Our numbers are still pretty good in the last week, with most new cases being from people still returning to Australia and from within existing clusters.
I think our politicians could be stepping up their messages of optimism, and that restrictions may only be weeks now instead of months, considering several states have been showing zero new cases for much of the last week. With a couple of weeks of this for all but NSW and VIC, it should mean the virus is virtually non-existent in those other states.

Waiting until the virus was significantly contained or even eradicated, is certainly the option we were going for in Australia, and even I'm surprised at how well it has been achieved here. And fortunately we had our major politicians putting aside their party differences and not actively undermining each other's efforts... unlike in some other countries that are seeing some politicians encouraging people to protest the lockdowns for their own personal political and/or financial benefit.
In a country like America, the virus didn't suddenly appear in every state.... it arrived in just a few coastal states first that have international airports, and is slowly making its way into the central states. Since those central states were getting hit later, some of them (and their people) didn't see the need for a nation-wide lockdown, assuming that the virus was not a big deal because it was some other state's problem. It was then claimed by people in those states that it was all just an over-reaction, and that they were being punished economically... but obviously, if they had pre-emptively locked down their states before the virus hit, they wouldn't now be some of the hardest hit states in the next few weeks. The US have passed 66,000 deaths now, and early projections after lockdown measures were in place over there, was that they shouldn't go above 100,000 deaths in America. With New York being a good example of how to effectively respond to the virus, it was looking like they wouldn't get anywhere near 100,000, but with only about 10 states past their peak deathrate, and about 30 states lifting restrictions this week, I think they are going to smash that number before the end of May.

If a country's government did nothing and 10% of the population died from a preventable death, people would protest... but if a country's government pre-emptively locks down society before it spreads, or has lockdown measures to reduce the death rate significantly, people will never know how bad it could have been and will protest the restrictions.

It's certainly not a good time to be a politician, because you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

Both options are going to cost billions of dollars to the economy, because each preventable sick person is an extra expense to the economy (both in medical costs and production costs if they are off work for a few weeks), and each death also has a dollar cost to the economy, particularly if that person is a worker and their job needs to be re-filled and re-trained (especially vital occupations like emergency services).
However, if you take the humane option of saving lives by shutting down society for a couple of months, less intelligent people won't know the amount of lives and dollars saved by preventing the virus from infecting a larger number of people. Even if it "only" killed 10% of the population by doing nothing, just to "protect the economy", most industries and occupations would collapse from under-staffing, costing the economy billions more. Just look at the food supply chain in America - potentially facing shortages of processed foods because too many people in those industries are getting sick and dying. That's millions of dollars lost in spoiled food, and millions of tax dollars spent on alternatives and feeding those out of work or too sick to work.

So for anyone narrow-minded enough who says that it is costing the economy keeping it closed during any virus that has the potential of killing 10% or more of the population WITHOUT restrictions (like this one), tell them to open their eyes to the actual cost to the economy if that number of people and workers are allowed to get sick or die.