We all seem to be suffering from Long Covid. It's lingering as the findings of the second phase of the Covid-19 response inquiry were released yesterday. And what its findings were pretty much depends on what media you read. According to RNZ, it found the Government's response was effective but late and not communicated well enough to people. From Newsroom: ‘Lockdown, vaccine decisions considered and appropriate, Royal Commission’. So looking at that headline, you'd think nothing to see here, no criticisms, excellent, well done. ‘Covid-19 inquiry commission criticises length of Auckland lockdown and government spending’ – that's from the New Zealand Herald. Maybe read it yourself and see what you think. It's on publicly available on websites. There are video explainers, there are findings there. See for yourself. 

If you were anti-the infantilisation of the country, as I was, you will read it and wonder why the commission was so temperate in its findings. If you believed the Government was your saviour and without their instructions you would have died, you will read the excuses and the findings and nod along and say, “Yes, didn't we do well?" The second phase of the inquiry tested whether the Government took a balanced approach and found overall it largely did, but said the public was not brought on board —maybe they didn't want to be on board, maybe they could start to see through the nonsense— and the public must be brought on board in the next pandemic.  

One of the 24 recommendations made yesterday said that there should be more open decision making in future around the impacts on people's isolation, health, and incomes. And that's really, really important because surely, we must be allowed to question decisions, we must be able to debate them and argue against them without being considered treasonous or a conspiracy theorist or a granny killer. Look what happened when then leader of the National Party Simon Bridges grilled Ashley Bloomfield over the Ministry of Health's decision-making transparency and data at the Covid Response Select Committee hearing. In effect, just by daring to question the Director General of Health, just by asking him some tough questions, he lost his job. Cost him the job as leader of the National Party.  

We have to be able to question and debate, even if the decisions are ultimately the Government's based on the best possible advice. The report confirmed, as reported at the time, that the Auckland lockdown in late 2021 went on six days longer than recommended by Ashley Bloomfield. I think Aucklanders would argue it went on six weeks longer than it should have, but hey ho, there we go. That's what they found. It also found that advice from health experts that under 18s in work shouldn't be mandated to have two vaccine doses because of the risk of cardiac myocarditis wasn't followed. Another finding was that the Auckland Northland border stayed in place over the 2021/22 Christmas period when it was advised it could be reopened.  

There was also criticism of the then Labour Government's economic approach, saying policies around stimulus and inflation became unaligned from mid ‘21. For unaligned, I'd have put unhinged, but again, hey ho, it's their report. And that was despite the best advice from Treasury that spending must be temperate, timely, and targeted. The people of New Zealand are now vulnerable for at least the next 40 years to another shock, another pandemic, an earthquake. We're built on the shaky isles, you know, there's bound to be another, and we are now really vulnerable because too much money was not just spent but wasted by the previous Labour Government.  

And it's not just Treasury or the Inquiry that have pointed the finger at Labour for their financial sloppiness. Auditor General John Ryan, as he was then, heavily criticised the $15 billion infrastructure spend up during the pandemic. He said he decided to look at the funding because of the scale of the investment and the potential intergenerational impacts. His criticism and list of failings by officials and ministers are many. This is from a man who could ask the hard questions and get the answers that he needed to get, unlike journos who had to go through the OIA to get any kind of answers to any pertinent questions. They were far too busy saving lives to give answers to genuine questions around lockdowns, around vaccinations, around mandates and the like. But even with the hard data in front of them, Chris Hipkins and the like just recycle the “it's hard to be sorry when you've saved lives" trope.  

The inquiry finishes: “These lessons do not detract from the overall success of the pandemic response. Indeed, our findings, lessons, and recommendations are offered in the hope that they will assist decision makers to be as successful in fighting a pandemic in the future." Well, with what you know now, do you believe that the response was a success? Do you believe that when all is said and done and you look at other countries and they've done their reports, it was a success? I'll be talking to an economic policy analyst from Sweden, I spoke to him before the show and we'll be playing that next hour. They've conducted a rigorous review of their response and, you know, given the choice next time, I think that's the one we should be following. And certainly, Europe would be looking long and hard at it. Despite Sweden coming under so much criticism and heavy fire for having a light touch and open policy, they had the lowest death rate amongst all the European countries. So, there are alternatives, there are options. This is not the way, the truth, and the light. And I don't think it's treasonous or misogynist or conspiracy theoretical to say there is another way of doing things and, do you know what, it might actually be better.