3.4 What we learned looking back Ngā akoranga i te titiro whakamuri

1. Lockdowns – in combination with tight border restrictions – proved to be an effective tool for achieving and maintaining Aotearoa New Zealand’s elimination strategy in 2020 and early 2021.

• Aotearoa New Zealand’s use of lockdowns early in 2020, while stricter than many countries, worked. Aotearoa New Zealand was able to spend large amounts of time in 2020 free from the restrictions experienced by many other parts of the world.
• Lockdowns at least initially were supported by high levels of trust and social cohesion, strong support from communities, social and economic supports, and clear communication.

2. Aotearoa New Zealand would have been less reliant on using lockdowns to eliminate COVID-19 infection with greater preparation of, and investment in, core public health functions.

• Decision-makers’ options were initially limited by the capacity and effectiveness of the tools available (such as contact tracing) and how effectively measures such as mask wearing were taken up by the population.
• We note that some Pacific countries (such as Samoa, Tonga and Tokelau) avoided the need for lockdown measures altogether by closing their borders before any COVID-19 cases had occurred, suggesting Aotearoa New Zealand could benefit from earlier border restrictions (in other words, adopting an exclusion strategy) in a future pandemic if the pathogen is particularly infectious and virulent.

3. Deciding when to introduce, and when to stand down, measures such as lockdowns is extremely challenging and requires difficult trade-offs in the face of uncertainty.

• Decisions about when to start and end measures such as lockdowns involve weighing up a range of competing considerations – social and economic, as well as public health – and considering impacts across different population groups.
• During the COVID-19 response, decisions around use of lockdowns were informed by a range of advice and evidence, including modelling that took account of vaccination coverage, use of public health measures, and the strength of testing, contact tracing, and isolation systems. The Inquiry has not seen evidence that waning protection from vaccination was included in modelling to inform decisions around when to end lockdowns in late 2021, although it was used in modelling from early 2022.
• Many members of the public – and some senior ministers – felt that the last Auckland lockdown went on for too long. Our assessment is that the Government’s decision-making on when to end the final Auckland lockdown reflected its judgement that allowing more time for Māori and Pacific communities to reach higher levels of vaccination was justified by the benefits they would gain, in the form of greater protection against the severe impacts of COVID-19.
• However, we are of the view that other factors such as waning protection and assessments of likely resurgence could have been considered alongside vaccine coverage. For example, we note that lockdowns in the Australian states of Victoria and New South Wales ended earlier and at lower vaccination coverage levels than that at which the Auckland lockdown was relaxed, without any associated increase in case numbers. In a future pandemic we think these considerations should also be included in advice to decision makers.

4. Some elements of the lockdowns were particularly difficult to implement, especially at short notice.

• Both regional boundaries and the essential worker framework, while valuable, were hard to implement rapidly and with no prior preparation across the government system. These timing and preparedness issues caused many challenges for businesses, communities and government.

5. Lockdowns had disproportionate impacts on some groups.

• While students’ education was less disrupted in Aotearoa New Zealand than in most other OECD countries, lockdowns still had a significant and negative impact – particularly for Māori and Pacific students, those from lower socio-economic backgrounds, and students in Auckland.
• The impacts of repeated lockdowns on Auckland were cumulative and multifaceted, encompassing economic, physical and mental health and wellbeing, educational outcomes and social cohesion.

6. Efforts by iwi, Māori and communities of all kinds undoubtedly alleviated some potential negative impacts of lockdowns on individuals and groups.

• Iwi, Māori and many others – neighbourhoods, cultural groups, online groups, non-governmental and community organisations, religious institutions, families, whānau and aiga – stepped up during the first Alert Level 3 and 4 lockdowns to provide essential local leadership, support each other and address local needs. Their pre-existing relationships within their local communities (and, in some cases, with Government) were invaluable in enabling this to happen.