Coronavirus - Overall
-
@barbarian said in Coronavirus - Overall:
This suggestion to protect the vulnerable is very easy to say, but the specifics are a lot more challenging. In fact, they are impossible. We cannot just live with this virus like this and not expect disasters on a scale that would make our current situation look mild.
Its got to be done. Otherwise the economy will never recover. As every yearly flu or cold (and this is all this virus is) will be used as an excuse to shut the economy down. Until they release a rushed and untested vaccine for it (that the makers will have no liability for if it does proven harm so no incentive to make it safe)
Re disaster .. Its not true as shown with Sweden. The West can either return to how we use to treat a flu before (with addition sensible measures to protect the vulnerable and others like testing (esp care home workers), temperature readings, maybe masks for short periods, stopping people travelling etc who clearly are sick, working at home and so on. Or accept all our rights and freedoms going out the window. And living standards dropping
-
@Kruse said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@barbarian said in Coronavirus - Overall:
This article today summed up my general feelings about the 'open society while protecting the vulnerable' option:
I was thinking about that recently. The whole "let's do Sweden, but protect the elderly/vulnerable" theory... what does that look like? Turn rest-homes into quarantine zones? Force or strongly recommend that all elderly move into rest-homes? And then, as the article focuses on - what to do with the workers in these rest-homes... make their jobs as a mandatory "live-in" role?
It just doesn't work.Why force the elderly to move into rest homes. They can stay at home and have food etc delivered if needed. As friends (who are not old) whose immune system are shot (one has cancer) have done in the UK. And not all older people are weak and sickly. Some still have a robust immune system and are in good health.
We will never achieve a 100% safe world and its folly to try. There needs to be a sensible risk cost assessment.
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Kruse said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@barbarian said in Coronavirus - Overall:
This article today summed up my general feelings about the 'open society while protecting the vulnerable' option:
I was thinking about that recently. The whole "let's do Sweden, but protect the elderly/vulnerable" theory... what does that look like? Turn rest-homes into quarantine zones? Force or strongly recommend that all elderly move into rest-homes? And then, as the article focuses on - what to do with the workers in these rest-homes... make their jobs as a mandatory "live-in" role?
It just doesn't work.Why force the elderly to move into rest homes. They can stay at home and have food etc delivered if needed. As friends (who are not old) whose immune system are shot (one has cancer) have done in the UK. And not all older people are weak and sickly. Some still have a robust immune system and are in good health.
Ah - cool. I get it. So - home detention then.
I see that "all our rights and freedoms" are only valid if one is healthy enough to deserve them. -
@Kruse said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Kruse said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@barbarian said in Coronavirus - Overall:
This article today summed up my general feelings about the 'open society while protecting the vulnerable' option:
I was thinking about that recently. The whole "let's do Sweden, but protect the elderly/vulnerable" theory... what does that look like? Turn rest-homes into quarantine zones? Force or strongly recommend that all elderly move into rest-homes? And then, as the article focuses on - what to do with the workers in these rest-homes... make their jobs as a mandatory "live-in" role?
It just doesn't work.Why force the elderly to move into rest homes. They can stay at home and have food etc delivered if needed. As friends (who are not old) whose immune system are shot (one has cancer) have done in the UK. And not all older people are weak and sickly. Some still have a robust immune system and are in good health.
Ah - cool. I get it. So - home detention then.
I see that "all our rights and freedoms" are only valid if one is healthy enough to deserve them.So what do you suggest. Removing them from everyone and destroying the economy as well.
My view is healthy law abiding citizens should not have their freedoms removed to MAYBE protect others.
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
As every yearly flu or cold (and this is all this virus is)
Why do you keep saying that? It's SARS if anything. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome which isn't yearly.
"Influenza (Flu) and COVID-19 are both contagious respiratory illnesses, but they are caused by different viruses. COVID-19 is caused by infection with a new coronavirus (called SARS-CoV-2) and flu is caused by infection with influenza viruses."
I guess you won't believe it because that is a quote from the CDC, who are a government agency and therefore corrupt and telling lies.
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Kruse said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Kruse said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@barbarian said in Coronavirus - Overall:
This article today summed up my general feelings about the 'open society while protecting the vulnerable' option:
I was thinking about that recently. The whole "let's do Sweden, but protect the elderly/vulnerable" theory... what does that look like? Turn rest-homes into quarantine zones? Force or strongly recommend that all elderly move into rest-homes? And then, as the article focuses on - what to do with the workers in these rest-homes... make their jobs as a mandatory "live-in" role?
It just doesn't work.Why force the elderly to move into rest homes. They can stay at home and have food etc delivered if needed. As friends (who are not old) whose immune system are shot (one has cancer) have done in the UK. And not all older people are weak and sickly. Some still have a robust immune system and are in good health.
Ah - cool. I get it. So - home detention then.
I see that "all our rights and freedoms" are only valid if one is healthy enough to deserve them.So what do you suggest. Removing them from everyone and destroying the economy as well.
My view is healthy law abiding citizens should not have their freedoms removed to MAYBE protect others.
Just like America, they are the best at covid19 management and maintenance of freedom. Oh wait....
Freedom is a fallacy. There are lots of people trying to lockdown in the US, but without a cohesive strategy they are failing miserably. Trump called our latest leak really bad, at less than 10 cases a day its hardly bad. The US got more new cases in the time I took to type this comment
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Kruse said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Kruse said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@barbarian said in Coronavirus - Overall:
This article today summed up my general feelings about the 'open society while protecting the vulnerable' option:
I was thinking about that recently. The whole "let's do Sweden, but protect the elderly/vulnerable" theory... what does that look like? Turn rest-homes into quarantine zones? Force or strongly recommend that all elderly move into rest-homes? And then, as the article focuses on - what to do with the workers in these rest-homes... make their jobs as a mandatory "live-in" role?
It just doesn't work.Why force the elderly to move into rest homes. They can stay at home and have food etc delivered if needed. As friends (who are not old) whose immune system are shot (one has cancer) have done in the UK. And not all older people are weak and sickly. Some still have a robust immune system and are in good health.
Ah - cool. I get it. So - home detention then.
I see that "all our rights and freedoms" are only valid if one is healthy enough to deserve them.So what do you suggest. Removing them from everyone and destroying the economy as well.
My view is healthy law abiding citizens should not have their freedoms removed to MAYBE protect others.
One other point. Young people want to be out and about and experiencing life. And working and making their way in life
Sick and older people not so much. So restricting movement of older or sick people is not such a big deal as it is to a young healthy person.
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Kruse said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Kruse said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@barbarian said in Coronavirus - Overall:
This article today summed up my general feelings about the 'open society while protecting the vulnerable' option:
I was thinking about that recently. The whole "let's do Sweden, but protect the elderly/vulnerable" theory... what does that look like? Turn rest-homes into quarantine zones? Force or strongly recommend that all elderly move into rest-homes? And then, as the article focuses on - what to do with the workers in these rest-homes... make their jobs as a mandatory "live-in" role?
It just doesn't work.Why force the elderly to move into rest homes. They can stay at home and have food etc delivered if needed. As friends (who are not old) whose immune system are shot (one has cancer) have done in the UK. And not all older people are weak and sickly. Some still have a robust immune system and are in good health.
Ah - cool. I get it. So - home detention then.
I see that "all our rights and freedoms" are only valid if one is healthy enough to deserve them.So what do you suggest. Removing them from everyone and destroying the economy as well.
My view is healthy law abiding citizens should not have their freedoms removed to MAYBE protect others.
One other point. Young people want to be out and about and experiencing life. And working and making their way in life
Sick and older people not so much. So restricting movement of older or sick people is not such a big deal as it is to a young healthy person.
I'm happy to consider different points of view. But these blanket statements you make are simply ridiculous
-
I have some sympathy for Wingers position and the "improved Sweden" model. I dont think you need to remove rest home and healthcare workers from society, though we obviously need to beef up testing, PPE, enforcement of stay-home orders for anyone sick.
Mostly I'm just not convinced that permanent elimination-until-there-is-a-vaccine is the way to go.
-
@Duluth said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Just like America, they are the best at covid19 management and maintenance of freedom. Oh wait....
There's been some very strict lockdowns in the US.
Exactly my point. Its not about freedom. Its about staying alive
-
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - Overall:
I have some sympathy for Wingers position and the "improved Sweden" model. I dont think you need to remove rest home and healthcare workers from society, though we obviously need to beef up testing, PPE, enforcement of stay-home orders for anyone sick.
Mostly I'm just not convinced that permanent elimination-until-there-is-a-vaccine is the way to go.
The model is good in theory. But as you say the testing is not accurate, quick or good enough, and the result of getting it wrong is lots of people dying
-
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Mostly I'm just not convinced that permanent elimination-until-there-is-a-vaccine is the way to go.
Neither am I, and have said so from the start. If we continue down that track, then Judith Collins is correct - prove that you don't have it before you get on a plane to NZ. The leaky borders are the issue.
-
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - Overall:
I have some sympathy for Wingers position and the "improved Sweden" model. I dont think you need to remove rest home and healthcare workers from society, though we obviously need to beef up testing, PPE, enforcement of stay-home orders for anyone sick.
Mostly I'm just not convinced that permanent elimination-until-there-is-a-vaccine is the way to go.
I want to know how the improved Sweden model works, because Sweden thought their model would work and then were surprised at the death rate.
And if you look at Victoria now they have healthcare and home care clusters kicking off, the UK saw it spread amongst their healthcare workers too.
How do we keep the elderly, and the immunocompromised safe if we treat it like it's some seasonal cold or flu? As @canefan notes the risk is getting it wrong could result in lots of deaths.
-
Whilst on that and aircrew as it has been raised here before. Air NZ differentiate between international crew and domestic now on all aircraft types. So the internationals are tested on arrival and have 48 hours self lockdown. I guess that is to get the test results. Not perfect but better and they have done that since June.
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
So restricting movement of older or sick people is not such a big deal as it is to a young healthy person
Really? No wonder you think we may as well let them die - in your universe they already don't have a life.
You consistently pander all manner of BS - which TBF you obviously believe - despite countless people posting evidence that you are wrong.
Once again
COVID is not simply a seasonal flu or cold
Not only the young or immuno compromised die from it
Our economy has never shut down - even at Lvl 4 it was functioning at 60%
We do not have to have a lockdown every time there is a case
We do not have to wait for a vaccine
Sweden has not performed any better economically than its neighbours the world economy is too interdependent for that. They found out that if your neighbours shut down you effectively do too.
But Sweden did have more deaths by not shutting down
NZ has had better health outcomes and it appears economically than most other countries but its impossible to draw valid conclusions because almost everywhere has some form of subsidy distorting results. -
@Nepia I dont have all the answers mate. But I do know what this is costing. Both in $ terms and loss of freedoms.
What's our rest home population? How many workers? What if we did have to make them all live in workers, on a 2 week fly in fly put rotation with testing the first week work the next or whatever works. I'd imagine we could pay them 5x what they're currently earning and they'd be pretty happy with the gig.
There just has to be another that isn't close the border, ruin the economy, and hope for the best
-
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Really? No wonder you think we may as well let them die - in your universe they already don't have a life.
You consistently pander all manner of BS - which TBF you obviously believe - despite countless people posting evidence that you are wrong."Let them die". Do you live in a black and white world where you can't see the difference between locking down a young healthy person to MAYBE protect others (and stopping them working to say provide for their family) is not quite the same as locking down an older person to protect the person locked down
And Im older by the way. Being locked down today would not be as tough for me as being locked down when I was in my 20s. As I'm happier to say work in my garden whereas when younger I wanted to be out and about.
-
@voodoo Cheers that you're thinking about some solutions, most of the "Sweden - but without the deaths" camp don't ever tend to offer up any solutions. I don't know what the rest home populations are but both NZ and Oz would have substantial population sizes in those at-risk areas but they're not all in the rest homes. My Mum lives at the bottom of the Gold Coast which is chock a block full with retirees. If Covid got loose in Twin Towns then Robina and Tweed Hospitals would get hammered even with the work they've been doing to increase capacity.
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - Overall:
There just has to be another that isn't close the border, ruin the economy, and hope for the best
I think this a bit overdone, the borders are basically still open for much of the ongoing trade, some areas (especially tourism) are going to take a huge hit (and that sucks), but, any ruining of the economy was basically out of Oz and NZ hands back in March.