Coronavirus - New Zealand
-
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Hopefully this sort of thing will become more common. Cindy can't just say blue sky shit without expecting questions to be asked
It does have a tinge of searching for news though. Has anyone complained with reason or been affected by this potential 'misunderstanding'?
To me elimination means elimination of danger...risk levels extremely low....f there is a case then an outbreak is able to be contained quickly.
As long as we can go about our daily lives normally, then that's elimination of threat.
In Risk terminology a risk has become an issue, mitigations have been applied to revert it back and the residual risk is low likelihood/High Impact. Still red but not likely.I have to say I am getting a bit tired of our so called reporters, who having to do their jobs instead of rehashing tweets, have shown very poor skills in finding 'real' stories and keep trying to invent issues to talk about.
-
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Hopefully this sort of thing will become more common. Cindy can't just say blue sky shit without expecting questions to be asked
It does have a tinge of searching for news though. Has anyone complained with reason or been affected by this potential 'misunderstanding'?
To me elimination means elimination of danger...risk levels extremely low....f there is a case then an outbreak is able to be contained quickly.
As long as we can go about our daily lives normally, then that's elimination of threat.
In Risk terminology a risk has become an issue, mitigations have been applied to revert it back and the residual risk is low likelihood/High Impact. Still red but not likely.I have to say I am getting a bit tired of our so called reporters, who having to do their jobs instead of rehashing tweets, have shown very poor skills in finding 'real' stories and keep trying to invent issues to talk about.
So you agree with the article then?
Yes, the prime minister is technically correct in epidemiology speak. A Dictionary of Epidemiology, 4th edition, defines elimination as a "reduction of case transmission to a predetermined very low level". However, the prime minister knows very well the general population is not fluent in epidemiological jargon, so up until she decided to tell us on Monday that "elimination doesn't mean zero cases" it's fair to say we've been misled. Whether that was intentional or not, we don't know. The reason we don't know is because our media failed to question the prime minister about it, bar one question that skirted around the edge: "Prime Minister, just on the elimination target, you say this doesn't mean zero cases. Does this mean you're prepared, or, at least, expecting, to have the virus in the country until there's a vaccine?" At least one journalist should have asked the prime minister why she thought it was acceptable to use "elimination" in her public speeches, when her intended meaning of the word is different from the accepted everyday use and understanding. It is fair to say our news media – or at least our political journalists – can do a better job.
I'd agree with that and it looks like you're saying much the same thing.
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Hopefully this sort of thing will become more common. Cindy can't just say blue sky shit without expecting questions to be asked
It does have a tinge of searching for news though. Has anyone complained with reason or been affected by this potential 'misunderstanding'?
To me elimination means elimination of danger...risk levels extremely low....f there is a case then an outbreak is able to be contained quickly.
As long as we can go about our daily lives normally, then that's elimination of threat.
In Risk terminology a risk has become an issue, mitigations have been applied to revert it back and the residual risk is low likelihood/High Impact. Still red but not likely.I have to say I am getting a bit tired of our so called reporters, who having to do their jobs instead of rehashing tweets, have shown very poor skills in finding 'real' stories and keep trying to invent issues to talk about.
So you agree with the article then?
Yes, the prime minister is technically correct in epidemiology speak. A Dictionary of Epidemiology, 4th edition, defines elimination as a "reduction of case transmission to a predetermined very low level". However, the prime minister knows very well the general population is not fluent in epidemiological jargon, so up until she decided to tell us on Monday that "elimination doesn't mean zero cases" it's fair to say we've been misled. Whether that was intentional or not, we don't know. The reason we don't know is because our media failed to question the prime minister about it, bar one question that skirted around the edge: "Prime Minister, just on the elimination target, you say this doesn't mean zero cases. Does this mean you're prepared, or, at least, expecting, to have the virus in the country until there's a vaccine?" At least one journalist should have asked the prime minister why she thought it was acceptable to use "elimination" in her public speeches, when her intended meaning of the word is different from the accepted everyday use and understanding. It is fair to say our news media – or at least our political journalists – can do a better job.
I'd agree with that and it looks like you're saying much the same thing.
Nah, I disagree with the last paragraph. It's using semantics to try and generate a story that doesn't exist.
Messages need to be kept simple or they get woolly. She gave the detail verbally.
They seem to imply that anything other than complete annihilation is a shift and people are being tricked. -
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Hopefully this sort of thing will become more common. Cindy can't just say blue sky shit without expecting questions to be asked
It does have a tinge of searching for news though. Has anyone complained with reason or been affected by this potential 'misunderstanding'?
To me elimination means elimination of danger...risk levels extremely low....f there is a case then an outbreak is able to be contained quickly.
As long as we can go about our daily lives normally, then that's elimination of threat.
In Risk terminology a risk has become an issue, mitigations have been applied to revert it back and the residual risk is low likelihood/High Impact. Still red but not likely.I have to say I am getting a bit tired of our so called reporters, who having to do their jobs instead of rehashing tweets, have shown very poor skills in finding 'real' stories and keep trying to invent issues to talk about.
The PPE shortage is close to my heart. They keep saying they have it, but there is a lot of evidence to the contrary from a number of sources. No more softball pitches on topics like that
-
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Hopefully this sort of thing will become more common. Cindy can't just say blue sky shit without expecting questions to be asked
It does have a tinge of searching for news though. Has anyone complained with reason or been affected by this potential 'misunderstanding'?
To me elimination means elimination of danger...risk levels extremely low....f there is a case then an outbreak is able to be contained quickly.
As long as we can go about our daily lives normally, then that's elimination of threat.
In Risk terminology a risk has become an issue, mitigations have been applied to revert it back and the residual risk is low likelihood/High Impact. Still red but not likely.I have to say I am getting a bit tired of our so called reporters, who having to do their jobs instead of rehashing tweets, have shown very poor skills in finding 'real' stories and keep trying to invent issues to talk about.
So you agree with the article then?
Yes, the prime minister is technically correct in epidemiology speak. A Dictionary of Epidemiology, 4th edition, defines elimination as a "reduction of case transmission to a predetermined very low level". However, the prime minister knows very well the general population is not fluent in epidemiological jargon, so up until she decided to tell us on Monday that "elimination doesn't mean zero cases" it's fair to say we've been misled. Whether that was intentional or not, we don't know. The reason we don't know is because our media failed to question the prime minister about it, bar one question that skirted around the edge: "Prime Minister, just on the elimination target, you say this doesn't mean zero cases. Does this mean you're prepared, or, at least, expecting, to have the virus in the country until there's a vaccine?" At least one journalist should have asked the prime minister why she thought it was acceptable to use "elimination" in her public speeches, when her intended meaning of the word is different from the accepted everyday use and understanding. It is fair to say our news media – or at least our political journalists – can do a better job.
I'd agree with that and it looks like you're saying much the same thing.
Nah, I disagree with the last paragraph. It's using semantics to try and generate a story that doesn't exist.
Messages need to be kept simple or they get woolly. She gave the detail verbally.
They seem to imply that anything other than complete annihilation is a shift and people are being tricked.What I find frustrating in their messaging is the hyperbole. If I hear her say that they have prevented "devastation" one more time, I'll scream
-
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Hopefully this sort of thing will become more common. Cindy can't just say blue sky shit without expecting questions to be asked
It does have a tinge of searching for news though. Has anyone complained with reason or been affected by this potential 'misunderstanding'?
To me elimination means elimination of danger...risk levels extremely low....f there is a case then an outbreak is able to be contained quickly.
As long as we can go about our daily lives normally, then that's elimination of threat.
In Risk terminology a risk has become an issue, mitigations have been applied to revert it back and the residual risk is low likelihood/High Impact. Still red but not likely.I have to say I am getting a bit tired of our so called reporters, who having to do their jobs instead of rehashing tweets, have shown very poor skills in finding 'real' stories and keep trying to invent issues to talk about.
So you agree with the article then?
Yes, the prime minister is technically correct in epidemiology speak. A Dictionary of Epidemiology, 4th edition, defines elimination as a "reduction of case transmission to a predetermined very low level". However, the prime minister knows very well the general population is not fluent in epidemiological jargon, so up until she decided to tell us on Monday that "elimination doesn't mean zero cases" it's fair to say we've been misled. Whether that was intentional or not, we don't know. The reason we don't know is because our media failed to question the prime minister about it, bar one question that skirted around the edge: "Prime Minister, just on the elimination target, you say this doesn't mean zero cases. Does this mean you're prepared, or, at least, expecting, to have the virus in the country until there's a vaccine?" At least one journalist should have asked the prime minister why she thought it was acceptable to use "elimination" in her public speeches, when her intended meaning of the word is different from the accepted everyday use and understanding. It is fair to say our news media – or at least our political journalists – can do a better job.
I'd agree with that and it looks like you're saying much the same thing.
Nah, I disagree with the last paragraph. It's using semantics to try and generate a story that doesn't exist.
Messages need to be kept simple or they get woolly. She gave the detail verbally.
They seem to imply that anything other than complete annihilation is a shift and people are being tricked.Wouldn't the expectation of the majority of New Zealanders be that "elimination" means the the complete removal or destruction of something?
I'd suggest it would, especially in the face of a lack of detail about that the lower acceptable bound was. Where's the public messaging about "we have to get cases to this number and X per day to get to level Y"?
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Hopefully this sort of thing will become more common. Cindy can't just say blue sky shit without expecting questions to be asked
It does have a tinge of searching for news though. Has anyone complained with reason or been affected by this potential 'misunderstanding'?
To me elimination means elimination of danger...risk levels extremely low....f there is a case then an outbreak is able to be contained quickly.
As long as we can go about our daily lives normally, then that's elimination of threat.
In Risk terminology a risk has become an issue, mitigations have been applied to revert it back and the residual risk is low likelihood/High Impact. Still red but not likely.I have to say I am getting a bit tired of our so called reporters, who having to do their jobs instead of rehashing tweets, have shown very poor skills in finding 'real' stories and keep trying to invent issues to talk about.
So you agree with the article then?
Yes, the prime minister is technically correct in epidemiology speak. A Dictionary of Epidemiology, 4th edition, defines elimination as a "reduction of case transmission to a predetermined very low level". However, the prime minister knows very well the general population is not fluent in epidemiological jargon, so up until she decided to tell us on Monday that "elimination doesn't mean zero cases" it's fair to say we've been misled. Whether that was intentional or not, we don't know. The reason we don't know is because our media failed to question the prime minister about it, bar one question that skirted around the edge: "Prime Minister, just on the elimination target, you say this doesn't mean zero cases. Does this mean you're prepared, or, at least, expecting, to have the virus in the country until there's a vaccine?" At least one journalist should have asked the prime minister why she thought it was acceptable to use "elimination" in her public speeches, when her intended meaning of the word is different from the accepted everyday use and understanding. It is fair to say our news media – or at least our political journalists – can do a better job.
I'd agree with that and it looks like you're saying much the same thing.
Nah, I disagree with the last paragraph. It's using semantics to try and generate a story that doesn't exist.
Messages need to be kept simple or they get woolly. She gave the detail verbally.
They seem to imply that anything other than complete annihilation is a shift and people are being tricked.Wouldn't the expectation of the majority of New Zealanders be that "elimination" means the the complete removal or destruction of something?
I'd suggest it would, especially in the face of a lack of detail about that the lower acceptable bound was. Where's the public messaging about "we have to get cases to this number and X per day to get to level Y"?
That creating a false expectation though. The movement decisions aren't solely based on one number. If, say the number was 3 but those 3 cases had randomly appeared in places with no previous outbreak and couldn't be traced then that is reason for concern and investigation.
-
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Hopefully this sort of thing will become more common. Cindy can't just say blue sky shit without expecting questions to be asked
It does have a tinge of searching for news though. Has anyone complained with reason or been affected by this potential 'misunderstanding'?
To me elimination means elimination of danger...risk levels extremely low....f there is a case then an outbreak is able to be contained quickly.
As long as we can go about our daily lives normally, then that's elimination of threat.
In Risk terminology a risk has become an issue, mitigations have been applied to revert it back and the residual risk is low likelihood/High Impact. Still red but not likely.I have to say I am getting a bit tired of our so called reporters, who having to do their jobs instead of rehashing tweets, have shown very poor skills in finding 'real' stories and keep trying to invent issues to talk about.
So you agree with the article then?
Yes, the prime minister is technically correct in epidemiology speak. A Dictionary of Epidemiology, 4th edition, defines elimination as a "reduction of case transmission to a predetermined very low level". However, the prime minister knows very well the general population is not fluent in epidemiological jargon, so up until she decided to tell us on Monday that "elimination doesn't mean zero cases" it's fair to say we've been misled. Whether that was intentional or not, we don't know. The reason we don't know is because our media failed to question the prime minister about it, bar one question that skirted around the edge: "Prime Minister, just on the elimination target, you say this doesn't mean zero cases. Does this mean you're prepared, or, at least, expecting, to have the virus in the country until there's a vaccine?" At least one journalist should have asked the prime minister why she thought it was acceptable to use "elimination" in her public speeches, when her intended meaning of the word is different from the accepted everyday use and understanding. It is fair to say our news media – or at least our political journalists – can do a better job.
I'd agree with that and it looks like you're saying much the same thing.
Nah, I disagree with the last paragraph. It's using semantics to try and generate a story that doesn't exist.
Messages need to be kept simple or they get woolly. She gave the detail verbally.
They seem to imply that anything other than complete annihilation is a shift and people are being tricked.Wouldn't the expectation of the majority of New Zealanders be that "elimination" means the the complete removal or destruction of something?
I'd suggest it would, especially in the face of a lack of detail about that the lower acceptable bound was. Where's the public messaging about "we have to get cases to this number and X per day to get to level Y"?
That creating a false expectation though. The movement decisions aren't solely based on one number. If, say the number was 3 but those 3 cases had randomly appeared in places with no previous outbreak and couldn't be traced then that is reason for concern and investigation.
I didn't say one number. My statement was consistent with the provided epidemiological definition which provides clarity and a real expectation - the very one the Government would be working towards. If they're not saying what that level is, then WTF are they working towards?
For a government that is supposed to be excellent at messaging, they're spectacularly poor at telling New Zealanders why they're all being treated like criminals.
-
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Hopefully this sort of thing will become more common. Cindy can't just say blue sky shit without expecting questions to be asked
It does have a tinge of searching for news though. Has anyone complained with reason or been affected by this potential 'misunderstanding'?
To me elimination means elimination of danger...risk levels extremely low....f there is a case then an outbreak is able to be contained quickly.
As long as we can go about our daily lives normally, then that's elimination of threat.
In Risk terminology a risk has become an issue, mitigations have been applied to revert it back and the residual risk is low likelihood/High Impact. Still red but not likely.I have to say I am getting a bit tired of our so called reporters, who having to do their jobs instead of rehashing tweets, have shown very poor skills in finding 'real' stories and keep trying to invent issues to talk about.
The PPE shortage is close to my heart. They keep saying they have it, but there is a lot of evidence to the contrary from a number of sources. No more softball pitches on topics like that
I do agree that this annoys me too and is why I think the 'journalists' are doing a poor job. A question of 'Can you please explain why we keep hearing from frontline staff that they have PPE issues contrary to the official line' would be good.
I do have some idea where some of the stories fall short of concern though. My sister is in public healthcare and has told me that they are battling with some staff in trying to sensibly manage the PPE. As example the guidelines may say to change a mask every 30 minutes (don't quote me on this, it is an attempt to explain) they have staff demanding a change of masks after every patient even if they have only spent a couple of minutes with them. Then the staff complain to the media.
They are also struggling with staff just grabbing extras for home use who then complain if their supply is monitored.I don't doubt that these anecdotes aren't the complete story by any stretch and that given how useless some DHBs are there will also be some proper concerns as well and there is a mis-match in the official messages.
-
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Hopefully this sort of thing will become more common. Cindy can't just say blue sky shit without expecting questions to be asked
It does have a tinge of searching for news though. Has anyone complained with reason or been affected by this potential 'misunderstanding'?
To me elimination means elimination of danger...risk levels extremely low....f there is a case then an outbreak is able to be contained quickly.
As long as we can go about our daily lives normally, then that's elimination of threat.
In Risk terminology a risk has become an issue, mitigations have been applied to revert it back and the residual risk is low likelihood/High Impact. Still red but not likely.I have to say I am getting a bit tired of our so called reporters, who having to do their jobs instead of rehashing tweets, have shown very poor skills in finding 'real' stories and keep trying to invent issues to talk about.
So you agree with the article then?
Yes, the prime minister is technically correct in epidemiology speak. A Dictionary of Epidemiology, 4th edition, defines elimination as a "reduction of case transmission to a predetermined very low level". However, the prime minister knows very well the general population is not fluent in epidemiological jargon, so up until she decided to tell us on Monday that "elimination doesn't mean zero cases" it's fair to say we've been misled. Whether that was intentional or not, we don't know. The reason we don't know is because our media failed to question the prime minister about it, bar one question that skirted around the edge: "Prime Minister, just on the elimination target, you say this doesn't mean zero cases. Does this mean you're prepared, or, at least, expecting, to have the virus in the country until there's a vaccine?" At least one journalist should have asked the prime minister why she thought it was acceptable to use "elimination" in her public speeches, when her intended meaning of the word is different from the accepted everyday use and understanding. It is fair to say our news media – or at least our political journalists – can do a better job.
I'd agree with that and it looks like you're saying much the same thing.
Nah, I disagree with the last paragraph. It's using semantics to try and generate a story that doesn't exist.
Messages need to be kept simple or they get woolly. She gave the detail verbally.
They seem to imply that anything other than complete annihilation is a shift and people are being tricked.Wouldn't the expectation of the majority of New Zealanders be that "elimination" means the the complete removal or destruction of something?
I'd suggest it would, especially in the face of a lack of detail about that the lower acceptable bound was. Where's the public messaging about "we have to get cases to this number and X per day to get to level Y"?
That creating a false expectation though. The movement decisions aren't solely based on one number. If, say the number was 3 but those 3 cases had randomly appeared in places with no previous outbreak and couldn't be traced then that is reason for concern and investigation.
I didn't say one number. My statement was consistent with the provided epidemiological definition which provides clarity and a real expectation - the very one the Government would be working towards. If they're not saying what that level is, then WTF are they working towards?
For a government that is supposed to be excellent at messaging, they're spectacularly poor at telling New Zealanders why they're all being treated like criminals.
I'm not sure if you missed the message but I certainly feel like I understand where they are aiming for. In my understanding from the press conferences they are trying to get to a point where they are satisfied that there are no hidden pockets of transmission and that if new cases appear, the source is easily understood. Alongside that they need to be able to quickly trace potential transmission.
I don't think any of that is far away tbh and do think they are going through a very cautious approach on the return to 'normal'.
If these aims are met and they still want restrictions for any long period then I will be concerned at overkill. Up to that point I support the approach. -
One death, a handful of new cases mostly from known cluster. 77% of known cases recovered. Steady as she goes
-
These continued cases linked to known clusters (that have been known for some time) show what a pain this is to control and how it takes ages to declare 'safety'
As long as someone is spreading it before they realise we can't open up safely unless we have really good contact tracing and lockdown of contacts.
When I now apply that theory to more populous and less 'controlled' countries I really do wonder how they will find a good way out unless the virus burns itself out. -
Not just the lungs in 5% of cases - a ghastly way to go.
Elimination has a particular epidemiological meaning (not present in a region), but it would require eradication (not present anywhere - only smallpox has been eradicated) for Covid-19 to never surface here. Even with current border restrictions, we aren't going to stop citizens and residents returning, and at least some of them will depart quarantine as a false negative.
Agree with @Crucial about the goal here. As long as we can trace all cases and contacts and isolate/quarantine them, that's as close to real elimination as we will get without a vaccine.
-
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Hopefully this sort of thing will become more common. Cindy can't just say blue sky shit without expecting questions to be asked
It does have a tinge of searching for news though. Has anyone complained with reason or been affected by this potential 'misunderstanding'?
To me elimination means elimination of danger...risk levels extremely low....f there is a case then an outbreak is able to be contained quickly.
As long as we can go about our daily lives normally, then that's elimination of threat.
In Risk terminology a risk has become an issue, mitigations have been applied to revert it back and the residual risk is low likelihood/High Impact. Still red but not likely.I have to say I am getting a bit tired of our so called reporters, who having to do their jobs instead of rehashing tweets, have shown very poor skills in finding 'real' stories and keep trying to invent issues to talk about.
So you agree with the article then?
Yes, the prime minister is technically correct in epidemiology speak. A Dictionary of Epidemiology, 4th edition, defines elimination as a "reduction of case transmission to a predetermined very low level". However, the prime minister knows very well the general population is not fluent in epidemiological jargon, so up until she decided to tell us on Monday that "elimination doesn't mean zero cases" it's fair to say we've been misled. Whether that was intentional or not, we don't know. The reason we don't know is because our media failed to question the prime minister about it, bar one question that skirted around the edge: "Prime Minister, just on the elimination target, you say this doesn't mean zero cases. Does this mean you're prepared, or, at least, expecting, to have the virus in the country until there's a vaccine?" At least one journalist should have asked the prime minister why she thought it was acceptable to use "elimination" in her public speeches, when her intended meaning of the word is different from the accepted everyday use and understanding. It is fair to say our news media – or at least our political journalists – can do a better job.
I'd agree with that and it looks like you're saying much the same thing.
Nah, I disagree with the last paragraph. It's using semantics to try and generate a story that doesn't exist.
Messages need to be kept simple or they get woolly. She gave the detail verbally.
They seem to imply that anything other than complete annihilation is a shift and people are being tricked.Wouldn't the expectation of the majority of New Zealanders be that "elimination" means the the complete removal or destruction of something?
I'd suggest it would, especially in the face of a lack of detail about that the lower acceptable bound was. Where's the public messaging about "we have to get cases to this number and X per day to get to level Y"?
That creating a false expectation though. The movement decisions aren't solely based on one number. If, say the number was 3 but those 3 cases had randomly appeared in places with no previous outbreak and couldn't be traced then that is reason for concern and investigation.
I didn't say one number. My statement was consistent with the provided epidemiological definition which provides clarity and a real expectation - the very one the Government would be working towards. If they're not saying what that level is, then WTF are they working towards?
For a government that is supposed to be excellent at messaging, they're spectacularly poor at telling New Zealanders why they're all being treated like criminals.
I'm not sure if you missed the message but I certainly feel like I understand where they are aiming for. In my understanding from the press conferences they are trying to get to a point where they are satisfied that there are no hidden pockets of transmission and that if new cases appear, the source is easily understood. Alongside that they need to be able to quickly trace potential transmission.
...and what point is that? What are the metrics?
-
@antipodean 0 unexplained cases?
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Hopefully this sort of thing will become more common. Cindy can't just say blue sky shit without expecting questions to be asked
It does have a tinge of searching for news though. Has anyone complained with reason or been affected by this potential 'misunderstanding'?
To me elimination means elimination of danger...risk levels extremely low....f there is a case then an outbreak is able to be contained quickly.
As long as we can go about our daily lives normally, then that's elimination of threat.
In Risk terminology a risk has become an issue, mitigations have been applied to revert it back and the residual risk is low likelihood/High Impact. Still red but not likely.I have to say I am getting a bit tired of our so called reporters, who having to do their jobs instead of rehashing tweets, have shown very poor skills in finding 'real' stories and keep trying to invent issues to talk about.
So you agree with the article then?
Yes, the prime minister is technically correct in epidemiology speak. A Dictionary of Epidemiology, 4th edition, defines elimination as a "reduction of case transmission to a predetermined very low level". However, the prime minister knows very well the general population is not fluent in epidemiological jargon, so up until she decided to tell us on Monday that "elimination doesn't mean zero cases" it's fair to say we've been misled. Whether that was intentional or not, we don't know. The reason we don't know is because our media failed to question the prime minister about it, bar one question that skirted around the edge: "Prime Minister, just on the elimination target, you say this doesn't mean zero cases. Does this mean you're prepared, or, at least, expecting, to have the virus in the country until there's a vaccine?" At least one journalist should have asked the prime minister why she thought it was acceptable to use "elimination" in her public speeches, when her intended meaning of the word is different from the accepted everyday use and understanding. It is fair to say our news media – or at least our political journalists – can do a better job.
I'd agree with that and it looks like you're saying much the same thing.
Nah, I disagree with the last paragraph. It's using semantics to try and generate a story that doesn't exist.
Messages need to be kept simple or they get woolly. She gave the detail verbally.
They seem to imply that anything other than complete annihilation is a shift and people are being tricked.Wouldn't the expectation of the majority of New Zealanders be that "elimination" means the the complete removal or destruction of something?
I'd suggest it would, especially in the face of a lack of detail about that the lower acceptable bound was. Where's the public messaging about "we have to get cases to this number and X per day to get to level Y"?
That creating a false expectation though. The movement decisions aren't solely based on one number. If, say the number was 3 but those 3 cases had randomly appeared in places with no previous outbreak and couldn't be traced then that is reason for concern and investigation.
I didn't say one number. My statement was consistent with the provided epidemiological definition which provides clarity and a real expectation - the very one the Government would be working towards. If they're not saying what that level is, then WTF are they working towards?
For a government that is supposed to be excellent at messaging, they're spectacularly poor at telling New Zealanders why they're all being treated like criminals.
I'm not sure if you missed the message but I certainly feel like I understand where they are aiming for. In my understanding from the press conferences they are trying to get to a point where they are satisfied that there are no hidden pockets of transmission and that if new cases appear, the source is easily understood. Alongside that they need to be able to quickly trace potential transmission.
...and what point is that? What are the metrics?
It isn’t as simple as numbers or a measure, that is the point. Just like any decision making based on data you need to apply an interpretation to the raw numbers.
If you want some kind of firm definition of that interpretation then I think they have also made it clear what criteria they are looking at.
Then you need to include other factors. Like how long have you been waiting to get to that point? Can you afford to go longer.
It is way too simplistic to ask for some kind of numbers tipping point. -
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean 0 unexplained cases?
So you can have heaps of confirmed cases and growth in cases as long as you know where they came from..?
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean 0 unexplained cases?
So you can have heaps of confirmed cases and growth in cases as long as you know where they came from..?
That won't happen if confirmed cases are staying in self-isolation. This is why we went to level 4 (we treated everyone as though they have COVID-19.
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean 0 unexplained cases?
So you can have heaps of confirmed cases and growth in cases as long as you know where they came from..?
Presumably longer term, no new clusters (which are 10 or more cases attributed to one source), and infections below 100 with that number reducing over time.