Coronavirus - New Zealand
-
@Stargazer said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Have you guys considered the possibility that the fact that you don't understand why the MoH has advised an extension of 4 days, may have more to do with poor reporting by the media and not so much with there not being good reasons? Or with the fact that only the main point of the MoH advice is communicated but not the details underlying it?
If they need a few more days of contact tracing to get a reasonable level of certainty that they've found all the contacts related to this cluster that they need to find and that no infections related to this cluster will pop up at unexpected places, then there's likely an operational need for that. What's so hard to understand about that?
Perfectly fine for you to believe it. But I've seen this show before. The cluster has been contained, and numbers have been low for ages. I'm all for safety where this virus is concerned, and my previous posts reflect that. But this is a decision made disregarding the needs of businesses in Auckland who are suffering, and the people that they serve who are suffering as a result. Maybe it's only 4 days. It could have been zero days if everyone was doing their jobs right
-
@Stargazer said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Have you guys considered the possibility that the fact that you don't understand why the MoH has advised an extension of 4 days, may have more to do with poor reporting by the media and not so much with there not being good reasons? Or with the fact that only the main point of the MoH advice is communicated but not the details underlying it?
If they need a few more days of contact tracing to get a reasonable level of certainty that they've found all the contacts related to this cluster that they need to find and that no infections related to this cluster will pop up at unexpected places, then there's likely an operational need for that. What's so hard to understand about that?
If all that is actually the case, is it going to be necessary to do the same thing next time there is a case? 2+ more weeks of L3 for the affected region and L2 for all unaffected regions? If not, why not, what's different?
-
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Stargazer said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Have you guys considered the possibility that the fact that you don't understand why the MoH has advised an extension of 4 days, may have more to do with poor reporting by the media and not so much with there not being good reasons? Or with the fact that only the main point of the MoH advice is communicated but not the details underlying it?
If they need a few more days of contact tracing to get a reasonable level of certainty that they've found all the contacts related to this cluster that they need to find and that no infections related to this cluster will pop up at unexpected places, then there's likely an operational need for that. What's so hard to understand about that?
If all that is actually the case, is it going to be necessary to do the same thing next time there is a case? 2+ more weeks of L3 for the affected region and L2 for all unaffected regions? If not, why not, what's different?
They've already said they will be able to contain future leaks in L2. None of the spin makes sense
-
@sparky said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
The restrictions in NZ are disproportionate. The government needs to let most people get on with their lives.
We aren't talking about a UK European or USA situation are we. Less than a dozen cases per day and dropping, 2 or 3 in the ICU. Lets go back to work
-
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Stargazer said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Have you guys considered the possibility that the fact that you don't understand why the MoH has advised an extension of 4 days, may have more to do with poor reporting by the media and not so much with there not being good reasons? Or with the fact that only the main point of the MoH advice is communicated but not the details underlying it?
If they need a few more days of contact tracing to get a reasonable level of certainty that they've found all the contacts related to this cluster that they need to find and that no infections related to this cluster will pop up at unexpected places, then there's likely an operational need for that. What's so hard to understand about that?
If all that is actually the case, is it going to be necessary to do the same thing next time there is a case? 2+ more weeks of L3 for the affected region and L2 for all unaffected regions? If not, why not, what's different?
They've already said they will be able to contain future leaks in L2. None of the spin makes sense
That's cause we're never going back to L1. Duh!
We can't risk them making themselves look even more incompetent by having another case get through one of the many holes at the border and spreading like this. At least, not before the election...
-
I can kinda understand keeping Northland and Waikato at the same level as Auckland (although I think they could have dropped both a level and kept the borders tight) but the SI shouldnt be L2...
GIven next week, when Auckland drops to 2, the rest of NZ stay at 2 as well...
-
The reasons made sense, and I live in Christchurch. Basically, you can't have Auckland at level 2 and everywhere else at level 1 at the same time because level 2 means no travel restrictions, which means Aucklanders travelling to mass gatherings.
-
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
The reasons made sense, and I live in Christchurch. Basically, you can't have Auckland at level 2 and everywhere else at level 1 at the same time because level 2 means no travel restrictions, which means Aucklanders travelling to mass gatherings.
It only makes sense within the limits of the poor design of the Alert Level system. It makes no sense in terms of the risk level outside of Auckland though.
They could have done the more logical thing and change the system so you can't travel to areas at a different level. Places with no cases and virtually no chance of getting them being kept at a higher level due to one region is just dumb.
I guess it shows how little they knew about how quarantines are supposed to work if they didn't realise this when they were making it.
-
@Anonymous said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
The reasons made sense, and I live in Christchurch. Basically, you can't have Auckland at level 2 and everywhere else at level 1 at the same time because level 2 means no travel restrictions, which means Aucklanders travelling to mass gatherings.
It only makes sense within the limits of the poor design of the Alert Level system. It makes no sense in terms of the risk level outside of Auckland though.
They could have done the more logical thing and change the system so you can't travel to areas at a different level. Places with no cases and virtually no chance of getting them being kept at a higher level due to one region is just dumb.
I guess it shows how little they knew about how quarantines are supposed to work if they didn't realise this when they were making it.
That mass gatherings are so important to the fabric of life in NZ that if there are regions at different levels we should set up roadblocks between them to ensure no dodgy travel? Like commuting for work in non-essential industries or inter-regional travel for a holiday or wedding?
-
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12359193
David Seymour comes up with some funny lines sometimes
-
It looks like that the most current info for NZ says 22 deaths.
According to a report on the news last night, in the UK 12 people extra are dying per day due to increased alcohol consumption brought on by the Covid 'Stay At Home' message.
-
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
It looks like that the most current info for NZ says 22 deaths.
According to a report on the news last night, in the UK 12 people extra are dying per day due to increased alcohol consumption brought on by the Covid 'Stay At Home' message.
I wondered what I was getting up to in my drunken weekends. Sorry 12x12 people.
-
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Stargazer said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Have you guys considered the possibility that the fact that you don't understand why the MoH has advised an extension of 4 days, may have more to do with poor reporting by the media and not so much with there not being good reasons? Or with the fact that only the main point of the MoH advice is communicated but not the details underlying it?
If they need a few more days of contact tracing to get a reasonable level of certainty that they've found all the contacts related to this cluster that they need to find and that no infections related to this cluster will pop up at unexpected places, then there's likely an operational need for that. What's so hard to understand about that?
If all that is actually the case, is it going to be necessary to do the same thing next time there is a case? 2+ more weeks of L3 for the affected region and L2 for all unaffected regions? If not, why not, what's different?
This post press con commentary sounds a bit like someone trying to rationalise the rules of Dungeons and Dragons!
-
@Godder Cindy was interviewed on RNZ this morning and said exactly this. They cannot stop every Aucklander at the border departure lounge and ask them where they are going and what they are doing.
Cindy was asked the question so many Ferners want asked
What's the strategy for the next two years? [Given that's how long WHO think it will take to control C19]
Will we keep on dropping up and down alert levels every time we get a new case?Warning those of a delicate persuasion might want to cease reading now to avoid a total melt down
The strategy remains the same as always - STAMP IT OUT
Eliminate doesn't mean no cases but preventing it building and making sure any new cluster dies out. This has been successfully done twice now and we are(paraphrasing) the bestest ever - envy of the world - fucking A
It doesn't mean we go into lockdown for every case. The Rydges Hotel maintenance worker case - if it had occurred on its own. We could have stayed at L1 because we were able to trace it link it genomically and be confident it was an isolated one offSo yes if we get more holes at the order and a repeat of this Akl cluster the strategy is we will go in and out of lockdown for the next two years... Of course that is incredibly unlikely because we are so fantastic and constantly improving and
-
@dogmeat beats saying "we've given up and will be letting it in". Something positive is that the contact tracing and testing rates were actually pretty good once a case was found. Knowing that the system is capable of it now should make it easier to avoid levelling up in future. False negatives still mean occasional cases will get through the border though.
-
Government policy informed by best minds: In and out of lockdown until there's a vaccine.
-
@antipodean TBF, I think that has seemed thier strategy all along, what people would like is what the long term strategy looks like if thier isnt one, which is a possibility.
I mean there is supposedly a dude in HK who has contracted it again now, so does thatmean herd immunity isnt a thing, although they did say it was a different strain...surely, the virus needs to adapt itself to be less agressive, given if it kills its host it dies too?
-
@taniwharugby In the old days I suppose the flu virus came along and after a few go rounds people developed a degree of immunity that allowed them to survive the infection. These days we get the flu and for most of us its no big deal. Of course that was after 5% of the population died....
-
When I watched the Covid 1pm updated the other day it seemed just as the media were asking some good questions and the PM and AB were under pressure, some journalist would change the subject and let them off. It's been frustrating as I feel we would be in a better position today if these daily updates were used to probe for weakness in our Covid response (and some have been), rather than daily updates of figures and a few pats on the back.