, who says he will withhold federal assistance to any states which won't open their borders once the targets are met, said: "By living with Covid there'll be cases, by living with Covid there'll be people in hospital, and living with Covid there'll be deaths".

This a lot to ask of jurisdictions such as Tasmania (13 COVID-19 deaths), Western Australia (nine COVID-19 deaths), Queensland (seven COVID-19 deaths), South Australia (four COVID-19 deaths) the ACT (three COVID-19 deaths) and the Northern Territory (zero COVID-19 deaths), which have done a sterling job of protecting their people.

Case numbers were far lower when the national cabinet signed off on the opening-up strategy in late July.

Much more is also now known about the frightening transmissibility of the Delta variant.

Under the circumstances, the government's insistence on pressing ahead regardless is not pragmatic - it verges on being a reckless gamble with people's lives.

It is not unreasonable, therefore, for the leaders of other states and territories to dig their heels in to protect their citizens.

While it would be unnecessarily cynical to suggest the refusal to consider a pause before starting to lift restrictions is politically motivated, the PM would be well aware that to go to next year's election with much of the country in lockdown would be a disaster.

He would also be mindful of the rising levels of lockdown fatigue and protests. This, as Anthony Albanese was at pains to point out in question time on Monday, raises the possibility political expediency could see the expert medical advice being cherrypicked.

Although the Doherty Institute's Professor Jodie McVernon has reportedly said her modelling didn't address the prospect of ending lockdowns with such a high caseload, and that more work is needed, Mr Morrison is holding the line.

If politics are playing a part in shaping the government's position, he needs to understand that while going to an election under a lockdown would be terrible, going to an election when case numbers are rampant, ICUs are overflowing and deaths are soaring would be even worse.

A strong leader would be honest enough to admit that when the circumstances change, the response might need to change as well.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: