Coronavirus - New Zealand
-
@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
-
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@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.
Oh no. We can’t have them looking like they’re flip-flopping can we? That would be so politically inconvenient.
This is simple. If they know what the exit criteria are they should tell us. If they don’t know they should tell us that instead. The former has a time limit, even if it’s just connected to a condition or event. But if the exit criteria are rational, the abrogation of our human rights is temporary.
However if there aren’t any exit criteria it is entirely possible that there is no exit, ever. I’m not OK with living like that, and I don’t care what representatives decided it.
I’m not impressed by arguments that things are constantly changing when the people making the argument are the ones who are changing things.
-
@JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@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.
Oh no. We can’t have them looking like they’re flip-flopping can we? That would be so politically inconvenient.
This is simple. If they know what the exit criteria are they should tell us. If they don’t know they should tell us that instead. The former has a time limit, even if it’s just connected to a condition or event. But if the exit criteria are rational, the abrogation of our human rights is temporary.
However if there aren’t any exit criteria it is entirely possible that there is no exit, ever. I’m not OK with living like that, and I don’t care what representatives decided it.
I’m not impressed by arguments that things are constantly changing when the people making the argument are the ones who are changing things.
It’s a decision based on a situation of many variables, not one the can be locked in and held to.
I get the element of frustration by some but things aren’t as simple as “when this number occurs”.
It isn’t trying to save face either. You know exactly what would happen if they set some targets but didn’t move when the targets were met because of other information that had to hand. -
@Toddy said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
40 staff not working for five weeks and so far that's only cost him $80K??
Am I missing something or should I read the whole article?
Who knows, maybe he “negotiated” with them to take a massive pay cut with the alternative of regrettably not being able to keep their jobs. He’s obviously a real gent.
-
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@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.
Oh no. We can’t have them looking like they’re flip-flopping can we? That would be so politically inconvenient.
This is simple. If they know what the exit criteria are they should tell us. If they don’t know they should tell us that instead. The former has a time limit, even if it’s just connected to a condition or event. But if the exit criteria are rational, the abrogation of our human rights is temporary.
However if there aren’t any exit criteria it is entirely possible that there is no exit, ever. I’m not OK with living like that, and I don’t care what representatives decided it.
I’m not impressed by arguments that things are constantly changing when the people making the argument are the ones who are changing things.
It’s a decision based on a situation of many variables, not one the can be locked in and held to.
I get the element of frustration by some but things aren’t as simple as “when this number occurs”.
It isn’t trying to save face either. You know exactly what would happen if they set some targets but didn’t move when the targets were met because of other information that had to hand.Of course it’s complex. But they chose an extreme course that varies from the original premise. Originally they needed to flatten the curve so that our health services would cope. The compact with the public was that we would temporarily surrender some freedoms so that could happen. I assume that they’ve used the time to upgrade our health systems so that we are prepared for a future wave. But I don’t know, because nobody has told us how that’s going. Instead something changed: we were going to go for elimination, something that nobody is sure will work. That’s a significant movement of the goalposts.
Assuming elimination works, what are the implications? The WHO said overnight that COVID passports shouldn’t be used because there’s no evidence that having the virus confers immunity. Think about that. We may be permanently stuck with this thing. If so, it’s about time someone started to talk with us about what rights and freedoms we are prepared to permanently give up. And the answer might be “none”. So be it.
I’m much more likely to be in the high risk category than most here, and I’d rather not die. But I’m fucked if I want to be the reason people who are at very little risk have their lives and livelihoods ruined just so that I can get a few extra years of living like a hermit. Fuck that. I’d rather take my chances and let people with an actual future have one.
-
@JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@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.
Oh no. We can’t have them looking like they’re flip-flopping can we? That would be so politically inconvenient.
This is simple. If they know what the exit criteria are they should tell us. If they don’t know they should tell us that instead. The former has a time limit, even if it’s just connected to a condition or event. But if the exit criteria are rational, the abrogation of our human rights is temporary.
However if there aren’t any exit criteria it is entirely possible that there is no exit, ever. I’m not OK with living like that, and I don’t care what representatives decided it.
I’m not impressed by arguments that things are constantly changing when the people making the argument are the ones who are changing things.
It’s a decision based on a situation of many variables, not one the can be locked in and held to.
I get the element of frustration by some but things aren’t as simple as “when this number occurs”.
It isn’t trying to save face either. You know exactly what would happen if they set some targets but didn’t move when the targets were met because of other information that had to hand.Of course it’s complex. But they chose an extreme course that varies from the original premise. Originally they needed to flatten the curve so that our health services would cope. The compact with the public was that we would temporarily surrender some freedoms so that could happen. I assume that they’ve used the time to upgrade our health systems so that we are prepared for a future wave. But I don’t know, because nobody has told us how that’s going. Instead something changed: we were going to go for elimination, something that nobody is sure will work. That’s a significant movement of the goalposts.
Assuming elimination works, what are the implications? The WHO said overnight that COVID passports shouldn’t be used because there’s no evidence that having the virus confers immunity. Think about that. We may be permanently stuck with this thing. If so, it’s about time someone started to talk with us about what rights and freedoms we are prepared to permanently give up. And the answer might be “none”. So be it.
I’m much more likely to be in the high risk category than most here, and I’d rather not die. But I’m fucked if I want to be the reason people who are at very little risk have their lives and livelihoods ruined just so that I can get a few extra years of living like a hermit. Fuck that. I’d rather take my chances and let people with an actual future have one.
This is a great post mate
-
@JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@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.
Oh no. We can’t have them looking like they’re flip-flopping can we? That would be so politically inconvenient.
This is simple. If they know what the exit criteria are they should tell us. If they don’t know they should tell us that instead. The former has a time limit, even if it’s just connected to a condition or event. But if the exit criteria are rational, the abrogation of our human rights is temporary.
However if there aren’t any exit criteria it is entirely possible that there is no exit, ever. I’m not OK with living like that, and I don’t care what representatives decided it.
I’m not impressed by arguments that things are constantly changing when the people making the argument are the ones who are changing things.
It’s a decision based on a situation of many variables, not one the can be locked in and held to.
I get the element of frustration by some but things aren’t as simple as “when this number occurs”.
It isn’t trying to save face either. You know exactly what would happen if they set some targets but didn’t move when the targets were met because of other information that had to hand.Of course it’s complex. But they chose an extreme course that varies from the original premise. Originally they needed to flatten the curve so that our health services would cope. The compact with the public was that we would temporarily surrender some freedoms so that could happen. I assume that they’ve used the time to upgrade our health systems so that we are prepared for a future wave. But I don’t know, because nobody has told us how that’s going. Instead something changed: we were going to go for elimination, something that nobody is sure will work. That’s a significant movement of the goalposts.
Assuming elimination works, what are the implications? The WHO said overnight that COVID passports shouldn’t be used because there’s no evidence that having the virus confers immunity. Think about that. We may be permanently stuck with this thing. If so, it’s about time someone started to talk with us about what rights and freedoms we are prepared to permanently give up. And the answer might be “none”. So be it.
I’m much more likely to be in the high risk category than most here, and I’d rather not die. But I’m fucked if I want to be the reason people who are at very little risk have their lives and livelihoods ruined just so that I can get a few extra years of living like a hermit. Fuck that. I’d rather take my chances and let people with an actual future have one.
The government does a press conference every day and Ashley Bloomfield has done Facebook Q&A's. There has been plenty of accountability and openness on this issue. The government tells us how upgrading the system is going every day. They tell us how many tests are done; they talk about PPE; they talk about hospital capacity etc.
I don't think anyone is talking about a few years of living like a hermit. Letting the virus ravage New Zealand would probably be preferable than 3 years of everyone being a hermit. But no one is suggesting that. It has only been 5 weeks and we are moving down the levels.
You are better off saving your criticism for May 11 when the level will be reviewed again. Why get upset over a hypothetical?
I'm also not sure what you mean by "no one is sure that elimination will work". Everyone knows that if there are less people with the virus in NZ and if there is contact tracing then there is less risk of the virus spreading. We think it is unlikely that the virus can be eradicated. We are giving up rights now by being in levels 3 & 4 for longer than you would like precisely so we don't have to live as hermits for 3 years. We can give up rights for a short amount of time, have only a small number of cases and than we can go back to largely life as normal (with no overseas travel).
-
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@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.
Oh no. We can’t have them looking like they’re flip-flopping can we? That would be so politically inconvenient.
This is simple. If they know what the exit criteria are they should tell us. If they don’t know they should tell us that instead. The former has a time limit, even if it’s just connected to a condition or event. But if the exit criteria are rational, the abrogation of our human rights is temporary.
However if there aren’t any exit criteria it is entirely possible that there is no exit, ever. I’m not OK with living like that, and I don’t care what representatives decided it.
I’m not impressed by arguments that things are constantly changing when the people making the argument are the ones who are changing things.
It’s a decision based on a situation of many variables, not one the can be locked in and held to.
I get the element of frustration by some but things aren’t as simple as “when this number occurs”.
It isn’t trying to save face either. You know exactly what would happen if they set some targets but didn’t move when the targets were met because of other information that had to hand.Of course it’s complex. But they chose an extreme course that varies from the original premise. Originally they needed to flatten the curve so that our health services would cope. The compact with the public was that we would temporarily surrender some freedoms so that could happen. I assume that they’ve used the time to upgrade our health systems so that we are prepared for a future wave. But I don’t know, because nobody has told us how that’s going. Instead something changed: we were going to go for elimination, something that nobody is sure will work. That’s a significant movement of the goalposts.
Assuming elimination works, what are the implications? The WHO said overnight that COVID passports shouldn’t be used because there’s no evidence that having the virus confers immunity. Think about that. We may be permanently stuck with this thing. If so, it’s about time someone started to talk with us about what rights and freedoms we are prepared to permanently give up. And the answer might be “none”. So be it.
I’m much more likely to be in the high risk category than most here, and I’d rather not die. But I’m fucked if I want to be the reason people who are at very little risk have their lives and livelihoods ruined just so that I can get a few extra years of living like a hermit. Fuck that. I’d rather take my chances and let people with an actual future have one.
The government does a press conference every day and Ashley Bloomfield has done Facebook Q&A's. There has been plenty of accountability and openness on this issue. The government tells us how upgrading the system is going every day. They tell us how many tests are done; they talk about PPE; they talk about hospital capacity etc.
I don't think anyone is talking about a few years of living like a hermit. Letting the virus ravage New Zealand would probably be preferable than 3 years of everyone being a hermit. But no one is suggesting that. It has only been 5 weeks and we are moving down the levels.
You are better off saving your criticism for May 11 when the level will be reviewed again. Why get upset over a hypothetical?
I'm also not sure what you mean by "no one is sure that elimination will work". Everyone knows that if there are less people with the virus in NZ and if there is contact tracing then there is less risk of the virus spreading. We think it is unlikely that the virus can be eradicated. We are giving up rights now by being in levels 3 & 4 for longer than you would like precisely so we don't have to live as hermits for 3 years. We can give up rights for a short amount of time, have only a small number of cases and than we can go back to largely life as normal (with no overseas travel).
All I can say is you have a much lower standard for accountability than I do. Having a press conference isn’t what I’m talking about. In my world I have always asked the people I work with “what’s the plan”. And I mean the entire plan. We talk about the assumptions and constraints, the unknowns and the variables. Then we agree and we publish it. Then people are accountable for it. Of course things change, but we have a baseline, and every change to the original plan means everything goes back on the table. I’d be very surprised if you, or anybody else whose ever worked on a formal project, doesn’t recognise this. It is the way you get things done.
Why get upset over a hypothetical? Because the curtailing of freedoms isn’t hypothetical at all. It’s now the status quo. What’s hypothetical is, in fact, the exit from the curtailment of those freedoms, because that is based on a judgement call, the parameters of which we don’t know in advance.
As for “no one is sure elimination will work”, what’s not to understand? We know we can probably keep cases where they are is we stick to Level 4. We don’t know whether they will ramp up again when we relax the levels again. It is distinctly possible that future experience shows us that we can’t contain it unless we remain at Level 4. So when you say we are living with Level 4 and 3 for a couple of weeks so we don’t have to live like hermits for 3 years, where is the evidence for that optimistic outlook? Because Jacinda told you? I get that’s their hope, but hoping isn’t a way to run a country.
-
@hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
We are giving up rights now by being in levels 3 & 4 for longer than you would like precisely so we don't have to live as hermits for 3 years.
What would living like a hermit look like? Like level 3 & 4? So your argument is "we're living like hermits for an indistinct period of time so that we're not living like hermits for three years"?