The government’s decision to retain existing Covid19 settings for at least the next couple of months continues the same streak of stubborn arrogance that has detracted from the rest of its otherwise balanced and comprehensive approach to the pandemic since its outbreak over three years ago.

Inexplicably, throughout the pandemic response the government consistently ignored or overlooked overseas advice or experience in reaching decisions, preferring instead to re-invent the wheel for itself.

One of the reasons for the delays in getting vaccines in the early days for New Zealanders was because of the government’s unwillingness to accept overseas vaccine approvals as satisfactory for New Zealand. So, the verification procedure for vaccines that were being safely jabbed in arms the world over had to start from the beginning all over again before those same vaccines were approved for local use.

It was a similar story with self-testing equipment. When most other countries started making RAT tests, or similar tests, available to citizens from early 2021 so they could test their own exposure to the virus, our government prevaricated. Then Covid19 Response Minister Hipkins was worried New Zealanders might not use such tests “properly”, and that might lead to adverse consequences.

New Zealand retained lockdowns long after most other countries abandoned them as too socially disruptive and ineffective against new variants like Delta and Omicron. We clung to the notion that somehow we could do what no other country had done and beat the virus, without any negative social costs.

This week’s decision smacks of the same arrogant “New Zealand is different, and we know best” approach of earlier times. According to Health Minister Verrall, more work needs to be done on whether testing to return to work earlier than the seven days for people who are not symptomatic or are mild cases, could be a safe and effective approach.

Yet, Te Punaha Matatini principal investigator, and disease modelling expert, Professor Michael Plank says the “direction of travel” internationally has been to drop isolation requirements and treat Covid19 “alongside all the other important public health issues that we have to deal with.” Britain abandoned mandatory isolation a year ago, and Australia did so late last year.

There are already anecdotal reports here of people thwarting Covid19 isolation requirements to avoid having to take time off work by simply not reporting when they have the virus. Is our government naïve enough to believe that as the economy worsens, and pressure on jobs increases, that trend will not become more pronounced, especially if restrictions are prolonged?

Professor Plank’s team’s modelling results would have been available to Ministers before the latest Cabinet discussion. Any questions, along the lines now being posed by Minister Verrall, could have been put directly to the modellers. Given current international practice, Verrall’s call for more information seems an unnecessary excuse for inaction.

Epidemiologist Professor Michael Baker has argued for the retention of existing restrictions, but his reasoning seems to be less to do with Covid19 than other health matters. According to Baker, “self-isolation protects people from lots of dangerous respiratory illnesses including flu, whooping cough and other nasties that are doing the rounds.” The implication of his remarks that self-isolation should become a near permanent feature of our health response to annual viruses goes way beyond any other suggestions.

But perhaps that is where the government is heading? Verrall’s justification for retaining isolation requirements made no direct reference to Baker’s suggestions. But, given the potential pressures in the months ahead on our stretched public health services, there is some logic, albeit extreme, in what he is saying. So, is he being quietly encouraged to float an idea that the government might stealthily adopt over the next little while in the interests of taking seasonal pressure off the health system?

Plank’s modelling and what is happening internationally shows there is no compelling evidence for keeping isolation requirements in place in New Zealand insofar as Covid19 is concerned. Nor is doing so likely to be a popular move politically, with most sectors of the community keen to move on from the Covid19 era. Verrall’s excuse for not doing so now looks very weak, unless, of course, the government has another agenda in mind that it does not yet want to acknowledge, but for which continuing Covid19 restrictions is a convenient cover.

With the public perception of a public health service in crisis, and a reform programme that looks incoherent and disorganised, the last thing the government would want in the lead-up to the election, is the health service overrun by, and unable to cope with all the usual winter ailments. Far better, therefore, and certainly more cynical politics, to follow Baker’s suggestion and keep the Covid19 restrictions on for a little longer in the hope of keeping a lid on the spread of this year’s annual winter bugs.

Three years on, the government still seems determined to milk every political advantage it can from Covid19