133 Molesworth
Street
PO Box 5013
Wellington 6140
New Zealand
T+64 4 496 2000
26 November 2021
AS Emet
By email: [FYI request #17144 email]
Ref:
H202116340
Tēnā koe
Response to your request for official information Thank you for your requests under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act) to the Ministry
of Health (the Ministry) on 12 and 15 November 2021, following up from your previous
requests referenced H202114083 and H202112576. Rather than repeat your requests
verbatim, they are attached as Appendix 1 and 2.
The Ministry is confident that vaccination is effective at preventing serious illness and death
from COVID-19, and that it reduces transmission.
Studies carried out since initial Pfizer clinical trials, independent from Pfizer, have evaluated
the effect of vaccination on transmission of the virus. Preliminary results from these studies
have shown that two doses of the COVID-19 Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine can substantially
reduce the transmission of the virus.
Further information, with links to the relevant studies, can be found on the Ministry’s website:
www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/science_updates_7_may_2021.pdf Information regarding the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine can also be found on the
Ministry website at the following links:
• The Immunisation Handbook (chapter 5)
: www.health.govt.nz/our-
work/immunisation-handbook-2020/5-coronavirus-disease-covid-19. This also
provides references to scientific studies conducted regarding COVID-19 and the
vaccine.
• The vaccine datasheet:
www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/Datasheet/c/comirnatyinj.pdf
• Ministry webpage regarding vaccine safety and efficacy:
www.health.govt.nz/our-
work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines/covid-
19-vaccine-effectiveness-and-protection
More data is required to understand the extent of the effect that vaccination has on
transmission of the Delta variant. A summary of available data can be found on the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) science brief page:
www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html
The Government is acting consistently and in compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights
Act 1990 (NZBORA) and Human Rights Act 1993. Human rights matters are considered as
part of the making of legal instruments as part of the COVID-19 response, and section 5 of
NZBORA provides that the rights can be subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law
as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Under section 28(3) of the Act, you have the right to ask the Ombudsman to review any
decisions made under this request. The Ombudsman may be contacted by email at:
[email address] or by calling 0800 802 602.
Please note that this response, with your personal details removed, may be published on the
Ministry website at:
www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/information-releases/responses-
official-information-act-requests. Nāku noa, nā
Jan Torres
Acting Manager OIA Services
Office of the Director-General
Page 2 of 5
Appendix 1: Copy of OIA Request received 12 November 2021
Please note that my inquiry was about “any conditions, restrictions, limitations, requirements,
or any other incentives or disincentives relating to the quantity of these products
administered, and/or the time-frames in which they are administered”. The request for
information is not about the “quality” of these products.
Does this response from Ministry of Health mean that Ministry of Health has not considered
or evaluated public health and ethical arguments for and against vaccinating people with
very low risk of poor outcome from Covid-19, since both asymptomatic spread (exacerbated
by vaccinated people not knowing they're contagious, and/or risk compensation of
vaccinated people, among other factors) and vaccine resistant strains of SARS-Cov-2 may
both likely be outcomes of wider promotion of Covid-19 vaccines, and lead to a worse public
health outcome?
Has Ministry of Health considered the absence of long-term safety data for these
inoculations, as it relates to the above questions? Is so, how so? If not, why not?
If The Ministry of Health has not evaluated this public health and ethical trade-off, then why
were such public health and ethical considerations not accounted for?
Page 3 of 5
Appendix 2: Copy of OIA Request received 15 November 2021
* Does The Ministry of Health recognise that COVID-19 inoculations are not effective at
preventing infection or transmission of COVID-19? If The Ministry of Health asserts that
COVID-19 inoculations are effective at preventing infection or transmission of COVID-19,
what balance of evidence, both for and against, is that assertion based on? What absolute
risk reduction is claimed by such data?
* Prior to mid November 2021, did The Ministry of Health have data/evidence that COVID-19
inoculations in use in New Zealand are not effective at preventing infection or transmission
of COVID-19? What data/evidence was available prior to mid November 2021, supporting
the assertion that COVID-19 inoculations in use in New Zealand are not effective at
preventing infection or transmission of COVID-19?
* What claim(s) has the manufacturer(s) of these products made to The Ministry of Health
(eg, as part of any approval process) regarding prevention of COVID-19 infection or
prevention of COVID-19 transmission?
* What evidence supports the common belief/assertion (fuelled in large part by earlier
statements and assertions made by The Ministry of Health) that persons not inoculated
against COVID-19 are a threat to persons inoculated against COVID-19, more so than
persons inoculated against COVID-19 are threats to other persons inoculated against
COVID-19? (As it's commonly phrased, "the unvaccinated are a threat to the vaccinated",
apparently based on a belief that uninoculated persons are a significantly higher risk of being
infectious than inoculated persons)
* Does the recent statement from The Ministry of Health, above, suggest that persons not
inoculated against COVID-19 are more likely to be symptomatic if/when they are infected,
and thus more inclined to self-isolate, and thus less likely to transmit COVID-19 to others?
* Excepting specific situations (eg care of vulnerable patients {in which case they would
likely be safest among people who have acquired natural immunity to COVID-19, after
recovery}) what balance of evidence, both for and against, supports any segregation of any
kind between inoculated and uninoculated persons?
* On what basis were claims being made, prior to mid November 2021, that COVID-19
inoculations in use in New Zealand are effective in reducing infections and/or transmission of
COVID-19? What balance of evidence, both for and against, were such claims based on?
Aside from a balance of evidence, what other factors may have influenced The Ministry of
Health to make claims that COVID-19 inoculations in use in New Zealand are effective in
reducing infections and/or transmissions of COVID-19?
* Has The Ministry of Health considered how this conflicting information may cause public
confusion? If not, why not? If so, what has been found? What is being done to remedy any
harm caused?
* Has The Ministry of Health considered how this conflicting information may lead to public
distrust in The Ministry of Health, and/or "the government"? If not, why not? If so, what has
been found? What is being done to remedy any harm caused?
* Has The Ministry of Health considered how this conflicting information has led to correct
information being labelled "fake news", "conspiracy theory", or similar, and how that affects
public health? If not, why not? If so, what has been found? What is being done to remedy
any harm caused?
Page 4 of 5
* Has The Ministry of Health considered how this conflicting information has led to incorrect
information being labelled "truth", and being "verified" by "fact checkers", and similar, and
how that affects public health? If not, why not? If so, what has been found? What is being
done to remedy any harm caused?
* Has The Ministry of Health considered how this conflicting information has led to a hostile
environment against individuals and groups who have chosen to conscientiously object and
otherwise (eg by exercising their human rights) to abstain from COVID-19 inoculations? Has
The Ministry of Health considered the many ways in which such a hostile environment
exacerbates a public health crisis? Has The Ministry of Health considered the many ways in
which such a hostile environment is likely to lead to future public health crises? If not, why
not? If so, what has been found? What is being done to remedy any harm caused?
* Has The Ministry of Health used this (or other) conflicting or otherwise incorrect
information, or is there any reason to believe that The Ministry of Health has been used to
disseminate or otherwise spread conflicting or otherwise incorrect information, to pursue any
purpose whatsoever other than public health goals as stated and generally understood?
* Has The Ministry of Health considered how this conflicting information may lead people to
incorrectly calculate their risk/benefit assessment of a COVID-19 inoculation? If not, why
not? If so, what has been found? What is being done to remedy any harm caused?
* Has The Ministry of Health considered how this conflicting information may lead healthcare
professionals and treatment providers to not correctly understand, or explain to their
patients, the risk/benefit assessment of COVID-19 inoculations? If not, why not? If so, what
has been found? What is being done to remedy any harm caused?
* Has The Ministry of Health considered how this conflicting information may, both directly
and via professional advice from ill-advised healthcare professionals and treatment
providers, lead to breaches of healthcare providers' ethical and legal requirements to
facilitate informed consent, and to empower their patients to make decisions on the basis of
informed consent? If not, why not? If so, what has been found? What is being done to
remedy any harm caused?
Page 5 of 5
