Coronavirus Covid-19: why NZ’s ‘go hard, go early’ response was a world leader

The speed and intensity of New Zealand’s “go fast and get started” response to Covid-19 was unprecedented globally.

Our country had the fastest trajectory to reach the highest score in an international index.

That’s been pointed out in an ESR-led study just published in the Lancet Public Health, which presents New Zealand as an example other countries can learn from.

The study is also the first to assess the impacts of a country’s public health decision-making on the spread of Covid-19 and reach a national elimination goal.

However, the need to address an issue that was pointed out early in New Zealand’s Covid-19 experience is also highlighted: systemic barriers around access to healthcare.

The document broke down and analyzed how New Zealand’s science-based public health measures handled the first wave through May 13, a period that saw 1,503 cases, 95 hospitalizations and 22 deaths.

Almost half of those cases, 702, were associated with just 34 local outbreaks.

Most of the New Zealand cases in that first wave, or 69 percent, were related to foreign travel and tended to be younger adults, European and of higher socioeconomic status.

Still, New Zealand had one of the lowest numbers of Covid-19 cases and deaths reported internationally during the first wave, said ESR lead author and public health physician Dr. Sarah Jefferies.

During the crucial 10-day period in which New Zealand went into lockdown, the estimated average daily infection rate peaked at 8.5 cases per million, and then dropped dramatically by 62 percent.

“There was a marked reduction in the spread of disease in the first two weeks of closure, and with great improvements in testing capacity, targeting testing on vulnerable and high-risk individuals, and improved case management and contacts, contacts were traced and more and more cases detected quickly, “said Jefferies.

“An integral part of this was the collective effort of many people, within and outside the health sector, including all New Zealanders who played their part in protecting themselves and their communities.”

The study noted that New Zealand had the fastest trajectory to achieve the country’s highest score on the Government Response Stringency Index.

In addition, it found that its early and intense response was likely to prevent the burden of disease suffered by other high-income countries that were slow to close, including Australia, the United Kingdom and Italy.

The study stated: “An integral part of New Zealand’s response has been decisive governance, effective communication and high public compliance; in an earthquake-prone country, communities and emergency management systems are prepared for disaster response “.

Jefferies said the New Zealand experience offers valuable information to other countries.

“We are currently facing a global challenge in which we do not yet have a vaccine against this new virus and only a few experimental treatments may show promise,” he said.

“Therefore, we must understand how to optimize the use of non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as the measures applied during different alert levels, to inform future responses in New Zealand and around the world.”

Early tests in Asia had suggested that measures such as movement restrictions, physical distancing, hygiene and contact tracing were effective in controlling the pandemic.

But Jefferies said it was unclear how well this could be implemented in societies with little experience in successfully containing a new respiratory virus.

“New Zealand followed the advice of the World Health Organization and combined emerging scientific evidence with leadership and communication strategies.

“The rapid control of community transmission through mandatory physical distancing provided time to improve the response, including priority testing of the highest risk groups to ensure that Covid-19 did not overload the capacity of the health system.”

The study still pointed to one area that needed more attention: addressing health inequity.

“Our study supports the continued need for response to address systemic barriers, such as access to health care, to achieve equitable health outcomes for minorities and higher-risk groups, particularly in the absence of elimination.”