Reflections on COVID-19 Policies and Public Trust in New Zealand

During the COVID-19 pandemic, I, like many New Zealanders, tried to make the best decisions I could for my family based on the information available at the time. Since then, I have reflected on my experiences — both positive and negative — and how the public health response affected my trust in institutions. I originally submitted the following account to the Royal Commission on COVID-19 Lessons Learned. I am sharing it here to contribute to open discussion about how we can respond better in the future.

About Me

I am a principal software engineer, a parent, and a keen endurance sports enthusiast. During the COVID-19 pandemic, my family and I lived through the Auckland and Waikato lockdowns. I received three doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine between late 2021 and early 2022. Throughout 2020, I was training for a major triathlon event while helping to build a fully remote engineering team at a fintech startup.

My Experience

With the exception of swimming pool closures, the lockdowns did not have a major impact on my day-to-day life. Prior to the pandemic, I was already working from home, completing most of my cycling sessions indoors, and running locally.

I had surgery to remove orthopedic hardware from my elbow postponed twice during 2020 due to pandemic response policies. On one occasion, the surgery was cancelled on the day it was scheduled, after I had already arrived at the hospital. Because I had experienced cold-like symptoms two weeks earlier, and no rapid antigen tests were available at the time, hospital policy required a negative COVID test several days prior. I had not been informed of this requirement. Being turned away from surgery at the last minute was frustrating and, in my view, a waste of hospital resources.

When the COVID vaccine became available, I was cautious. I understood it was based on new technology, and I wanted to see more evidence of safety before proceeding. After about six months, seeing no widespread reports of adverse effects and facing mounting pressure from vaccine mandates, I reluctantly decided to proceed.

I was also skeptical about the stated benefits of the COVID vaccine. We were told it would reduce transmission rates and reduce symptom severity, but both claims seemed questionable. If the vaccine did not prevent infection, how could it reliably reduce spread? And given that it was based on the original Wuhan strain, how effective would it be against new variants like Omicron? I searched for information but found little satisfactory evidence.

After receiving my first dose, I experienced recurring earaches and developed tinnitus in my right ear, particularly after swimming. The tinnitus worsened to the point that I consulted an ENT specialist. An MRI ruled out tumors, but no specific cause was found. I eventually gave up swimming, and the intense bouts of ringing subsided, but a constant background whine in my right ear remains.

In early 2022, my youngest child began school. Throughout the year, all adults on school grounds were required to wear masks, making it difficult to build relationships with teachers and other parents.

Although my partner and I had taken the vaccine, we initially delayed vaccinating our children. We understood that children were at low risk for severe COVID outcomes and still had concerns about vaccine safety. However, by early 2022, our children’s schools began warning that unvaccinated students could be excluded from school activities. Under pressure, we reluctantly had our children vaccinated.

Shortly after, our entire family tested positive for COVID. After that experience, we decided not to continue with further boosters, nor were they required by our schools. We remained cautious by staying home whenever symptoms appeared.

Our eldest child missed multiple years of school camps due to pandemic disruptions and was only able to attend her first school camp in secondary school.

Since late 2024, after a severe flu-like illness, I have experienced lingering minor health issues, including lower perceived energy levels and frequent nasal congestion.

Reflection

At the time I received the COVID vaccine, I knew it used new mRNA technology but assumed it operated similarly to traditional vaccines. I trusted that decades of vaccine safety history would apply.

Since then, I have learned that mRNA vaccination technology is significantly different. Traditional vaccines deliver antigens directly; mRNA vaccines rely on transfection to instruct the body’s own cells to produce antigens internally. During the pandemic, regulatory bodies broadened the definition of “vaccine” to encompass this new platform. Before this reclassification, mRNA delivery techniques were often categorized as gene therapy by agencies like the FDA and EMA.

This significant technological shift was not made clear to the public. Without being made aware of this reclassification, many New Zealanders — myself included — were unable to give fully informed consent. Looking back, I regret taking the vaccine. Had I known I was being asked to accept a new transfection-based technology previously classified as gene therapy, I would have made a different decision. I believe many New Zealanders, given our country’s traditional stance on genetic engineering, would have had serious reservations if they had been properly informed.

I cannot say definitively whether the vaccine caused my tinnitus or other ongoing health complaints, nor can I say whether these were caused by COVID infection itself. However, the lack of clear answers remains frustrating. Because New Zealand had such high vaccine uptake, there may now be too few unvaccinated individuals from whom to draw meaningful health outcome comparisons.

The lack of transparency about the nature of mRNA technology, combined with overconfidence in statements about vaccine effectiveness, left me feeling manipulated. This experience has significantly eroded my trust in both the New Zealand government and mainstream media.

In my view, the early pandemic response — focusing on slowing the spread through distancing and contact tracing — was appropriate. However, by 2022, with the emergence of Omicron, policies like mask mandates and vaccine mandates in schools and workplaces were excessive and likely ineffective.

Recommendations

1. End Coercion in Public Health Policies

   Public health initiatives should be based on education and voluntary participation, not mandates enforced by employers or institutions.

2. Promote Informed Consent for New Health Technologies

   New technologies should be introduced with full transparency, allowing individuals to make decisions based on complete information. Public relations efforts that obscure or reframe material facts are unacceptable.

3. Ensure Public Health Policies Are Evidence-Based

   Health policies must be backed by demonstrable evidence. When evidence is lacking, policies should be implemented in ways that allow real-world evaluation, rather than relying on assumptions or models alone.

Closing Statement

I offer these reflections in the hope that future public health responses will be built on greater transparency, respect for individual choice, and a stronger commitment to evidence. Trust, once lost, is difficult to rebuild — but with humility and open dialogue, it is possible.