Coronavirus - Overall
-
@taniwharugby Using antibody tests they estimated that, in a heavily affected part of Germany, 14% of the population had been infected and developed antibodies against covid19.
-
@Duluth said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Worth checking in on Sweden. Yes, the numbers are larger than their Scandinavian neighbours.
Actually the cases per million is not that different (so far)
Norway - 1,211 (cases per million)
Denmark - 1,091
Sweden - 1,084But you are a lot more likely to die in Sweden for some reason
Sweden - 91 (deaths per million)
Denmark - 49
Norway - 25 -
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Tim translated?
@Tim what he said
Edit: damn boobooed myself. Didn't see Tim's reply
-
@Duluth said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Duluth said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Worth checking in on Sweden. Yes, the numbers are larger than their Scandinavian neighbours.
Actually the cases per million is not that different (so far)
Norway - 1,211 (cases per million)
Denmark - 1,091
Sweden - 1,084But you are a lot more likely to die in Sweden for some reason
Sweden - 91 (deaths per million)
Denmark - 49
Norway - 25Good graphs. Sweden has twice population of Norway and of Denmark. Norway closed borders early and followed NZ like strategy. But can't reopen borders as no herd immunity.
Sweden looks to me to be past peak. And has kept schools, pubs and restaurants open (table service only) so is shooting for herd immunity.
IMO Sweden will come out of this better.
-
Well, there's definitely a growing movement / school of thought around Labour having gone too hard, too soon. The 'Jacinda is a bleeding heart' at the expense of the economy insinuations are mounting, that kind of thing. Our response is being compared to Australias' which after a rough start has flattened the curve whilst not paralyising their economy to the same extent as we have. What Qantas has done as compared to Air NZ is an interesting sub-set which in some ways compares to each nations' governmental response.
I'm really on the fence.
There was always going to be an example or handful of examples of nations who found - either through good luck or good management - a better balance between economic ruin and death rate than others. Perhaps Australia may end up being one of these. And all others were going to be compared to these countries. Easy in hindsight of course; there's no playbook for this kind of event. So it's hard to criticise the Govt for going hard, early as a low death rate is commendable. But at what cost?
As it stands we have five deaths and - thus far - all among the elderly. So perhaps 20 families are mourning the (somewhat arguably) premature loss of a loved one. None of us wants that, and don't get me wrong it saddens me greatly. It's horrific that these loved family members are to a large degree dying alone also. But meanwhile, thousands of NZ families are facing financial hardship and in order to keep the death rate this low. What is the cost of this circumstance? Financial ruin for many, no doubt. A lower standard of living for many more. More people who can't afford to go to their GP and therefore a greater strain on the health sysytem in years to come? Likely. An increase in suicides? You'd hate to think so, but how can this not be a legitimate repercussion of some of the aforementioned factors.
When the Sky Tower was built, the contractor factored into their costs a number of accidents and deaths. Realistically, no matter how much you mitigate against accidents and death, on a project of that scale, it's highly unlikely you'll emerge unscathed. Ultimately there was one death, which is horrible of course. Could the Govt have looked at this pandemic along these lines? Could they (did they?) model based on a lesser lockdown (say level 3) and higher death rate (say 100 or 200 people, presumably predominantly elderly)? Was there even time for this?
I think what we're going to end up with - with the benefit of hindsight - is a drastic backlash against the Govt if the death rate remains low when all is said and done, but we're in recession and a large proportion of the general population is facing signficantly worse financial cirsumstance than pre-lockdown. Australia - and others - may well be in a far better economic position with a similar per capita death rate and some very difficult questions will need to be answered.
-
@pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Duluth said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Duluth said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Worth checking in on Sweden. Yes, the numbers are larger than their Scandinavian neighbours.
Actually the cases per million is not that different (so far)
Norway - 1,211 (cases per million)
Denmark - 1,091
Sweden - 1,084But you are a lot more likely to die in Sweden for some reason
Sweden - 91 (deaths per million)
Denmark - 49
Norway - 25Good graphs. Sweden has twice population of Norway and of Denmark. Norway closed borders early and followed NZ like strategy. But can't reopen borders as no herd immunity.
Sweden looks to me to be past peak. And has kept schools, pubs and restaurants open (table service only) so is shooting for herd immunity.
IMO Sweden will come out of this better.
Thank goodness someone tried this, otherwise we would have been stuck listening to the moronic argument that we were destined to be like Italy if we didn't shut down our entire economy
-
@shark Good post, but sadly I think the backlash will be minimal because the media has totally bought into the lockdown, and convinced most people that blind acceptance of govt control is a virtue.
I have stated for quite awhile that the govt panicked, it basically skipped stage 3, and went straight to 4. If you look at the criteria , we should never have left 3 -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@shark Good post, but sadly I think the backlash will be minimal because the media has totally bought into the lockdown, and convinced most people that blind acceptance of govt control is a virtue.
I have stated for quite awhile that the govt panicked, it basically skipped stage 3, and went straight to 4. If you look at the criteria , we should never have left 3The lockdown has been a boon for the media. It fills their content and has brought them eyeballs. You can feel the strain for them hiding their glee (some of the younger reporters are not doing a good job of this, one looked super excited the other day)
I hadn't watched local news regularly for about six years before this.
-
@shark said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Well, there's definitely a growing movement / school of thought around Labour having gone too hard, too soon.
I think they call at the time was a sound one- lock down our movements internally, try to eliminate community transmission. Basically buy us time. For that, I think the right call was made, no matter what data subsequently appears.
The criticism (and I think it's valid) is the 'what then'; how do we drop back to L3, what businesses can you open, etc. That's where the memory of this will define this government I suspect; not the initial response, but once the opportunity to reflect and put in place structures and strategies happens. Other countries are showing how you can apparently control this through limited social interactions
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@shark Good post, but sadly I think the backlash will be minimal because the media has totally bought into the lockdown, and convinced most people that blind acceptance of govt control is a virtue.
I have stated for quite awhile that the govt panicked, it basically skipped stage 3, and went straight to 4. If you look at the criteria , we should never have left 3Largely true, but I think there are now enough counter-arguments being presented by pro-right elements that the nations' ear will start to be turned.
-
@nzzp said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@shark said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Well, there's definitely a growing movement / school of thought around Labour having gone too hard, too soon.
I think they call at the time was a sound one- lock down our movements internally, try to eliminate community transmission. Basically buy us time. For that, I think the right call was made, no matter what data subsequently appears.
The right call was made no matter what data comes up subsequently? That is some serious dedication to the govt actions.
So can you justify moving to level 4, referencing the govt criteria?
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@nzzp said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@shark said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Well, there's definitely a growing movement / school of thought around Labour having gone too hard, too soon.
I think they call at the time was a sound one- lock down our movements internally, try to eliminate community transmission. Basically buy us time. For that, I think the right call was made, no matter what data subsequently appears.
The right call was made no matter what data comes up subsequently? That is some serious dedication to the govt actions.
So can you justify moving to level 4, referencing the govt criteria?
If you turn the spotlight on my words, I'd probably characterise the lockdown as 'not the wrong call' in light of the information available at the time, and the uncertainty in our knowledge. In hindsight it's easy to criticise, but I can understand making a call where the downside risk is that we get uncontrolled spreading in our community and significant numbers of deaths. My point above is that it's the next steps that then matter- as more information becomes available, do we change our response in light of what's working elsewhere, and balance the risk at the time.
You clearly don't read my posts if you think I've got serious dedication to Govt actions. However, I don't automatically think that everything they do is wrong. Making a call like a lockdown is a tough one, but has to be considered in light of the info put in front of them at the time, and the risk profile that was apparent at that point in time. Otherwise monday morning quarterbacking that isn't fair on decision makers, because we always have more data and time to consider.
-
@nzzp said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@nzzp said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@shark said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Well, there's definitely a growing movement / school of thought around Labour having gone too hard, too soon.
I think they call at the time was a sound one- lock down our movements internally, try to eliminate community transmission. Basically buy us time. For that, I think the right call was made, no matter what data subsequently appears.
The right call was made no matter what data comes up subsequently? That is some serious dedication to the govt actions.
So can you justify moving to level 4, referencing the govt criteria?
If you turn the spotlight on my words, I'd probably characterise the lockdown as 'not the wrong call' in light of the information available at the time, and the uncertainty in our knowledge. In hindsight it's easy to criticise, but I can understand making a call where the downside risk is that we get uncontrolled spreading in our community and significant numbers of deaths. My point above is that it's the next steps that then matter- as more information becomes available, do we change our response in light of what's working elsewhere, and balance the risk at the time.
You clearly don't read my posts if you think I've got serious dedication to Govt actions. However, I don't automatically think that everything they do is wrong. Making a call like a lockdown is a tough one, but has to be considered in light of the info put in front of them at the time, and the risk profile that was apparent at that point in time. Otherwise monday morning quarterbacking that isn't fair on decision makers, because we always have more data and time to consider.
It doesnt take hindsight, I criticized the decision from the moment it was made. I said consistently that they panicked and did not even use thier own levels correctly. Ardern even admitted she rang some friends overseas and that pushed her to send us basically straight into level 4
As for not reading your posts, guilty, but not out of malice, but I usually focus on posts themselves not who writes them, hence why I lose track of who has a grudge against me around here, so happy to believe that you are not dedicated to the govt. I am an equal opportunity curmudgeon.
I said from the beginning that the govt relied entirely on people with no financial skin in the game. There was no balance to their thinking. Now we will all pay a price, some directly, others indirectly.
This massive drop in GDP will effect projects the govt can do, medical drugs it can purchase through Pharmac, health programs they can run, programs for the vulnerable. It wont be long to the next sob story (genuine) about someone dying as they cannot afford the drugs and Pharmac had to make a hard choice.Their was not enough critical thinking of the decision by the govt, so any accusation of not using hindsight rings incredibly hollow. The govt panicked, and they panicked because we have a prime minister who listened to her mates overseas and to people with no financial skin in the game.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - Overall:
This massive drop in GDP will effect projects the govt can do, medical drugs it can purchase through Pharmac, health programs they can run, programs for the vulnerable. It wont be long to the next sob story (genuine) about someone dying as they cannot afford the drugs and Pharmac had to make a hard choice.
Good example on where their maybe a direct impact on public health.
-
@shark said in Coronavirus - Overall:
. Australia - and others - may well be in a far better economic position with a similar per capita death rate and some very difficult questions will need to be answered.
Worth noting the Aussie economy is still going to be pretty rooted by the time this is over. Our lockdown is a fair bit looser than NZ, but our retail, bar, dining, entertainment and sporting industries are cactus.
And one look at the Aussie corona thread here shows that our Govt isn't getting a standing ovation either.
-
@barbarian said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@shark said in Coronavirus - Overall:
. Australia - and others - may well be in a far better economic position with a similar per capita death rate and some very difficult questions will need to be answered.
Worth noting the Aussie economy is still going to be pretty rooted by the time this is over. Our lockdown is a fair bit looser than NZ, but our retail, bar, dining, entertainment and sporting industries are cactus.
And one look at the Aussie corona thread here shows that our Govt isn't getting a standing ovation either.
Yep, there's a bit of mythologising going on here about how well the Australian economy is doing. The economy was basically rooted even before the govt(s) here started implementing their various partial lockdowns and there were a swath of job losses at that time (and not just in the above mentioned industries either, two of my mates who lost their jobs in that first wave were in IT in the steel and gaming industries).