Part 2 - New Zealand public transport mask mandates in 2020 continued
This continues the story of 2020 and how masks mandates grew
Read first part 1 - New Zealand public transport mask mandates in 2020
On the 11th of August 2020 4 cases in Auckland led to a raise of Alert Levels within Auckland.
The following day on the 12th of August out popped this firmly titled masks prevent the spread of Covid-19 review from the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor. The content of the review wasn’t…quite as firm if you read it…like everything I read on masks - there were alot of disclaimers and words like ‘may’ initially.
Remember New Zealand was well into its Covid zero aka hermit kingdom phase at this point in 2020 - to be able to arrive you had to have a place booked at a MIQ facility for 14 days.
There was no community transmission aside from the identified Auckland outbreak.
But an amendment Order was hastily drafted that put in place mandatory mask use on public transport now in Alert levels 2 and 3 and 4 from midnight on the 30th of August 2020.
Auckland moved from Alert Level 3 to 2 on the day they became mandatory so Auckland was subject to a mask mandate on public transport.
The rest of the country was in Alert Level 1 so wasn’t subject to the mask mandate (yet) - they were only encouraged at Alert Level 1.
The public health mask lobbyists I talked about in part 1 on August 30th 2020 were publicly quoted that wasn’t going far enough - echoing their blog posts they wanted masks mandated in indoor spaces across the country including in schools.
Another public transport OIA led me to this lengthy Cabinet Paper on improving public health measures at Alert Level 1 (this level was the prime dream of Covid zero - there was no known chance of Covid in the community).
The Cabinet paper discusses making mask use mandatory on public transport in Auckland and flights within New Zealand (at any Alert Level) and provides the greatest amount of information I’ve found on the evolution of mask mandates.
The Cabinet paper states (from then Covid Minister Hipkins):
Additional assurance - I translate to better safe than sorry again. It goes on to clearly state:
Hmm fear being used as a resource for public health is starting to sound like a trend. But honestly - a reason for mask mandates was it serves as a visual reminder of risk?
The paper also went on to recommend that masks be allowed to be removed for eating, drinking and taking medications (thank you kind Sirs) on journeys as hydration is important but that:
Uh ok.
And also clearly states:
The paper references the November quarantine cluster. A defence force person who was working at an Auckland MIQ facility (they were guarded by the defence force) got a positive test result. At the time of the Cabinet paper there were 5 cases in total in this cluster. I’m just setting the context there.
It goes on to discuss a piece of research done by The Research Agency - TRA. Commissioned by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC), TRA regularly surveyed public awareness and compliance to Covid-19 restrictions throughout the pandemic.
The snippet in the Cabinet paper from a survey TRA did showed higher levels of reported compliance when masks were mandatory at Alert Levels than when not. Reported usage dropped to 5% after Auckland dropped down Alert Levels.(If you remember anything from my mask series remember this part - the concluding part in this series will reference it.)
It further goes on to say the downsides of masks exist but are manageable and it references the DDG of Health Bloomfield’s advice and rationale for this change he notes the use of masks has merit and also:
So masks are a visual reminder of risk and the behavior change rationale is more important than whether wearing them (and how and when) actually provides any claimed benefit?
The Cabinet paper has large redacted sections but also has a section on the human rights implications of masks. The effect of masks is considered fleeting and that they are a rational precautionary method. It also does mention that from a ‘communications perspective’ it could be simpler to make the whole country do the same thing at the same time (remember that too it’s a spoiler!).
The Minister concluded the paper by recommending that masks be mandatory for public transport in Auckland (even at Alert Level 1) and that if approved the Order would come into effect from midnight on the 18th of November 2020.
The press release announcing this change is forthright on their use, it doesn’t mention the disclaimers or uncertainty but does mention a key reason is to remind people of risk via signalling:
In the press conference announcing this change the then Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern states:
She goes on to say:
TLDR - so yes - the Order that came into effect in November was applied to all of public transport across the country all the time.
It didn’t use the Ministry of Health’s recommendation and the Prime Minister admitted that it was due to messaging - it was easier for the government’s advertising campaigns to tell everyone on public transport to mask all the time in a Covid zero environment.
(If i’m being particular this was not even attempting to follow WHO’s June advice that masks could be beneficial if there was widespread community transmission.)
Nowhere in the documents I’ve referenced or read was there any defined usage of the terms reducing risk and reducing transmission. Or explaining this to the public. There’s no mention of measurements of masks to reduce spread if there was community transmission in these documents - on reading them it’s about better safe than sorry and signalling and compliance. Is it unreasonable for me to expect mask use had clear obvious public health reasons underpinning it? Not just signalling and ease of messaging?
If masks worked they never stated by how much nor how useful they would be in just 1 situation (public transport) in a Covid zero environment.
By the end of 2020 - mask use was mandated across public transport in New Zealand (this excluded school transport and children under 12) and included all domestic flights.
In the next part of the series we’ll see the OIAs start to roll in for mask evidence and mask harms, increased messaging and look into how community wide mask mandates were implemented.