Covid 19 coronavirus: New Zealand scientists critical of anti-lock letter in major medical journal

An anti-blocking letter in one of New Zealand’s leading medical journals by “Covid Plan B” academics has drawn contempt from top advisers to the Health Ministry.

The letter to the editor of the NZ Journal of Primary Health Care from academics at several major universities states that New Zealand is “one of the few countries pursuing Covid-19 elimination” and that it is “killing livelihoods and lives “.

Co-authors of the letter include two professors of public health from the University of Auckland, a professor of public health from AUT University and a professor of law from the University of Victoria.

Among the claims disputed in the letter are that a safe and effective vaccine is “at best in four years” and loss of income for Kiwi workers through the elimination strategy will result in “loss of life. 330 times greater “than a less severe flattening -the curve of approaches.

A quick response from the Ministry of Health’s chief scientific adviser, Dr. Ian Town, rebuked the letter in the same December 22 issue of the NZ Journal of Primary Health Care.

“There is no mention of the adverse health effects of the virus, the direct and indirect impacts on mortality, or the impact on health services and staff,” Town says of the letter.

“Readers will have noticed that scientists in Sweden are publicly questioning their approach to the rapid increase in cases and deaths.”

Town claims the ministry “disagrees” with the Plan B letter “as do many epidemiologists, officials and advisers in New Zealand and around the world.”

“Most of the reduction in the national income level during the shutdown will be temporary, so it is unlikely that it will cause the kind of drop in life expectancy suggested,” writes Town.

The lead author of the Plan B anti-lock letter is Dr. Gerhard Sundborn, Senior Lecturer in Public Health at the University of Auckland.

Sundborn told the Herald that the reason for the letter was to communicate to the government that they believe the phase-out strategy “in the long term could do more harm than good.”

“It has already cost us $ 60 billion,” Sundborn said.

“If we continue to use closures to address potential outbreaks that could be caused by four people in Auckland who have community transmission, then it will greatly increase.”

Sundborn said he believes the government may have also privately walked away from the takedown response based on more recent examples of community transmission in New Zealand that have not resulted in a lockdown.

“We think maybe there has been a movement to contain it without blockages, but I think it would be good to communicate that clearly to the public because I think it would reduce the anxieties that are being felt across the country,” Sundborn said.

University of Auckland professor of public health, epidemiologist and letter co-author Dr Simon Thornley said he believed that “implementation of the vaccine will take a long time.”

“I think it’s pretty clear that they basically spent all of our money in tough times. We have never spent so much money in such a short time,” Thornley said.

“Blocking is poor value for money in terms of what we would normally consider a good buy to improve health.

“Obviously, there is a downside to blocking society, there are health effects, economic implications like employment, recession. We live in a society that is much more than just a response to Covid.”

But University of Otago public health professor Michael Baker told the Herald that the letter was nearly unsuitable for publication due to its inaccuracy and, in his opinion, the authors lived in an alternate reality.

“I guess that article couldn’t have been peer-reviewed, really, because it contains things that are obviously absurd,” Baker said.

“I don’t know what they are basing their claims on. I mean, to begin with, as soon as you say ‘There is no hope for a vaccine,’ and they practically say that, or ‘It’s highly unlikely,’ when the world seems awash in fantastic vaccine candidates. I mean, surely you’re starting to doubt the credibility of the whole argument. “

In the letter, the Plan B group states that “a vaccine may never be produced. After 37 years and billions of dollars invested, an HIV vaccine is still elusive.”

Baker also criticized the logic of the Plan B group’s focus on the economic impact of the closures, saying that it was necessary to judge that cost in the context of all other alternatives.

“What economists always say is that it’s not about whether something costs a lot of money or not. It’s about whether there is a better alternative that will give you a better result and cost less,” Baker said.

“If you don’t have that alternative, it’s better to stick with Plan A, rather than launching yourself to this planet B, which appears to have a completely alternative logical structure.

“That is what I find almost scandalous, that university scholars are publishing material that is so poorly argued and that it is selecting tests in a very selective way and it does not make any sense.”