Coronavirus - New Zealand
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Nepia I think the point with surfing, boating etc is that there is always a small risk (marginally higher than walking I guess) that you may require essential services to divert to you should something happen while on the water.
People confined to their homes should stay out of bathrooms then.
Poor attitude IMO. Why should rescue staff be put at risk at contracting the virus because someone wants to surf, or go boating on the water? Go for a jog.
It's about likelihood. I hear the same argument about going for a ride. ICUs aren't currently full and I don't plan on having an accident. That's why they're called accidents.
Same for people riding pushbikes, or spraining their ankle, or having heart attacks. As largely as possible people should be having normalcy within the bounds of these restrictions. Simply because they're apparently going to be in place for a long time.
We will always have that as part of living, wih Surfing and watersports we can eliminate completely the risk if they aren't on the water.
As @taniwharugby says, on land there is two people already working that can tend to a heart attack etc etc, on the water these people are only on call. It always takes more than two people to attend a water call out
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Nepia I think the point with surfing, boating etc is that there is always a small risk (marginally higher than walking I guess) that you may require essential services to divert to you should something happen while on the water.
People confined to their homes should stay out of bathrooms then.
Poor attitude IMO. Why should rescue staff be put at risk at contracting the virus because someone wants to surf, or go boating on the water? Go for a jog.
It's about likelihood. I hear the same argument about going for a ride. ICUs aren't currently full and I don't plan on having an accident. That's why they're called accidents.
Same for people riding pushbikes, or spraining their ankle, or having heart attacks. As largely as possible people should be having normalcy within the bounds of these restrictions. Simply because they're apparently going to be in place for a long time.
I disagree with @antipodean about this, but actually find real value in what he is saying. We dont want to sleep walk into a authoritarian dystopia, look at the stripping of liberties post 9/11, that went on to become permanent, we need to be REALLY careful with this. I would be lying if I said I wasnt nervous about living in effectively a police state, I think there should be incredibly tight time limits put on any legislative changes bought on by COVID 19, but that wont happen, polkiticains love taking power and hate giving it away.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback absolutely agree. I've been slightly heartened by hearing language like temporary/fixed period/limited and similar descriptions for the new normal. But unfortunately, due to the nature of the Covid beasty, that sits alongside qualifiers like indefinite, ongoing, etc.
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean an accident on land is more often different scale to SAR on water...a minor injury or incident on land is easier dealt with than a minor one on the water.
Yes it is. So? That's an argument for not letting people in water anyway. Most people who get into trouble here can't swim and don't often go to the beach. Tourists who can't identify a rip, or bathe swaddled in layers of clothing. Contrast that with people who do laps everyday or have a morning surf.
If people still want to do those activities and they're complying with social distancing etc. why not simply say to them with reduced staffing levels there are consequences and repercussions? I.e. don't expect that the beaches are patrolled or someone can come save you.
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Nepia I think the point with surfing, boating etc is that there is always a small risk (marginally higher than walking I guess) that you may require essential services to divert to you should something happen while on the water.
People confined to their homes should stay out of bathrooms then.
Poor attitude IMO. Why should rescue staff be put at risk at contracting the virus because someone wants to surf, or go boating on the water? Go for a jog.
It's about likelihood. I hear the same argument about going for a ride. ICUs aren't currently full and I don't plan on having an accident. That's why they're called accidents.
Same for people riding pushbikes, or spraining their ankle, or having heart attacks. As largely as possible people should be having normalcy within the bounds of these restrictions. Simply because they're apparently going to be in place for a long time.
As long as these people realize no one is coming for them if they get in trouble.... which we all know isn't going to happen. It's the biggest global health crisis in most of our lifetimes, can't we just stick to the rules?
I don't subscribe to the notion that because it's a pandemic we need to strip our liberties and place everyone on house arrest as if we're experiencing what Spain and Italy are when we're more like Japan or Singapore. Singapore ffs - a country better known as bright North Korea isn't treating it's entire populace like we are.
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean an accident on land is more often different scale to SAR on water...a minor injury or incident on land is easier dealt with than a minor one on the water.
Yes it is. So? That's an argument for not letting people in water anyway. Most people who get into trouble here can't swim and don't often go to the beach. Tourists who can't identify a rip, or bathe swaddled in layers of clothing. Contrast that with people who do laps everyday or have a morning surf.
If people still want to do those activities and they're complying with social distancing etc. why not simply say to them with reduced staffing levels there are consequences and repercussions? I.e. don't expect that the beaches are patrolled or someone can come save you.
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Nepia I think the point with surfing, boating etc is that there is always a small risk (marginally higher than walking I guess) that you may require essential services to divert to you should something happen while on the water.
People confined to their homes should stay out of bathrooms then.
Poor attitude IMO. Why should rescue staff be put at risk at contracting the virus because someone wants to surf, or go boating on the water? Go for a jog.
It's about likelihood. I hear the same argument about going for a ride. ICUs aren't currently full and I don't plan on having an accident. That's why they're called accidents.
Same for people riding pushbikes, or spraining their ankle, or having heart attacks. As largely as possible people should be having normalcy within the bounds of these restrictions. Simply because they're apparently going to be in place for a long time.
As long as these people realize no one is coming for them if they get in trouble.... which we all know isn't going to happen. It's the biggest global health crisis in most of our lifetimes, can't we just stick to the rules?
I don't subscribe to the notion that because it's a pandemic we need to strip our liberties and place everyone on house arrest as if we're experiencing what Spain and Italy are when we're more like Japan or Singapore. Singapore ffs - a country better known as bright North Korea isn't treating it's entire populace like we are.
What's so hard about it? If it can eradicate it from NZ by preventing the spread then why not? Why should we put people at risk jjust because someone doesn't like the situation we are in?
-
@Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean an accident on land is more often different scale to SAR on water...a minor injury or incident on land is easier dealt with than a minor one on the water.
Yes it is. So? That's an argument for not letting people in water anyway. Most people who get into trouble here can't swim and don't often go to the beach. Tourists who can't identify a rip, or bathe swaddled in layers of clothing. Contrast that with people who do laps everyday or have a morning surf.
If people still want to do those activities and they're complying with social distancing etc. why not simply say to them with reduced staffing levels there are consequences and repercussions? I.e. don't expect that the beaches are patrolled or someone can come save you.
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Nepia I think the point with surfing, boating etc is that there is always a small risk (marginally higher than walking I guess) that you may require essential services to divert to you should something happen while on the water.
People confined to their homes should stay out of bathrooms then.
Poor attitude IMO. Why should rescue staff be put at risk at contracting the virus because someone wants to surf, or go boating on the water? Go for a jog.
It's about likelihood. I hear the same argument about going for a ride. ICUs aren't currently full and I don't plan on having an accident. That's why they're called accidents.
Same for people riding pushbikes, or spraining their ankle, or having heart attacks. As largely as possible people should be having normalcy within the bounds of these restrictions. Simply because they're apparently going to be in place for a long time.
As long as these people realize no one is coming for them if they get in trouble.... which we all know isn't going to happen. It's the biggest global health crisis in most of our lifetimes, can't we just stick to the rules?
I don't subscribe to the notion that because it's a pandemic we need to strip our liberties and place everyone on house arrest as if we're experiencing what Spain and Italy are when we're more like Japan or Singapore. Singapore ffs - a country better known as bright North Korea isn't treating it's entire populace like we are.
What's so hard about it? If it can eradicate it from NZ by preventing the spread then why not? Why should we put people at risk jjust because someone doesn't like the situation we are in?
I personally don't see this as a civil liberties issue. I see this as purely a community health issue. I'd like to see my parents in the flesh again, and be able to give them a hug, not watch them die a horrible death by remote. If that means I have to make a few sacrifices in terms of what I'm allowed to do and where I can go for a while I'm all good with that. The day the virus is beaten and we are still being restricted I'm happy to revisit that position
-
@Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Nepia I think the point with surfing, boating etc is that there is always a small risk (marginally higher than walking I guess) that you may require essential services to divert to you should something happen while on the water.
People confined to their homes should stay out of bathrooms then.
Poor attitude IMO. Why should rescue staff be put at risk at contracting the virus because someone wants to surf, or go boating on the water? Go for a jog.
It's about likelihood. I hear the same argument about going for a ride. ICUs aren't currently full and I don't plan on having an accident. That's why they're called accidents.
Same for people riding pushbikes, or spraining their ankle, or having heart attacks. As largely as possible people should be having normalcy within the bounds of these restrictions. Simply because they're apparently going to be in place for a long time.
As long as these people realize no one is coming for them if they get in trouble.... which we all know isn't going to happen. It's the biggest global health crisis in most of our lifetimes, can't we just stick to the rules?
I don't subscribe to the notion that because it's a pandemic we need to strip our liberties and place everyone on house arrest as if we're experiencing what Spain and Italy are when we're more like Japan or Singapore. Singapore ffs - a country better known as bright North Korea isn't treating it's entire populace like we are.
What's so hard about it? If it can eradicate it from NZ by preventing the spread then why not? Why should we put people at risk jjust because someone doesn't like the situation we are in?
Because there's less risk of transmission than people shopping? Because how long are you going to keep the borders closed? How long are you prepared to put up with these restrictions?
-
@antipodean with the people that volunteer for SAR, I bet 0 of them would opt to stay home in the current climate if they got a call saying there is someone been fishing, boat taking on water, need assistance...if you subscribe to the fact people nkow the risks, there would be little point in SAR operations to assist those who get in strife, through stupidity or plain bad luck.
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Nepia I think the point with surfing, boating etc is that there is always a small risk (marginally higher than walking I guess) that you may require essential services to divert to you should something happen while on the water.
People confined to their homes should stay out of bathrooms then.
Poor attitude IMO. Why should rescue staff be put at risk at contracting the virus because someone wants to surf, or go boating on the water? Go for a jog.
It's about likelihood. I hear the same argument about going for a ride. ICUs aren't currently full and I don't plan on having an accident. That's why they're called accidents.
Same for people riding pushbikes, or spraining their ankle, or having heart attacks. As largely as possible people should be having normalcy within the bounds of these restrictions. Simply because they're apparently going to be in place for a long time.
As long as these people realize no one is coming for them if they get in trouble.... which we all know isn't going to happen. It's the biggest global health crisis in most of our lifetimes, can't we just stick to the rules?
I don't subscribe to the notion that because it's a pandemic we need to strip our liberties and place everyone on house arrest as if we're experiencing what Spain and Italy are when we're more like Japan or Singapore. Singapore ffs - a country better known as bright North Korea isn't treating it's entire populace like we are.
What's so hard about it? If it can eradicate it from NZ by preventing the spread then why not? Why should we put people at risk jjust because someone doesn't like the situation we are in?
Because there's less risk of transmission than people shopping? Because how long are you going to keep the borders closed? How long are you prepared to put up with these restrictions?
As long as it takes. I only find this an inconvenience, not a hardship
Also, we have to still be able to eat but we don't have to surf. (Going back to original question)
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean with the people that volunteer for SAR, I bet 0 of them would opt to stay home in the current climate if they got a call saying there is someone been fishing, boat taking on water, need assistance...if you subscribe to the fact people nkow the risks, there would be little point in SAR operations to assist those who get in strife, through stupidity or plain bad luck.
In recognition that extraordinary times (pandemic) call for extraordinary measures (effective house arrest), why doesn't the argument go both ways?
There's a difference in the psychological ability of people to put up with severe restrictions for a short, known period of time. It's the indeterminate aspect that is the problem and it's that which drives people to seek some semblance of normalcy. When you hear "up to a year", people want to do things that have limited or no impact on anyone else.
And responses like as long as it takes are ludicrous.
-
I think it's very easy to minimise the impact of these restrictions on many people. Us Ferners are mostly of able mind, aka to exercise and work remotely, have stable homes. And we have each other.
Many people have none of that. Think abusive relationships or even just toxic marriages. Their being able to talk to a friend in person can be huge. At the next level, the impact of job losses on mental health and DV. Increased depression and suicide.
I truly hope these measures contain the spread so at least domestic business can restart soon and people can get some sense of normality back in the lives.
-
Another 89 today, 13 in Hospital, 2 still in ICU, 93 recoveries.
Apparently 1 less cluster today (clusters determined by 10 or more infections) than yesterday (6)
In recognition that extraordinary times (pandemic) call for extraordinary measures (effective house arrest), why doesn't the argument go both ways?
Not sure what that is supposed to mean?
People who volunteer, are not just going to sit on thier hands because someone ignored the calls to stay home, unless they are simply not notified of an incident, but then you run the risk of an untrained person or persons trying to assist, and potentially making it worse.
-
‘Bright North Korea’ (a new term to me) are at an equivalent of Alert Level 3... the scale looks fairly similar, I wonder if we borrowed it... https://www.gov.sg/article/what-do-the-different-dorscon-levels-mean
-
@Donsteppa said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
‘Bright North Korea’ (a new term to me) are at an equivalent of Alert Level 3... the scale looks fairly similar, I wonder if we borrowed it... https://www.gov.sg/article/what-do-the-different-dorscon-levels-mean
I find the term a little insulting to be honest
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
In recognition that extraordinary times (pandemic) call for extraordinary measures (effective house arrest), why doesn't the argument go both ways?
Not sure what that is supposed to mean?
If there are restrictions imposed, why aren't there restrictions on response? Previously people could swim on unpatrolled beaches. People could choose to swim outside the flags.
People who volunteer, are not just going to sit on thier hands because someone ignored the calls to stay home, unless they are simply not notified of an incident, but then you run the risk of an untrained person or persons trying to assist, and potentially making it worse.
People who volunteer are currently sitting at home.
@Donsteppa said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
‘Bright North Korea’ (a new term to me) are at an equivalent of Alert Level 3... the scale looks fairly similar, I wonder if we borrowed it... https://www.gov.sg/article/what-do-the-different-dorscon-levels-mean
Totalitarian society, but with electricity. I think the big difference is Asian governments learned from SARS.
-
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Donsteppa said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
‘Bright North Korea’ (a new term to me) are at an equivalent of Alert Level 3... the scale looks fairly similar, I wonder if we borrowed it... https://www.gov.sg/article/what-do-the-different-dorscon-levels-mean
I find the term a little insulting to be honest
Yep, I get that some parallels can be drawn... but I think 100% of the time I’d still choose Singapore for many more good reasons than just the electricity supply.
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Another 89 today, 13 in Hospital, 2 still in ICU, 93 recoveries.
Is it the first day that there have been more recoveries than new cases?
Obviously it depends how many new cases haven't been tested / confirmed but given that the testing has increased surely a good sign.