Covid-19 and Beyond
What New Zealand Got Right, What Went Wrong and the Divisions That Still Run Deep
Let’s start with a declaration. I’m a fan of Jacinda Ardern. Did she get the COVID response 100% right? Absolutely not. Did that government squander the opportunity to do important things in their 6 years? They blew it and there’s a special place in hell for people like Chris Hipkins who sold out the Labour principles and mandate to try and stay in power. Do I believe in natural immunity and drinking sheep drench? Sure I do. It’s as valid as the Earth being flat and chemtrails. So, with that, here’s my take on things COVID.
When Jacinda Ardern told New Zealanders in March 2020 that thousands would die if the Government failed to act, few could have imagined just how radically life was about to change. The decision to “go hard and go early” launched one of the strictest lockdowns in the world. Five years later, the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Lessons Learned from Aotearoa New Zealand’s Covid-19 Response has handed down its findings.
Its verdict? The response was “among the best in the world.” Thousands of lives were saved, the health system stayed upright and the economy rebounded faster than most OECD peers. Yet the Commission also catalogues strategic failures, inequities and missed opportunities. More troubling still, a companion report warns New Zealand may actually be less prepared today for the next pandemic than it was in 2020.
And hovering over all of this is a fault line that never healed - the gulf between mainstream public health advice and those who rejected it - the anti-mandate movement, vaccine sceptics and outright Covid deniers. Their views were ignored, mocked and sometimes dangerous. But they were also politically potent and in some cases, revealed weaknesses in how government communicated and justified its decisions.
The Success Story
By March 2025, around 4,600 New Zealanders had died of Covid-19. If the country had followed Sweden’s path, nearly 9,000 more would have been lost. The elimination strategy delayed mass transmission until vaccines arrived, sparing vulnerable groups from catastrophic early waves.
New Zealanders spent less total time under lockdown than many countries. Students lost fewer school days and still performed above OECD averages. The economy, cushioned by wage subsidies and business supports, bounced back faster than most peers.
Controversial measures - vaccine mandates, the pass system and even the long Auckland Delta lockdown - were judged “reasonable and sensible” in context. Border closures and MIQ, though clunky and distressing, were vital to elimination. The inquiry praised ministers and officials for grappling with ethical trade-offs under immense pressure, often at speed and with limited information.
Why the Government Acted as It Did
In March 2020, officials feared the health system would collapse under even a moderate outbreak. ICU beds were scarce, contact tracing was a “cottage industry,” and the national pandemic plan prepared the country for influenza, not a virus requiring years of sustained response.
A chart presented on March 18, 2020 - “go hard, go early, stay the course” - became a “penny-dropping moment.” Only the toughest measures could prevent disaster. That realisation drove the first Level 4 lockdown and cemented elimination as the de facto strategy.
For much of the first 18 months, public health advice dominated Cabinet decision-making. Ministers later admitted they often lacked equally strong economic or social perspectives to weigh alongside it. Still, decisions such as prolonging Auckland’s Delta lockdown were motivated by equity concerns, giving Māori and Pasifika more time to vaccinate.
The Critics - Anti-Vaxers and Covid Deniers
Even as the Royal Commission validated these choices, it could not ignore the backlash. From 2021 onwards, protests against mandates and vaccines drew thousands to the streets and culminated in the 2022 Parliament occupation.
Why they thought this way
Distrust of institutions - Many believed government and media were hiding information or overstating risk.
Concerns about vaccines - The speed of development and novel mRNA technology fed fear, despite scientific evidence of safety and effectiveness.
Freedom arguments - Vaccine passes and workplace mandates were seen as coercive.
Economic pain - Small business owners and contractors bore disproportionate costs.
Alternative channels - Social media and international conspiracy networks amplified misinformation.
Their alternatives
Focused protection of the elderly and vulnerable (modelled on the “Great Barrington Declaration”).
Early treatments such as ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, despite evidence showing ineffectiveness.
Sweden’s looser model, though Sweden had much higher mortality.
Natural immunity over vaccines, though that would have cost thousands more lives.
None of these alternatives were workable at scale, but they tapped into real grievances, particularly over transparency, trust and economic hardship. The Commission indirectly acknowledged this. Poor communication and lack of clear strategic planning left space for alternative narratives to flourish.
Weak Spots in the Official Response
Strategic drift - The transition away from elimination was chaotic, poorly signalled and confusing even inside government.
Health system failures - ICU upgrades came late; visitor bans were excessive; elective surgeries cancelled for too long.
Lockdown design - “Essential services” defined too narrowly, sidelining safe industries like forestry and construction.
Equity - Māori and Pasifika bore disproportionate harm despite explicit intentions to protect them.
Governance churn - Agencies reorganised on the fly, but none provided the long-term strategy needed.
Ministers Declining to Front Up
One of the most contentious developments has come with phase two of the Royal Commission, which is focused specifically on lockdowns and vaccines. Several of the key ministers who made the most consequential decisions - Jacinda Ardern, Grant Robertson and Chris Hipkins, have declined to appear.
Their justification - that they already gave extensive evidence in phase one, the decisions are on public record and revisiting them risks politicisation rather than clarification. Some suggest appearing again would merely relitigate settled debates or provide a platform for anti-vaccine disinformation.
The critique - critics argue their refusal undermines accountability. Lockdowns and mandates were the most socially and politically divisive elements of the response. To decline engagement fuels suspicion among sceptics that leaders are avoiding scrutiny. Even if the scientific consensus on vaccines is robust, a Commission is the very forum where contested issues should be aired openly and transparently.
Whether justified depends on perspective. From the ministers’ view, they’ve been scrutinised for years, often unfairly and have little to add. From a public legitimacy standpoint, however, their absence risks leaving the most polarising questions to be answered without those ultimately responsible in the room. For many, that is a missed opportunity to help heal divisions.
Lessons and Recommendations
The Commission offered 39 recommendations across six themes, from a central pandemic agency function to updated plans across health, education, justice and business, modernised legislation and regular accountability reporting. Yet the Government has deferred action until 2026.
Meanwhile, public health capacity is being eroded, hospital backlogs are worse and science funding has been cut. Hendy notes - “If we’d invested billions in public health before Covid, it would have paid itself back in a couple of months.”
The Social Licence Question
Would New Zealanders comply with harsh measures again? Bloomfield thinks yes, if the danger is clear and trust in science holds. Surveys show many still back the 2020 response. But Hendy warns the “information environment” has worsened, with anti-vax networks stronger and disinformation unchecked. The refusal of ministers to front up in phase two may deepen this distrust.
Learning from Taiwan
Taiwan’s experience looms large - elimination without lockdowns, thanks to robust pre-existing public health tools. Critics who argued lockdowns were unnecessary were partly right, but only in a system with that infrastructure already in place. New Zealand lacked it and so had no alternative but blunt lockdowns.
The Next Pandemic Is Coming
Avian influenza H5N1 has already crossed into mammals, killing tens of thousands of seals in Argentina and appearing in US dairy herds. With a 50% human fatality rate in recorded cases, the risk is not theoretical. The Commission warns pandemics on the scale of Covid should be expected every 25 years. Unlike earthquakes, the risks are increasing.
Australia is building a CDC. The UK restructured its public health agency in 2021. New Zealand is waiting.
Pride, Division and Urgency
The Royal Commission’s message is double-edged. New Zealand’s Covid response saved thousands of lives, stabilised the economy and kept children learning. But it left scars - strategic drift, inequities and deep divisions. Anti-vaxers and deniers had no workable alternative, but their anger reflected mistrust, poor communication and the heavy social costs of lockdowns and mandates.
The refusal of former ministers to front phase two only sharpens that divide. Justified or not, it risks leaving the hardest questions unanswered and the conspiracy theories unchallenged.
As Hendy put it - “Prioritising resilience rather than just short-term cost has got to be the goal.” Because next time, luck may not be on our side.
For me, an imperfect response to an impossible situation. Marks out of 10? 8.
If you’d like a confidential, free of charge, free of obligation conversation about your business, here’s how to get me.
📞 Phone +64 275 665 682
✉️ Email john.luxton@regenerationhq.co.nz
🌐 Contact Form www.regenerationhq.co.nz/contact
If you’d like to read more RegenerationHQ thinking on SME business and other things, go here – www.regenerationhq.co.nz/articlesoverview
🔹 RegenerationHQ Ltd - Business Problems Solved Sensibly.
Supporting NZ SME Owners to Exit Well, Lead Better and Build Business Value.