Coronavirus - New Zealand
-
@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.
-
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@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.
I get where @antipodean is coming from, and it’s captured right there in your response - “presumably”. Clearly you’re clever enough to understand a strategy, so why is it necessary for you to presume? Sure, some people need to have the message pitched to a less challenging level, but I don’t get the impression you or antipodean do so why don’t you have access to the unadulterated data and arguments? FWIW I think you’re probably correct, but you’re cutting the administration too much slack.
-
@JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@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.
I get where @antipodean is coming from, and it’s captured right there in your response - “presumably”. Clearly you’re clever enough to understand a strategy, so why is it necessary for you to presume? Sure, some people need to have the message pitched to a less challenging level, but I don’t get the impression you or antipodean do so why don’t you have access to the unadulterated data and arguments? FWIW I think you’re probably correct, but you’re cutting the administration too much slack.
The truth is the government doesn't know for sure and the model is probably robust. If you set certain criteria now and found out later it should include other criteria, that is a problem.
-
@JC metrics get published every day (number of new cases, sources, clusters, number of recovered cases, numbers in hospital an ICU, deaths). If we're asking what numbers would allow change of level, the probable answer is that the government doesn't know exactly because the health advice is probably changing as new evidence becomes available.
-
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@JC metrics get published every day (number of new cases, sources, clusters, number of recovered cases, numbers in hospital an ICU, deaths). If we're asking what numbers would allow change of level, the probable answer is that the government doesn't know exactly because the health advice is probably changing as new evidence becomes available.
That is what we're asking. If you embark on something major without knowing how you are going to measure success you can't hope to know if you've been successful. If you make a temporary change you need to know what criteria you're going to use to exit. These things are basic change management principles that governments the world over never seem to get right.
If the government wants to temporarily infringe on our human rights they have an obligation to understand how they are going to hand them back to us, explain that to us and if something changes along the way offer us a chance to exit. In other words they need to define "temporary" with absolute precision. I did not agree to an open-ended handover of the running of my life to a government.
-
@JC it was agreed by our representatives in Parliament giving those powers to the government if an epidemic is declared.
And if the government keeps publishing criteria and revising it regularly, how will that keep public confidence? People don't trust them now, and that would look like flip-flopping.
-
The guy actually has some good points. Nice of stuff to nullify any of the worthwhile stuff with that headline
-
@canefan well he explicitly questioned whether they can take it back off him - so while he did raise some good points (that I don't think the govt is oblivious to btw) he's come in pretty hot. But can't fault his dedication to his crew and their families.
-
@canefan a lot of thier headlines are pathetic...
-
@Paekakboyz said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan well he explicitly questioned whether they can take it back off him - so while he did raise some good points (that I don't think the govt is oblivious to btw) he's come in pretty hot. But can't fault his dedication to his crew and their families.
The photo with him in a sportscar just encourages the idea that all contractors are exploitative scum
-
-
@Paekakboyz said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan well he explicitly questioned whether they can take it back off him - so while he did raise some good points (that I don't think the govt is oblivious to btw) he's come in pretty hot. But can't fault his dedication to his crew and their families.
Although I had to laugh at his declaration that the govt is useless because they are wasting money but he’s happy to collect as much of it as he can. A man of principles quite obviously.
-
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Paekakboyz said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan well he explicitly questioned whether they can take it back off him - so while he did raise some good points (that I don't think the govt is oblivious to btw) he's come in pretty hot. But can't fault his dedication to his crew and their families.
Although I had to laugh at his declaration that the govt is useless because they are wasting money but he’s happy to collect as much of it as he can. A man of principles quite obviously.
Yeah, if you’re in such good shape and don’t need the money then don’t take it. Instead, he’s taking it and then sticking the boot in. Also, going on about how much money you need to keep going seems a bit counter productive.
-
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Paekakboyz said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan well he explicitly questioned whether they can take it back off him - so while he did raise some good points (that I don't think the govt is oblivious to btw) he's come in pretty hot. But can't fault his dedication to his crew and their families.
Although I had to laugh at his declaration that the govt is useless because they are wasting money but he’s happy to collect as much of it as he can. A man of principles quite obviously.
He's not the best advocate for the position it must be said