Coronavirus - New Zealand
-
@booboo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Is it possible that both
- DHBs are getting plenty of supplies
- Frontline staff are not
Can both be true?
asked a friend at a hospital, and it seems they have supply but it is being rationed for the worst cases. So it may be a case of someone thinking they need it but they don’t.
Considering we only have two or three in ICU that might be fair enough.
-
@booboo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Is it possible that both
- DHBs are getting plenty of supplies
- Frontline staff are not
Can both be true?
Possible - given the nature of DHB operations, within DHB dispersions, and varying expectations of clinical staff.
I was surprised at a noticeable difference in resources between three wards of very same hospital last year [/individual anecdote], so...
-
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@No-Quarter said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@No-Quarter said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan Then masks are effective in prevention, right? So why say they are not?
Once they are damp most standard masks cease to be an effective barrier to tiny particles. But they will catch droplets. If you have the virus then it prevents transmission because it catches your droplets when you cough or sneeze. If you don't they will catch droplets if someone happened to sneeze at you. I read an article where in China and Taiwan, for example, they recommend masks because it seemed to seemed to reduce panic in their people. Here they recommend against widespread use unless you are sick. So the reasoning behind wearing them are varied. If you live in a densely populated country, if for example you rode the underground train daily to work, I could fully understand you wearing one. But walking down the street in Auckland? Probably unneccessary
Yeah I don't think you need a mask when going for a walk outside. My understanding is the virus is far far more likely to spread indoors, for obvious reasons I'd say. That's why I wear a mask to the supermarket - put it on when I go in and bin it when I leave. If everyone did that then the virus would struggle to spread very far.
Used the supplied sanitizer and washed their hands when they got home before anything else
Absolutely, but none of that will help if you've been in close contact with someone that has the virus, which is hard to avoid in supermarkets.
And that's what annoys me - we've shut down our entire economy for this, so by that measure its extremely serious. But when it comes to masks, which are proven to stop the spread from infectious people, we're actively going the other way and telling people not to bother. So is it serious or not? If it is then we wear masks, if it's not then we don't bother.
There are a lot of people with Covid-19 that don't know they have it. Symptoms vary from asymptomatic, to very mild, to moderate right through to severe, so this is the perfect virus to encourage the use of masks when indoors.
I went to the supermarket today. Everyone was observing distance. By close contact, you can't get it unless they transfer fluids or touch you and you lick the surface. I always go home and have a shower after
They have said the virus can live on hard surfaces for a few hours, especially metal or plastic. So you could get it from a surface contact if you touch your face.
-
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@No-Quarter said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@No-Quarter said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan Then masks are effective in prevention, right? So why say they are not?
Once they are damp most standard masks cease to be an effective barrier to tiny particles. But they will catch droplets. If you have the virus then it prevents transmission because it catches your droplets when you cough or sneeze. If you don't they will catch droplets if someone happened to sneeze at you. I read an article where in China and Taiwan, for example, they recommend masks because it seemed to seemed to reduce panic in their people. Here they recommend against widespread use unless you are sick. So the reasoning behind wearing them are varied. If you live in a densely populated country, if for example you rode the underground train daily to work, I could fully understand you wearing one. But walking down the street in Auckland? Probably unneccessary
Yeah I don't think you need a mask when going for a walk outside. My understanding is the virus is far far more likely to spread indoors, for obvious reasons I'd say. That's why I wear a mask to the supermarket - put it on when I go in and bin it when I leave. If everyone did that then the virus would struggle to spread very far.
Used the supplied sanitizer and washed their hands when they got home before anything else
Absolutely, but none of that will help if you've been in close contact with someone that has the virus, which is hard to avoid in supermarkets.
And that's what annoys me - we've shut down our entire economy for this, so by that measure its extremely serious. But when it comes to masks, which are proven to stop the spread from infectious people, we're actively going the other way and telling people not to bother. So is it serious or not? If it is then we wear masks, if it's not then we don't bother.
There are a lot of people with Covid-19 that don't know they have it. Symptoms vary from asymptomatic, to very mild, to moderate right through to severe, so this is the perfect virus to encourage the use of masks when indoors.
I went to the supermarket today. Everyone was observing distance. By close contact, you can't get it unless they transfer fluids or touch you and you lick the surface. I always go home and have a shower after
They have said the virus can live on hard surfaces for a few hours, especially metal or plastic. So you could get it from a surface contact if you touch your face.
Yeah. I assumed most people weren't pressing their faces up against surfaces. They could touch surfaces and inadvertently put their hands on their face or mouth quite easily though, or do the same with packaging bought from a store. When I am there I find myself rubbing my face on the shoulder of my shirt instead. But it is notable how much I used to touch my face after contact, when I didn't think it mattered. I would imagine that is how many of us get our colds and flus
There was another article I read that quoted Siouxsie Wiles, which I couldn't find, this one gives similar information
It is possible but the chances are low. She said washing all groceries when you get them home was not required.
However depending on your risk profile she said it wouldn't hurt to wipe or wash everything down -
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@booboo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Is it possible that both
- DHBs are getting plenty of supplies
- Frontline staff are not
Can both be true?
asked a friend at a hospital, and it seems they have supply but it is being rationed for the worst cases. So it may be a case of someone thinking they need it but they don’t.
Considering we only have two or three in ICU that might be fair enough.
Fair enough. I can't speak for surgeons specifically, but we cannot practice as we have done in the past without a negative pressure surgery and probably a positive pressure head gear. At this time, as directed by the Ministry of Health we are not allowed to undergo procedures that generate aerosols, which for dentists is almost everything.
Surgery creates lots of aerosols, intubation creates lots of aerosols. If we need these things to work, their risks are similar or greater to ours, then I could see how clinical staff would be very worried about exposure to potential covid cases at more powerful doses than the general public, if they don't have such gear
-
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan yep. My wife’s work has bought them all that gear for that reason.
I guess there is a difference though to a hospital that has to plan for thousands of potential cases.
Yup, choices need to be made. But it doesn't help the grunts on the line. That is the thinking behind the lockdown, spare our resources as much as possible. That should include the men and women who will treat the infected patients.
The general consensus among my colleagues (some of them sit on boards and stuff so are privy to more than a humble practitioner like me) is that going forward many of the precautions they are putting in place now will become industry standard. Also how we deal with aerosols will impact on practice turnaround times. All of this is bound to impact on us and the costs to patients, but it is difficult to see the future exactly right now
-
@No-Quarter said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@No-Quarter said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan Then masks are effective in prevention, right? So why say they are not?
Once they are damp most standard masks cease to be an effective barrier to tiny particles. But they will catch droplets. If you have the virus then it prevents transmission because it catches your droplets when you cough or sneeze. If you don't they will catch droplets if someone happened to sneeze at you. I read an article where in China and Taiwan, for example, they recommend masks because it seemed to seemed to reduce panic in their people. Here they recommend against widespread use unless you are sick. So the reasoning behind wearing them are varied. If you live in a densely populated country, if for example you rode the underground train daily to work, I could fully understand you wearing one. But walking down the street in Auckland? Probably unneccessary
Yeah I don't think you need a mask when going for a walk outside. My understanding is the virus is far far more likely to spread indoors, for obvious reasons I'd say. That's why I wear a mask to the supermarket - put it on when I go in and bin it when I leave. If everyone did that then the virus would struggle to spread very far.
Used the supplied sanitizer and washed their hands when they got home before anything else
Absolutely, but none of that will help if you've been in close contact with someone that has the virus, which is hard to avoid in supermarkets.
And that's what annoys me - we've shut down our entire economy for this, so by that measure its extremely serious. But when it comes to masks, which are proven to stop the spread from infectious people, we're actively going the other way and telling people not to bother. So is it serious or not? If it is then we wear masks, if it's not then we don't bother.
There are a lot of people with Covid-19 that don't know they have it. Symptoms vary from asymptomatic, to very mild, to moderate right through to severe, so this is the perfect virus to encourage the use of masks when indoors.
-
@Donsteppa said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@booboo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Is it possible that both
- DHBs are getting plenty of supplies
- Frontline staff are not
Can both be true?
Possible - given the nature of DHB operations, within DHB dispersions, and varying expectations of clinical staff.
I was surprised at a noticeable difference in resources between three wards of very same hospital last year [/individual anecdote], so...
Talking to my friend you and Booboo are on the right track. As a clinician his take is that management stand between the healthcare staff and the logistics staff. Management are saying hold off, dont use, and wont necessarily be telling the logistics teams what they want and need. Just his opinion, held by a few other doctors and hospital dentists I know
-
Not sure if this was posted earlier in the thread. A Google report on the changes in people’s movement:
NZ PDF (from March 29)
Other Countries
-
I am incredulous that the govt still increased minimum wage at the same time as unemployment is going to sky rocket.
-
89 new cases, 49 confirmed, 40 probable: 1,039 in total
156 recovered
15 in hospital, 3 in ICU, 2 are critical (which I assume happened overnight as I thoght the single one yesterday was stable)
12 clusters (10+ to become a cluster)Apparently modelling had us at over 4,000 cases by now if we didnt go into lockdown when we did...
-
@taniwharugby there seems to a lag in reporting
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
I am incredulous that the govt still increased minimum wage at the same time as unemployment is going to sky rocket.
Not surprised at all.
NZ measures both production and demand GDP, but demand GDP is the one used as the headline rate to define the size and performance of the economy. If there are large permanent wage cuts/reductions as a result of Covid-19, the economy as measured by GDP will crater for a lot longer than if we come out of lockdown and wages return to their old levels quickly.
A common concern has been how to avoid Covid-19 impacting the economy any more than necessary, and a key part of that is to keep demand afloat for when the lockdown ends, companies go back to work, and supply has demand to sell to.
We will also probably have to rely on Keynesian measures beyond just wage subsidies and higher benefits. Government is currently working on infrastructure programmes to roll out ASAP, and the provincial growth fund has been diverted into similar programmes.
-
Your theory holds up.... possibly.. in an environment with low unemployment, wages wont return to previous levels, because they cannot if you expect businesses to survive.
Companies will not commit to new hires if they have wage inflation, which is exactly what raising the min wage in a high unemployment era does. The last thing you want in a deep recession is wage inflation!. Normally that would never happen as basic market forces would work against it, but when you have govt intervention that changes everything.
It is just reckless ideology form the govt to have continued with the min wage increase. Demand wont come back because you increase min wage, as it suppresses one side of the equation. The equation being more people spending more..... you are going to instead have a lot less spending a small amount more (and even that is debatable).There are going to be massive cuts to how much money those on min wage earn as a group, lets make up some numbers, a) 1 million people earning $19 per hour for a 40 hour week, compared to
b)1.4 ,million people making $18 per hour for 40 hour week,a)$760,000,000
b)$1,080,000,000Which amount will be able to spend more? It aint the group making $19
And I am facing this on a very real level, I am about to lay off a couple of guys, if I am being honest 1 of them is directly related to keeping wage costs down that were just inflated by the govt. I know this guy will be straight on the dole, and likely will be for quite some time, he is a direct casualty of the govt ideology over pragmatism. The other guy is more a victim of the wuflu making his job not required.
The min wage hike just helps a select group who will keep their min wage jobs, it doesn't help skilled workers who deserve a % higher than min wage, it doesnt help the unlucky min wage workers who get layed off, and it doesn't help those desperately looking for a job.The NZ economy is rooted, and a lot of that will because the people in charge currently have no clue how business operates, and no true empathy for the poor.
if they actually cared at all beyond ideology they would have just changed working for families around, I wouldnt have liked that either, but it would have given the working poor a boost, increased incomes and not savaged business that is already in for a terrible time.The Labour govt is going to crate a massive underclass of non working.