SEEING RED
Jacinda Ardern has ruled out a return to the red traffic light setting. But current Covid numbers are bad, so why isn’t the Government doing anything? Keith Lynch explains.
You might recall January 23 this year. At 11am on that Sunday morning, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern held a press conference.
The inevitable had happened. Omicron had breached the border. The entire country was hurriedly moved to the red traffic light setting. The most highly transmissible version of Covid-19 could not be eliminated – the plan was simply to slow it down, to flatten the curve, and keep hospitalisations manageable.
On that summer day, there were eight people in hospital with the novel coronavirus.
Over the following weeks, Omicron did its thing. New Zealand saw exponential spread with case numbers topping 20,000 daily at the wave’s peak. By mid-May the number of people in hospital with Covid crept over 1000.
This morning, there are more than 550 people in hospital with Covid-19. Case numbers, seemingly fuelled by yet another Omicron flavour, BA.5, have surged over 10,000 for two days straight.
Yet New Zealand (mostly) shrugs.
Speaking in Australia yesterday, Ardern essentially ruled out a return to the red traffic light setting (which would place limits, for example, on indoor events), and essentially queried whether such a move would make any real difference to hospital numbers. (She also pointed out that New Zealand’s restrictions are tougher than much of the rest of the world.)
On the surface, all of this is entirely understandable. Governments shouldn’t impose restrictions on people unless they actually achieve some public good. It’s also true that the Government could be doing more. Yet it doesn’t seem to want to.
Entirely regrettable is how Dr Collin Tukuitonga, Auckland University’s associate dean of public health, describes where we’re at. He certainly doesn’t want the dramatic restrictions of 2020 and 2021, but he does want leadership – on mask use, or boosters, for instance.
Would red make a difference?
This is the thing. It’s not really about red or orange or green. What slows the spread of Covid-19 is how people behave.
University of Canterbury professor Michael Plank’s view is that cautious behaviour did have an impact on the March wave.
‘‘What’s less clear,’’ he tells me, ‘‘is how much of the effect was due to the letter of the law itself and how much was due to people modifying their behaviour in response to perceived risk.’’
Essentially, his point is that a return to the cautious March mixing behaviour today would make a difference, but it’s not clear that a return to red would achieve that.
‘‘There isn’t particularly strong evidence that things like gathering size limits in themselves are very effective.
Moving to red could help send a signal to people that risk is increasing. On the other hand, would that actually work if it’s transparently performative?’’
Which brings us to politics
For much of last year, Ardern expended significant political capital urging the population to get vaccinated. The vaccines were our way out. Get to 90 per cent and things go back to normal.
And they kind of did. After Omicron peaked, vaccine passes were dropped, mandates were done away with. New Zealand moved back to orange (which means minimal restrictions) and border reopening plans were accelerated.
Ardern, meanwhile, has been overseas telling the world New Zealand is open for business.
Much of Aotearoa’s indifference may well be down to how many people now view Covid. As Professor Michael Baker has previously pointed out, the
‘‘There isn’t particularly strong evidence that things like gathering size limits in themselves are very effective.’’
Professor Michael Plank
‘‘People associate [restrictions] with the monotony they may have experienced for the past two years . . . Even chaos is preferable.’’
Dr Sarb Johal
Government needed to ‘‘demonise’’ the virus to forge widespread support for its elimination strategy.
But after 1.4 million confirmed cases (and there will be many more than that) a vast number of New Zealanders will have had their own Covid episode shape their perspective on the necessity for Government intervention.
Where once we thought about Covid in much the same way, now opinion is fractured by unique experience.
What’s more, psychologist Dr Sarb Johal explained in a recent blog post, people want to live what’s called a ‘‘psychologically rich life’’ – essentially one full of intense feelings and ‘‘varied, novel and extraordinary experiences’’ – some pleasant, some not.
This, he wrote, may ‘‘explain the all-hands-off-withguns-blazing attitude of ignoring precautionary warnings about masks and vaccines now’’.
‘‘People associate it with the monotony they may have experienced for the past two years. And although they may have been safe and content for all this time, they want more. Even chaos is preferable.’’
There’s little recent data on public attitudes towards Covid restrictions. In February, polling found most people thought the restrictions then were reasonable. About a quarter wanted tougher curbs, with another quarter wanting them loosened.
From a (cynical) political perspective, Labour is unlikely to be overly worried about those with the greatest Covid anxiety. Yes, it may bleed a few votes to the Greens, for instance, but to win the next election it needs to retain the centre. And it appears the centre is fatigued by Covid, more worried about the economy and cost of living.
As political commentator Ben Thomas points out, now is simply not a good time for Labour to be seen as slowing down the economy by, for example, imposing limits on gatherings.
Meanwhile, the extremes of the Covid debate are still dizzying for most people. Some still exclaim the virus isn’t real or isn’t a problem, while others spread alarmist misinformation.
The first extreme has been well documented. So let’s dwell on the second for a moment.
One example I see regularly is media reports, and indeed some experts, claiming a particular percentage of people will get long Covid. These claims are typically based on studies that pre-date vaccination or Omicron.
Indeed, a recent study has suggested that 4.4% of Omicron cases resulted in long Covid, compared with 10.8% of Delta cases.
Now, let’s be clear here. Long Covid is real and, as that study outlines, the absolute number of long Covid cases went up given Omicron’s infectiousness. But when the often well-meaning rhetoric on the personal risk simply doesn’t match the reality, it leads people to switch off, which deprives governments of the social licence needed to protect the population.
Political scientist Dr Lara Greaves’ view is that the Ardern Government isn’t willing to act because fundamentally the public health measures needed to constrain Covid’s growth rely on a collective effort.
It once had that collective buy-in from the team of five million. ‘‘But now it would seem any research they’ve done would suggest that people are over it.’’
So essentially, taking us to red could be a political disaster for the Government.
Another person I spoke to for this article also pointed out the public perception of risk may also be shaped by regular media reporting.
Much of the recent reporting, she pointed out, has focused on difficulties for businesses rather than the fact Covid is regularly killing people, particularly the elderly.
So, what can be done?
It’s hard to say. While some will advocate for the Government to do x, y or z, Covid restrictions are only useful if the public buys in and alters its behaviour accordingly.
A group of 150 doctors and scientists have outlined what they call a vaccine-plus strategy – mostly focused on education, ventilation and masking – which they say would mitigate spread without being overly onerous on the population.
But as Thomas points out, what is the end goal of temporary restrictions postelimination? If eradicating the virus is off the table, slowing its spread (essentially ensuring fewer people get sick all at once) therefore has to be the goal. That’s less defined, a harder sell.
The traffic light system, which began on December 2, was born in an era of tight suppression, mandates and Auckland boundaries.
It is now arguably counterproductive – a remnant of heavy-handed government involvement in people’s lives.
So why not drop it, particularly if it’s having a limited impact on Covid spread?
And why not instead introduce a much betterdefined masking policy (remembering masks are a limited imposition on most people) without the concept of a red setting hanging over the population?
The Government has been feted worldwide for essentially keeping Covid out of New Zealand until most people had a chance to be vaccinated. It revelled in that praise. But now, for the reasons outlined above, it appears rather uninterested in Covid.
And yes, it may simply be mirroring the attitudes of the public.
But it will be curious to see if that changes over the coming weeks as more of us get sick.