Category: Our Posts

Will NZ follow WHO lead to ‘living with virus’?

12 October 2020

Media Release

The Covid Plan B group is reassured by the shift of international policy and science consensus toward what had been a dissenting position six months ago; learning to live with the virus.

Over the weekend, the WHO’s David Nabarro said that lockdowns caused more harm than good, a position advocated by Covid Plan B back in April 2020.

But early in the Covid-19 crisis, the World Health Organisation supported lockdowns to contain ‘intense transmission’ of the virus, listing six conditions that must be met to lift such measures.

In a remarkable turnaround, Dr David Nabarro has stated that “Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer”.

He also commended the Great Barrington Declaration, an internationally supported statement against lockdowns, which instead calls for a change in government policy toward focused protection of the elderly and those who are vulnerable to the virus from pre-existing medical conditions, while letting the rest of the population return to normal life.

Dr Simon Thornley, spokesman for Covid Plan B, welcomed Nabarro’s statement as “a major change from the World Health Organisation”.

“We have drawn attention to the severe and disproportionate financial costs of lockdown policies in New Zealand.

“The virus is not as deadly as first claimed, so we must adjust our policies accordingly.

“The latest estimates for the infection fatality ratio, a measure of the severity of the virus, are between 0.15 to 0.2 0%, which is concordant with the range of figures for past influenza epidemics.

“Crippling our economies and sacrificing our children’s education can no longer be justified, since the harm from these policies outweighs any benefits.

“Our health system has largely avoided severe outbreaks in hospitals and nursing homes, and this is where the focus of our response to the virus should be.”

Contact: Simon Thornley, 021 299 1752

Covid Plan B signs the Great Barrington Declaration

Covid Plan B members have signed a global petition against Covid lockdowns, other over-reactions and urging a return to normal.

The petition was formulated by our international colleagues; Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University; Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University; and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School.

Check out the growing list of international academics and compare and contrast with the New Zealand experts advising the NZ Government.

Sign the Declaration

Co-signers

Medical and Public Health Scientists and Medical Practitioners

Dr. Rodney Sturdivant, PhD. associate professor of biostatistics at Baylor University

Dr. Eitan Friedman, MD, PhD. Founder and Director, The Susanne Levy Gertner Oncogenetics Unit,

Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, MD, MPH a physician with the VA health system

Dr. Michael Levitt, PhD is a biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University.

Dr. Eyal Shahar, MD professor (emeritus) of public health at the University of Arizona

Dr. David Katz, MD, MPH, President, True Health Initiative and the Founder and Former Director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center

Dr. Laura Lazzeroni, PhD., professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of biomedical data science at Stanford University Medical School

Dr. Simon Thornley, PhD is an epidemiologist at the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Dr. Michael Jackson, PhD is an ecologist and research fellow at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand.

Dr. Jonas Ludvigsson, pediatrician, epidemiologist and professor at Karolinska Institute and senior physician at Örebro University Hospital, Sweden.

Dr. Sylvia Fogel, autism expert and psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, USA.

Dr. Andrius Kavaliunas, epidemiologist and assistant professor at Karolinska Institute, Sweden

Prof. Udi Qimron, Chair, Department of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology, Tel Aviv University

Prof. Ariel Munitz, Department of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology, Tel Aviv University

Prof. Motti Gerlic, Department of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology, Tel Aviv University

Dr. Uri Gavish, an expert in algorithm analysis and a biomedical consultant

Dr. Paul McKeigue, professor of epidemiology in the University of Edinburgh and public health physician, with expertise in statistical modelling of disease.

Prof. Ellen Townsend, Self-Harm Research Group, University of Nottingham, UK.

Prof. Matthew Ratcliffe, Professor of Philosophy specializing in philosophy of mental health, University of York, UK

Prof. Mike Hulme, professor of human geography, University of Cambridge

Dr. Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine, an expert on vaccine development, efficacy and safety.

Dr. Mario Recker, Associate Professor in Applied Mathematics at the Centre for Mathematics and the Environment, University of Exeter.

Prof. Lisa White, Professor of Modelling and Epidemiology Nuffield Department of Medicine, Oxford University, UK

Prof. Angus Dalgleish, MD, FRCP, FRACP, FRCPath, FMedSci, Department of Oncology, St. George’s, University of London

Prof. David Livermore, Professor at University of East Anglia, a microbiologist with expertise in disease epidemiology, antibiotic resistance and rapid diagnostics

Dr. Helen Colhoun, professor of medical informatics and epidemiology in the University of Edinburgh and public health physician, with expertise in risk prediction.

Prof. Partha P. Majumder, PhD, FNA, FASc, FNASc, FTWAS National Science Chair, Distinguished Professor and Founder National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, KalyaniEmeritus Professor Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata

Dr. Gabriela Gomes, professor at the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, a mathematician focussing on population dynamics, evolutionary theory and infectious disease epidemiology.

Prof. Simon Wood, professor at Edinburgh University, a statistician with expertise in statistical methodology, applied statistics and mathematical modelling in biology

Prof. Anthony J Brookes, Department of Genetics & Genome Biology, University of Leicester, UK

Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, em. Professor of Medical Microbiology, University of Mainz, Germany

Prof. Stephen Bremner,
Professor of Medical Statistics, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex

Prof. Yaz Gulnur Muradoglu, Professor of Finance, Director at Behavioural Finance Working Group, School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London

Prof. Karol Sikora MA, PhD, MBBChir, FRCP, FRCR, FFPM, Medical Director of Rutherford Health, Oncologist, & Dean of Medicine

Ananish Chaudhuri: no forethought about effect of lockdown policies

… this government launched into a set of policy choices without adequate fore-thought or consultation about the consequences. Now that those consequences are becoming clear, it is scrambling to find an appropriate response. After having staked its reputation on elimination, ego and hubris is making it difficult to change course.

But recovering from the coming recession requires that the government does some soul-searching and adapt its future approach by calling upon a wide range of experts and expertise.

Covid-19 would have been challenging enough but we made things more difficult for ourselves by not investing the time and effort to think through alternative scenarios.

Recently, an interlocutor asked me: Where would you rather be, if not in New Zealand? I find this to be a non sequitur.

For one thing, the outlook for a middle-aged tenured professor is vastly different from a that of a young family struggling with debt and mortgage payments while worrying about their jobs.

And secondly, just because many others around us are losing their minds does not make irrationality rational.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=12366928

A reminder on scientific debate

When it comes to Covid19, some scientists and academics are not living up to the expected standards of known facts, free enquiry and open discussion…

Scientists who express different views on Covid-19 should be heard, not demonized

Serology testing essential, but banned in NZ

The serology tests today being demanded by experts as necessary to track the mystery resurgence of COVID19 have been banned by the Ministry of Health.

Simon Thornley, epidemiologist with the Covid Plan B group, has criticised health commentators as hypocritical in calling for serology testing to track the source of the current outbreak and assess its prevalence in the community.

Thornley said the Covid Plan B group has been calling for serology testing back in April, but by the end of that month the Ministry of Health had specifically banned the importation and sale of serology tests.

In reply to an Official Information Request the Ministry of Health said serology testing would not be conducted because even that test would underestimate the level of virus prevalence. See: https://www.covidplanb.co.nz/epidemiology/nz-govt-confirms-it-wont-test-for-virus-prevalence/

“The one test that would really tell us how the virus is moving through the community has been banned in New Zealand. Companies selling the test were called and told to stop.”

“When we called for the testing, we were criticised by the Government-favoured health commentators. Five months later, these same people are suggesting tests, conveniently forgetting they initially said they weren’t necessary.”

Thornley said that now the Government’s own favoured experts were agreeing with Covid Plan B, it could no longer resist conducting serology tests.

He predicted that based on overseas tests, the number of people who had already contracted Covid-19 would be many times the number of tested cases.

ENDS

Contact: Simon Thornley, 021 299 1752

Covid-19 Science and Policy Symposium written summary

The Covid-19 Science and Policy Symposium was held on 17 August 2020. The event took place as a Zoom webinar, bringing together nine international and national experts to analyse the latest science and New Zealand’s response to the virus.

Watch the presentations here.

–

Dr David Katz, Medical Doctor and Preventative Medicine Specialist, New York.

  • New Zealand is taking the “hiding” option. If there is no exposure, there can be no immunity. Gain herd immunity in a controlled way using voluntary measures based on personal health indicators.

Dr Jay Bhattacharya, Medical Doctor and Professor of Medicine, Stanford University

  • Lockdowns only delay the impact. Flatten the curve was an approach that spread out over time the number of people infected. Strong economies improve health, and the reverse is also true. Estimates NZ lockdown set NZ back 7 years in economic value, equal to one life year (reducing life expectancy from 82 to 81). Covid will not be eradicated.

Dr Byram Bridle, Viral Immunologist, The University of Guelph.

  • Provided a short summary of how immune systems work. Scientists are making unrealistic promises, and in some cases what constitutes a “successful” vaccine is being redefined. It takes 10 years to make a safe vaccine and 4 years is the quickest on record. There is no shortcut to safety. Testing will be problematic as the epidemic abates. Vaccines don’t work well in the elderly. Bridle is working on a ‘plug and play’ vaccine for future coronaviruses, so we are not caught out again.

Prof. Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology, University of Oxford.

  • Addresses the three myths of covid19: She says we can’t keep it out, it’s nothing like the threat to each of that we first feared, and that we can get herd immunity and are close to it. There is natural resistance to Covid19 from previous infections. Costs of lockdowns are delayed but more costs Advocates a careful form of the Swedish model. Accuses developed world of abandoning its ‘social contract’ with the developing world, by closing down borders, trade and interaction.

Dr Simon Thornley, Senior Lecturer in Epidemiology at the University of Auckland

  • The mean age of Covid-related deaths is similar to life expectancy – indicating Covid is affecting those who may have otherwise died from other illnesses. No research can find benefits from or a disease response to lockdowns. Estimates from other studies of the economic costs from lockdown compared to QALYs is that New Zealand is that costs outweighed benefits by 95:1. Switching from level 2 to level 4 had a very subtle effect on case numbers and probably saved one life in the very elderly population.

Prof Ananish Chaudhuri, Professor of Experimental Economics, The University of Auckland

  • The costs of lockdown are not being adequately counted or assessed. Borrowing will have very severe long-term consequences, especially for small nations and those enfeebled by the retardation of their economy. Capital flight will become a big problem if and when borrowed money need to be repaid. Inflationary impact will be destabilising. Tourism and education are big holes in our economy. Explains why people wedded to lockdown approach find it hard to change position.

Dr Grant Morris, Associate Professor of Law, Victoria University of Wellington

  • Ran through the various laws implicated in government regulation and actions in response to Covid19. Main theme was that although Government must justify its reasoning for decisions made under existing laws, or for new laws, it is sovereign – so can make any rule it decides. Calls for more considered and patient decision-making by Government so rights and freedoms are not abandoned.

Ben smith, PH.D – Data Scientist

  • Runs through a model designed to assess the infection risk posed by allowing people from other countries into New Zealand based on the covid19 status of the home country, and the rules they adhere to in NZ. Shows that NZ can allow people in from countries with zero infections, as the risk is about equal to that in New Zealand.

Dr Carlo Caduff, Associate Professor of Global Health and Social Medicine, Kings College London.

  • Covid statistics are very unreliable, and gathered on a different basis between countries – so not comparable. Yet countries appear to be competing for the best statistics, rather than sharing discoveries, or comparing on more humane values. Moralistic judgement and nationalism in interpreting statistics has also been evident.

Do we really need yet another lock down?

By Ananish Chaudhuri and Simon Thornley

The authors are members of the Department of Economics and School of Population Health respectively at the University of Auckland. The views expressed are their own.

During the Vietnam war, the well-known (and Kiwi-born) journalist Peter Arnett is supposed to have quoted a US Major as saying “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

Regardless of whether anyone actually said this or not, we cannot help reflecting on the idea behind this as we go into yet another lock-down.

Back in March, when we entered our first lock-down, the evidence was not so clear. Reasonable people could have disagreed about the sagacity of the lock-down. Some of us did but on the whole most were willing to abide by the government’s decision.

But the evidence is clear now. Lock downs are not a panacea. There is, at best, weak if any correlation between lock downs and the spread of the disease. At best, they merely postpone the spread of the infection.

When the Swedish authorities said this, the rest of the world sneered at them.

Now, there is increasing recognition that maybe the Swedes did get it right. Certainly not all of it; they did experience a failure to protect the frail and elderly. But, on balance, it appears they will emerge from the pandemic stronger than their neighbours and that in the current globalized world, lock downs are not and cannot be a sustainable solution.

A recent report from the Productivity Commission now provides support for this Swedish view by asking questions about the relative costs and  benefits of prolonging our earlier lock down. The conclusion: the costs conservatively outweighed the benefits of an extended lockdown by 95:1.

And the Swedish approach has been reiterated by Camilla Stoltenberg, Director General of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health; that Norway could have handled the disease without locking down.

There is no vaccine and if there is one, it is still some time away. The fastest vaccine ever developed, for mumps, took four years. In any event, even with a vaccine there is no way of guaranteeing that every Kiwi will take it. In fact, unless we keep our borders closed forever, we need everyone else in the world to take the vaccine too. Diseases we thought had been eliminated, like measles, have made a come-back.

Consequently, in an earlier article we pointed out that elimination is not and never was a realistic strategy and suggested ways of moving forward and resuming normalcy including opening our borders.

It was certainly inevitable that the disease would recur. What was not inevitable was the steps we took along the way and the economic and social costs of those steps.

Did we really need to spend the time, effort and resources to force people into quarantine? Could we not trust them to self-isolate like we did earlier with prosecution of violators? Like Sweden, New Zealand is a high trust society. Why does our government have such little faith in its citizens? Why does it claim for its police the right to enter people’s home without warrants to enforce quarantine?

And if a government does not trust its citizens, then why and how long should the citizens continue to trust the government?

Even with preponderance of evidence that lock downs are mostly useless, our government has responded to an outbreak with another lock down. The initial rationale for a lockdown was protecting our hospitals, but now with cases linked to only one household, the threshold for pulling the lockdown trigger has dropped considerably.

Is this really sustainable: To lurch from one from lock down to another with breaks in between?

Yes, resuming normal life will lead to more cases and there will be more deaths due to Covid-19; just as there will be more deaths from auto accidents, flu, pneumonia, respiratory illnesses, loneliness and self-harm. We also now appreciate that the age distribution of deaths from Covid-19 is indistinguishable from background mortality.

Maybe we need to better confront the idea of our own mortality. Such a conversation is topical given the upcoming referendum on euthanasia.

If we could shut down all motorized vehicles, then the reduction in pollution will save many lives that are lost from respiratory illnesses. But, no one suggests that since this is not a realistic proposition. Instead, we set emissions standards in such a way that the social benefit of driving or flying is equal to or higher than the social cost.

Contrary to the culture of fear besetting us, Covid-19 is hardly the threat it has been made out to be. Both the case fatality ratio (number of deaths divided by the number of reported cases) and the infection fatality ratio (number of deaths divided by the number of people potentially infected) is relatively low and much lower than say Ebola or other corona viruses such as Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). It is now clear that lockdowns are a blunt instrument that is disproportionate to the threat posed by this virus.

Is New Zealand’s Covid-19 story past its use-by date?

Simon Thornley

27/07/2020

Most New Zealanders believe now that we are in an exalted position on the Covid road. We are world leaders who have beaten a deadly virus thanks to a tough lockdown. Our only threat now remains from overseas travelers who are quarantined at the border. We are now a Covid-19 free paradise. We can stay this way until a promising vaccine from Oxford comes our way. Surely, this is a matter of holding on for a few more months, and then we can put this whole episode behind us and get on with life.

I would like to believe this story, since my life would be much simpler if I followed the official line. But as an epidemiologist, I’m taught to question and to examine the evidence independently. There are a number of assumptions in this story we have been told. Let’s examine them one by one.

The first is that we are dealing with a deadly virus. Early on in the pandemic, it was possible to believe this, as we had only genetic tests of the virus available. The ratio of people who had died with Covid-19 divided by people who tested positive was 3.4%. This is about seven times the usual estimates of fatality from seasonal influenza (<0.5%).

High fatality rates were projected on a grand scale by modelers. These high rates lead to astronomical predictions of death and destruction which justified severe lockdowns.

Throwing the kitchen sink at such a deadly threat made sense. Just as with swine flu in 2009, however, it was soon found that other evidence, such as antibodies detected in blood, showed a totally different pattern. This occurred in 2009 when antibodies were discovered in about one in four of the New Zealand population. The clamour to eliminate the virus lost its legs.

Early in the epidemic, other researchers overseas were pointing to similar evidence. Professor Mikko Paunio, for example, an epidemiologist from Finland, early in the epidemic showed that 27/1000 blood donors had antibodies to the virus in Copenhagen, Denmark. This proportion extrapolated to over a million Danes having seen and recovered from the virus, compared to many fewer ‘official’ cases. The revised fatality rate was 0.13% – nothing to get excited over.

Now, we even have the Center of Disease Control in the US using 0.65% as a working estimate. This is derived from a summary paper which averaged the results of 26 individual studies. This revised figure is in the scale of severe influenza, and scales down the threat of the virus to just above that of seasonal influenza. These estimates don’t take into account more information about T-cells which now show an even wider exposure to the virus than from antibodies alone. This means that even these revised estimates are very conservative and should be lower still.

In New Zealand, it is clear from looking only at cases, that risk of fatality is higher for older people (Table). People aged over 90 years have not fared well after infection, but conversely, we have now had no deaths from the virus in people aged under 59 years.

Table. Covid-19 cases in New Zealand, by clinical status and age group (at 20 July 2020).

Age Group (years) Active Recovered Deceased Case fatality ratio* (%) Total
0 to 9 1 37  0 0 38
10 to 19 0 122  0 0 122
20 to 29 8 365  0 0 373
30 to 39 9 239  0 0 248
40 to 49 1 221  0 0 222
50 to 59 3 247 0 0 250
60 to 69 2 177 3 1.67 182
70 to 79 2 71 7 8.97 80
80 to 89 0 23 7 23.3 30
90 or more 0 4 5 55.6 9
Total 26 1506 22 1.44 1554

 

*The ratio of deceased PCR test-positive cases divided by the sum of both deceased and recovered. The infection fatality ratio is likely to be much lower owing to serology and T-cells pointing to more widespread infection compared to PCR test-positive cases only. 95% confidence intervals calculated by exact binomial method. CI: confidence interval.

Source: https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-current-situation/covid-19-current-cases Accessed 20 July 2020.

 

It is also clear that around the world the average age of death of Covid-19 patients is near that of the average life expectancy of that country. This is also clear for New Zealand (figure 1), where the shape of the age distribution of Covid-19 deaths closely approximates the spread of deaths over the same period the year before. A formal test for differences in counts between these data sources shows no evidence of difference. It is very difficult to argue from this plot, that Covid-19 is shortening life spans.

Figure 1. Counts of NZ deaths March to May 2019 (black line), compared to counts of deaths from Covid-19 (red line, right vertical axis), by age category.

Sources: https://fyi.org.nz/request/12583-number-of-deaths-by-age-group-and-week-for-the-last-5-years-dia

https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-current-situation/covid-19-current-cases Accessed 20 July 2020.

Although commentators are lampooning Sweden and their Covid-19 death rates, it is clear that countries with harsh lockdowns, such as Peru have higher rates of Covid-19 deaths than Sweden. Belgium, UK and Spain, all locked down but suffered higher rates of Covid-19 deaths than the comparatively liberal Swedes. Just what explains the difference between these country’s rates of Covid deaths is still unclear, but much is likely to be explained by differences in recording of deaths, demographic differences and population density. We now know that national lockdowns during the epidemic are not associated with an expected reduction in Covid-19 deaths.

Despite the avalanche of evidence coming from overseas, the New Zealand Ministry of Health has clearly stated that it has little interest in serology and is not planning a serosurvey. This strongly indicates that an updating of the fatality of the virus is unlikely in New Zealand, at least in official circles.

Where does this leave New Zealand? Our borders remain closed and both political parties are doubling down on this action. In contrast, other countries including the vast majority of Europe, Iceland, China, and the UK are opening up their borders.  Iceland has had its borders largely opened, albeit with virus screening, since June 15 with no evidence of a further outbreak (figure 2). It is clear that these governments have learned from new information, reassessed the risk posed by the virus to their populations, including their immune status.

Evidence of widespread immunity, both in the form of antibodies and T cells is growing. In New Zealand, our politicians and health leaders have little interest in investigating this important issue. A vaccine is simply not a realistic proposition for at least another four years, if not ten. Our tourist economy and borders simply cannot wait this long. We will be held hostage to a story associated with the virus that is well past its “used by” date.

Figure 2. Covid-19 epidemic curve from Iceland, with border opening occurring in mid June. Red line indicates average trend.

What the latest science says about New Zealand’s Covid-19 policy

Simon Thornley, Gerhard Sundborn

4 July 2020

With a smattering of new cases emerging from returnees in hotels prompting both sides of the house to double down on our tight quarantine the key question is coming into focus: where does our nation go from here?

Sir Peter Gluckman, Rob Fyfe and Helen Clark have recommended starting to reopen our borders. On the other hand, both Dr Ashley Bloomfield and PM Jacinda Ardern have talked about being prepared for further lockdown-like restrictions, with tight border control. Victoria, a state with similar characteristics to New Zealand, has had a recent spike of cases and has decided to enforce local lockdowns, which is a worrying prospect. Which road is best? To open up or to hunker down? Can science help us with this decision?

The latest information on the virus can help us decide which of the Covid-19 roads is best. Its relevance is underlined by the fact it also helps explain why some of the predictions about the fatalities from the virus in New Zealand were 500 to 3,600 times greater than what is happening.

The assumption until now has been that we were all sitting ducks and that we were — and remain — completely at the mercy of the virus. And that assumption underlies the current anxiety about reopening without an effective vaccine to protect us.

The latest science reveals the battle our bodies have had with this virus —and it indicates we are not as defenseless as we might think. Our blood has two major weapons in the fight against viruses:  B and T cells, which together are called lymphocytes or pus cells. B cells are like missile factories, making antibodies that lock onto free virus in the body. Most tests to see if anyone has been exposed to the virus look for these antibody B cells.

T cells are more like hitmen who destroy host cells already infected with the virus. T cells are less commonly considered in testing for previous exposure. A feature of Covid-19 is that levels of both these cells (lymphocytes) are unusually low in severe cases most likely because they have been working overtime to fight infection.

A recent study out of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden confirms this idea. A team of researchers tested the blood of 203 people, some of whom had had Covid-19 (by genetic test), looking for evidence that the immune system of these subjects had seen the virus. Among healthy blood donors, who had never tested positive for Covid-19, the researchers found that 4/31 (13%) had antibodies but 9/31 (29%) had positive T cell responses to the virus. That indicates that many more people had been exposed to the virus (and not fallen ill) than indicated by B cell tests alone.

In family members of people with Covid-19, 17/28 (60%) had positive antibodies (B cells), but almost all (26/28; 93%) had positive T cell tests. Almost all genetic test positive cases of Covid-19 had both immune markers. Some may debate the importance of the T cell tests and whether they confer immunity. The researchers are guarded, but indicate that such responses are similar to the immune response of vaccines for other viruses.

What relevance does this knowledge have to us here in New Zealand, considering who to let in and out of the border? As indicated above, it explains why modelling of Covid-19 was so staggeringly inaccurate. Many more of us than we ever knew have microscopic missiles and hitmen in our system on our side. This helps explain why the predicted flood of cases to our intensive care wards and hospitals never eventuated. And this helps us be more realistic about the risk posed by the virus.

What else can we learn from this study? A critical question now is how immune is our population? We have previously summarised the rates of Covid-19 antibodies measured in populations around the world ranges from 0.5 to 26%. The Swedish researchers have shown that the proportion of people in the general population who are likely to be protected from Covid-19 is actually about three times the proportion who have Covid-19 antibodies. This would mean that likely protection from the virus is far more widespread than the antibody surveys indicate. In New Zealand, we are still waiting for any results from antibody tests. The media has reported that tests have been carried out but no data is being made available. Surely the results of this study, even if preliminary, are of critical importance?

So, how does this help us address the border question? If we really want to know what our risk is posed by the virus, we need to take a keen interest in our population’s immune status, as the Swedes have done. The findings of the Covid-19 virus in France and Spain well before the ‘official epidemic’ hit means that many of us have likely encountered the virus before without even knowing it.

Now, in many countries, deaths with the virus are waning, even if in some countries, cases are increasing. The lack of large second waves as Europe is progressively opening up gives us some confidence that immunity to the virus is much more widespread than we initially thought. The debate about our supposed exalted status having ‘eliminated’ the virus is becoming less relevant as evidence accumulates that many of us have already seen the virus, become immune and moved on.

Some commentators have highlighted the paradox of being a Covid-free cul-de-sac. It is our view that we need to adjust to living with the virus and accept that further cases are likely to occur. If our level of natural protection is much higher than thought we need to urgently reconsider whether the elimination strategy, its implications for further lockdown, and an unknowable period of continued border closure, is really worth the financial pain it will continue to inflict. And let’s not forget Covid-19 is not entirely unique. We already accept the risks of living with a number of coronaviruses that have similar characteristics to Covid-19, including: HKU1, 229E, OC43 and NL63.

Are we being kind to the Cook Islands over Covid-19?

By Gerhard Sundborn

The Cook Islands is almost as much a part of New Zealand as the North or South Island. Like Niue and Tokelau, all Cook Islanders hold New Zealand citizenship. The Cooks is home to 17,500 people of whom about 2,500 (15%) are either expat Kiwis or Aussies who have moved to the Cooks to work in the tourism industry and live a lifestyle we have all dreamt of, a never-ending summer on a tropical paradise.

Tourism accounts for nearly 70% of the Cook Islands economy with most of the 170,000 tourists coming from either New Zealand or Australia each year.

In response to Covid-19 on March 13th the Cook Islands closed its border to all direct flights from all countries except for New Zealand as well as cruise ships, and yachts. Since then New Zealand has remained their only gateway to the outside world. Here in New Zealand, our borders closed nearly a week later on March 19th. The Cook Islands have successfully prevented an outbreak of covid-19 and remain one of only 17 countries in the world to remain free of the virus.

Having engaged in extensive testing for the virus to date there has not been one positive case. The level of testing for the virus in the Cook Islands (7% of total population) is 3.5x greater than for New Zealand (2%). The measures taken by the Cook Islands have been well-planned, executed and successful.

Recently, there has been a call for New Zealand to open a ‘Pacific Bubble’ with Covid-free Pacific nations or a ‘NZ-Cook Islands Bubble’. This has been supported by the Cooks’ Prime Minister Henry Puna. He also described the economic hurt that his country is experiencing since tourism has dried-up. In a statement, Puna appealed for kindness, explaining, “New Zealand and the Cook Islands are family. During difficult times, families look out for one another. These are those times. That’s all we’re asking from New Zealand. Look out for your family.” Unfortunately, this appeal has landed on deaf ears with our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern more interested in engaging with Australia around talks of a ‘Trans-Tasman Bubble’. This has now been ruled out by Australia for the foreseeable future.

The logic behind our Prime Minister’s keenness to establish a travel bubble with Australia who continue to have new cases, yet reluctance to engage with the Cook Islands who have remained Covid-free, is confusing, frustrating and smacks of prejudice.

The health risk to New Zealand posed by opening our border to the Cook Islands is tiny, and the risk to the Cooks is also small. Considering this I believe that Ardern should embrace kindness and open our border immediately between the two countries. In times of ‘kindness’, it is vital that we throw our Pacific family an economic lifeline.