Why ACT are hiding the first Covid Royal Commission report
Minister to sit on Covid Royal Commission report for months
Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden will withhold findings from the first phase of the Royal Commission into the Covid-19 response for many months after she receives it in November.
It is possible that the report, written by epidemiologist Tony Blakely, economist John Whitehead and litigator Grant Illingworth KC, may even be kept private by the minister until the second phase reports back in February 2026.
The revelation has prompted outrage from Labour Party leader and former Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins, who said it was “unprecedented” and “a flagrant violation of the law”.
This is an ugly game of politics being whipped up by ACT who want heat not light from any inquiry.
The science is clear…
The truth about NZ’s death rate that the Covid Commission will hear
Today, incorrect claims about ‘excess deaths in New Zealand’ are becoming more common as we approach phase two of the Covid-19 Royal Commission of Inquiry, and these claims seem to have either forgotten the centuries-old basic mathematical steps, or are ignoring them.
So for those who have heard claims of mass death and thought ‘that can’t be correct’, you’re right to be sceptical – the claims are demonstrably false.
When working out the number of people expected to die, the number of living people is important. In general, more living people means more people who can die. So, for centuries, death rates have been used as a ‘per capita’ measure to check if more people are dying given the number of people that are living in a region.
Incorrect claims of 10,000 or more excess deaths in New Zealand can be made by completely ignoring death rates and how the living population has changed, instead comparing raw death counts to a time in the past when there were fewer people.
Sometimes false claims about excess death state that official data sources, like those collated by the OECD, are used. Importantly, sources like the OECD have clear instructions alongside the data which ask users to pay attention to the change in living people when interpreting the death numbers.
But is not only the total number of people that is important. The age of those people matters as well, because old people are more likely to die than young people. From late childhood, death rates approximately double for each decade older people get. So death rates by age are used to measure the number of people of each age that are dying.
Incorrect claims of several thousand excess mortality are made by ignoring how much older the population has gotten, and the deaths that would naturally be expected from more living old people.
And New Zealand has seen big changes in ages, with 23 percent more living people aged 65-plus now than there were in 2017, as the children of the ‘£10 Pom’ migration era reach old age. To compare like with like, a common way is to take all the age specific death rates and compare them if there were the same number of people of each age. That’s called age standardisation.
Finally, if you just compare one year against another you may know one is higher, or one is lower, but you don’t know which one is normal, so age-standardised death rates are compared to the historical trend. Because the historical trend is what has been normal.
Wild claims of hundreds or thousands of percent excess can be made by measuring the change back to normal from the mortality low point of 2020 – the year people stayed home for longer than virus infectious periods, paused at the border for longer than virus infectious periods, and eliminated many viruses from the community, accompanied by record drops in death rates.
Among professions like actuaries, it is normal practice to match rates by age, match population, and pay attention to the historical trend. (You don’t have to be an actuary to do this. Anyone can download the data from StatsNZ Infoshare into an Excel spreadsheet and work it our yourself.)
If people do those basic steps, New Zealand’s mortality story is lower mortality when closed up, a reopening bounce-back, and slightly below expected for the overall Covid period.
…ACT are playing to the grievance of disgruntled antivaxx Kiwis.
The AntiVaxxers, for the first time in their entire lives, felt alienated and excluded during Covid in a way that has warped them and victimised them and mutilated their sense of reason to justify holding on to their revenge driven grievance.
They are constantly online and on Reality Check Radio and in their feral chat rooms fantasising about Nuremberg like trials that will end in then lynching of Jacinda and her front Cabinet on the steps of Parliament.
They hiss and spit things like ‘vaccine excess mortality’ rates as if they are fucking scientists with a world of knowledge on vaccines and death.
The Antivaxxers have only grievance in their bitter hearts and want to punish the rest of us for making them feel alienated.
This isn’t about facts and science, it’s about revenge.
That’s what these bullshit inquiries into Covid are being driven by, angry AntiVaxxers wanting their pain to have been for something even when the facts state they are wrong!
We’ve all had friends and people we know who have made this the core feature of their identity, we all back away when they start foaming about Jacinda or the pharmaceutical industry or this Facebook clip showing a soccer player dying after vaccination.
We smile, we slowly back away and we run.
Those AntiVaxxers despise our pity and they want to hurt us for an alienation they have fostered and they have fed and ACT are prepared to feed that resentment for political gain.
This is what we have mutated into, this is what we have become.
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media
She will hide it because it is mostly saying we did the right thing and that the ferrals who would not get the vax held their whanau to ransom by extending lock downs in some places in the country .It will also hilite the fact we saved 20k lives at least .
Act NZFirst, a plague on both their houses
Well, all political parties were in lockstep at that time further emphasized by the fact that no politicians met with the protesters when the big fuss was happening. As it stands the UK is holding a similar inquiry and like this one, they are both still on-going, thus nada a word has come from either of them at this stage.
best you do a bit more reading as the UK one is open to the public and their response has been labeled as catastrophic .And had you watched the doco BREATHLESS early on in the year you would have seen why that was .Doctors were going from Ambulance to Ambulance in the parking bay writing death certificates for the people inside .Ambulances were turning up to houses where the people had just died .
Well, the response you have mentioned, thus far, has more to do with possible, general healthcare failings as opposed to the merits, or not, of the various Covid measures used, the latter being, what I assume these inquiries to be all about.
Nonetheless, if their inquiry is indeed finished or further along than I thought, and the various COVID-specific measures, analyzed and subsequent findings and what not, released, then please, do us all a favour and post a link to this timely information.
We all want to know after all.
“Well, the response you have mentioned, thus far, has more to do with possible, general healthcare failings as opposed to the merits, or not, of the various Covid measures used, the latter being, what I assume these inquiries to be all about.”
Please, do us all a favour and give evidence as to how you have made the above analysis and assumption.
We all want to know after all.
First off, I like everybody would like to see the findings of this Covid inquiry. As it stands, the UK held a Covid inquiry long before we held our own. As yet, nothing has been released in regards to what I “assume” to be the Covid measures they are seeking answers to, namely the validity, or not, of, at the very least – vaccines, lock downs and masks.
As it stands, Gordon Walker made mention of certain health related information that is in the public domain, which is both valid and scary in its own right, but which I believe (assess and assume) to be not the key Covid related information that these inquires are looking in to. Thus far, Gordon has yet to get back to me with the relevant information that I assume, their inquiry (and our own) are looking in to.
Therefore, my initial take (or analysis) of where we are at in regards to our inquiry (silence basically) still stands because of the lack of info coming from the more forward UK inquiry and because, of course, both inquiries are still on-going.
This is where I am at. If you have the relevant information I am looking for or need further clarification, by all means – fire away.
Clearly just another arrogant person whom thinks she is better than the rest of us so is above the law
She is hiding it because it doesn’t suit her narrative
Seems to be it for the ACT party – all smoke and mirrors. They have little to add and are seeking to hide the fact. They are also aware that the information they are seeking to hide may well be more than not narrative suitability but debunking
I get vaccinated every time it is due for me.
It is true there is a side effect.’
At the age of 70+ I get a huge boner that lasts for hours.
I am going to try get a weekly jab.
I have the full support of my wife.
Ha ha. Speaking of which I believe Brooke van Velden to be quite attractive until she opens her mouth and talks.