1. I agree. The basis of her critique -"we would never make or allow these mistakes. NZers would be safer with us. We would not have squandered more than 3 months of no community transmission" requires us to ignore at least 3 well evidenced things ... https://twitter.com/lailaharre/status/1295810560617902081

2. First it is by no means certain that we would ever have had a this success under National in the first place. The elimination strategy is predicated on prioritising people over the economy. National have & continue to be at best ambivalent, at worst opposed, to this principle.

3.a Second and in the absence of evidence for her assertion that we'd be better off under National we have to trust her "good faith". Nicky Hagar's book "Dirty Politics" unequivocally shows we should not. She places her interests above valuing the public trust of her office ...

3.b and I have never seen her make any public "mea culpa" for that well documented conduct, and all I have seen recently simply affirms that she has done nothing to warrant us taking her at her word. Rather than the Govt spinning the evidence points to her and her deputy doing so

4. Third her desire for someone to be held personally accountability speaks more to her desire for a trophy than a desire to fix the problem. Her attack displays no grasp of how complex adaptive systems work - which makes her leadership especially dangerous right now.

5. Invective, spite, ignorance and ambition are toxic elements in any leader; those elements in a leader in the midst of the complexity of a global health pandemic are a recipe for making things worse not better. Sadly there is an abundance of evidence for this; US, UK, Brazil...