Coronavirus confusion
Were the Covid-19 ‘rule breakers' falsely accused? Claire Trevett investigates the cases that led to our latest lockdown
The latest Covid-19 outbreak led to some people being accused of breaking the rules by the highest in the land: the Prime Minister.
No charges or penalties have been dished out — a lack of action directorgeneral of health Dr Ashley Bloomfield said was to try to ensure people did not become too scared to provide the information authorities needed to try to stop Covid-19.
But were they falsely accused anyway — and was there more to their stories to mitigate the accusations?
These are the cases of M and L: what were the rules they were supposed to follow, was there the potential for confusion around them, and what flaws have they exposed?
Case M: the gym-goer
Case M — the 21-year-old man who sent Auckland slamming back into lockdown last Saturday night — had done at least one thing right: he had used the Covid-19 app.
That was the reason officials decided not to wait before announcing the new case in a press release. That news landed before a press conference at 7.23pm on Saturday.
It was just as the notifications from the app went out to others who had logged in at the same time as M in locations such as his gym, Hunter’s Plaza and Burger King.
The officials needed to alert those people swiftly, before they went out for the Saturday night and could potentially spread it further.
M’s case was enough for Cabinet to move straight back to level 3 lockdown in Auckland because of two things.
The first was his decision to go to the gym at Hunter’s Plaza in the afternoon after he was tested and before he got his result.
M had also been to the Manukau Institute of Technology during his infectious period, meaning the potential exposure was large.
The second was the puzzle of how M caught it, and from who? His sibling was a Papatoetoe High School student, a casual contact, but the family had been diligent in having that student tested.
The student had been tested three times, and was negative.
Science revealed the breach that resulted in the lockdown — and it was not M’s.
Genomic sequencing showed M’s Covid-19 traced straight to a different household in the Papatoetoe High School cluster: the household of Family 2. That uncovered another breach of the Covid-19 rules: an admission that M’s mother (Case N) had gone for a walk with the mother of Family 2 during the first level 3 lockdown.
The students in Family 2 tested positive for Covid-19 on February 17, soon after that walk, as did the mother.
Neither N nor Family 2 revealed the walk to officials at the time.
That walk was a clear breach of the lockdown rules for alert level 3.
Soon after M’s diagnosis, N was also found to have Covid-19 but did not have symptoms.
M faced significant criticism for his behaviour: in particular for going to the gym after getting a test but before knowing the results.
A visibly angry Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern voiced her frustration that M had not isolated at home until the results came through, especially because he had symptoms for three days before the test.
It is not known exactly what M was told by the medical staff who tested him. But at the point he was tested, Auckland was at level 1.
Ministry of Health guidelines for tests at level 1 were that even people with symptoms did not need to selfisolate after getting a test, because it was considered much more likely to be a cold rather than Covid-19.
M had no other reason to think he might have Covid-19: M’s sibling was the most logical source for M to get Covid-19 from and had already tested negative three times.
The Prime Minister, however, accepted no excuses for M. She noted even if he had not specifically been instructed to remain home, he should have known to stay home given his symptoms. He had been through MIQ in December and the drill for keeping New Zealand safe there amounted to “sustained propaganda”.
The next day, director general of health Dr Ashley Bloomfield changed the directives to instruct anybody who had a test and symptoms to stay home — regardless of alert levels.
Family 3 Cases I — L, and O
An indication something was amiss was in very first press release about Case I.
It was February 23, and Auckland had only just moved back to level 1 after being at level 3 and 2 since Valentine’s Day.
Usually when new cases are announced, the press release stipulates whether the person had been self-isolating before the positive result. This time, it said the case had been advised to get tested and self-isolate — but not that they necessarily had.
The reason for the wording soon became clear: it was nine days since the first case at Papatoetoe High School, all students had been told to be tested and Case I had not had a test in that time.
In addition, Case I had not been at the school since it closed as a result of the Valentine’s Day cases — but in the meantime, many in Case I’s household had gone about their lives.
That meant that on the night before Case I’s result was known, a teenage sibling had gone to work at a K-Mart in Botany and a sister worked her late-night shift at KFC in Botany, until about midnight.
Later that same day, they were put into quarantine and both tested positive for Covid-19: becoming Cases J and L.
The Government resisted a move back into lockdown, but Papatoetoe High School closed again and all students and their households were told to get tested again.
It also started the hunt for the hundreds of people who had been at the same places. And it sparked a rebuke of the family from the Prime Minister, who said they were supposed to self-isolate until the student in their house was tested: and the family had not had that done despite about 15 reminders and attempts to contact them.
Case L told Michael Morrah at Newshub that there was no such instruction to selfisolate, and in fact a text to her sibling specifically said the family members did not need to do so. She believed they were owed an apology. Ardern continued to insist rules were broken, and health authorities had sent three letters to all school families with those rules.
L said she never saw those letters; her parents were originally from Vietnam and English was not their first language. The letters were not translated. Even if they had read them, it is far from clear that they broke the rules.
Case I was not a close contact of Case A — she was a “casual plus” contact by virtue of being at the same school.
That group were told they were “at low risk of becoming ill with the disease”.
The letters from the Auckland Regional Public Health Service showed different rules applied to A’s classmates and teachers (close contacts) than to the rest of the students (casual-plus contacts).
On February 14, close contacts were told to get tested and isolate for 10 days. Their family members were told to isolate as well until the child’s negative result came back — but not for the whole 10 days.
Casual contacts, such as Case I, were also told to get tested and to isolate until the result came through. There were initially no instructions on what family members should do.
But the Auckland Regional Public Health Service website information for the casual-close contacts at the school stipulated: “Your household members do not need to stay at home or get tested, unless they are also Casual-plus or Close Contacts, or they develop symptoms.”
The generic Ministry of Health advice for casual-plus contacts on its website also stipulated: “While you are staying at home, members of your household can come and go from the house as normal.”
The Ministry of Health’s advice even for close contacts stated that household contacts only had to selfisolate if someone had symptoms.
On February 17 after two further cases were confirmed in one family, a second letter was sent.
That one “asked” the household members of all students to get tested, and to work from home “if they can”.
It was not until after Case I’s case was confirmed that a public health order was put in place requiring all students of the school and their households to get tested
(or re-tested) and to isolate.
The Covid-19 response team based in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet seemed to back this up.
In response to somebody questioning the case, the Covid team posted that Case L had not broken any rules at the time she went to work: the directive was issued the day after.
That was done by way of a fourth letter on February 23.
It said the Ministry of Health was “requiring everyone in the school community” — including all household members — to stay at home until all students and staff members had had another test.
On Wednesday last week, when defending Ardern’s criticism of the family, Covid-19 Minister Chris Hipkins claimed the family should have known the risk was too high for them to be going out because two in the household had symptoms.
That appeared to conflict with what Bloomfield had said earlier, when he first announced the new cases — saying they were not symptomatic.
Last Thursday, Bloomfield explained the discrepancy: the family had not realised the symptoms were Covid19, so had not reported them until later when they were asked specifically about those types of symptoms. Each of the four letters sent to the students’ families included the list of symptoms they needed to look out for: these were the usual run down of a loss of smell and sore throat, runny nose, and other respiratory symptoms.
But there was no mention of the symptoms, such as muscle aches and fatigue, that had been the feature of this cluster — symptoms Case I’s family had, but had not realised were Covid-related. On February 24, Bloomfield took the step of emphasising that this strain was showing up in different ways, and for people to be aware of muscle aches and fatigue rather than the more widely known respiratory symptoms.
Conclusion
Case L’s family did not do everything right. There was a long delay before the school student was tested, and the other household contacts do not seem to have been tested as asked — perhaps because they did not realise they had been asked to.
Ardern’s frustration was about the length of time it had took the family to get Case I tested in the first place.
But it doesn’t seem the other members of the family broke any of the actual rules in place for their situation. Ardern would have been right if Case I had been a close contact of Case A. But Case I was not. Case I remains the only “casual” contact to have caught Covid-19 at the school — and was one of the last to get tested.
The cases of M and L have revealed flaws in those rules and the information being sent out — including a lack of clarity around the rules for testing at levels 1 and 2, what was expected of the casual-plus contacts, and the need to change the list of symptoms to watch for.
Ardern has not conceded the rules were sometimes confusing. Nor will the Covid-19 response team now confirm whether or not its Facebook post stating Case L had not broken the rules was correct.