Coronavirus - New Zealand
-
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@pakman No the converse is not true. It would be over a shorter time frame but all expert opinion agrees there was no community transmission in NZ because if there was, the way the virus progresses, it would have had to have been detected..
Which is a good lesson about experts. The asymptomatic transmission of CV makes measurement of its extent a calculated guess. And as @Godder helpfully posted, a very few cases can escalate extremely rapidly.
Post mortems done In 2020 on a few patients, which died of a mystery condition in France in December 2019, are reported as testing positive for CV. It appears it was already lurking there.
It is entirely possible for it to be circulating in the community at very low levels without being detected.
Which is why the objective of elimination is hugely harder than on the surface it might appear.
Meanwhile in UK fewer people dying in summer of CV than flu.
For me jury is very much out on merits on NZ approach.
-
@pakman said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Post mortems done In 2020 on a few patients, which died of a mystery condition in France in December 2019, are reported as testing positive for CV. It appears it was already lurking there.
I'm not sure, but I think there may have been questions over the qPCR curves from those tests. Looked like the curve grew late in the cycles, which may indicate a false positive. Would need to check.
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
I'm not keen to follow the Sweden path,
Why not?
Or Swedish plus protect the vulnerable (as Sweden didn't do).
This virus seems no worse than many year flu's so its the normal logical path.
But protect the vulnerable and stop people going out of they are sick (that wasn't done in the past) and maybe temperature readings and masks for those who want extra protection.We are following a path for a deadly black plague type illness and its really not needed
-
@No-Quarter said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Why wouldn't you be complacent when the government slaps itself on the back for eliminating the virus?
They also can't seriously expect people to lock themselves at home every time they get mild symptoms of a cold. There would be noone at work at all over winter if that was the case.
As I said earlier, it was inevitable the virus would come back, especially if it is as contagious as they claim. We can't stop the country every time it spreads. It's here to stay at a global level so we just need to learn how to live with it like we do all other versions of the Flu (some of which are extremely nasty).
It just seems like nothing has changed since the last lockdown. No plans on how to deal with the next inevitable outbreak other than "let's rocket from level 1 to level 3 again!". That's not a solution. There's no end game other than some vague hope of a vaccine that is unlikely to be ready short-term if at all.
But Russia has a vaccine...
-
-
I am 100% for a sweedish approach mark II as stated above. spend a billion protecting hyper vulnerable ie rest homes/workers etc encourage basic sanitary procedures and bobs your uncle.
-
4 more probable cases, including a student at Mt Albert Grammar School:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12356119
-
@muddyriver said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:trans
I am 100% for a sweedish approach mark II as stated above. spend a billion protecting hyper vulnerable ie rest homes/workers etc encourage basic sanitary procedures and bobs your uncle.
Bob can also be your Aunt. Don’t be a transphobe.
-
@muddyriver Define vulnerable. Given there are still cases where young people without co-morbidities die. What mortality rate is acceptable?
I suspect playing God with decisions like these is a lot more difficult for politicians than making them from the comfort of a keyboard (not having a go at you BTW).
Evidence to date is that any solution that relies on everyone doing the right thing for the common good is doomed to fail.
Out walking last night almost everyone had slipped straight back into social distancing but with more masks worn but to counter that you have the selfish pricks who fled Auckland ahead of the lockdown because of; ya know the inconvenience of it all.
-
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@muddyriver Define vulnerable. Given there are still cases where young people without co-morbidities die. What mortality rate is acceptable?
I suspect playing God with decisions like these is a lot more difficult for politicians than making them from the comfort of a keyboard (not having a go at you BTW).
Evidence to date is that any solution that relies on everyone doing the right thing for the common good is doomed to fail.
Out walking last night almost everyone had slipped straight back into social distancing but with more masks worn but to counter that you have the selfish pricks who fled Auckland ahead of the lockdown because of; ya know the inconvenience of it all.
I hear this.
When you are deciding an acceptable mortality rate, please include a close family member(Wife/Husband or kid) as a death as one of these and still see if that mortality rate is acceptable.
-
@Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@muddyriver Define vulnerable. Given there are still cases where young people without co-morbidities die. What mortality rate is acceptable?
I suspect playing God with decisions like these is a lot more difficult for politicians than making them from the comfort of a keyboard (not having a go at you BTW).
Evidence to date is that any solution that relies on everyone doing the right thing for the common good is doomed to fail.
Out walking last night almost everyone had slipped straight back into social distancing but with more masks worn but to counter that you have the selfish pricks who fled Auckland ahead of the lockdown because of; ya know the inconvenience of it all.
I hear this.
When you are deciding an acceptable mortality rate, please include a close family member(Wife/Husband or kid) as a death as one of these and still see if that mortality rate is acceptable.
Yup. Once you do that the issue becomes a little more personal
-
@Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@muddyriver Define vulnerable. Given there are still cases where young people without co-morbidities die. What mortality rate is acceptable?
I suspect playing God with decisions like these is a lot more difficult for politicians than making them from the comfort of a keyboard (not having a go at you BTW).
Evidence to date is that any solution that relies on everyone doing the right thing for the common good is doomed to fail.
Out walking last night almost everyone had slipped straight back into social distancing but with more masks worn but to counter that you have the selfish pricks who fled Auckland ahead of the lockdown because of; ya know the inconvenience of it all.
I hear this.
When you are deciding an acceptable mortality rate, please include a close family member(Wife/Husband or kid) as a death as one of these and still see if that mortality rate is acceptable.
So why not reduce the speed limit to 40 MPH. After all this would save lives. Or ban rugby as this will protect people from injury some serious that will affect a person for life. Or close down all unhealthy food outlets. Let the nanny state go wild. The other option is education or advise and accepting variations in life where our rights and freedoms are maintained. We are all different and especially the young don't want to be treated like children who can't enjoy life.
My view is giving up our right and freedoms to MAYBE buy a little safety is a recipe for disaster. It just won't end. Already the economy has been ruined. And lives with it. I'm older now. Its up to me to protect myself. Not ruin healthy law abiding citizens lives to maybe protect me. I can stay inside and wear a mask and self isolate if I wish
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@muddyriver Define vulnerable. Given there are still cases where young people without co-morbidities die. What mortality rate is acceptable?
I suspect playing God with decisions like these is a lot more difficult for politicians than making them from the comfort of a keyboard (not having a go at you BTW).
Evidence to date is that any solution that relies on everyone doing the right thing for the common good is doomed to fail.
Out walking last night almost everyone had slipped straight back into social distancing but with more masks worn but to counter that you have the selfish pricks who fled Auckland ahead of the lockdown because of; ya know the inconvenience of it all.
I hear this.
When you are deciding an acceptable mortality rate, please include a close family member(Wife/Husband or kid) as a death as one of these and still see if that mortality rate is acceptable.
So why not reduce the speed limit to 40 MPH. After all this would save lives. Or ban rugby as this will protect people from injury some serious that will affect a person for life. Or close down all unhealthy food outlets. Let the nanny state go wild. The other option is education or advise and accepting variations in life where our rights and freedoms are maintained. We are all different and especially the young don't want to be treated like children who can't enjoy life.
My view is giving up our right and freedoms to buy a little safety is a recipe for disaster. It just won't end. Already the economy has been ruined. And lives with it. I'm older now. Its up to me to protect myself. Not ruin healthy law abiding citizens lives to MAYBE protect me. I can stay inside and wear a mask and self isolate if I wish
Somewhere along the line the concept of community skipped past......
People that argue vociferously for individualism seem quite happy to pick and choose when to apply it. One could almost say it was selfish.
The understanding of 'rights and freedoms' is also still at that teenage stage.
-
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@muddyriver Define vulnerable. Given there are still cases where young people without co-morbidities die. What mortality rate is acceptable?
I suspect playing God with decisions like these is a lot more difficult for politicians than making them from the comfort of a keyboard (not having a go at you BTW).
Evidence to date is that any solution that relies on everyone doing the right thing for the common good is doomed to fail.
Out walking last night almost everyone had slipped straight back into social distancing but with more masks worn but to counter that you have the selfish pricks who fled Auckland ahead of the lockdown because of; ya know the inconvenience of it all.
I hear this.
When you are deciding an acceptable mortality rate, please include a close family member(Wife/Husband or kid) as a death as one of these and still see if that mortality rate is acceptable.
So why not reduce the speed limit to 40 MPH. After all this would save lives. Or ban rugby as this will protect people from injury some serious that will affect a person for life. Or close down all unhealthy food outlets. Let the nanny state go wild. The other option is education or advise and accepting variations in life where our rights and freedoms are maintained. We are all different and especially the young don't want to be treated like children who can't enjoy life.
My view is giving up our right and freedoms to buy a little safety is a recipe for disaster. It just won't end. Already the economy has been ruined. And lives with it. I'm older now. Its up to me to protect myself. Not ruin healthy law abiding citizens lives to MAYBE protect me. I can stay inside and wear a mask and self isolate if I wish
Somewhere along the line the concept of community skipped past......
People that argue vociferously for individualism seem quite happy to pick and choose when to apply it. One could almost say it was selfish.
The understanding of 'rights and freedoms' is also still at that teenage stage.
We will never agree on this. You believe in the nanny state option. Where leaders and their wise advisers will lead us to the promised land as long as we strictly follow their advise. And those that don't will be punished. It hasn't worked in the past and it likely never will. And its not a world I want to live in. One example. I was looking forward to the Blues Crusaders game and I don't like that we need permission from a Govt to play the game. Because a small number of people have the yearly flu. Once again. It would be different if this was a black death or Spanish flu type virus.
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@muddyriver Define vulnerable. Given there are still cases where young people without co-morbidities die. What mortality rate is acceptable?
I suspect playing God with decisions like these is a lot more difficult for politicians than making them from the comfort of a keyboard (not having a go at you BTW).
Evidence to date is that any solution that relies on everyone doing the right thing for the common good is doomed to fail.
Out walking last night almost everyone had slipped straight back into social distancing but with more masks worn but to counter that you have the selfish pricks who fled Auckland ahead of the lockdown because of; ya know the inconvenience of it all.
I hear this.
When you are deciding an acceptable mortality rate, please include a close family member(Wife/Husband or kid) as a death as one of these and still see if that mortality rate is acceptable.
So why not reduce the speed limit to 40 MPH. After all this would save lives. Or ban rugby as this will protect people from injury some serious that will affect a person for life. Or close down all unhealthy food outlets. Let the nanny state go wild. The other option is education or advise and accepting variations in life where our rights and freedoms are maintained. We are all different and especially the young don't want to be treated like children who can't enjoy life.
My view is giving up our right and freedoms to buy a little safety is a recipe for disaster. It just won't end. Already the economy has been ruined. And lives with it. I'm older now. Its up to me to protect myself. Not ruin healthy law abiding citizens lives to MAYBE protect me. I can stay inside and wear a mask and self isolate if I wish
Somewhere along the line the concept of community skipped past......
People that argue vociferously for individualism seem quite happy to pick and choose when to apply it. One could almost say it was selfish.
The understanding of 'rights and freedoms' is also still at that teenage stage.
We will never agree on this.
Finally we agree on something
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@muddyriver Define vulnerable. Given there are still cases where young people without co-morbidities die. What mortality rate is acceptable?
I suspect playing God with decisions like these is a lot more difficult for politicians than making them from the comfort of a keyboard (not having a go at you BTW).
Evidence to date is that any solution that relies on everyone doing the right thing for the common good is doomed to fail.
Out walking last night almost everyone had slipped straight back into social distancing but with more masks worn but to counter that you have the selfish pricks who fled Auckland ahead of the lockdown because of; ya know the inconvenience of it all.
I hear this.
When you are deciding an acceptable mortality rate, please include a close family member(Wife/Husband or kid) as a death as one of these and still see if that mortality rate is acceptable.
So why not reduce the speed limit to 40 MPH. After all this would save lives. Or ban rugby as this will protect people from injury some serious that will affect a person for life. Or close down all unhealthy food outlets. Let the nanny state go wild. The other option is education or advise and accepting variations in life where our rights and freedoms are maintained. We are all different and especially the young don't want to be treated like children who can't enjoy life.
My view is giving up our right and freedoms to buy a little safety is a recipe for disaster. It just won't end. Already the economy has been ruined. And lives with it. I'm older now. Its up to me to protect myself. Not ruin healthy law abiding citizens lives to MAYBE protect me. I can stay inside and wear a mask and self isolate if I wish
Somewhere along the line the concept of community skipped past......
People that argue vociferously for individualism seem quite happy to pick and choose when to apply it. One could almost say it was selfish.
The understanding of 'rights and freedoms' is also still at that teenage stage.
We will never agree on this. You believe in the nanny state option. Where leaders and their wise advisers will lead us to the promised land as long as we strictly follow their advise. And those that don't will be punished. It hasn't worked in the past and it likely never will. And its not a world I want to live in. One example. I was looking forward to the Blues Crusaders game and I don't like that we need permission from a Govt to play the game. Because a small number of people have the yearly flu. Once again. It would be different if this was a black death or Spanish flu type virus.
Please stop saying this virus is "the yearly flu". If only because it is not influenza.
Or, because even by the most pessimistic accounts of "flu-related deaths" - this virus is killing ~40x more people per day than "the yearly flu" does on average.
I'm not going to debate the rest of it. As @canefan says - when everybody's starting off with a different definition of "rights/freedoms", and even "basic physics"... not much point. -
@Winger Once and for all - we don't have the yearly flu. Repeatedly saying it doesn't make it so.
According to CCDC just under 35K people died p.a. from seasonal flu from 2010/11 - 2016/17 (the last year with final estimates). The worst year in the period was 51K.
As of yesterday 168K have died from CV-19 in the USA and they haven't even started normal flu season.
So the death toll is 300% of the worst year in the seven highlighted. And it is not abating and they haven't gone into winter yet.
there is nothing ordinary about any of this hence the need for extraordinary measures