ANANISH CHAUDHURI AND JOHN GIBSON: Ten questions we would have asked of Ardern, Hipkins, Robertson and Verrall

The authors are Professors of Economics at the University of Auckland and University of Waikato respectively. The views expressed are the author's own.

It is a pity that the Ministers who were central to formulating our Covid response have refused to show up to public hearings. We understand that in the past, private interviews of Ministers may have been the norm. But according to this same group, Covid was a once in a century occurrence that required extra-ordinary interventions.

Therefore, it stands to reason that the attempt to understand what went right or wrong does not need to adhere to old conventions.

Furthermore, the public has a right to know what specific questions were posed to this group and what their responses were; not summarized in a final report but in the form of actual responses.

Here are ten questions that we would have liked to put to Jacinda Ardern et al.

1. When did you become aware, if at all, of the evidence that the vaccines did not prevent transmission?  In a discussion published in BMJ in October 2020, Tal Zaks, the Chief Medical Officer of Moderna said:

“…Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission…because in order to do that you have to swab people twice a week for very long periods and that is operationally untenable…Would I like to know that this prevents mortality? Sure, because I believe it does. I just don’t think it is feasible within the time-frame [of the trial] – too many people would die waiting for the results before we knew that.”

Given that the Pfizer vaccine was based on the same mRNA technology as Moderna’s the above is true of the Pfizer vaccine as well. Given this information, were the vaccine mandates justified?

2. In the August 2020 issue of BMJ, the Editor-in-Chief, Fiona Godlee wrote:

"So instead we are heading for vaccines that reduce severity of illness rather than protect against infection, provide only short-lived immunity, and will at best have been trialled by the manufacturer against placebo. As well as damaging public confidence and wasting global resources by distributing a poorly effective vaccine, this could change what we understand a vaccine to be. Instead of long term, effective disease prevention it could become a suboptimal chronic treatment. This would be good for business but bad for global public health."

Were you at all concerned, especially in light of the limited efficacy of vaccines that making the vaccines mandatory may damage public confidence and in the end result in lower uptake of other vaccines as well?

3. In 2020, did you know what the average age of death with covid-19 was and whether this differed from background life expectancy? If you had known that these figures were the same would this have changed your response?

4. Were you aware in 2020, that the mortality risk from Covid-19 was highly skewed by age with the risk for young adults or youths being miniscule? More recent evidence suggests that while our response may have achieved comparatively low excess mortality among the elderly, it placed heavier burdens on younger generations. So performance in terms of maximizing life expectancy was much worse than in terms of minimizing deaths. How and to what extent did this risk stratification by age issue play a role in your deliberations?

5. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act gives individuals the right to refuse medical treatment. It would appear that the vaccine mandates contravened this right. What was the nature of the discussion in balancing this tension between the individual’s right to refuse treatment and the common good of the vaccine mandate? What advice was sought and from whom?

6. Is it true that the Election Commission suggested postponing the 2020 General Elections to November in order to give the opposition time to campaign? If so, then what were the grounds for ignoring this advice?

7. Is it true that in September 2021, the Director General of Health suggested that a Level 4 lockdown was no longer required for Auckland? What, then, was the basis for extending this lockdown to December?

8. You are on record for stating that a strong health response in the form of lockdowns was the best economic response. Our response was among the most debt-intensive, saw one of the sharpest declines in real GDP growth, and likely incurred large human capital losses from school closures. What kind of economic advice did you seek and what evidence did you rely on? Did those agencies/experts agree with your assessment and response?

9. Were you aware of the Productivity Commission report suggesting that the costs of the extra five days of lockdown in April 2020 outweighed the benefits by about 90 to 1? If so, then what role did this evidence play in future deliberations? Did you consider seeking similar feedback from the Productivity Commission regarding the cost-benefit trade-offs of other key policies? If not, why not?

10. Do you have any regrets about how you handled the pandemic?

John Gibson

Professor of Economics

University of Waikato, School of Accounting, Finance and Economics

Ananish Chaudhuri

Professor of Economics

University of Auckland, Department of Economics, University of Auckland Business School