spinofflive
Jacinda Ardern and Ashley Bloomfield have been lauded for the elimination approach. (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)
Jacinda Ardern and Ashley Bloomfield have been lauded for the elimination approach. (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

PoliticsJune 17, 2021

Will New Zealand have to one day let Covid-19 in?

Jacinda Ardern and Ashley Bloomfield have been lauded for the elimination approach. (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)
Jacinda Ardern and Ashley Bloomfield have been lauded for the elimination approach. (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

New Zealand’s success in executing a Covid-19 elimination strategy means it is one of an exclusive group of countries now at a fork in the road. That may not, however, be such a bad place to be, writes Laura Walters.

As the world looks towards the Covid-19 endgame, the World Health Organisation says countries that have pursued an elimination strategy face a “genuine dilemma” in how they will reopen. But leading epidemiologist Michael Baker says that’s a good problem to have, in the scheme of things.

Most countries saw the virus slip silently through their borders at the beginning of the pandemic, where it has remained ever since. As these countries gain higher levels of vaccine coverage, and bring down community cases, hospitalisations and deaths, they look to reopen their national economies and borders, with the acceptance that there will be some community transmission.

They talk about accepting Covid-19 as an endemic infection; one that surfaces each winter, leading to the hospitalisation and death of a relatively small number of people — similar to the flu. But countries like New Zealand, which have executed a Covid-19 elimination strategy, have a very different set of circumstances to consider when deciding when and how to reopen.

Earlier this month, Director General of Health Ashley Bloomfield said the pandemic “is probably not even halfway through”.

“We might be at the end of the beginning,” he said.

A few days later, the prime minister’s chief science adviser, Juliet Gerrard, told TVNZ’s Q+A the uncertainty about what comes next, and how the pandemic will end, “is keeping a lot of people awake at night”. 

“We are a long way from being out of the woods in terms of global vaccine coverage, so it could be a couple of years, at least, before we start to see enough coverage that we don’t have to think about Covid-19.”

During a press conference earlier this month, the World Health Organisation’s head of public emergencies said countries like New Zealand faced a “genuine dilemma” in how to move away from their zero-Covid approach. “They have protected their populations. Their communities have committed, within their borders, to a massive effort to protect their system; to protect the older and vulnerable populations, but always being at risk of the disease being reimported and sparking a major epidemic.”

As long as the majority of the population remains susceptible to infection, there was always a chance of the disease taking hold, he said. “So it is a difficult decision now for many countries who’ve managed to keep their very low or zero-Covid strategy in place for so long to open up again, with the probability the disease will be reimported from other countries in which the disease is not under control.”

Like others, Mike Ryan said the key to reopening countries like New Zealand was ensuring high levels of vaccine coverage.

Experts and officials are yet to say exactly when the borders will reopen — marking an end to the MIQ system — but associate health minister Ayesha Verrall said it would not be a matter of flipping a switch at the end of this year’s vaccination programme — it would be a managed reopening.

Before New Zealand can open up, it needs to answer a set of key questions:

  • What is the real human cost of having Covid-19 circulating in the population? Including, what is the prevalence and impact of long Covid?
  • What level of vaccine coverage needs to be achieved to stamp out transmission, particularly in a population described as vulnerable due to a lack of immunity from infection?
  • How well does the vaccine respond in the real world, and to more infectious variants? Will booster shots or revaccination be needed?
  • What public health systems are needed to maintain high levels of surveillance and respond to infections or potential outbreaks?

At this stage, it appears there are more questions than answers.

University of Otago professor of public health Michael Baker said taking all of that into account, the evidence was pointing towards a future involving progressive elimination. And New Zealand was well-placed for a quick pivot in that direction. As other countries lift their rates of vaccination, New Zealand could progressively reopen to those able to achieve, and sustain, elimination, he said.

Vaccination and public health measures, such as vaccination travel requirements, testing and tracing, the country would be able to reopen, without accepting Covid into the community.

Epidemiologist Michael Baker (Photo: RNZ/Philippa Tolley)

But this approach isn’t the conventional orthodoxy in much of the rest of the world. While New Zealand maintains a vision of a Covid-free existence, others are talking about accepting the virus will be part of their lives for many years to come.

Writing in The Guardian, Australian National University infectious diseases physician and microbiologist Peter Collignon said Australia needed to eventually adopt a different attitude to what risks it was willing to accept, or face the chance of becoming a hermit nation. The effective control of Covid-19 had left countries like Australia, and New Zealand, in somewhat of a “Covid-19 limbo”, he said.

But Baker rejected the idea that New Zealand would be forced to make a decision to let the virus in again, or risk being cut off from the world. “I don’t think we should dismiss Covid-19 as being sufficiently benign that we would be happy to accept it.” This approach was based on “naive assumptions” about the evolution of the virus, he said. It was more likely the virus would mutate and become more dangerous, not less.

Elimination does not mean zero-Covid. There may be single imported cases, but elimination and eventually eradication, meant using vaccines and public health measures to stamp out any potential outbreaks — similar to the measles approach. “Unfortunately, a lot of the mass of people who are commentating on Covid-19 and how to manage it, happen to be concentrated in Europe and North America, who made a terrible mess of managing the risk assessment and risk management throughout the pandemic,” Baker said.

“They are imposing their own failed models on places like New Zealand and Australia and the Asia Pacific Region, which has done much better. We need to be very wary about just accepting their failed models.”

Baker said he was disappointed that the WHO used slogans like “the world won’t be safe until everyone’s safe” while not properly engaging in a discussion about elimination approaches. There was “a huge upside globally” for eliminating transmission, and rejecting the notion that countries had to live with the virus.

It’s good New Zealand, Australia and much of the Asia Pacific had forged their own path, Baker said. And they should continue to do so in a coordinated way that allowed for a safe reopening, where everyone was safe, and no-one was left behind.

Keep going!
offtherecord-v2

PoliticsJune 17, 2021

What does ‘off the record’ actually mean?

offtherecord-v2

Gossip Week: The use of off the record conversations is a staple of journalism, but what does it actually involve? And can you trust journalists to keep their word? Alex Braae asks around.


All week, The Spinoff is taking a look at the role of gossip in Aotearoa’s past, present and future – read more Gossip Week content here.


Don’t quote me on this, but if you say something off the record to a journalist, they’ll almost always respect that and keep your confidence. 

The concept of “off the record” is widely known, but not necessarily widely understood outside of journalism. In the simplest terms, it means a source can tell a journalist some information, without being concerned that they’ll be quoted on the front page of the paper the next day. 

In doing so, there are potential benefits for both parties. The source gets to put information or perspectives across safely, and it may help the journalist to gain a better understanding of a situation they’ve been tasked with writing about. That information might also be useful, without necessarily being directly used. 

Some media trainers and managers would advise their clients to assume that absolutely everything said to a journalist is on the record, or that journalists are an inherently untrustworthy bunch. And there are times when this is true – for example, it should always be assumed that a radio studio microphone in front of you is turned on. 

But if a source tells a journalist something that they’re about to say is off the record, with very, very few exceptions, they can expect that confidence will be kept. The journalist’s own reputation for honesty and integrity is at stake, and one of the few justifiable reasons to break that trust is if the journalist has been deliberately lied to by the source. 

So what are the rules? First of all – the media trainers are right in that things said to journalists under normal circumstances are, by definition, on the record. Rebecca Stevenson, the head of news at BusinessDesk, said that is the default assumption. 

“As long as you’ve accurately and clearly identified that you’re a journalist, and you’re working on a story that you’re calling to talk about, I think it’s all on the record,” said Stevenson. But that’s just the cleanest example of how these exchanges take place – what about, for example, at a party when someone just happens to mention something to a journalist, without knowing what the person they’re talking to does for a living?  

“People do say things they don’t mean,” said Stevenson. “In those situations, we ring them and we clarify. We say hey, we thought this stood out – is this really what you meant? And actually in a number of cases, no, they haven’t meant that.” 

In other words, the normal standards of accuracy and verification still apply. But what if you’re talking to someone in a job that doesn’t really allow them to speak to the media in the first place? 

This is something Newsroom’s Sam Sachdeva sometimes encounters on his beat of covering foreign affairs. Diplomats, by both nature and role, aren’t likely to want to see themselves quoted in the news. 

Many events held around foreign affairs take place under a set of rules known as “Chatham House”. This is generally defined as meaning that no attributed quotes can be used – for example, a journalist might be able to report that a topic was discussed, but are not allowed to reveal the speaker or their affiliations in any piece that is then published. 

Photo: Getty

Given most news organisations have high standards on when and why an anonymous quote can be used, this makes a lot of what happens under Chatham House rules largely unreportable. “That can be obviously quite limiting, when you go to say a Chatham House speech by an ambassador, and they make comments about their country – there’s no genuine way to quote what they say without giving away who they are,” said Sachdeva. 

But useful and usable information might still come out of such events, particularly around building up knowledge on the background to issues or perspectives. “In terms of informing reporting, I think that’s entirely fair game, and that has been useful to me on occasion.”  

While it’s less useful for breaking news, Stevenson said long-form writers in particular can find value in off the record conversations. “There’s probably a lot more off the record in investigations, for example, because a lot of it is just getting people to talk to you so you can follow the threads, and then finding the documentation and facts to back up what you suspect.” 

Many of those in jobs that involve interacting with the press understand that media coverage can also be useful to them, rather than just a problem to be avoided. That in turn raises the question – how can journalists avoid being used by sources who use off the record comments as a way of laundering their perspective into the news? 

As the long-serving political editor of Newstalk ZB, Barry Soper has plenty of experience navigating this. He described how back in the day he’d get phone calls from former PM Helen Clark, who would sometimes “drop a gem” in the conversation.

“You knew she was doing it deliberately, to get people talking, but rather than accepting it as being gospel you’d test it out within the political system, and then maybe run a story”, said Soper. 

“To me, it was her way of testing the water, and if there was no more than a ripple, then you might see something from it. But if it was a tidal wave then she’d turn it back, and nothing would be done.” Soper said this is not a practice used by current PM Jacinda Ardern, who is “not an off the record type politician”.

Jacinda Ardern takes questions from Barry Soper and a bunch of other journalists at Parliament Photo by MARTY MELVILLE/AFP via Getty Images

Stevenson agreed that journalists have to be careful about automatically going off the record whenever a source asks for it, because it can leave the journalist exposed. 

“Sometimes crooked business people will say ‘hey, I’ll tell you everything off the record, the real story going on here’. But you know they’re a liar and a crook, and you won’t agree.” Stevenson said in this situation, the best course of action for a journalist is to insist on staying on the record up front. For Sachdeva, his technique tends to be more about sorting out exactly what a source can say on the record first, and then assessing whether going off the record is merited. 

Politicians and businesspeople are also human beings, who socialise with people who work in the same building as them. That means it’s entirely normal for a politician to go out for a drink with a journalist – and in Soper’s view, most would have a reasonable expectation that what they said in a social situation would be off the record. That approach can still suit the journalist. 

In the information-heavy world of political journalism, being on at least cordial terms with sources matters immensely, or else your contact list will dry up. “You’ve got to protect your contacts, really, that’s the ultimate aspect of being a successful journalist,” said Soper. Journalists have to learn to play a long game, argued Soper, and he tells junior staffers in the ZB office they should be very careful to never breach an agreement to be off the record. 

Throughout the interviews with each journalist, the theme of trust came up again and again. It might be assumed that the core skills of journalism are in writing, but really the most important skills are social – a journalist needs people to keep talking to them. The best way to ensure those conversations will continue is to maintain a reputation for being fair, accurate, and honest. 

“Our whole job is information trading, and getting people to give us information. So you have to weigh it up carefully,” said Stevenson. And has she ever broken an agreement to be off the record? 

“I don’t think I’ve ever done it, because I just don’t think you’d survive. New Zealand is very small.” 

Politics