The dark side of New Zealand’s ‘successful’ pandemic response

THE DEVASTATING consequences suffered by those who refused to be vaccinated in New Zealand have been laid bare in a royal commission inquiry into the pandemic.

The detailed look at the effects of vaccine mandates provides a vivid insight into the suffering they caused, with reports of lost jobs and shattered relationships. One submission to the panel described the country stated: “Devastation does not begin to cover what these people went through. The stories of loss were overwhelming.” It heard the case of a health worker “mandated out of” her three decade career as a nurse. She was forced to sell her home as a consequence.

The commission found that the mandates were justified on health grounds, although in some sectors they went on for longer than required. It pointed to the fact that New Zealand had fared far better than many other countries and that its response had been widely praised. But the commissioners also believed that the implementation of the mandates had increased mistrust of the government and even risked a breakdown in social cohesion. In fact, it found, this trust was damaged so badly there was “a sense that people would be very unwilling to comply with lockdown and vaccine requirements in a future pandemic”.

The royal commission inquiry released its findings after an exhaustive investigation involving more than 133,000 pages of evidence and hearing submissions from nearly 13,000 New Zealanders.
The aim of the royal commission inquiry is to learn lessons from New Zealand’s response to the pandemic to better prepare for future outbreaks. The remit of phase one was to “inquire into many dimensions of Aotearoa New Zealand’s response to COVID-19 – public health, economic and social”. The commissioners were chair, Professor Tony Blakely, alongside John Whitehead and Grant Illingworth KC.
It took in a wide range of evidence including Cabinet papers, minutes of advisory groups, reviews and written evidence from government departments. It also received thousands of public submissions and conducted more than 1500 face to face or virtual meets with public servants, independent experts and “communities most impacted by the pandemic”.

At the beginning of the inquiry report, the commissioners stress that New Zealand had widely admired for its handling of the pandemic. “It was praised as an exemplar around the world, especially in the first two years,” they said. Their report also pointed out that New Zealand had fewer Covid deaths per had of population that almost any other developed country. But it is the human stories within the findings of the commissioners, which stretch over 700 pages, that are so fascinating. It provides a detailed view of the catastrophic effects caused by the measures to combat Covid, even in a country praised for its response.

Submissions to the panel “frequently” pointed to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s statement that the government was “the single source of truth” as something that had “contributed to a sense of mistrust”.
One submission even described the country as a “dictatorship.”

The report highlights that the potentially fatal side-effect of myocarditis was only discovered after the vaccine was rolled out, increasing the belief among some that the government was withholding information. All of this led to vaccine-hesitancy – but the consequences of not getting the jab were seismic. The panel heard how “unvaccinated people were effectively ostracised by society – treated as if they were selfish, responsible for spreading COVID-19, and to be avoided”.
It was found that “at a personal level, being unvaccinated could strain and even destroy family relationships. Submitters described couples divorcing, unvaccinated grandmothers being prevented from seeing their grandchildren, and lifelong friends who would no longer speak to them.”

It quoted one submission which stated:

“Due to mandates I was excluded from my family Christmas, not allowed to attend my sister’s 50th or my father’s 80th birthday. “This has had a devastating and lasting effect on my relationship with my family.”

So how did the poster-child for tackling Covid-19 end up with its own citizens occupying Parliamentary ground in capital Wellington for a protest that lasted three weeks? New Zealand initially adopted an elimination approach to Covid, using its geographical isolation to keep the virus from its shores. Although it implemented some lockdowns, it was largely able to keep Covid at bay. When the first vaccines were given in February 2021, the mood was calm. A successful drive to encourage vaccinations was launched and citizens were quick to respond. But a Delta breakout in August led to a national lockdown. Within months, vaccine mandates were also in place.

On October 11, all those working in the health and disability sector were required to be vaccinated, along with teachers and nursery staff. This was later extended to other public sectors, including prison staff.
On October 26 Ardern said those working in hospitality, as well as businesses such as gyms and hairdressers, must be vaccinated. If they hadn’t received the vaccine within four weeks, their jobs would be at risk, they were warned. Customers were required to prove their vaccination status to gain entry.

In December, a Vaccination Assessment Tool was introduced to help employers assess the risks of Covid themselves. “While not set by central government, these policies operated as de facto vaccine ‘mandates’ within certain workplaces or sectors”, the report authors found. The repercussions on those who refused to comply could be catastrophic, it found, stating: “Although the number cannot be quantified, people did lose employment due to vaccine mandates.”

The commissioners said that they had heard testimony from “a substantial number” of the public on the problems, of whom “many felt it was unfair and unnecessary for people to lose their jobs because they chose not to get vaccinated”.

One member of the public wrote:

“I lost two jobs I loved, one being in healthcare and the other in hospitality. “The stress and anxiety was very debilitating and not knowing what was going to happen as it progressed was so unsettling I nearly broke.”

Another submission received by the commission read:

“Devastation does not begin to cover what these people went through. The stories of loss were overwhelming. “I spoke with couples who faced both earners losing their employment, rendering them unable to afford the basics, including food on the table and a roof over their children’s heads.”

The mandates made staff shortages for many sectors worse, including in the medical sphere.
One district health board “lost 38 staff, including two doctors” and “the only qualified audiologist” they had, for good measure. Patients requiring audiology were seen by a trainee who was supervised remotely by a qualified audiologist in another country.

Another nursing organisation lost 35 staff “as a result of the mandates”, the panel said. It also found a disproportionate impact of the rules in more remote parts of the country.  Problems arose “if the sole practitioner in that area was unable to work”

The commissioners said:

“Some of our public submitters also claimed particular sectors and professions – in health and education especially – had been damaged as a result of mandate- related job losses.
“Workers with much-needed skills had been ‘mandated out … at the very time when the country needed all hands on deck’, one wrote.”

It quoted the following submission:

“I was mandated out of my 30 year nursing career, which led to the sale of my home.”

The commission found that the unvaccinated found themselves “unable to use many public places and services” and were described as “feeling shunned by their communities, workplaces and even their families due to their unvaccinated status”. This led to families being discriminated against or even “destroyed”, submissions said.

One read:

“It was ridiculous not to be able to take my grandchildren to the public library as well as other places. I was definitely discriminated against for not being vaccinated.”

Even those who returned to their old jobs once mandates were lifted faced difficulties, the commissioners finding they “felt disillusioned and socially ostracised from their workplace”. Those needing healthcare who had not been vaccinated also found themselves in difficulty, the inquiry said. This was despite access to essential services, including healthcare, did not require proof of vaccination. This was because of protocols adopted, such as seeing unvaccinated patients in their cars.

One individual told the inquiry:

“I was basically trespassed from my doctor’s office which meant I was not able to receive my healthcare needed for my own disability.
“I was told that face to face was impossible because of my decision. I was denied healthcare. When I did see someone it was in the car park. I pay for these visits I am entitled to healthcare.”

The inquiry found that the “precautionary approach” was understandable. But once the peak of Omicron had passed by March 2022 the “case for retaining vaccine mandates became less clear”. Many occupational mandates were rolled back in April 2022, mandates for prison staff and border workers were retained until July 2022, and those for workers in high-risk settings (healthcare and prisons) remained in place until September 2022.

The commission found:

“The decision to require vaccination involved a careful weighing up of people’s right to refuse medical treatment against the benefits decision-makers believed would result from making vaccination mandatory.
“This is a judgement call. Decision- makers may reach different views on the most appropriate balance at different times and in different contexts, particularly as evidence of both the costs and benefits of mandates becomes clearer.
“It is the view of this Inquiry that the retention of many occupational vaccine mandates until well into 2022 was too long. Once the peak of Omicron had passed, in March 2022, the Government could have confidence that the new COVID-19 Protection Framework was effective in preventing the health system from being overwhelmed and protecting vulnerable groups as far as was possible. It was also becoming clear that vaccination offered limited protection against transmission.”

It added:

“The Inquiry is also of the view that the extension of vaccination requirements into a broad range of workplaces went too far – although we also acknowledge that these requirements were introduced by employers and businesses (under regulatory guidance) rather than the Government, and that many of these employers were responding to expectations on the part of their staff.”

Despite these reservations, the inquiry was positive about how the nation had dealt with the pandemic.

They said:

“Most of us learned to live with the unknowns, the instability and the sheer strangeness of it all. We recognised that, however tough things seemed here, many other countries had it far worse. International comparative studies have since borne that out. Our COVID-19 mortality rate was much lower than most other countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom (see Chapter 1 for an overview of Aotearoa New Zealand’s comparative pandemic outcomes).
Our health system was never overwhelmed by Covid-19 cases, although it was often strained in other ways. While our use of lockdowns was among the most stringent in the the world, it was relatively sparing: we spent more of 202 free from onerous restrictions than people elsewhere.
“A generous economic response cushioned people from the worst of the pandemic’s immediate impacts and – initially at least – New Zealand’s social and economic outcomes were better than most other OECD countries.”

David Paton, profesor of Industrial Economics at Nottingham University, suggested that the inquiry had not provided sufficient evidence that the mandates were required.
Prof Paton said:

“Regarding vaccine mandates, the Inquiry seems to take a partial view. They acknowledge ethical concerns and the negative impacts of vaccine mandates on public trust, but conclude that “this is a judgement call“.
“Going against well-established public health ethics could only be a judgement call if there was overwhelming evidence of benefit from vaccine mandates.
“But the Inquiry seems not to cover any evidence that mandates had public health benefits in real world data. They simply state that “vaccine mandates … protected vulnerable people from Covid” without giving any evidence that it did so.”