With the recent outbreak of Covid-19, some have been accused of breaking the rules by the country’s premier prime minister.
No fees or penalties – missing
Action Director-Health Director Dr. Ashley Bloomfield said it’s about not being too scared to provide the information people need to try to stop Covid-19.
But were they falsely accused anyway? And was there more in their story to mitigate the accusations?
These are the cases of M and L: what were the rules they were supposed to follow, could there be confusion around them, and what flaws did they expose?
Case M: People who go to the gym
Science tells a story.
Case M, a 21-year-old man who sent Auckland back to the blockade last Saturday night, did at least one right thing. He was using the Covid-19 app.
That was why the authorities decided not to wait before announcing the new case in a press release. The news landed before the press conference at 7:23 pm on Saturday.
It was the same as the notification from the app to other people who logged in at the same time as M at the gym, Hunter’s Plaza, Burger King, etc.
Authorities needed to promptly warn those people before they went out on Saturday night, which could spread further.
M’s case was sufficient for the Cabinet to return straight to Auckland’s Level 3 blockade for two reasons.
The first was M’s decision to go to the gym at Hunter’s Plaza in the afternoon after he was tested and before he got his results.
M also had high potential exposure because he attended Manukau Institute of Technology during the period of infection.
The second was the puzzle of how M caught it and who it came from. His brother was a student at Papatoe Toe High School and had casual contacts, but his family was keen to ask the student for a test.
The student was tested three times and was negative.
Science revealed the breach that resulted in the blockade – and it wasn’t M’s.
Genomic sequencing showed that M’s Covid-19 was directly tracked to a Family 2 household, another household in the Papatoetoe High School cluster.
It revealed another breach of the Covid-19 rule: Approval that M’s mother (Case N) went for a walk with Family 2’s mother during the first Level 3 blockade.
Family 2 students, like their mothers, tested positive for Covid-19 on February 17, shortly after the walk.
Neither N nor Family 2 revealed a walk to officials at the time.
The walk was a clear breach of alert level 3 lockdown rules.
Shortly after M’s diagnosis, N was also found to be infected with Covid-19, but had no symptoms.
M faced serious criticism of his actions. Especially about going to the gym after taking the test and before knowing the results.
Visibly angry Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern expressed dissatisfaction with M not being quarantined at home until results were available, especially due to symptoms for three days before the test.
But it didn’t have to be the rule of the time.
I don’t know exactly what M was told by the medical staff who tested him. But at the time he was tested, Auckland was level 1.
Even symptomatic individuals did not need to be self-quarantined after being tested, as the Ministry of Health guidelines for Level 1 testing considered it to be much more likely to be cold than Covid-19.
M had no other reason to think he might have Covid-19: M’s brothers are the most logical source for M to get Covid-19, already three times. Tested negative.
However, the Prime Minister did not accept M’s excuse.
She said he should have known that he was at home given his symptoms, even if he was not specifically instructed to stay at home. He passed the MIQ in December and training to keep New Zealand safe was equivalent to “sustainable publicity.”
The next day, Health Director Dr. Ashley Bloomfield changed the directive to instruct anyone who was tested and symptomatic to stay home, regardless of warning level.
Family 3: Cases I-L, and O:
There was a sign that something was wrong in the first press release on Case I.
It was February 23, and Auckland had just returned to level 1 since it was level 3 and 2 since Valentine’s Day.
Usually, when a new case is published, the press release specifies whether the person was self-quarantined before a positive result. This time I said I was advised to test the case and self-quarantine, but that was not always the case.
The reason for the wording became clear immediately. Nine days after the first case at Papatoe Toe High School, all students were told to take the test, and Case I was not taking the test at that time.
Also, Case I hasn’t attended school since it closed due to the Valentine’s Day incident, during which time many of Case I’s families lived.
This means that the night before the results of Case I were known, the teenage brothers worked at the botany K-Mart and the sisters worked late at night at the botany KFC until midnight.
Later that same day, they were quarantined and both tested positive for Covid-19: cases J and L.
The government resisted the return to the blockade, but Papatoetoe High School was closed again and all students and their families were told to be examined again.
It also began hunting for hundreds of people who were in the same place.
And it caused a family rebuke from the Prime Minister, and it said they were supposed to self-isolate until the students in their home were tested: and the family with about 15 reminders. I tried to contact them but didn’t do it.
Case L told Newshub Michael Morrah that he had no instructions to self-quarantine. In fact, the text to her brother specifically stated that the family did not need to do so.
She believed they were obliged to apologize.
Ardern continued to insist that the rules were broken, and health officials sent three letters to all school families with those rules.
L said she had never seen those letters, her parents were originally from Vietnam, and English was not their first language. The letter has not been translated.
Even if they read them, it is not clear that they broke the rules.
Case I was not a close contact for Case A. She was in the same school, so she was a “casual plus” contact.
The group was said to have a “low risk of getting sick.”
A letter from the Auckland Regional Public Health Service showed that the rules that apply to A’s classmates and teachers (close contacts) differ from those of other students (casual-close contacts). ..
On February 14, close contacts were told to take the test and quarantine for 10 days. Their family was told to quarantine until the child’s negative consequences returned, but not for 10 days.
Casual contacts like Case I were also told to take the test and quarantine until results were available. Initially, there were no instructions on what the family should do.
However, the Auckland Community Public Health Services website information for school casual closed contacts stipulates: “Unless it’s a casual plus or closed contact, the family doesn’t have to stay home or take a test.”
General advice on Casual Plus contacts on the Ministry of Health website also stipulates that “while you are at home, members of your family can enter and leave the home as usual.”
The Ministry of Health’s advice on close contact also stated that home contact should be self-isolated only if someone has symptoms.
On February 17, a second letter was sent after two more cases were confirmed in one family.
The person took a test from all student household members and “asked” them to work from home “if possible.”
Only after the Case I case was confirmed was a public health order issued requiring all students and their households in the school to be tested (or retested) and quarantined.
The Covid-19 response team based in the Prime Minister’s Office and the Cabinet seemed to support this. In response to someone asking about the case, the Covid team posted that Case L had not violated the rules when he went to work. The directive was issued the next day.
It was done by the fourth letter on February 23rd.
The Ministry of Health said it “requires everyone in the school community to stay home,” including all household members, until all students and staff have undergone another test.
When defending criticism of Ardern’s family last Wednesday, Covid-19 Minister Chris Hipkins must have known that the family was too risky to go out because of the symptoms of two of them. Insisted.
This seemed to contradict what Bloomfield said when he first announced a new case when he said he had no symptoms.
Last Thursday, Bloomfield explained the contradiction: the family was unaware that the symptoms were Covid-19, so they didn’t report them until later when specifically asked about those types of symptoms. ..
Each of the four letters sent to the student’s family contained a list of symptoms they needed to be aware of. It was the usual decline of odor loss, sore throat and runny nose, and other respiratory symptoms.
However, the symptoms such as muscle aches and malaise that were characteristic of this cluster were not mentioned. A symptom that the Case I family had but did not notice was Covid-related.
On February 24, Bloomfield took a step to emphasize that the strain appears in various forms and that people notice muscle aches and malaise rather than the more widely known respiratory symptoms. It was.
Case L’s family did not do everything right. There was a long delay before the students at home school were tested, and the contacts in other households seemed not to be tested as requested, probably because they were unaware that they were requested.
Ardern’s frustration was the length of time it took the family to first test Case I.
However, it does not appear that other members of the family have violated any of the actual rules that are being enforced for their situation.
Ardern would have been right if Case I was in close contact with Case A. But Case I wasn’t.
Case I was the only “casual” contact that caught Covid-19 at school and was the last one to take the test.
In the case of M and L, it became clear that these rules and the information sent were flawed. This modifies the lack of clarity of the rules for testing at levels 1 and 2, and the expectations of close contact, and the list of symptoms that people are being asked to pay attention to.
Ardern does not admit that the rules were sometimes confused.
Also, the Prime Minister’s Office and Cabinet-based Covid-19 response team will not verify that Facebook’s post indicating that Case L does not violate the rules is correct.
Covid 19 Coronavirus “Rule Breaker”: Have Case M and Case L Accused Accidentally?
SourceCovid 19 Coronavirus “Rule Breaker”: Have Case M and Case L Accused Accidentally?