Feats, Flops, and Free Lessons From NZ’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

Beginning from the first reports of COVID-19 out of China, this article provides a commentary on the actions taken by the Government of New Zealand in terms of nine themes—a national response with an elimination goal, speed, and comprehensiveness of the initial response; an evidence-based, science-led approach, prioritised on protecting lives; effective communication; leadership style which appealed to collective responsibility and attempted to de-politicise the Government’s response to the virus; flexibility of response characterised by ‘learning as you go’; oversight of coercive state powers, including a pragmatic response which attempted to defuse conflict and reserved use of ‘hard power’ to a last resort; deployment of public health interventions, and health system adaptations; the impact on Māori and marginalised communities; and economic protection and stimulus—to identify factors that might help explain why New Zealand’s pandemic response was successful and those which could have been managed better. The partially successful legal challenge brought to the four-and-a half week lockdown, the most stringent in the world, in Borrowdale v Director-General of Health, is also considered.

Testing the Effectiveness of the Health Belief Model in Predicting Preventive Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Case of Romania and Italy

“…To the extent that individuals are culturally conditioned to be concerned about the wellbeing of others, their behavior in a pandemic environment is likely to change. At the same time, even within more independent and individualistic contexts, health interventions have much to gain by emphasizing the wellbeing of others, as the case study of a highly individualistic country such as New Zealand has demonstrated ( Manning, 2021 ).…”

Islands, remoteness and effective policy making: Aotearoa New Zealand during the COVID‐19 pandemic

“…At that time, the successful vaccination programme ensured that mortality rates did not generally exceed those of other developed countries, even though many in the community would not have built up natural immunity by means of earlier exposure to the virus. Essentially, New Zealand's remoteness delayed the spread of COVID‐19, providing an opportunity to learn from the experience of other nations and to prepare (Manning, 2021), although earlier adoption of antiviral treatments might have dampened severe disease and mortality even more.…”

“…New Zealand's 'go hard and go early' strategy at the start of the pandemic was a response to evidence from China that the new virus was more dangerous than influenza and had a shorter incubation period (Dyer, 2021). 14 The limited intensive care capacity in the national health system to handle a pandemic of this size was also a factor in the decision (Blair et al, 2022;Manning, 2021). Additionally, there was a concern that the pre-existing inequalities between European New Zealanders and M aori and Pacific peoples in the incidence of communicable and noncommunicable diseases, access to health, and social determinants of health, would expose the latter groups to unacceptably high risk during the pandemic, unless a very stringent public health response was adopted (Blair et al, 2022).…”

Responsibility of States About Pandemic COVID-19: International Law Review

“…In international dispute resolution as dispute resolution can be done in two forms, namely, responsibility in terms of diplomatic/political dispute resolution (Manning, 2021). As well as disputes with adjudication mechanisms within the framework of international law (O'Connell, 2017).…”