-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
We are giving up rights now by being in levels 3 & 4 for longer than you would like precisely so we don't have to live as hermits for 3 years.
What would living like a hermit look like? Like level 3 & 4? So your argument is "we're living like hermits for an indistinct period of time so that we're not living like hermits for three years"?
@JC used the term hermit so I cannot define that for you. Yes, that is exactly what we are doing. We are treating our best to eliminate the virus in New Zealand so we can get back to normal. It is much better than constantly having coronavirus in the community for a few years. That would lead to the shutdown of the economy for years.
You may not like it but the reality is movie theatres, pools, gyms, libraries, bars etc were all closing before the government announced the shutdown. Look at the crowds in the first round of the NRL - only North Queensland got a decent one and they have a new stadium. Coronavirus in the community for a few years wouldn't be a few years with business as normal where 2% of the population just disappear. It would be years with no public swimming pools, libraries, gyms, cinema, theatre or community sport.
Bullshit.
On Friday Australia's own Chief Medical Officer, Brendan Murphy, presented analysis of the actual infection trends, estimating that the reproductive number 'was below 1 in every state and territory before the stage three lockdowns took effect late last month.'
As of the last available data, 83% of confirmed cases in Australia have recovered with confirmed case mortality comprising 1.2% and that's without Level Four house arrest. Why would New Zealand be different?
I call bullshit on that quote BTW. I cannot find it anywhere on the internet. Apparently on April 17 Scott Morrison released data showing the R0 was now less than 1 in most states. So I doubt that, unless you can provide me with a link to the actual analysis. I'm sorry I don't get my news from opinion pieces. Why is Murphy also publicly stating "We have acted early and decisively to avoid catastrophic outcomes” if he believes that the R0 was already below 1 and restrictions weren't necessary.
Because the analysis was conducted after the States and Territories implemented the restrictions.
The arguments in that piece are also pointless because again he compares government assistance with the lockdown and says it is too much money per life. Fair enough argument. However, he completely ignores the counterfactual which is how much assistance would be needed even if there was no government enforced lockdown.
A counterfactual is an academic exercise and anyone sensible pays it no mind because it relies on assumptions which didn't hold true.
I'm not saying New Zealand would be different. I'm agnostic as to whether level 4 restrictions are actually necessary. I did say that having entered level 4, it would be a shame to leave early and undo the hard work and make the pain be for nothing. If New Zealand could have seen a massive reduction in cases with only level 3 restrictions, that is great! That means we should be able to stay on top of the cases at level 1. Isn't that what we want and doesn't that go against JC's point about needing to live as hermits for years?
The point is the economic damage wrought on New Zealanders and Australians has outweighed the benefits. There is no reasonable prospect of a vaccine, so the exercise in trying to eliminate the virus has resulted in one of two course of actions:
- Closure of borders for the foreseeable future. Testing isn't a solution because it isn't currently accurate enough to maintain "elimination status" given lead times.
- Acceptance that the virus will remain and trying to ensure that the health system isn't overwhelmed.
I also reject wholesale the notion that a government should keep information from citizens while it restricts liberties that define Western Liberal Democracies. In this matter I'm de Gaulle to your Pétain.
Yes but Murphy made the statement last Friday and was quoted in the Australian as having made it. So there was this mythical analysis for which your only source is an opinion piece and we have a quote of the person who apparently made the analysis seeming to contradict it on the very same day!
So what you're saying is you didn't watch the press conference with Chief Health Officer Brendan Murphy and Prime Minister Scott Morrison last Friday so therefore it didn't happen?
Of course the counterfactual is relevant! Your argument is absurd. You are still assuming that there is no economic damage from coronavirus if we did not adopt any restrictions. Of course a counterfactual uses assumptions. We don't know exactly what the economic impact of cornavirus unchecked in New Zealand would be. That doesn't mean we should assume as you and Peter Creighton have done that the impact is none!
Economics is bloody well full of models of what could happen! Those are counterfactuals! I don't expect you to know that but I do expect Peter Creighton!
You're missing the point - counterfactuals are supposed to show what would otherwise have happened had a different course of action been taken. When the modelling underpinning the alternative is grossly wrong, the assumptions don't hold for the primary. Case in point; Victoria's absurd assertion that 36,000 Victorians would have perished if not for the level three lockdown. Or expressed another way; if that rate was applied to the population of Sweden, 58,000 of them would have died. Currently it's ~2,200.
It doesn't pass the common sense test.
Don't speak too soon. There are some peculiar features with the Swedish statistics. Far too early to make calls like that.
-
@Damo I also think that different societies/cultures behave differently and what works for one won't necessarily work somewhere else.
I reckon adding the long weekend to our lockdown shows our Govt. thinks we need to be hand held through this.
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Damo I also think that different societies/cultures behave differently and what works for one won't necessarily work somewhere else.
I reckon adding the long weekend to our lockdown shows our Govt. thinks we need to be hand held through this.
Agree first paragraph. Some societies don't need strict rules to ensure that the population acts appropriately to look after it's vulnerable people. Other societies need strong government rule, otherwise it's every body for themselves.
I agree with the govt on your second paragraph. We do.
More to the point, I also think a few extra days has allowed businesses to plan for how they will function in level 3. If they announced on Monday that we're into level 3 on Wednesday, some businesses might not have planned properly. My office is a case in point. We are ready to go tomorrow, on Wednesday we wouldn't have been.
What would be worse for the economy is level 3 being a disaster, and having to return to level 4.
-
1 confirmed case, 4 probable (think 3 of these are at St Margarets)
1 more death, women in 90s at St Margarets.
@Damo I'll be staying at home for L3 and likely rostered at L2 as we are meant to be moving office in August and if we all went to work, be no social distancing with our cramped space.
-
@taniwharugby Also reclassified 6 former probable cases as either still under investigation or not a case, so total cases dropped by 1.
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
1 confirmed case, 4 probable (think 3 of these are at St Margarets)
1 more death, women in 90s at St Margarets.
@Damo I'll be staying at home for L3 and likely rostered at L2 as we are meant to be moving office in August and if we all went to work, be no social distancing with our cramped space.
We are having a split roster. My firm is old fashioned in that the lawyers still all have offices so it will work ok so long as not too many in at a time. No face to face clients though.
-
@Damo we went from 8 staff to 18 in NOvember (have had 2 start during lockdown) so knocked down walls, lost offices and jammed us in until the offices we are moving into are finished being built, which I expect will now be push back a month or so too.
first world problems!
-
@Damo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Damo I also think that different societies/cultures behave differently and what works for one won't necessarily work somewhere else.
I reckon adding the long weekend to our lockdown shows our Govt. thinks we need to be hand held through this.
Agree first paragraph. Some societies don't need strict rules to ensure that the population acts appropriately to look after it's vulnerable people. Other societies need strong government rule, otherwise it's every body for themselves.
I agree with the govt on your second paragraph. We do.
More to the point, I also think a few extra days has allowed businesses to plan for how they will function in level 3. If they announced on Monday that we're into level 3 on Wednesday, some businesses might not have planned properly. My office is a case in point. We are ready to go tomorrow, on Wednesday we wouldn't have been.
What would be worse for the economy is level 3 being a disaster, and having to return to level 4.
I really struggle with this attitude, and quite honestly it makes me pretty angry. Who the hell decided we needed hand holding for a long weekend? And what have them the right to make that decision? The government stole 4 trading days from business who were ready to go.
The fact that your business wouldn't have been ready is totally on you, and absolutely not the fault of every other business that was more prepared.
If you're not ready to open, then don't fucking open. We trust people and businesses every day to obey a large list of laws and regulations. Operating under L3 guidelines is just another one, and we shouldn't hold the entire economy hostage because a few businesses can't be trusted.
-
So much knowledge in hindsight being thrown around.
When NZ had to make a decision on strategy a hell of a lot of the outcomes and comparisons weren't available.
Every country has had to make a call based on their own circumstances, so to compare, and especially to declare over-reaction is not only misleading, but unfair.
The comparison with Oz has been very misleading from many quarters. Although the restrictions are less by decree, in practice people are pretty much following what NZ has made official. There are certainly some areas of business that have been able to lessen the immediate economic impact by themselves though.
Along with the Oz approach came increased risk that it may be harder to get to a 'normal' level as quickly as an eradication plan.
If that risk hasn't eventuated then I think that is great. We (at least the NZ cabinet) had to decide whether to take that risk or follow advice that a more certain path was achievable.I think it could be an excellent outcome if NZ 'eradicates' quickly and Australia can declare confidence around community transmission as well. If we can get the border open and work together while waiting on a vax it could be a catalyst for a new round of CER and sorting out the stupidly messy immigration/residency situation that we currently have.
-
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
When NZ had to make a decision on strategy a hell of a lot of the outcomes and comparisons weren't available.
Which is why I've not been critical of the initial decision. But I am very critical of the refusal to come out of lockdown early, and incensed by the decision to extend it, when we absolutely did have data and information from around the world, and from our own observations.
We are so different from Italy, Spain, NYC, in so many important ways as it relates to this thing. We had a great oportunity to manage our response appropriately and proportionately, and we have done significant and material damage to the economy unnecessarily.
-
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Damo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Damo I also think that different societies/cultures behave differently and what works for one won't necessarily work somewhere else.
I reckon adding the long weekend to our lockdown shows our Govt. thinks we need to be hand held through this.
Agree first paragraph. Some societies don't need strict rules to ensure that the population acts appropriately to look after it's vulnerable people. Other societies need strong government rule, otherwise it's every body for themselves.
I agree with the govt on your second paragraph. We do.
More to the point, I also think a few extra days has allowed businesses to plan for how they will function in level 3. If they announced on Monday that we're into level 3 on Wednesday, some businesses might not have planned properly. My office is a case in point. We are ready to go tomorrow, on Wednesday we wouldn't have been.
What would be worse for the economy is level 3 being a disaster, and having to return to level 4.
I really struggle with this attitude, and quite honestly it makes me pretty angry. Who the hell decided we needed hand holding for a long weekend? And what have them the right to make that decision? The government stole 4 trading days from business who were ready to go.
The fact that your business wouldn't have been ready is totally on you, and absolutely not the fault of every other business that was more prepared.
If you're not ready to open, then don't fucking open. We trust people and businesses every day to obey a large list of laws and regulations. Operating under L3 guidelines is just another one, and we shouldn't hold the entire economy hostage because a few businesses can't be trusted.
Well I don't trust businesses who aren't ready to open not to open. It's great that you do, but I don't know what you base that on.
For us it's no big deal, our only public facing aspect at the moment is in court, and only some hearings are done in person most aren't.
What worries me, and no doubt worried the government is the businesses who are public facing and would open without much thought for others.
The other thing that worries me is that you say you are angry about it. Don't get angry about someone else having a different view to you mate. That is just silly.
Seriously, if something someone posts in a very civil political debate makes you angry, perhaps you shouldn't partake in political discussions online. Reasonable people can disagree on this sort of stuff.
-
@Damo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
What worries me, and no doubt worried the government is the businesses who are public facing and would open without much thought for others.
That and people thinking it is a long weekend, let's go away...I think there is some merit in our public needing to be baby stepped through this.
-
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
When NZ had to make a decision on strategy a hell of a lot of the outcomes and comparisons weren't available.
Which is why I've not been critical of the initial decision. But I am very critical of the refusal to come out of lockdown early, and incensed by the decision to extend it, when we absolutely did have data and information from around the world, and from our own observations.
We are so different from Italy, Spain, NYC, in so many important ways as it relates to this thing. We had a great oportunity to manage our response appropriately and proportionately, and we have done significant and material damage to the economy unnecessarily.
To be fair though, the analysis of what has happened in those other countries is only just starting to become clear. Italy, for example, had areas (Lombardy?) that had Covid transmitting freely for weeks before they realised because they were classifying it as something else. Once set in in was much harder to stop.
Now things have calmed down there a bit they have been able to trace back and work this out. A month or so ago it appeared that Covid was very virulent and spread quickly from first identified case.
As for the decision made 1 week ago we still weren't as good on our physical tracing as we needed to be to eliminate the possibility of 'unknown' pockets that could sent us backward quickly and waste the gains made. I do think that we are now in that position.
I do get the caution in moving back toward normal. I think if we had gone to L2 from L4, that sudden explosion of movements would have destroyed tracing capabilities and the risk if cases had started popping up would have been too high. We would have had to go jail and not pass Go (obviously further fucking up economic factors)
However, if the indicators stay as they are I do expect L3 to be kept at a minimum with maybe a staggered move to L2 straight after.Now, if you look back at the length of time and reduction then compare it with countries like the UK I think that retrospectively we will be seen as reducing risk effectively at low damage.
-
@Damo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Damo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Damo I also think that different societies/cultures behave differently and what works for one won't necessarily work somewhere else.
I reckon adding the long weekend to our lockdown shows our Govt. thinks we need to be hand held through this.
Agree first paragraph. Some societies don't need strict rules to ensure that the population acts appropriately to look after it's vulnerable people. Other societies need strong government rule, otherwise it's every body for themselves.
I agree with the govt on your second paragraph. We do.
More to the point, I also think a few extra days has allowed businesses to plan for how they will function in level 3. If they announced on Monday that we're into level 3 on Wednesday, some businesses might not have planned properly. My office is a case in point. We are ready to go tomorrow, on Wednesday we wouldn't have been.
What would be worse for the economy is level 3 being a disaster, and having to return to level 4.
I really struggle with this attitude, and quite honestly it makes me pretty angry. Who the hell decided we needed hand holding for a long weekend? And what have them the right to make that decision? The government stole 4 trading days from business who were ready to go.
The fact that your business wouldn't have been ready is totally on you, and absolutely not the fault of every other business that was more prepared.
If you're not ready to open, then don't fucking open. We trust people and businesses every day to obey a large list of laws and regulations. Operating under L3 guidelines is just another one, and we shouldn't hold the entire economy hostage because a few businesses can't be trusted.
Well I don't trust businesses who aren't ready to open not to open. It's great that you do, but I don't know what you base that on.
For us it's no big deal, our only public facing aspect at the moment is in court, and only some hearings are done in person most aren't.
What worries me, and no doubt worried the government is the businesses who are public facing and would open without much thought for others.
The other thing that worries me is that you say you are angry about it. Don't get angry about someone else having a different view to you mate. That is just silly.
Seriously, if something someone posts in a very civil political debate makes you angry, perhaps you shouldn't partake in political discussions online. Reasonable people can disagree on this sort of stuff.
It was your attitude that made me angry - you're not ready so the whole economy should wait for you. Pretty selfish IMO, and yeah, makes me pretty frustrated.
You may not don't trust others to act within the law, but where do you draw that line? Do you trust them to pay taxes? To follow OH&S guidelines?
The arbitrary extension for the long weekend was nothing to do with giving business more time anyway as they could have announced a week earlier that the original end date was going to be maintained. It was purely a government overreaching and taking away personal liberties for their agenda.
-
Hearing from friends in the UK and Ireland, they are facing long lockdowns right now. My colleague in Ireland said that there is talk that pubs in Ireland won't open until late this year 😱. Not sure how likely that is. Another guy is a dentist outside London. He expects to be off work much longer than us
-
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Hearing from friends in the UK and Ireland, they are facing long lockdowns right now. My colleague in Ireland said that there is talk that pubs in Ireland won't open until late this year 😱. Not sure how likely that is. Another guy is a dentist outside London. He expects to be off work much longer than us
Ireland has been hit pretty hard haven’t they?
-
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Damo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Damo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Damo I also think that different societies/cultures behave differently and what works for one won't necessarily work somewhere else.
I reckon adding the long weekend to our lockdown shows our Govt. thinks we need to be hand held through this.
Agree first paragraph. Some societies don't need strict rules to ensure that the population acts appropriately to look after it's vulnerable people. Other societies need strong government rule, otherwise it's every body for themselves.
I agree with the govt on your second paragraph. We do.
More to the point, I also think a few extra days has allowed businesses to plan for how they will function in level 3. If they announced on Monday that we're into level 3 on Wednesday, some businesses might not have planned properly. My office is a case in point. We are ready to go tomorrow, on Wednesday we wouldn't have been.
What would be worse for the economy is level 3 being a disaster, and having to return to level 4.
I really struggle with this attitude, and quite honestly it makes me pretty angry. Who the hell decided we needed hand holding for a long weekend? And what have them the right to make that decision? The government stole 4 trading days from business who were ready to go.
The fact that your business wouldn't have been ready is totally on you, and absolutely not the fault of every other business that was more prepared.
If you're not ready to open, then don't fucking open. We trust people and businesses every day to obey a large list of laws and regulations. Operating under L3 guidelines is just another one, and we shouldn't hold the entire economy hostage because a few businesses can't be trusted.
Well I don't trust businesses who aren't ready to open not to open. It's great that you do, but I don't know what you base that on.
For us it's no big deal, our only public facing aspect at the moment is in court, and only some hearings are done in person most aren't.
What worries me, and no doubt worried the government is the businesses who are public facing and would open without much thought for others.
The other thing that worries me is that you say you are angry about it. Don't get angry about someone else having a different view to you mate. That is just silly.
Seriously, if something someone posts in a very civil political debate makes you angry, perhaps you shouldn't partake in political discussions online. Reasonable people can disagree on this sort of stuff.
It was your attitude that made me angry - you're not ready so the whole economy should wait for you. Pretty selfish IMO, and yeah, makes me pretty frustrated.
You may not don't trust others to act within the law, but where do you draw that line? Do you trust them to pay taxes? To follow OH&S guidelines?
The arbitrary extension for the long weekend was nothing to do with giving business more time anyway as they could have announced a week earlier that the original end date was going to be maintained. It was purely a government overreaching and taking away personal liberties for their agenda.
Mate you shouldn't ever get angry at someone who posts on a sports forum. I repeat that is extremely unhealthy and you should probably walk away if you are angry. I also think it's borderline to go around calling other people selfish because they have a different perspective to you.
I invite you to edit your post and remove the inappropriate language.
-
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Hearing from friends in the UK and Ireland, they are facing long lockdowns right now. My colleague in Ireland said that there is talk that pubs in Ireland won't open until late this year 😱. Not sure how likely that is. Another guy is a dentist outside London. He expects to be off work much longer than us
Yeah. My son is still in London and doing his best to adjust his work accordingly but the situation there is quite a shambles. The buy-in from the population is nowhere near as complete as some countries and the spread is wide. It is going to take quite some time to find a safe way out.
NB: there is the slim chance that the virus could burn itself out, which for their sake I really hope happens. -
@Damo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
More to the point, I also think a few extra days has allowed businesses to plan for how they will function in level 3. If they announced on Monday that we're into level 3 on Wednesday, some businesses might not have planned properly. My office is a case in point. We are ready to go tomorrow, on Wednesday we wouldn't have been.
Am I right in thinking you work for a law firm? Why weren't you ready to go?
Coronavirus - New Zealand