It's been 12 days since an organised protest movement of diverse origins descended in front of the New Zealand government buildings. It's been an interestingly unprecedented time.
Previously I have discussed about the mandates and my view that in a pandemic the social contract for mutual protection justifies it to encourage and, in particular fields, compel those whose risks and benefits of vaccination are modest in order to do something that for the whole of society is a good thing. There are plenty of similar cases: taxation, rules around alcohol and tobacco, road safety and dare it be more analogous, compulsory childhood vaccinations. Vaccinations though are quite an invasive kind of obligation to put on someone. A bit like fluoridation of the water, or the fortification of staple foods with supplements, it takes away a large degree of choice about what you put in your body.
I feel that the New Zealand case easily justifies it with our "Delta wave" crushed without the mortality and morbidity inflicted on other countries; in fact, it is hard to find any country which got through a genuine wave with only a mere extra five deaths per million population added to the pandemic toll. Our effective booster campaign might also curb Omicron, time will tell.
In terms of the risks from the widespread vaccination, there has not been a rise in excess mortality in NZ in either 2020 or 2021, nor an unexpected rise during the peak of the vaccination campaign, literally no "signals" from the data. At this time there are only two confirmed deaths linked directly to vaccinations; while there is undoubtedly a number of those who have had bad reactions, an unblunted Delta wave would have easily caused more harm.
A poll instigated by Family First has shown that New Zealanders may have less fondness toward the mandates now than they had last year when they were introduced. But there was an interesting finding amongst it: "1 in 3 vaccinated Kiwis said that the vaccine mandate or pass requirements were a large factor in their decision to get vaccinated." For the vaccine or mandate averse, this is a negative - a sign that people were compelled, but for me it is the opposite: If we had a third fewer people vaccinated, we would have a rate similar to what has happened in many European countries, Israel and the US.
It has been often pointed out that under Omicron, the mandates themselves offer only marginally more protection to the vulnerable as life without the mandates. Omicron appears to more easily evade the immunity gained from vaccines (as well as previous infection) and triple vaccinated people can catch and pass it on to an unfortunately high degree. Thus there are people asking whether the mandates are the right tool. In New Zealand, especially until this wave has subsided, I would say it is still a reasonable tool. Freshly vaccinated people have broader, less evaded immunity and any encouragement to have this happen is still relevant.
The vaccinated are also less likely to end up in hospital. Like it or not, the unvaccinated who are the most at risk have been excluded from a lot of places. (An outdoor protest is ironically a pretty safe place to be, much better than a workplace.) With the desire to avoid overwhelming the hospitals, it seems prudent to have measures that slow down the rate of growth of the Omicron outbreak.
The response of the anti-mandate people has been unsympathetically seen as pākehā people who have never been discriminated against reacting with their white privilege. There might be a trace of that in some but you have to admit that if you had made a decision to not get vaccinated, the implications if you are in a healthcare or education, or in the emergency services, it is a hugely disruptive imposition to one's working life. (To be clear, the decision to close the border effectively did the same thing to many jobs.) For the people in other fields who are not vaccinated, or who do not get fully vaccinated for reasons of a bad reaction that somehow doesn't meet the rigid criteria for an exemption, life is a real headache. It is a pause on any life at cafes and restaurants, even outdoor events may impose vaccine pass requirements, and your job could still be affected. (On Thursday, a staff member failed to check a vaccine pass for a tradesman and got into trouble for allowing an unvaccinated contractor on campus. Not the first time a contractor, a comparatively free form of employment has evaded checking that I know about, but clearly they are trying to continue their lives despite private businesses who may require them imposing the restrictions themselves.) But this is not intended to be permanent and once they do not serve a purpose the mandates will end, thus spake the Prime Minister.
It is hard to see an end to the protests. It is easy to advocate "clearing them away" but this is heavy-handed and at worst setting light to a powder keg. These people have nowhere else to be right now: no job; there is clearly funding, food and resources either from the sympathetic public or by externally interested parties. I would look to a way to negotiate with several parties who have a clear and large membership of people behind them for the intermediate goal of removing vehicles and even a small win for vaccine-adverse.
Even though I support mandates, an increased vaccination rate has already been met, and if I were negotiating I would be open to loosening some of the rules in spite of the rising number of Omicron cases. But the lack of cohesive leadership in the protest movement, or even a negotiable list of demands, apart from complete governmental abdication of a fairly understandable position, is really an issue. Unless the protests are for a purely political purpose, there might be no way out except for attrition, and I would have recommended some initial "attritional" steps. Currently, with food and basic services being provided the protestors have no reason to leave. The first step would be to ticket cars, and then state that ticketed vehicles would be towed. That way there would be some "skin in the game" for protestors to decide whether to stay or not, and a reason to accept conditions.
As good faith I would immediately relax rules around the unvaccinated eating and enjoying outdoor venues. This would mean legal protection to say eateries could not enforce vaccine pass requirements for outdoor areas. Any outdoor recreational event also cannot apply vaccine requirements.
Though the quoted survey suggested that the public would support daily testing of the unvaccinated to retain employment, it is somewhat of a red herring. There isn't the supply to allow this except if it was funded by the unvaccinated people or companies themselves for their unvaccinated staff members. If I were a company whose function was impacted by the mandates, I would have sought to have dispensation to support the testing of key unvaccinated staff, but the wholesale testing of all unvaccinated would be difficult and could not be publicly funded. Even with a factory on our shores, the requirement for hundreds of thousands of rapid tests and PCR tests daily on top of what is already required to service public health needs is not feasible. But with the compliance requirements on the companies and the requirement to have everyone mask, I don't see a downside to some industries, especially with key staff to have this allowance.
Now that we are mostly vaccinated, and the militant antivaxx medical practitioners have been sidelined, it would be a positive step to allow GPs the power to make prudent exemption decisions freeing up those who cannot get double vaccinated due to adverse reactions on their first vaccination to take a greater part in society.
These would be my requirements if I were negotiating, and it would be done with the additional pressure that those with vehicles would soon have their vehicles fined and prone to being pulled over at a later date for unpaid fines. And with the additional issue that eventually, the vehicles would be towed.
It is a pity that anti-mandate sentiment often coincides with anti-mask animus. If staff in the mandated fields committed to wear a provided N95 or similar facial protection, I would, if in power, suggest this as an appropriate loosening, that with the provision, either publicly or privately, of a high quality mask, unvaccinated staff should be able to keep working. However, it would rely on the integrity of those who, even in the protest situation, are not demonstrating the expected consciousness of their potential infectiousness. Even as a triple vaccinated person, I'm masking and it disturbs me that people in these roles do not have the awareness of others required for the position. I believe those in hospitality, such as baristas and the like, with clear supervision would wear a high quality mask. The industry is need of work so I could see companies willing to cough up and extra $2 a day to make sure they have good staff.
When members of the protest have a better situation to leave for, they have a reason to be elsewhere, and I would hope that the above weaken the resolve of the majority to waste time when income could be gained, a step towards a reintegration with common society could be imagined, which would happen once the Omicron wave has ebbed.
Part of my job over the last couple of weeks has been to handle outbreaks, creating a process for notification so that staff can have certainty of what to do, sending classes home into self-isolation, creating a path back to leave self-isolation and back to the classroom etc. At the same time, our organisation has been doing the same with staff as we did have our own outbreak. For all the discussion of how "useless" masks are, two of three positive cases were probably the least diligent with masking. I was a casual contact with a staff case and now two student cases, but I use an KN95 mask, which while not impervious does give me far more assurance. Even with the mask, I still got tested after the first student case (unbeknownst to be it also followed the casual contact with a positive staff member - I only found out a few days later).
I was asked how I was coping with all this, and to be clear, I'm fine with handling pandemics now. The arrangements are pretty easy. I believe I was pretty clear since March 2020. The details may have changed but the best practice of effective communication and clear processes are still the same. One of my previous posts was called Stalemate because my role was changing in a direction I liked but in a manner I thought senseless. I baulked. Despite my objections, my role has senselessly gone in the direction that I liked but without a single change in the mode. Now, on top of handling the Omicron outbreak, I'm doing two jobs and even once my old job is resolved, I'm still marginalised in a way I don't like. When it was decided that things would proceed as was planned without consideration to my situation, I said simply, to do so would risk a lot and if the group was prepared to take the risk, then it needs to realise the risk. It cannot eat the cake and have it as well. But there was no change - it committed me to a situation that I may not want to stay. There was either a rigidity of thought that things couldn't be another way, or just a desire to marginalise me. Either way, it is an inhumane approach.
Whether it is from mandate or otherwise, it is not a great feeling to have your mana and rights seemingly infringed from without. The wisdom is to take it for a moment to buy you the time to act. The protests may result in a change of government in 2023. My change in role may break me away from my employment of 6 years. Only time will tell.
