Coronavirus - New Zealand
-
@pakman they were banging on about our low testing numbers in past weeks, but if people aren't feeling ill, why are they gonna get tested?
Normal flu numbers are supposedly down too, so again, if people feel fine, why would they get tested?
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
You really gotya wonder where the system has failed for this to happen, because this cant have been undetected in the community for 3 months, there has surely been a failure in the last week or
2.I honestly cannot see NZ abiding by a L4 again, the only positive I can take from the L3 announcement is that it is only for 3 days, which in my mind means they have an idea how this has come in but are waiting on confirmation through contact tracing.
Nah. The tests in isolation are risk mitigation not perfection. You could have a test fault or something showing on day 14 that wasn’t on day 10.
The chances of that are slim but do exist.I am highly fucked off on a personal level as after a year of only having bits and pieces of work since returning from UK I was about to start a good contract this morning. Got a text as I was about to hop on the train saying don’t come in as we are working from home.
fluffybunnies. It’s only level 2 and workplaces are open with advice being go to work! -
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Down the local coffee/crepe caravan in Wanaka this morning, they had to take my name and email again for contact tracing. I thought for a moment about being a Karen but gave myself an uppercut and got on with it
Thank goodness! Don't be that guy.
Hopefully Sussex brightens your day
-
My take is we are at Level 3 for three days because they don't know how it got from the Airport to South Akl. Without knowing that they cannot judge how potentially dangerous this is.
They give themselves three days to try and track down the chain of transmission while making it much harder to spread widely.
My money is on an extension.
Testing will go through the roof just like it did last time there was a scare.
Given the govt is not going to adopt a Swedish approach much as many here would like and given also that there appears to be broad acceptance of their strategy then I don't see what alternatives there are. Do a Melbourne and send confusing mixed messages, try a succession of half assed partial lock downs and end up where we are today anyway but with a lot more cases? That seems madness.
Fuck It!
-
@Virgil said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Here in Auckland are we at level 3 or level 4 because at 3 I could work, the building industry could work. But reading everything sounds like they want us all to stay home unless we are essential workers
Auckland goes to Level 3 at noon, today.
-
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Down the local coffee/crepe caravan in Wanaka this morning, they had to take my name and email again for contact tracing. I thought for a moment about being a Karen but gave myself an uppercut and got on with it
That's level 2.
You appear to be campaigning that NZ go into permanent L2, rather than attempt to eradicate again.
I dont want to live in perma-L2. Not because I'm scared of a virus but because it's a social and economic pain in the ass that sucks the fun and wealth out of life.
-
I'm groaning at myself for even commenting on the mad racist's post. But Eliota should be careful what he wishes for. In USA death rates for Polynesians are 4 x the national average.
in L.A. County, Pacific Islanders suffer the highest infection rate of any racial or ethnic group, more than 2,500 per 100,000 residents. That’s six times higher than for white people, five times higher than for Black people and three times higher than for Latinos, according to county health demographic data that exclude Long Beach and Pasadena, which have their own health departments.
-
@Stargazer said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Virgil said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Here in Auckland are we at level 3 or level 4 because at 3 I could work, the building industry could work. But reading everything sounds like they want us all to stay home unless we are essential workers
Auckland goes to Level 3 at noon, today.
Yes I know that but the language being used feels like it’s more a Level 4. We worked through as we are part of the construction industry last time at L3.
Keep reading essential work only, have rung around our suppliers abs clients and most are confused and unsure what they will be doing once it’s 12pm -
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@pakman they were banging on about our low testing numbers in past weeks, but if people aren't feeling ill, why are they gonna get tested?
Normal flu numbers are supposedly down too, so again, if people feel fine, why would they get tested?
In fact @taniwharugby I wasn't bleating about testing.
Rather, just pointing out that, because most sufferers have little or no symptoms there are in all likelihood quite a few unidentified infectees kicking around. And unless there is social distancing they will inevitably be infecting others. In which case, there'd be what might be a significant number of carriers lurking below the water line. Punchline being that in the absence of mass random testing there's no way of knowing, unless a vulnerable person gets a more serious case and is tested. See the problem?
Elimination could take years on that basis.
You gotta ask yourself, 'Do I feel lucky?'!
-
@pakman Your theory is we must have cases because we haven't found any....
There were 102 days without community transmission. In which time we conducted 350K tests. If the virus was out in the community it had plenty of time to spread widely enough to have been very noticeable. Check the data for any country and see what happens to the case graph in 102 days. You're suggesting it's out there but no one got sick enough to see a Dr?
Sorry but logic says the virus wasn't in the community until very recently. The trick is finding out how it got out, stopping it from spreading and plugging the gap that allowed it across the border.
-
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@pakman Your theory is we must have cases because we haven't found any....
There were 102 days without community transmission. In which time we conducted 350K tests. If the virus was out in the community it had plenty of time to spread widely enough to have been very noticeable. Check the data for any country and see what happens to the case graph in 102 days. You're suggesting it's out there but no one got sick enough to see a Dr?
Sorry but logic says the virus wasn't in the community until very recently. The trick is finding out how it got out, stopping it from spreading and plugging the gap that allowed it across the border.
It’s the converse: just because you haven’t found cases doesn’t mean they’re NOT out there.
If there were, say, 500 cases lurking around undetected, how long do you think it would take to eliminate them?