>that simply aren't the case
Well, that's the problem with nuance isn't it? If you argue the bigger picture, the facts get in the way. If you argue the minutiae if facts, there is always another scope which renders those facts questionable. As I read it, the article made no comparison of anything with respect to AU/NZ, except that these are other western countries with very different policy decisions. Which is quite careful, and benign, in terms of a comparison to make.
If you take the example of Sweden from before, Sweden's border with Norway is about the same length as the border between NSW and VIC, about the same number of people either side, communicable languages, (prob also about the same level of derision from those on either side), a few major airports, a couple of difficult roads out, and the rest is by sea. Though they are closer to more populous areas, we also have a couple of billion people to our north, almost a third of the state are originally from overseas, more than half of them from Asia. There was definitely pressure here to stay open. The majority of Sweden's immigration by comparison is from Middle East. So if you look at policy decisions, in comparison, there is not much reason they were not capable of locking off their borders if they chose, both operationally, and in terms of pressure. In the case of the virus, though failure modes are indeed exponential, success modes seem they might be closer to linear.
You raised the 'does not scale' argument, but also tried to say the article lacked nuance. I was just pointing out (though I may not disagree in aggregate), I very much reject the premise of 'does not scale' when trying to deny comparisons. I argue that the article did not lack a nuance which it needed, but point out that your response did, in fact, lack nuance where nuance was needed. 'Does not scale' is a tired argument, and rarely stands to scrutiny. Comparisons are never perfect, but they are all about nuance, where do they work and where do they fail?