The Vestiges of Machiavelli

Leonard HongLeave a comment

Political discussions in liberal democracies are supposed to be about the battle of ideas, heterodox exchanges, and civil debates. Politicians and leaders present their arguments for a better and productive society through public discourse.

However, recent scandals in Parliament have indicated that it is not really the case. People have forgotten that politicians do not operate under the guises of morality, but manoeuvre based on strategy within established rules of the game — the game of survival in politics. Politics is rife with clever duplicity and manipulation.

Every member of Parliament has two main interests in mind — maintaining power and being perceived as a noble, honest fellow. As Machiavelli once said, “Everyone sees what you appear to be, few really know what you really are.”

Should the public expect more ‘Machiavellian’ behaviour as the election campaign goes underway? If so, what can we learn and observe from the late 15th century philosopher’s wisdom?

Political marketing to Machiavelli is a seductive tool and the use of charming to mislead the public. “It is double pleasure to deceive the deceiver” and “one who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived.” — A tool the Prime Minister utilises to perfection with her omnipresent slogan, ‘Be Kind’.

Regarding the competence of our leadership, he states that “the first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him.” If you do not have a competent team, pointless blunders will hit the spotlight, shown by recent resignations.   

Unfortunately, public policy will not be the driver of electoral success. Machiavelli states that “princes have accomplished most who paid little heed to keeping their promises, but who knew how to manipulate the minds of men craftily.” Cunning political strategies are the best ways to preserve or gain power.

Machiavelli always maintained the importance of being effective without being impotently pure. Regarding leadership, he recommends that “Whosoever desires constant success must change his conduct with the times.”

What are the ultimate lessons? Even under liberal democracies, politicians will always use cunning deception to attain or maintain power. Machiavelli was a republican and an astute observer of human nature, that politicians will always strive to serve their main interests — this is just reality.

We must understand that despite the imperfections of our system, liberal democracy still allows us to have a voice in contrast to autocracies. Multiparty systems still provide a check and balance of power on the leadership and their potential to abuse it.

Self-interests are the norms of politics, but if we genuinely want to have competent and effective leadership, the public must understand this aspect of human nature — effective politics require some level of Machiavellianism.  

Research Note: Safe Arrivals

Leonard HongLeave a comment

Dr. Eric Crampton and Leonard Hong

Research Note: Safe ArrivalsDownload

Up to a million Kiwis live overseas with a right to return to New Zealand. While the country is now effectively free of Covid-19, with cases only in the country’s quarantine facilities, the pandemic rages abroad and is unlikely to abate anytime soon. Even if a vaccine is developed this year, scaling up its production will take time. In the meantime, the Government must scale up its own capabilities and capacity within its managed isolation and quarantine facilities.

This report provides a pathway toward safer scaling-up of border capabilities. It begins from the principle that safe entry should be allowed, and that risky entry must be made safe.

Beginning from that principle, the report argues that the New Zealand border should be reopened to travellers arriving from places that are similarly free of Covid-19. Islands in the Realm of New Zealand depend on travel to and from New Zealand and are currently Covid-free. Taiwan has no community transmission and has pandemic control systems at least as strong as New Zealand’s. Maintaining border restrictions against travel to and from safe places imposes substantial harm. Continued closed borders to the Pacific Islands imposes an onerous humanitarian burden along with economic calamity.

Like kayakers in stormy seas rafting up together for safety, New Zealand should ‘raft up’ with other Covid-free places.

Entry from other locations must be made safe. And while closing borders entirely can feel like the right response when other parts of the world are in dire straits, it is impossible. Too many Kiwis live abroad and may wish to return. The managed isolation and quarantine system must be able to scale up to accommodate those people along with potential non-citizen visitors from similar locations.

This report argues that the Government should shift its approach. Rather than considering charging some arriving Kiwis for their stays in managed isolation, it should instead directly subsidise the stays of returning Kiwis whose stays the Government would wish to support with a voucher system.

Under the proposed voucher system, those wishing to come to New Zealand – citizens or not – would be required to present before boarding proof of a booking in one of the approved managed isolation facilities. Eligible returning Kiwis could apply their vouchers toward the full or partial cost of their stay in managed isolation. Vouchers could be set at a level consistent with the cost of a stay at a basic facility. Other returnees would need to bear the full cost of their stay. Facilities would be free to set their own room fees, but the Government would charge each facility for the full cost of police, military and other staff involved with managing isolation.

The Government would continue to oversee safety in managed isolation and private accommodation facilities would continue to provide the rooms. But this shift would make it far easier for returning Kiwis, and others, to manage their own arrivals while freeing the Government of the burden of scrambling to place arriving visitors into scarce spaces in managed isolation. It would also encourage other facilities to shift into providing managed isolation services (under Government oversight and supervision).

The present system is strained. It struggles to accommodate need, but must scale up substantially if Kiwis abroad choose to exercise their right to return home. Allocating scarce positions in managed isolation by Ministerial discretion forces Ministers into impossible positions in deciding whose need is greatest.

Being able to scale up safely is critically important. The entire country made incredibly costly efforts to make New Zealand effectively Covid-free. Some Kiwis continue to bear those costs through family separation, unemployment or failing businesses. And for a long time yet, the country will be paying off the new government debt accrued to help the economy survive lockdown.

Improving border protocols to allow for safe entry at scale would not only help those worst affected by the collective elimination efforts, it would open up opportunities that simply were not available in the pre-pandemic world. Rather than trying to estimate the extent of New Zealand’s likely economic losses, the country could be looking at stronger economic opportunities.

Recommendations
The New Zealand Government should:

  • Set a principle to allow safe entry into New Zealand;
  • Recognise that entry from safe places by people who have not recently been to risky places is safe. Re-open the border to entry from Taiwan and the Covid-free Pacific Islands and assess whether individual Australian states could be considered safe;
  • Support the Pacific Island neighbours in ensuring safe external borders;
  • Continue to assess the adequacy of safety protocols on flights to risky places and at airports handling passengers from risky places;
  • Allow greater scaling-up of managed isolation by:
    o Allowing those arriving to take up a greater portion of the cost: full user-pays for non-citizens and a voucher-based co-payment scheme for returning residents and citizens;
    o Certifying facilities as authorised providers of managed isolation or quarantine services;
    o Charging isolation facilities for the isolation management services provided by the government;
    o Allowing facilities to provide their own management services if they are able to credibly demonstrate capability of doing so safely, but only under strict supervision and process auditing;
    o Requiring all arrivals book their own accommodation in authorised isolation facilities and provide proof of booking before boarding flights to New Zealand;
    o Training potential isolation management staff;
    o Charging isolation facilities for the isolation services provided by the government on a full cost-recovery basis;
  • Layering additional safety protocols for non-citizens arriving from risky places to further reduce risk as numbers increase, such as post-isolation testing and daily health check-ins;
  • Consult with New Zealand’s epidemiologist community over the medium term as both testing and app-based technologies develop to assess whether alternative sets of restrictions could reduce risk at lower cost for travellers from less risky but not risk-free places.

Prime Minister has the Beehive in the bag — 2020 General Election

Leonard HongLeave a comment

Figure 1: Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. 

 

New Zealanders have witnessed partisan nonsense from both sides of the House of Representatives during the Covid-19 pandemic. Ranging from Hamish Walker’s disgraceful letter about quarantine arrivals, Michelle Boag’s woeful decisions, David Clark’s resignation as Health Minister, and in addition blunderous border management by few incompetent Cabinet Ministers. Whilst such partisanship is not surprising to me in politics, the severity of some of these scandals leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. Instead of focusing on the main task of keeping our team of 5 million safe from Covid-19, many politicians in Parliament would rather shoot cheap shots at one another. During the midst of all of this, the centre-left Labour Party will almost certainly win the election and the main key asset for this instrumental task is the Prime Minister herself. 

Why do I think the Prime Minister will win? Multifaceted reasons. I’ve known the Prime Minister for a few years beginning in 2016 when I volunteered for the NZ Labour Party initially as a young undergraduate at The University of Auckland. She has always had the personal charm and likability to woo, charm, and make people feel important. I am sure the late Dale Carnegie would approve of her social competence. Without her, the Labour Party would still be in opposition under Andrew Little or some other Labour leader in another universe. Jacinda was the only person that would have had the abilities and leadership qualities to lead Labour to victory, which she did in the 2017 General Election. It was no wonder that for years people touted her as the next leader of New Zealand before. Now as the incumbent, I expect her to win.

Why do I think the Prime Minister will win? Multifaceted reasons. I’ve known the Prime Minister for a few years beginning in 2016 when I volunteered for the NZ Labour Party initially as a young undergraduate at The University of Auckland. She has always had the personal charm and likability to woo, charm, and make people feel important. I am sure the late Dale Carnegie would approve of her social competence. Without her, the Labour Party would still be in opposition under Andrew Little or some other Labour leader in another universe. Jacinda was the only person that would have had the abilities and leadership qualities to lead Labour to victory, which she did in the 2017 General Election. It was no wonder that for years people touted her as the next leader of New Zealand before. Now as the incumbent, I expect her to win.  

Jacinda is the most charismatic, likeable, and respectable politician that I have personally witnessed. The masterful political marketing on social media, her genuine smile and exceptional communication skills are nothing short of remarkable. If there was a textbook that I would use for my hypothetical communication class, I would use her as the main role model. I know rarely anyone besides her in the Labour Party with this kind of talent. Some may even claim that she was born for the role…perhaps. This is the key factor that will win her the election. Simply put, the New Zealand public really likes her. The Covid-19 pandemic also may have helped her in the polls, as incumbents tend to do better during crises. Evidenced by President George W. Bush’s approval rating skyrocketing to above 88% during 9/11. But the personable qualities of the Prime Minister helped the Labour Party to climb well above National today. Her identity also shaped her likeability, especially for a small, young and progressive country like Aotearoa. As a female who is young, attractive, relatable, and extremely charismatic, she had all the cards that helped her seem relatable. 

In contrast, National has not had anyone on a similar level as Ardern since Sir John Key. Although Simon Bridges is very good when you meet him privately, however, on television and social media, he didn’t have that key spark required to get people on your side. His negative approval rating and his image as a bitter, resentful person hasn’t helped. Although his successor Todd Muller has a positive net approval rating but is someone known as a simple ‘boring old white guy’. Neither does he have personal social competence equal to the Prime Minister and I expect him to be out once the election is over. Until National find a person as equally sociable as Jacinda, they will struggle for years to come. The Key/English years are over, and they must find a long term solution to this missing gap in National’s leadership. The other alternative is for the current leadership self-improve themselves on the basis of mimicking Jacinda’s abilities. The rebuilding stage needs to happen now. For now, they can hope for at least 35% to save most of the caucus, but the pinnacle difference between the two major parties is charisma and charm of the leadership. 

Why do I think the Prime Minister will win? Multifaceted reasons. I’ve known the Prime Minister for a few years beginning in 2016 when I volunteered for the NZ Labour Party initially as a young undergraduate at The University of Auckland. She has always had the personal charm and likability to woo, charm, and make people feel important. I am sure the late Dale Carnegie would approve of her social competence. Without her, the Labour Party would still be in opposition under Andrew Little or some other Labour leader in another universe. Jacinda was the only person that would have had the abilities and leadership qualities to lead Labour to victory, which she did in the 2017 General Election. It was no wonder that for years people touted her as the next leader of New Zealand before. Now as the incumbent, I expect her to win.  

However, the Labour Party have a clear competence problem within its hierarchy. The Prime Minister has been exceptional as a communicator throughout the pandemic, illustrated in her excellent press conferences with Dr. Ashley Bloomfield. But you cannot run a country well without a great team. There is a reason people like Clare Curran and David Clark were targeted by the opposition – they were incompetent. Period. 

Although there are a few very competent Ministers such as Grant Robertson, David Parker, Kris Faafoi, and the new Health Minister Chris Hipkins — on top of his three additional portfolios. After the election, they need to build a broadly new cabinet with the competence, skillsets and abilities to keep New Zealand safe, not just from Covid-19, but also from our precarious economic position. The Prime Minister may be able to rely on her sociability for now, but she must be far more decisive in either sacking or removing incompetent people in Cabinet. As Machiavelli once said, “He who wishes to be obeyed must know how to command.” I’m glad to see the addition of Epidemiologist Dr. Ayesha Verrell in Parliament soon and I know she will make a good contribution for New Zealanders. Hopefully, Ardern realises soon that incompetence will get punished in the next poll in 2023. 

The Prime Minister has this in the bag, for now. But until the actual election results, we won’t find out until October.  

Political Distraction

Leonard HongLeave a comment

If the Covid-19 pandemic had happened in a non-election year, would this or any Government’s response have been different?
 
At the best of times, election campaigning can be a distraction for politicians. But supposing the Government’s first decision early this year after it learned of the approaching pandemic was to postpone the election by perhaps six months, might leadership decisions have been more focused?
 
After all, it is hard to see how a fragmented parliament spending precious energy on politics as Kiwis struggle to recover from a major crisis is the best situation for New Zealand.
 
Without an election in the back of their minds, Ministers would be solely focused on protecting the country from Covid-19. A postponed election may even encourage – and make it possible for – members of the Opposition parties to pitch in and help with the recovery effort without anyone concerned about others making political gains during that time.
 
Such a process has existed before. For example, prior to the Second World War, the United Kingdom maintained an all-party coalition War Cabinet under Sir Winston Churchill. The Brits knew normal politicking was a distraction that only drew precious mental energy away from the greater national effort.
 
So, assuming that political distraction is partly to blame for some recent scandals and mishandling of border quarantine, had New Zealand adopted a similar War Cabinet model it could have avoided much of the political drama. Then again, other scandals might have replaced these stories. In other words, it is hard to tell if the election distraction is part of the problem or not.
 
Yet a mechanism to set up a War Cabinet in times of national crisis is worth considering for the future. Such a mechanism must include all MPs with the best and most relevant leadership experience across parliament and clearly outline a sunset clause when the election process can be resumed.
 
After all, an effective government must be able to deal with emergency circumstances with as few distractions as possible. In Select Committees, parties already cooperate on a broad consensus basis when debating new legislation. Temporarily connecting them as a solid front during a crisis would not be too much of a precedent. 
 
The last few months have proven that a distracted Government, like a tired driver, makes mistakes which can put the country at greater risk. Should Kiwis expect that elections are to be delayed by default in times of natural disasters? Perhaps.  

Card games in a post-truth world

Leonard HongLeave a comment

When in the US earlier this year, I came across many souvenirs mocking the country’s leader, including a card game called, Trump Cards: The Wackiest Game of Fake News.

It looked like a fun party card game in which players tried to pick out ‘Fake News’ from real quotes by President Donald Trump. A player receives one point for a correct answer and zero for incorrect answers.

So, let’s break out the card game and test your abilities. Did the US President really say these things or is it ‘fake news’?

“I will make Mexico pay for a wall on the border.” Ah yes, the infamous wall. Bingo! That’s an easy guess. The Donald definitely said this. 1 point.

“Bambi’s mother was clumsy. She deserved to die.” Nope, this one was completely fabricated. Good try. 0 points.

“To the fake Pocahontas, I won’t apologise.” A classic! Pocahontas was one of his nicknames for political rival Senator Elizabeth Warren. 1 point if you guessed the quote was real.

Right, now for something a bit harder:

“For anyone that has money, they know the first rule is to use other people’s money.” Sounds like Trump, doesn’t it? Well, it was really a quote from American rapper Kanye West.

“Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest — and you all know it!” Yup, Mr Trump again.

“I’m a perfectionist.” Was that the US President? No, it was our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on the decision to drop to Alert Level 3. But it looked like a Trump quote, didn’t it?

If you miraculously got all six points, congratulations, you are immune to fake news… well, so you think.

Comedians and rappers are meant to have great one-liners, that’s their job. I guess politicians also make a regular appearance on “History’s Greatest Quotes Vol 1-59.” In this world of fake news, it’s not only difficult to tell what the truth is, but increasingly, what the original context was.

‘Trump Cards’ is fun for the whole family, but games like this are only possible because we are so used to quotes being pulled out of context by newspapers. In isolation, any line can sound terrible but clipping a few quotes from thousands of hours of speech doesn’t help solve the problem of fake news. Even Ardern can sound like a buffoon out of context.

I can live with a fun card game, but I don’t think anyone is sure how to live in a ‘Fake News’ world that destroys context almost as a matter of course. You can quote me on that.

East Asia – Role Model for Covid-19

Leonard HongLeave a comment

29 May, 2020

Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan deserve praise for fighting Covid-19.

While Singapore and South Korea were hit with a second outbreak, their robust containment measures have kicked back in to stop rapid spread of the virus once more. As New Zealand ponders how to prepare for a future pandemic, it should look to East Asia.

Vietnam and Hong Kong also showed early success against the coronavirus, but the New Zealand Government has focused its attention on those first three countries.

The common factor for their success was their experience with the SARS pandemic in 2003 and MERS in 2015. They built better epidemiological and quarantine systems along with border controls, high-level diagnostic testing and rapid contact tracing capacities. They also regularly disinfect public spaces and encourage the public use of masks.

In the last few weeks, another outbreak of Covid-19 makes it appear Singapore’s performance was a complete failure, but it was not. These new community cases constitute only 7% of the total count and more accurately reflect human error in monitoring a handful of migrant dormitories than a systemic failure of the city-state’s response plans.

Further north, South Korea recovered quickly from an initial outbreak in March. The government’s ‘smart-city data hub’ allowed it to quickly locate cases again after a second outbreak occurred in Seoul bars. So far, a total of 1982 possible cases have been rapidly traced by this system, keeping the average number of fresh daily cases low at 23.

Stanford University’s Jason Wang said Taiwan’s response was among the best in the world. Its timely border controls for flights coming from China began on December 31, 2019 – a full month before other nations thought about similar controls. By March 20, Taiwan only had 27 new cases. Once again, a digital surveillance system was critical in tracking down and isolating individuals with the virus.

New Zealand’s Covid-19 containment performance was impressive. But, as Kiwi epidemiologists have emphasised, its contact tracing system still has plenty of room for improvement. As South Korea and Singapore have shown, there is still a real risk of a second outbreak from even one new superspreader.

That’s why it is an imperative that New Zealand take this opportunity to repair and prepare its contact tracing capacity to ensure the country holds onto its hard-won gains. Those three East Asian states offer plenty of great examples to get this done.

Research Note: Lessons from Abroad: East Asia’s Covid-19 Containment Model

Leonard HongLeave a comment

Leonard Hong with assistance from Joel Hernandez

East Asia’s Covid-19 Containment ModelDownload

Since the first cases of the Covid-19 virus emerged in the Chinese province of Wuhan, several East Asian countries including Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan have successfully ‘flattened the curve’ of infection rates. The three countries used common public policies in the first 50 days since each registered their 100th case.

This report summaries how the three countries prepared for a pandemic to create the best possible position for dealing with Covid-19. It offers lessons for New Zealand’s efforts to set up efficient epidemiological controls and tracking efforts to help fight any future pandemic.

Research Note: Lessons from Abroad: Taiwan’s Covid-19 Containment Model

Leonard HongLeave a comment

Leonard Hong with assistance from Joel Hernandez

Taiwan’s Covid-19 Containment ModelDownload

Alongside South Korea, Taiwan is one of the few countries to “flatten the curve” of Covid-19 without a national lockdown due to its prior experience with the SARS epidemic of 2003. New Zealand’s pathway is similar to Taiwan’s and there are lessons to be learned as New Zealand moves into Alert Level 2. Last week, Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters suggested creating “international bubbles” for countries with Covid-19 success to introduce new trade connections and travel links. His reasoning is that direct inbound travel to New Zealand from Taiwan cannot be riskier than travel within New Zealand at this point.

As of May 11, Taiwan is 53 days into its Covid-19 response compared to New Zealand’s 49 days (measured by the date of the first 100 cases). Judging by cumulative cases per capita (see figures 1 and 2), New Zealand has 24.8 cases per 100,000 while Taiwan only has 1.9 cases per 100,000. 

In early January, when the first outbreak began in Wuhan, Taiwanese Professor Dr Jason Wang from Stanford University predicted Taiwan would have the highest number of cases outside mainland China.1 As of May 10, Taiwan only has 73 active cases and 366 recoveries from a total of 438 confirmed cases.2 It also has a low case fatality rate (CFR) of 1.3% or 1.36% deaths. Italy, Spain, the US and New Zealand have CFRs of 13.9%, 10.1%, 5.9% and 1.4%, respectively.

The Taiwanese Government dealt with the initial rise in cases while maintaining an open economy by using optimal border controls, strict quarantine requirements, targeted testing measures, an advanced national healthcare system, effective contact tracing system, maskwearing public policy, tight enforcement of new Covid-19 rules and general government competence.

This report outlines eleven key examples of Taiwan’s pandemic approach.

Why Taiwan is winning against Covid-19

Leonard HongLeave a comment

Taiwan is one of the few countries to “flatten the curve” while maintaining an open domestic economy. Earlier this week, Taiwan only had 104 active cases of Covid-19. Even more impressive, given its geographic position, is the state only had 27 new cases on March 20.

The key to its success was early action, far earlier than many other countries including New Zealand. While most only reacted to Covid-19 after the first confirmed case (between January and February), Taiwan started its epidemic response on the last day of 2019.

Before the first confirmed case outside China was reported, Taiwan’s Centre for Disease Control immediately set up border restrictions for arrivals from the province of Wuhan. This was followed by a suite of further restrictions on both incoming and outgoing travel and strict mandatory quarantine.

Taiwan’s response was not only quick, it was highly efficient and effective. It had prepared exceptional epidemiological and health infrastructure as a key lesson from the 2003 SARS epidemic. Screening tools such as temperature monitoring, track and trace technology and protective equipment was already in place for the next pandemic.

Moreover, to ensure its healthcare system did not collapse, Taiwan mobilised greater hospital ICU capacity with 20,000 isolation rooms combined with 14,000 ventilators. With Taiwan’s population of 23.8 million, this would be the equivalent in New Zealand of 3400 isolation rooms and 2400 ventilators. Presently, New Zealand only has 520 ventilators.

It is no surprise then that Bloomberg’s 2018 Healthcare Efficiency Index, ranked Taiwan’s healthcare system in the top 10. New Zealand is just behind at 15.

In contrast to South Korea, Taiwan did not implement high-volume testing. Instead it concentrated on efficient track and tracing that utilised a nationally integrated database between the Immigration Agency and the National Health Insurance Administration in combination with GPS tracking on smartphones. Taiwan’s CDC has tracked 2761 close contacts related to Covid-19.

As a result of Taiwan’s response to Covid-19 the IMF estimates its economy will contract by 4.0% over 2020. This compares with contractions of 5.9% for the US, 7.2% for New Zealand and 7.0% for Germany.

While New Zealand appears to have Covid-19 under control, Taiwan provides lessons on what to do to prepare for the next pandemic. Taiwan was able to avoid lockdown and maintain an open domestic economy because it acted quickly and effectively because it learned from previous crises.

New Zealand must do the same to ensure the next pandemic does not catch the system off guard again.

Lessons from South Korea: Looking 40 days into the future

Leonard HongLeave a comment

South Korea has quickly become a model country for effectively containing Covid-19 without needing a national lockdown.

Given that the liberal democracy of South Korea is 40 days ahead of New Zealand on the epidemiological curve, it offers important lessons on how to balance an increase of economic activity with continued efforts towards virus elimination as New Zealand leaves Alert Level 4.

Despite the initial outbreak of the Shincheonji cluster in Daegu, South Korea has successfully ‘flattened the curve’ in its second phase.

Its robust ‘all-of-government’ attitude and deep coordination between the private and public sectors was boosted significantly by its experience with the MERS epidemic. That virus in 2015 taught the South Korean government it needed better medical infrastructure to deal with future pandemics.

This time around, South Korea implemented early and effective contact tracing made possible by its advanced digital infrastructure. Taking only 10 minutes per person to complete the test, South Korea’s contact tracing is now among the fastest in the world.

And it has conducted a lot of tests. With a combination of various drive-through and walk-through testing clinics, managed by its centralised public health care system, the East Asian nation has the capacity to do 20,000 tests each day, and has already conducted about 580,000.

Yet it still managed to facilitate a relatively open economy. It did this by sending teams to fumigate and disinfect public spaces while the government encouraged the use of face masks. Both measures have been widely lauded as key in preventing rampant community transmission.

The Korean governments early response to the outbreak, made possible by its own diligent lessons from previous pandemics, meant the country largely avoided a public health and an economic catastrophe.

President Moon Jae-in’s administration proved to be transparent with excellent and open communication to citizens which helped solidify great public cooperation and compliance to get the job done.

As New Zealand opens its economy a bit more next week, possibly down to Alert Level 3, it can learn from South Korea’s success. The Government must ensure it has rapid contract tracing and continue with high-volume testing while Kiwis continue to carefully comply with lockdown rules.

If South Korea is a model for what New Zealand can expect 40 days from now, then the Government should pay attention to avoid exacerbating the public health and economic catastrophe.