Coronavirus - New Zealand
-
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
This is not the flu - we know it is at least six times as deadly.
We don't know that.
This has killed half as many people in a month in the US compared to what the flu does in a whole year and that it with all the measures that have been put in place.
The flu season isn't a year.
The stat holds for a whole year, not for what you define as the flu season.
It's not what I define, it's data held by the CDC and publicly available.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Level 3 lets more people go to work, but it's hardly a huge improvement on level 4 in terms of the cage doors opening.
However, in good news, apparently, not only is our curve flattening, it's exponentially reducing - halving every 5 days. At this rate, we are probably looking at a total of 6-8 weeks at levels 3&4 (so another 2-4 weeks) and then back to level 2.
The rest of the world is rightly envious of that, because they're generally looking at months of the equivalent of level 3+. 4 weeks seems a bit early to be rolling out the civil liberties flag - human rights and civil liberties are critically important to the NZ democracy, but the most important right is the right to life because the rest are not much use to dead people.
And a cratered economy is a damn sight harder on people on the other side.
This is exactly the sort of scare mongering that drove that poll result.
The original justification for this lockdown was not to eliminate the disease but to prevent our health system from being overwhelmed. That has been achieved and over the last four weeks process and capacity has been added to help even more with that.
So let’s move down the levels fast, test appropriately, contain regional reoccurrence, and get back to normalise life.
Even today Cindy was downplaying the huge impact this is having on the economy. “Doing in tough” is not even close to what’s coming IMO.
I think when level 4 started we didn't think it would be as successful as it has been. Now we have a chance to actually eliminate this from New Zealand. The worst thing we could do would be to go down the levels quickly and have it spread. Then you go back to level 4 or have unfettered community transmission and what we have done so far will be for nothing. We have the chance to get back to "normal" in NZ and we should take that if possible.
What a giant leap you make to get from our current 10 cases per day to "unfettered community transmission". We are destroying our economy, and the livelihood of thousands of people, for something that has 18 people in hospital.
It's just absurd.
As it stands, we could return to some semblance of "normal life" in NZ right now. We should be at L3 immediately, where there is next to no extra risk given how tight it is.
L2 should be right around the corner if the data continues on this trajectory.
This BS about elimination and effective contact tracing does my head in. Why do we need to have the "gold standard" / 100% success rate for this? We have no drain on our hospitals. This disease doesn't have some 20% fatality rate on the otherwise-healthy. Do we know where every flu patient has been every year, do we get stressed that they may have visited a rest home or a workplace or a school? Are people asked to keep diaries in case they catch it?
We just dont need to eliminate this thing in NZ. Its a totally unnecessary goal, and it's doing significantly more harm than good right now.
It's not absurd. This started in China from one person getting infected towards the end of last year. In 5 months, it has infected at least two million people all around the world. It is not impossible that 10 cases per day can turn into hundreds and then thousands. It has literally happened like that in other countries around the world.
This is not the flu - we know it is at least six times as deadly. This has killed half as many people in a month in the US compared to what the flu does in a whole year and that it with all the measures that have been put in place.
@hydro11
We know no such thing. Dont make up stuff. It may be, but it may not be. The point is we dont actually know yet.I have not seen anyone credible describe the death rate as less than 0.6%
So? It is fact that they dont know the death of the Wu Flu, but if yiu cna correct me on that feel free to send in the direction of our proof, so I can have a read,
Of course we don't know the exact death rate. There is no one such figure. It depends based on how they are treated and perhaps what dosage they have received. We don't know the death rate for the bubonic plague either. All the estimates I have read from credible people put the death rate at at least 0.6%. They don't know but that is the logical estimate and therefore that is the number we should use to inform public policy.
-
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Level 3 lets more people go to work, but it's hardly a huge improvement on level 4 in terms of the cage doors opening.
However, in good news, apparently, not only is our curve flattening, it's exponentially reducing - halving every 5 days. At this rate, we are probably looking at a total of 6-8 weeks at levels 3&4 (so another 2-4 weeks) and then back to level 2.
The rest of the world is rightly envious of that, because they're generally looking at months of the equivalent of level 3+. 4 weeks seems a bit early to be rolling out the civil liberties flag - human rights and civil liberties are critically important to the NZ democracy, but the most important right is the right to life because the rest are not much use to dead people.
And a cratered economy is a damn sight harder on people on the other side.
This is exactly the sort of scare mongering that drove that poll result.
The original justification for this lockdown was not to eliminate the disease but to prevent our health system from being overwhelmed. That has been achieved and over the last four weeks process and capacity has been added to help even more with that.
So let’s move down the levels fast, test appropriately, contain regional reoccurrence, and get back to normalise life.
Even today Cindy was downplaying the huge impact this is having on the economy. “Doing in tough” is not even close to what’s coming IMO.
I think when level 4 started we didn't think it would be as successful as it has been. Now we have a chance to actually eliminate this from New Zealand. The worst thing we could do would be to go down the levels quickly and have it spread. Then you go back to level 4 or have unfettered community transmission and what we have done so far will be for nothing. We have the chance to get back to "normal" in NZ and we should take that if possible.
What a giant leap you make to get from our current 10 cases per day to "unfettered community transmission". We are destroying our economy, and the livelihood of thousands of people, for something that has 18 people in hospital.
It's just absurd.
As it stands, we could return to some semblance of "normal life" in NZ right now. We should be at L3 immediately, where there is next to no extra risk given how tight it is.
L2 should be right around the corner if the data continues on this trajectory.
This BS about elimination and effective contact tracing does my head in. Why do we need to have the "gold standard" / 100% success rate for this? We have no drain on our hospitals. This disease doesn't have some 20% fatality rate on the otherwise-healthy. Do we know where every flu patient has been every year, do we get stressed that they may have visited a rest home or a workplace or a school? Are people asked to keep diaries in case they catch it?
We just dont need to eliminate this thing in NZ. Its a totally unnecessary goal, and it's doing significantly more harm than good right now.
It's not absurd. This started in China from one person getting infected towards the end of last year. In 5 months, it has infected at least two million people all around the world. It is not impossible that 10 cases per day can turn into hundreds and then thousands. It has literally happened like that in other countries around the world.
This is not the flu - we know it is at least six times as deadly. This has killed half as many people in a month in the US compared to what the flu does in a whole year and that it with all the measures that have been put in place.
@hydro11
We know no such thing. Dont make up stuff. It may be, but it may not be. The point is we dont actually know yet.I have not seen anyone credible describe the death rate as less than 0.6%
So? It is fact that they dont know the death of the Wu Flu, but if yiu cna correct me on that feel free to send in the direction of our proof, so I can have a read,
Of course we don't know the exact death rate. There is no one such figure. It depends based on how they are treated and perhaps what dosage they have received. We don't know the death rate for the bubonic plague either. All the estimates I have read from credible people put the death rate at at least 0.6%. They don't know but that is the logical estimate and therefore that is the number we should use to inform public policy.
Right then so we dont know it is at least 6 times more deadly?
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
This is not the flu - we know it is at least six times as deadly.
We don't know that.
This has killed half as many people in a month in the US compared to what the flu does in a whole year and that it with all the measures that have been put in place.
The flu season isn't a year.
The stat holds for a whole year, not for what you define as the flu season.
It's not what I define, it's data held by the CDC and publicly available.
I don't understand what the issue is? I said I was referring to a whole year, I never said I was referring to flu season.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Level 3 lets more people go to work, but it's hardly a huge improvement on level 4 in terms of the cage doors opening.
However, in good news, apparently, not only is our curve flattening, it's exponentially reducing - halving every 5 days. At this rate, we are probably looking at a total of 6-8 weeks at levels 3&4 (so another 2-4 weeks) and then back to level 2.
The rest of the world is rightly envious of that, because they're generally looking at months of the equivalent of level 3+. 4 weeks seems a bit early to be rolling out the civil liberties flag - human rights and civil liberties are critically important to the NZ democracy, but the most important right is the right to life because the rest are not much use to dead people.
And a cratered economy is a damn sight harder on people on the other side.
This is exactly the sort of scare mongering that drove that poll result.
The original justification for this lockdown was not to eliminate the disease but to prevent our health system from being overwhelmed. That has been achieved and over the last four weeks process and capacity has been added to help even more with that.
So let’s move down the levels fast, test appropriately, contain regional reoccurrence, and get back to normalise life.
Even today Cindy was downplaying the huge impact this is having on the economy. “Doing in tough” is not even close to what’s coming IMO.
I think when level 4 started we didn't think it would be as successful as it has been. Now we have a chance to actually eliminate this from New Zealand. The worst thing we could do would be to go down the levels quickly and have it spread. Then you go back to level 4 or have unfettered community transmission and what we have done so far will be for nothing. We have the chance to get back to "normal" in NZ and we should take that if possible.
What a giant leap you make to get from our current 10 cases per day to "unfettered community transmission". We are destroying our economy, and the livelihood of thousands of people, for something that has 18 people in hospital.
It's just absurd.
As it stands, we could return to some semblance of "normal life" in NZ right now. We should be at L3 immediately, where there is next to no extra risk given how tight it is.
L2 should be right around the corner if the data continues on this trajectory.
This BS about elimination and effective contact tracing does my head in. Why do we need to have the "gold standard" / 100% success rate for this? We have no drain on our hospitals. This disease doesn't have some 20% fatality rate on the otherwise-healthy. Do we know where every flu patient has been every year, do we get stressed that they may have visited a rest home or a workplace or a school? Are people asked to keep diaries in case they catch it?
We just dont need to eliminate this thing in NZ. Its a totally unnecessary goal, and it's doing significantly more harm than good right now.
It's not absurd. This started in China from one person getting infected towards the end of last year. In 5 months, it has infected at least two million people all around the world. It is not impossible that 10 cases per day can turn into hundreds and then thousands. It has literally happened like that in other countries around the world.
This is not the flu - we know it is at least six times as deadly. This has killed half as many people in a month in the US compared to what the flu does in a whole year and that it with all the measures that have been put in place.
@hydro11
We know no such thing. Dont make up stuff. It may be, but it may not be. The point is we dont actually know yet.I have not seen anyone credible describe the death rate as less than 0.6%
So? It is fact that they dont know the death of the Wu Flu, but if yiu cna correct me on that feel free to send in the direction of our proof, so I can have a read,
Of course we don't know the exact death rate. There is no one such figure. It depends based on how they are treated and perhaps what dosage they have received. We don't know the death rate for the bubonic plague either. All the estimates I have read from credible people put the death rate at at least 0.6%. They don't know but that is the logical estimate and therefore that is the number we should use to inform public policy.
Right then so we dont know it is at least 6 times more deadly?
It depends on what your threshold for "knowing" is. Regardless, it is categorically wrong to say that this is like the flu. The vast majority of medical professionals do not support that view.
-
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Level 3 lets more people go to work, but it's hardly a huge improvement on level 4 in terms of the cage doors opening.
However, in good news, apparently, not only is our curve flattening, it's exponentially reducing - halving every 5 days. At this rate, we are probably looking at a total of 6-8 weeks at levels 3&4 (so another 2-4 weeks) and then back to level 2.
The rest of the world is rightly envious of that, because they're generally looking at months of the equivalent of level 3+. 4 weeks seems a bit early to be rolling out the civil liberties flag - human rights and civil liberties are critically important to the NZ democracy, but the most important right is the right to life because the rest are not much use to dead people.
And a cratered economy is a damn sight harder on people on the other side.
This is exactly the sort of scare mongering that drove that poll result.
The original justification for this lockdown was not to eliminate the disease but to prevent our health system from being overwhelmed. That has been achieved and over the last four weeks process and capacity has been added to help even more with that.
So let’s move down the levels fast, test appropriately, contain regional reoccurrence, and get back to normalise life.
Even today Cindy was downplaying the huge impact this is having on the economy. “Doing in tough” is not even close to what’s coming IMO.
I think when level 4 started we didn't think it would be as successful as it has been. Now we have a chance to actually eliminate this from New Zealand. The worst thing we could do would be to go down the levels quickly and have it spread. Then you go back to level 4 or have unfettered community transmission and what we have done so far will be for nothing. We have the chance to get back to "normal" in NZ and we should take that if possible.
What a giant leap you make to get from our current 10 cases per day to "unfettered community transmission". We are destroying our economy, and the livelihood of thousands of people, for something that has 18 people in hospital.
It's just absurd.
As it stands, we could return to some semblance of "normal life" in NZ right now. We should be at L3 immediately, where there is next to no extra risk given how tight it is.
L2 should be right around the corner if the data continues on this trajectory.
This BS about elimination and effective contact tracing does my head in. Why do we need to have the "gold standard" / 100% success rate for this? We have no drain on our hospitals. This disease doesn't have some 20% fatality rate on the otherwise-healthy. Do we know where every flu patient has been every year, do we get stressed that they may have visited a rest home or a workplace or a school? Are people asked to keep diaries in case they catch it?
We just dont need to eliminate this thing in NZ. Its a totally unnecessary goal, and it's doing significantly more harm than good right now.
It's not absurd. This started in China from one person getting infected towards the end of last year. In 5 months, it has infected at least two million people all around the world. It is not impossible that 10 cases per day can turn into hundreds and then thousands. It has literally happened like that in other countries around the world.
This is not the flu - we know it is at least six times as deadly. This has killed half as many people in a month in the US compared to what the flu does in a whole year and that it with all the measures that have been put in place.
@hydro11
We know no such thing. Dont make up stuff. It may be, but it may not be. The point is we dont actually know yet.I have not seen anyone credible describe the death rate as less than 0.6%
So? It is fact that they dont know the death of the Wu Flu, but if yiu cna correct me on that feel free to send in the direction of our proof, so I can have a read,
Of course we don't know the exact death rate. There is no one such figure. It depends based on how they are treated and perhaps what dosage they have received. We don't know the death rate for the bubonic plague either. All the estimates I have read from credible people put the death rate at at least 0.6%. They don't know but that is the logical estimate and therefore that is the number we should use to inform public policy.
Right then so we dont know it is at least 6 times more deadly?
It depends on what your threshold for "knowing" is. Regardless, it is categorically wrong to say that this is like the flu. The vast majority of medical professionals do not support that view.
No It is not categorically wrong, because we dont know the death rate of the Wuflu yet. Very likely wrong? Yes.
I dont have a threshold for 'knowing' I have a definition
-
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
This is not the flu - we know it is at least six times as deadly.
We don't know that.
This has killed half as many people in a month in the US compared to what the flu does in a whole year and that it with all the measures that have been put in place.
The flu season isn't a year.
The stat holds for a whole year, not for what you define as the flu season.
It's not what I define, it's data held by the CDC and publicly available.
I don't understand what the issue is? I said I was referring to a whole year, I never said I was referring to flu season.
How does that make sense? You said more than the flu takes in a year...
A bad flu season in the US takes more than covid-19 has so far.
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
This is not the flu - we know it is at least six times as deadly.
We don't know that.
This has killed half as many people in a month in the US compared to what the flu does in a whole year and that it with all the measures that have been put in place.
The flu season isn't a year.
The stat holds for a whole year, not for what you define as the flu season.
It's not what I define, it's data held by the CDC and publicly available.
I don't understand what the issue is? I said I was referring to a whole year, I never said I was referring to flu season.
How does that make sense? You said more than the flu takes in a year...
A bad flu season in the US takes more than covid-19 has so far.
In my original post I said that COVID-19 has already killed half as many as the flu does in a whole year. I never said it has already killed as many as the flu does in a whole year.
-
Going by social media, the NZ public has been totally convinced that the Wu Flu is the worst thing ever.
People are really stupid ... or I am stupid but like all stupid people I dont realise I am stupid. Either way I am in the vast minority in thinking this lock down needs to end asap.I am fast heading back into Hooroo territory of just not caring about the stupid masses and will just look after myself and those I care about. I feel my merciless capitalist self starting to rear its head again,I think I have just lost faith in humanity. They deserve to be dirt poor and working long hours to just pay back their debts. Stupid serf bastards. Civil servants (except nurses and doctors ) can all fuck right off. Selfish pricks.
That rant was quite therapeutic.
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 it read to me you were implying that on that basis covid-19 was much worse. My point was the flu season is isn't that long and although unlikely, it could still fall short.
I was implying on that basis that it was much worse. I believe it depends by year but the CDC generally counts the flu season as October-May - so 7-8 months of the year. We have only seen one month of coronavirus and we can see from other countries that deaths lag. So you get on top of the rate of new infections before you get on top of the death rate.
The fact that it takes extreme social distancing to get on top of something like this shows just how dangerous it is.
All available evidence puts coronavirus as being much more deadly than the flu. Even if I pretended it wasn't, it still has a much higher R0 and there is no vaccine, anti-virals or immunity from the previous season. Only around 10% of people actually get the flu each year. Some estimates for corona's R0 would mean that 60% would need to get it before you get herd immunity. So even if it is only as deadly as the flu, it will kill six times as many people if no social distancing measures. That isn't to mention in New Zealand there will still be a flu season which tends to leave our hospitals with no spare beds.
-
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 it read to me you were implying that on that basis covid-19 was much worse. My point was the flu season is isn't that long and although unlikely, it could still fall short.
I was implying on that basis that it was much worse. I believe it depends by year but the CDC generally counts the flu season as October-May - so 7-8 months of the year. We have only seen one month of coronavirus and we can see from other countries that deaths lag. So you get on top of the rate of new infections before you get on top of the death rate.
The fact that it takes extreme social distancing to get on top of something like this shows just how dangerous it is.
All available evidence puts coronavirus as being much more deadly than the flu. Even if I pretended it wasn't, it still has a much higher R0 and there is no vaccine, anti-virals or immunity from the previous season. Only around 10% of people actually get the flu each year. Some estimates for corona's R0 would mean that 60% would need to get it before you get herd immunity. So even if it is only as deadly as the flu, it will kill six times as many people if no social distancing measures. That isn't to mention in New Zealand there will still be a flu season which tends to leave our hospitals with no spare beds.
Just to stir the pot, much as the Fern frowns on that, the virulence of the flu is obviously worse than quoted. That is because there are flu vaccines. So the flu may be more virulent, even if vaccines make it manageable?
-
@pakman said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Level 3 lets more people go to work, but it's hardly a huge improvement on level 4 in terms of the cage doors opening.
However, in good news, apparently, not only is our curve flattening, it's exponentially reducing - halving every 5 days. At this rate, we are probably looking at a total of 6-8 weeks at levels 3&4 (so another 2-4 weeks) and then back to level 2.
The rest of the world is rightly envious of that, because they're generally looking at months of the equivalent of level 3+. 4 weeks seems a bit early to be rolling out the civil liberties flag - human rights and civil liberties are critically important to the NZ democracy, but the most important right is the right to life because the rest are not much use to dead people.
And a cratered economy is a damn sight harder on people on the other side.
This is exactly the sort of scare mongering that drove that poll result.
The original justification for this lockdown was not to eliminate the disease but to prevent our health system from being overwhelmed. That has been achieved and over the last four weeks process and capacity has been added to help even more with that.
So let’s move down the levels fast, test appropriately, contain regional reoccurrence, and get back to normalise life.
Even today Cindy was downplaying the huge impact this is having on the economy. “Doing in tough” is not even close to what’s coming IMO.
I think when level 4 started we didn't think it would be as successful as it has been. Now we have a chance to actually eliminate this from New Zealand. The worst thing we could do would be to go down the levels quickly and have it spread. Then you go back to level 4 or have unfettered community transmission and what we have done so far will be for nothing. We have the chance to get back to "normal" in NZ and we should take that if possible.
I think this highlights a choice to be made.
If the aim is elimination, which is likely to take longer than expected, there is a case for more Level 4, and probably extended Level 3. Economic cost VERY high.
At the other end is getting down rapidly to Swedish levels of lockdown, with borders closed. There might be 100 deaths a week, and economy would still be subdued, but in FAR better shape than under first alternative.
There is no cake and eat it too.
From where I sit the latter path is far preferable.
The problem, if elimination is the aim, is when do you give up on it. The effort towards elimination is a sunk cost if it's not able to be eliminated (or will cost more than the country can afford) but I can see people using it as a justification to stick with it. It's very easy to see level 4 extending out indefinitely if elimination doesn't occur.
And if you give up on elimination you have to go with option 2 but in a worse position than if you went with it originally. So how much are we willing to put towards a failed elimination attempt?
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback TSF might be the closest I’ve seen to a near even handed discussion about the merits of Level 3 & 4 etc. If Facebook and Twitter are any guide...
I’m idly wondering if the high number of people keen to stay at Level 4 is actually solid ground for dropping to Level 3. The number of people who (allegedly) will continue to act like it’s Level 4 might mean we get the best of both worlds for a short while. Construction and co get to get back to work, and those determined to stay at home ‘until it’s safe’, still will for however long until Level 2 (or until their hand is otherwise forced).
-
@Donsteppa said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback TSF might be the closest I’ve seen to a near even handed discussion about the merits of Level 3 & 4 etc. If Facebook and Twitter are any guide...
I’m idly wondering if the high number of people keen to stay at Level 4 is actually solid ground for dropping to Level 3. The number of people who (allegedly) will continue to act like it’s Level 4 might mean we get the best of both worlds for a short while. Construction and co get to get back to work, and those determined to stay at home ‘until it’s safe’, still will for however long until Level 2 (or until their hand is otherwise forced).
This is a very good point.
To use myself as an example, even if the schools open the kids are staying home. Why? Because we can, as I work from home, and because I’m an at risk individual.
So the difference for me between the levels is very minimal.
My worry is for other people less fortunate. I scan around the local businesses I use and I can’t see very many surviving if this continues.
-
@Anonymous said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@pakman said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Level 3 lets more people go to work, but it's hardly a huge improvement on level 4 in terms of the cage doors opening.
However, in good news, apparently, not only is our curve flattening, it's exponentially reducing - halving every 5 days. At this rate, we are probably looking at a total of 6-8 weeks at levels 3&4 (so another 2-4 weeks) and then back to level 2.
The rest of the world is rightly envious of that, because they're generally looking at months of the equivalent of level 3+. 4 weeks seems a bit early to be rolling out the civil liberties flag - human rights and civil liberties are critically important to the NZ democracy, but the most important right is the right to life because the rest are not much use to dead people.
And a cratered economy is a damn sight harder on people on the other side.
This is exactly the sort of scare mongering that drove that poll result.
The original justification for this lockdown was not to eliminate the disease but to prevent our health system from being overwhelmed. That has been achieved and over the last four weeks process and capacity has been added to help even more with that.
So let’s move down the levels fast, test appropriately, contain regional reoccurrence, and get back to normalise life.
Even today Cindy was downplaying the huge impact this is having on the economy. “Doing in tough” is not even close to what’s coming IMO.
I think when level 4 started we didn't think it would be as successful as it has been. Now we have a chance to actually eliminate this from New Zealand. The worst thing we could do would be to go down the levels quickly and have it spread. Then you go back to level 4 or have unfettered community transmission and what we have done so far will be for nothing. We have the chance to get back to "normal" in NZ and we should take that if possible.
I think this highlights a choice to be made.
If the aim is elimination, which is likely to take longer than expected, there is a case for more Level 4, and probably extended Level 3. Economic cost VERY high.
At the other end is getting down rapidly to Swedish levels of lockdown, with borders closed. There might be 100 deaths a week, and economy would still be subdued, but in FAR better shape than under first alternative.
There is no cake and eat it too.
From where I sit the latter path is far preferable.
The problem, if elimination is the aim, is when do you give up on it. The effort towards elimination is a sunk cost if it's not able to be eliminated (or will cost more than the country can afford) but I can see people using it as a justification to stick with it. It's very easy to see level 4 extending out indefinitely if elimination doesn't occur.
And if you give up on elimination you have to go with option 2 but in a worse position than if you went with it originally. So how much are we willing to put towards a failed elimination attempt?
Not sure what treasury modeling is out there.
I'd model level 4 for another month, and then level 3 for six months, and compare with Level 4 for another fortnight and then level 2.5 for rest of year.
One thing which my Swedish option involves is acceptance of a steady, per vaccine, flow of deaths. Perhaps 5,000 all up.
Is that socially acceptable?
-
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@pakman said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Kirwan Is there a word missing?
Typo, fixed thanks.
No worries!
-
Not to hijack a NZ thread with an Aus perspective but, what you are aiming for is what we have now, and it's working a treat.