Tim, Library Assistant. Canterbury, NZ.

I argue that the government's response to the threat of “pandemic” was excessive and an abuse of human rights. It would have been better leaving people to make their own choices about how to respond to the supposed threat.

• The first lockdown left me with the suspicion that the Government was going down a rabbit hole and dragging everyone with them. Initially I had no idea the extent to which this was the case. Only later on, did the stupidity of the lockdown become evident due to the shonky science. The fundamental understanding of science used to justify the government's response was wrong. • The first explanation of how the virus originated mutated since the beginning of the “crisis” when the “wet market in Wuhan” was blamed followed by the “pangolin” explanation, along with weirder explanations. Neither original explanation seemed credible given that the city of Wuhan hosts an institution devoted to the study of virology. Those pedalling these stories of origin must have been aware they were drawing long bow even if they were not aware of the true origins of the virus. Neither, at the time, did I know the true origin of the virus, but I possess enough common sense to suspect that the official narrative being promoted was a weak as dish water. My confidence in the official sources of information on this topic was dented from the start.

• The first lockdown allowed me the leisure to read Doctor Geoffrey Rice's book on the 1918 Flu epidemic. In the most recent edition of his book is a picture of the corona virus, which was identified in the 1960's as the culprit for influenza. The same virus was wheeled out in 2020 as the potential cause of mass mortality despite the fact that the majority of those who died from the 1918 “flu” epidemic did not die from the flu but from complications such as pneumonia which set in subsequent upon infection with the flu. Pneumonia is a serious problem but one that can be treated with modern antibiotics. For the average healthy person the flu, while uncomfortable, is not life threatening. There was no need to shut down the whole country in case a few people got the flu.

• The New Zealand Government response to “covid” was characterised by all the features of psychological groupthink. No alternative proposals were deemed acceptable unless they were subservient to the “official narrative.”

• We have the former Prime Minister Chris Hipkins to thank for reassuring New Zealanders that the vaccine was “not compulsory.” This message is hardly reassuring to the many New Zealanders who stood to lose their jobs and livelihoods if they did not get the jab. In fact, I got the jab, unwillingly but out of a fear of the consequences of losing my job. There is no legitimate reason for seeking medical treatment for financial, not health reasons. It turns out that many people's immune systems may have been compromised by the “vaccine” and this illustrates the uselessness of vaccinating healthy people. I have no wish to deny a “vaccine” to those who wish to avail themselves of it, but the coercion used to force people who may have other ideas was egregious.

• The jab itself was a very unpleasant experience for me with side effects such as sleeplessness, headaches and brain fireworks. This is one experience I very much regret and I hope that it has not compromised my health in any further way. It turns out that the vaccine was an ineffective treatment anyway. Despite the “vaccine” being promoted as a measure that would protect me from “covid” I went on to get “covid”.

• Any commonsense approach to the “covid” problem would have sought to identify areas in our society of low and high risk rather than deeming all of New Zealand to be “high risk”. It turns out that no measures would have been needed anyway due to the low incidence of the virus. This is an example of over planning for the worst-case scenario which generally never happens.

• The extreme “paternalism” shown by a government that claimed to know what was best and that their solution was the only valid solution was a clear indication that there were underlying agendas at play. Even today, the extent of these agendas is not clear to me. However, the general political inclination to control people by restricting rights and proscribing the use of private property, was given an ideal arena, and was pushed onto a people who were being fed propaganda around a manufactured crisis. • The government's refusal to acknowledge the health autonomy of individuals, instead imposing a “one size fits all” response was an egregious abuse of human rights. This was supported by the erroneous argument that those not getting jabbed were somehow putting others at risk. It turned out that there was very little risk of “covid”. There does seem to be evidence that the risk of adverse reactions, including death, from the “vaccine” was much higher than the actual risk of contracting “covid”.

• There was a deliberate confusing by the government of deaths “of” or “with” “covid”. Not everyone who died, died of “covid” and the language used by the government and media seem to have been constructed in order to mislead and scare people into believing deaths were greater than they were in reality.

• The apparent care for people that the government preened itself on during the “crisis” was hardly credible in light of the passing of the law allowing the murder of unborn children up to birth at the same time as the media were promoting propaganda horror stories of the millions who were expected to die if the government did not act in the most authoritarian measures possible. The principle of “my body my choice” that is invoked to justify abortion was conveniently forgotten by those pushing the jab mandate.

I have more to say about this issue and welcome the invitation to speak to the Royal Commission in person.

Response to the question about preparation for a “possible for a future pandemic”:

This question is too wide to be of any use. What pandemic? Another “covid” pandemic? Or an epidemic of some other sort? There are plenty of potential “epidemics” around and the topic is not helped by the loose use of the word epidemic. I have heard reference to an “epidemic of obesity,” for example. In actual fact, pandemics are rare in the modern world. Influenza seems to be the most recurring of all diseases that results in an increase of deaths among the vulnerable i.e. the elderly. It seems that influenza does seem to be relatively more prevalent that other epidemics of the past such as polio, tuberculosis or other water borne maladies such as dysentery. The prevalence of a disease, does also seem to be a factor of the vector of transmission. Malaria, for example, is not likely to be prevalent where there is no malaria carrying mosquitoes. I suggest that any planning for future events should not be subject to dictates from the World Health Organization, or the United Nations. As a nation, we are quite capable of managing such things on our own. Any pandemic response should be tailored to the New Zealand conditions and respect human rights to participate or not in a pandemic.