Dame Jacinda Ardern says she will provide evidence to assist the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 response.
This week there was speculation about whether the former prime minister, who is living in the United States, would be called to give evidence at the inquiry, which resumed in Auckland this week.
A spokesperson told The Post she had every intention of providing evidence, if asked to.
“When did you first become aware that the Pfizer vaccination, while very effective at reducing harm from Covid-19 to the recipient, did not significantly reduce risk of transmission for the Omicron variant?”
This is critical as the vaccine mandates and restrictions were based on numerous statements by the PM that they were necessary not to protect yourself, but to protect you from infecting other people. Traditional childhood vaccinations do indeed prevent you from getting infected and infecting other people, but the Covid-19 vaccine did not. Hence the policy rationale for the mandates and restrictions was very flawed.
It looks likes the impact of being vaccinated reduces Omicron transmission by between 15% and 30% which is not zero, but not much.
Now it was more effective (but now 100%) at preventing transmission for earlier variants, so I think the initial decisions were made in good faith. But my criticism is that as the virus evolved, the policy response did not follow the science.
So this is why I want the RC to look into when the PM and Govt was first aware that the impact off transmission was relatively low, and the time that lapsed between that awareness and what they were saying in public and their policy response.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders
This is critical as the vaccine mandates and restrictions were based on numerous statements by the PM that they were necessary not to protect yourself, but to protect you from infecting other people. Traditional childhood vaccinations do indeed prevent you from getting infected and infecting other people, but the Covid-19 vaccine did not. Hence the policy rationale for the mandates and restrictions was very flawed.
It looks likes the impact of being vaccinated reduces Omicron transmission by between 15% and 30% which is not zero, but not much.
Now it was more effective (but now 100%) at preventing transmission for earlier variants, so I think the initial decisions were made in good faith. But my criticism is that as the virus evolved, the policy response did not follow the science.
So this is why I want the RC to look into when the PM and Govt was first aware that the impact off transmission was relatively low, and the time that lapsed between that awareness and what they were saying in public and their policy response.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders
2 comments:
If we all knew immediately, or close enough to, that the jab was not a vaccine, just like we knew pretty early in the piece that Covid, like other colds and flus, was only a risk to those with comorbidities, then Jabcinda/Stalinda (take your pick) definitely did. She knew that people with autoimmune diseases, diabetes, heart disease, chronic inflammation, and obese people were most a risk. People who were never part of the very short, incomplete vaccine trials. All this info was readily available before the jab was even rolled out here.
Yet she, her govt, John Key and David Seymour peddled the lies anyway.
We know this was never about health. It was about power and money.
Had it been about health they would have talked about sleep, nutrition, exercise, and not offered KFC as enticement to get a jab that caused more harm than good to those it was supposedly meant to protect.
All of them should be charged with criminal nuisance and thrown in prison. They trod on our basic human rights, and destroyed our social norms, community and economy for nothing.
Further, there should be a law against that contemptible, morally and ethically repugnant woman getting rich off our misery.
Please acknowledge to remove your comment about John Key and David Seymour, they were in Opposition . Hardly a reasonable accusation.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.