Balance please
It certainly is big news "Covid-19 vaccinations begin in Whanganui" (News, April 3).
Covering the event the Chronicle, an independent newspaper, lost sight of its obligation to offer its readership an unbiased and thorough presentation of current issues.
Instead we were treated to front page reports, opinion pieces and letters all promoting Covid-19 vaccination.
The Chronicle quotes DHB staff assuring us that the vaccine was "doing its job", and WRHN staff enthusing "we haven't had a safer vaccine".
No alternative views were solicited or discussed. Instead Russell Simpson, Whanganui DHB chief executive, and mayor Hamish McDouall stress the importance of consulting "reliable" and "reputable" sources to help decide "whether the vaccine is for them or not".
Such as Medsafe perhaps? Medsafe seem a bit more circumspect: "We don't yet know how long you'll be protected or if it will stop you from catching and passing on the virus," or that "most vaccines will be granted provisional consent because data to support the longer-term safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines is not yet available."
This, by the way, includes Pfizer-BioNTech's Covid-19 mRNA vaccine, which is currently being rolled out in NZ.
Pfizer estimates that their US-based " Study to Describe the Safety, Tolerability, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of RNA Vaccine Candidates Against COVID-19 in Healthy Individuals" will be completed in April 2023. Are we their guinea pigs?
I am a strong believer in tested and proven vaccines.
However, it appears that the Covid-19 vaccination is not without controversy or as straightforward as the Chronicle wants us to believe.
To help readers make informed decisions we need the Chronicle to report broadly, offering an impartial overview of current research and debate, even those that challenge the official view. [Abridged]
MARIANNE SCHUMACHER
Whanganui
Bemused by the H
I am rather bemused to see the H in Whanganui argument is still being trumpeted, and being used against those local businesses who have not yet changed to the so-called correct spelling.
I object to the exaggerated and emotive way that Leigh-Marama McLachlan has pushed this issue on the Opinion page, April 17.
The Māori language only had a spoken or oral form before the arrival of European settlers in the late 19th century, and local Māori did not object to Wanganui being spelt without an H since that time.
I would disagree with Leigh-Marama McLachlan, and argue that the Europeans did account for the local dialect when giving Wanganui its spelling which has stood unchallenged for well over a century.
Her claim that "it was known as Whanganui for hundreds of years before you" is misleading.
It is true that Māori did suffer injustice when Europeans arrived in the 19th century. In comparison, the Whanganui H debate is merely a storm in a teacup, a bee in the bonnet, a mere trifle of an issue, and I hope it would not continue to be politicised. [Abridged]
KARL FROST
Whanganui
