Fringe parties and their COVID policy

All of the policies demanded by parties seeking the “freedom movement” vote are already government policy, so why are they still calling for an “independent inquiry”?

The pandemic response was part of a globalist plot. COVID vaccines have killed and injured lots of people. This amounts to a crime. Only by electing a minor party can we reveal the truth and get justice for the victims.

Parties seeking votes from the supporters of the so-called freedom movement are proposing a variety of COVID and vaccine related policies including:

• Stop the rollout of COVID vaccines
• Compensate the “vaccine injured”
• Abolish all remaining mandates and restrictions
• Hold an Inquiry into the government’s pandemic response

• Vaccine mandates for government workers ended over a year ago. Some workplaces may require staff to be vaccinated but this has always happened, even pre-COVID.
• The last remaining COVID protections were lifted in August this year.
• Genuine injury as a result of vaccination is being compensated through ACC
• An inquiry to review the government’s response to COVID-19 is due to start after the election.
• The COVID policies put forward by conspiracy theorist parties are “dog-whistles” designed to sound reasonable on the surface but signal a different meaning to core supporters
• The surface reading of the conspiracy theorist parties’ COVID policies are already government policy
• The underlying claims of widespread harm are at best based on misreading statistics

Conspiracist politicians know that if they state their views honestly and directly they will be ridiculed. In their eyes, the general public is not ready to hear “the truth” about the pandemic or COVID vaccines. So they are putting forward policies that signal to potential conspiracist supporters they share their beliefs while sounding reasonable to a mainstream audience. This is a classic “dog-whistle” strategy, where a statement with a plain meaning is intended to signal another, different meaning to those who can understand it while allowing deniability if challenged.

They also hope to use the election as a platform for entry-level conspiracist and anti-vaccine talking points. For example, proposals around compensation provide an opportunity to insinuate that large numbers of vaccination deaths and injuries are being covered up.

It’s best for democracy when conspiracist or science-denying candidates honestly state their opinions so voters can make informed choices about who to support. This gives people greater insight into where they get their information, the thinking behind their COVID and vaccine-related policy proposals, and an indication of what they would do if elected.

COVID-19 public health measures went away, and with them conspiracy theorists’ credibility

Most people understand that COVID-19 was a genuine threat and that the government’s response was motivated by a desire to protect people from harm. But conspiracy theory-orientated politicians believe public health measures introduced during the pandemic, such as lock-downs and masking, were not simply efforts to protect the population from a deadly disease. Instead, they believe they were connected to a conspiracy by “globalists” and collaborators in governments, big business, and the scientific community to reorganise society for their own benefit. Vaccines supposedly played a key role, either as part of a “depopulation agenda” or to boost “Big Pharma” profits or “to control us”. In any case, they were portrayed as unnecessary and/or more dangerous than we’ve been told.

Fortunately conspiracy theorists’ predictions of ever harsher lockdowns, leading to a “Great Reset” involving totalitarian rule by the “new world order”, didn’t come true. Life was difficult for everyone while restrictions were in place, but for most people it has now returned to normal. New Zealand’s elimination strategy helped avoid the huge death toll many other countries suffered and by delaying the arrival of COVID we bought time, so that vaccines and other advances in treatment like antivirals were available. Despite their best efforts conspiracy theorists’ anti-vaccine propaganda campaigns failed. Almost everyone eligible got vaccinated which blunted the worst effects of COVID and saved lives.

This left conspiracy theorist politicians with a credibility problem because, as doomsday cults know all too well, when your prophecies fail people start to question whether you know what you are talking about.

New conspiracy claims for a new situation

Some responded by using the conspiratorial framework they applied to the COVID pandemic with new issues such as trans rights, the weather and the war in Ukraine. Although the subject matter has changed, the themes are always the same: all is not what it seems; a cabal of sinister elites is secretly manipulating events behind the scenes; you can’t believe what you are told, and so on.

Others sought to kick the can down the road. For example, there isn’t any evidence that the vaccinated are dying in droves, so they argue it will happen in 6 months, then a year, then 5, 10… and so on. After the decisive New World Order crackdown didn’t materialise, conspiracy theorists conjured up new threats such as COVID 2.0 featuring a more deadly COVID ‘bioweapon’ and harsher lock-downs, food shortages, world wide communications blackouts and the collapse of the financial system. These never actually happen, but that’s not the point. The threat keeps followers afraid, donating and motivated to share disinformation.

As COVID vaccines became available, conspiracy theorists increasingly began to integrate their theories into the three core anti-vaccine “master narratives” outlined in the Antivax Playbook (PDF link):  “COVID’s not serious”, “the vaccine is dangerous” and “you can’t trust experts”.

Claims that the pandemic was a hoax because COVID was actually just the flu, or didn’t exist (aka “the virus hasn’t been isolated”) or was caused by 5G were used to reinforce the anti-vaccine narrative that “COVID’s not serious”. New World Order and “plandemic” conspiracies centred around the idea that COVID was an excuse to control people often included claims that the vaccine contained microchips for tracking people or mind control. This was used to support the idea that the vaccine was dangerous. Claims about a supposed cover-up of “miracle cures” like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin (which have been conclusively shown not to work) were repurposed from “proof” that the pandemic restrictions were unnecessary to “proof” that you couldn’t trust doctors who told you needed to get new “experimental” vaccine.

Vaccines are safe and saving lives

It’s understandable that people have different views about whether vaccine mandates were reasonable or necessary. However, this has no bearing on the fact that the overwhelming preponderance of data, from the original three stage trials through to post-rollout, real-world studies, tells us that the Pfizer vaccine is safe and effective. Obviously this does not mean that the vaccine is perfect. It has proven less effective at stopping transmission as new varieties emerged. Nor does it mean that no one has ever been harmed by their vaccination and it is right that they receive compensation and ongoing medical care.

Recently the anti-vaccine message ‘the vaccine is dangerous’ has centred around claims about excess mortality, a term which refers to the number of deaths from all causes during a crisis above and beyond what we would have expected to see under ‘normal’ conditions. The central claim is that there has been a huge increase in deaths since the vaccine was introduced to New Zealand when compared to the pre-pandemic period. As COVID-related deaths total 3300 since the start of the pandemic, this is portrayed as proof that the vaccine must be responsible for most if not all of the extra deaths.

This is untrue and the people making this claim rely on their audiences not noticing one of two basic errors. The first is to make comparisons starting in 2020 and only consider what has happened since then. In 2020 New Zealand had a once-in-a-century low death rate because viruses such as flu were virtually wiped out by COVID restrictions. Those diseases came back in the following years which led to an increase in the number of recorded deaths. By not taking this into account anti-vaxxers vastly overstate the increase in death rates during the period vaccines have been available compared to the pre-pandemic era.

The second error is to ignore how changes in the population affect death rates. New Zealand has experienced a larger increase in the number of old people than most of the OECD. Accurate comparisons take this into account and use age-standardised death rates, which match death rates for every age group. As of June 2023,  the total age-standardised death rate for the 26 months since vaccines had been distributed was below pre-COVID years. So in reality, fewer people died than expected during the vaccine rollout.

Everyone wants an Inquiry

The upshot of this anti-vaccine disinformation is that a sizable number of Kiwis hold the false belief that the government killed thousands of their fellow citizens. Understandably they are very angry because this violates their natural instinct to protect others. It has led to calls for someone to be held accountable and this sentiment has been strongly encouraged by movement leaders.

Sue Grey has talked about holding a “People’s Inquiry” and accused the government of “government-mandated genocide”. New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science (NZDSOS) asked “Is it perhaps time for a citizen’s arrest….Time for a Tribunal?” and Voices for Freedom founder Claire Deeks was listed as an “attorney at law” for Reiner Fuellmich’s bogus investigation into “COVID-19 Crimes Against Humanity”. The term “Nuremberg 2.0”, named after the post-war trials of Nazis became shorthand for these attempts to get “justice”.

The main disinformation promoters keep pumping out disinformation which claims vaccinations and boosters rather than COVID are making more and more people sick and killing people. Their followers are feeling very aggrieved about this “crime” but they don’t believe the proposed Royal Commission of Inquiry is going to hold people to account for it or for lock-downs and mandates.

Nevertheless, the announcement of a Commission was welcomed by all the mainstream parties. The Chair has said they will look at “everything from border closures and lock-downs to education outcomes, the use of vaccine and mask mandates, the MIQ approach, the welfare response and key economic policies that were made by the government, along with many other pandemic-related topics”.

The Commission is independent in that the government can’t dictate how it operates or what it recommends in its final report, due in Autumn 2024. However, it did nominate the Commissioners and set the terms of reference. This is the normal process for establishing a Royal Commission, but conspiracy theorists claim it proves the whole thing will be a whitewash. There has been some mainstream criticism: ACT wants the focus broadened to consider the impact of our approach to the pandemic on overall wellbeing and to include people with more expertise on other countries’ pandemic strategies; the Green Party says it should examine the impact of COVID policies on equality and wealth distribution and the National party want an inquiry which looks at the government’s overall economics policy during the pandemic, rather than just those directly related to the pandemic response.

These are all legitimate considerations, but any changes along those lines would do little to satisfy conspiracy theorists who believe the pandemic was a scam and medical professionals, the government and media have covered up “crimes against humanity”. They want an inquiry into vaccine efficacy and safety as well as COVID restrictions and vaccine mandates, but this would remain out of scope. In any case, it’s unlikely they would be inclined to trust anyone who was appointed by a government they believe is controlled by a shadowy, globalist cabal. Hence the calls for a “fully independent inquiry”. Unfortunately for them, even this would be extremely unlikely to produce the results they want.

The key players in the conspiracy theorist movement portray everyone who disagrees with them as being either brainwashed or corrupt. They encourage their followers to distrust experts and other credible sources of information and have put a lot of effort into constructing alternative communications and media channels – essentially echo chambers – where their misinformation and disinformation will not be properly scrutinised. Contrary to their rhetoric, not much critical thinking goes on and they can best be described as “a safe space for people with contrary views”. Reiner Fuellmich’s ‘Corona Investigative Committee’ was such a space.

A “fully independent inquiry” wouldn’t be like Fuellmich’s crank convention. It would test arguments and evidence, draw on experts with relevant skills and knowledge and come to reality based conclusions. Inevitably this would contradict what anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists believe to be true. This means it would never give them the vindication or “justice” they desperately want.

Death rate claims debunked

• Deaths increase as population ages (Statistics NZ)
• Fact checking claims about New Zealand’s 2022 death rate (Kate Kenny, Stuff)
• Deaths rise in New Zealand due to COVID, demographic shifts (Philip Marcelo, Associated Press)
• False claim excess deaths in New Zealand rose 3,203% between 2020 and 2022 (Kate Petersen, USA Today)

Health impact of COVID measures

• Long-term mortality study highlights effectiveness of New Zealand COVID-19 public health measures (Medical Research Institute of New Zealand)

Nuremberg 2.0

• ‘Nuremberg 2.0’: Why COVID Conspiracy Theorists See This Lawyer As Their Saviour (Jessica Bateman, VICE)
• Coronavirus was not staged by philanthropists to control people (Ian Timberlake, Agence France-Presse)

Letters & resources

Prebunking election misinformation