Coronavirus - New Zealand
-
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Labour's spin doctors have earned their money today. To hear Cindy speak there haven't really been any issues at the border. They've done a great job. Obviously always looking to improve but really aren't we fucking great!
Trump would be proud. That's Donny level speak right there. And were the assembled media too busy kissing her feet to ask obvious pertinent questions?
-
Good to see a cross-agency support group for the Ministry of Health - they are OK at managing siloes (they deal with DHBs who are masters of siloes) but add that to border agencies, airports and seaports, and it's a tall order.
Private security firms will be replaced by NZDF and civilian guards employed directly by MBIE (who are now responsible for Managed Isolation and Quarantine/MIQ).
-
they were in a no win situation to manage a border that is not closed outright, but they took the plaudits when we rode our luck for 3 months, they need to take some heat now.
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
they were in a no win situation to manage a border that is not closed outright, but they took the plaudits when we rode our luck for 3 months, they need to take some heat now.
I can excuse leaks, this virus is unforgiving in terms of its ability to infiltrate. The lack of testing is unforgivable
-
One thing that rugby fans always knew, but the govts of NZ (and Oz) seemed to be just discovering...private security firms are filled with a high percentage of fucking dropkicks who are poorly paid, poorly trained, and on the whole do a job that ranges from average to really mediocre. So yeah, of course they should be the ones managing a complex and volatile situation. Should have been the defence force from the start.
-
@Mokey said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
One thing that rugby fans always knew, but the govts of NZ (and Oz) seemed to be just discovering...private security firms are filled with a high percentage of fucking dropkicks who are poorly paid, poorly trained, and on the whole do a job that ranges from average to really mediocre. So yeah, of course they should be the ones managing a complex and volatile situation. Should have been the defence force from the start.
To be fair they didn't have the benefit of seeing someone else make the mistake with private security to raise their own awareness. Oh wait......
-
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12357747
"You don't, as prime minister, put out a press release on June 23 saying we're testing frontline staff at the border and then find out eight weeks later ... the public finds out that was not true." Judith Collins
-
I understand that the decision to move into lockdown had to be made pretty quickly but this doesn't look great
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12357931
-
@JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
I understand that the decision to move into lockdown had to be made pretty quickly but this doesn't look great
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12357931
Maybe it wasn't totally legal, I think the right decision was made at the time
-
@JC interestingly, there is also other court stuff going on, 2 employees (not sure if same company) have taken thier employer/s to court over not paying them thier full wage while in lockdown, rather paying them 80% or whatever it was.
Court ruled in the employees favour, however employer is appealing.
Seriously, that could put many more businesses in jeopardy if they lose the appeal, they really need to call Cindy as a witness!
-
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Maybe it wasn't totally legal, I think the right decision was made at the time
Yep, I think it's probably sound process
Right call, wrong execution (and that's an error- could probably just pass a quick piece of enabling legislation).
The after the crisis courts examine it and agree it's illegal. Rule of law is really really important in a healthy democracy, and I think we probably got the right decision in the end
Really, the only people this affects are the wazzers who broke quarantine the first time, who (it turns out) didn't actually do anything wrong. Their prosecutions will be dropped (if they existed at all). That said, it sounds like (by Parker refusing to pass on the advice they received on this to Bridges and the Covid select committee) that the Govt may have known at the time it was illegal, but chose to push on anyway.
-
@canefan I don't disagree but there will be unintended consequences for sure. As @taniwharugby has posted any employer that relied on the order as the basis for dealing with their employees may not be able to rely on it as a defence. Actions will have to stand up based on the law as it actually stood, not as it was intended. It seems as if there were alternative regulations that could have been used that would have resulted in the lockdown being legal but those weren't chosen. That will suck if people lose cases that they didn't need to.
-
@JC Bit naive to think a lockdown negated existing contracts. We asked all employees to sacrifice salary from 5 different options and got signed acceptance of the programme and individual sacrifice from every employee. Most chose to give up towards the top of the range asked for.
We laid out exactly why we were asking, what we were asking and for how long and promised that there would be no extension. We also said there we would have to ask people to muck in and do what was necessary even if it wasn't in their PD but that there would be no focus on targets or profitability other than 1 the health and safety of our staff and their whanau and 2 the health and safety of our businesses.
-
@dogmeat good work. I think people understood it was either collective pay reduction or redundancies. Goodwill is there up to a point, but retrospectively challenging it (while legal) is a bit of a dick move.
That said, an employer can't unilaterally reduce pay - you have to do what you did and get signed agreement, time frames and reasons I would think (IANAL)
-
The kids are making a mess so aunty Helen sends in one of the grown ups. I don't know about you all, but when one of my contractors makes the same mistake over and over, the worst thing they can say to me is that they don't know why things are not working right. You know it's time to move on from them. At least if they say they understand what went wrong there is the hope that they can actually put it right
-
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@pakman The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. backed by William Hague and Jeremy Hunt. Now there's a club I wouldn't want to join.
He does make a good point about travel, testing and risk though.
Does he though?
We have the two test regime for people in managed isolation - Day 3 and Day 11. I'm not certain of the precise breakdown but in the daily reporting there are plenty who get picked up on Day 11.
So while a one off test at (or before the border) will definitely stop some cases from getting out it won't come anywhere near catching them all.
Yeah I think so. Basically he said that if we want to get international travel back up and running we will have to accept some risk. More rigorous testing will mitigate that risk but not eliminate it.
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@pakman The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. backed by William Hague and Jeremy Hunt. Now there's a club I wouldn't want to join.
He does make a good point about travel, testing and risk though.
Does he though?
We have the two test regime for people in managed isolation - Day 3 and Day 11. I'm not certain of the precise breakdown but in the daily reporting there are plenty who get picked up on Day 11.
So while a one off test at (or before the border) will definitely stop some cases from getting out it won't come anywhere near catching them all.
Yeah I think so. Basically he said that if we want to get international travel back up and running we will have to accept some risk. More rigorous testing will mitigate that risk but not eliminate it.
Any different from the days when pilots would stay up all night drinking and fucking and then have a hair of the dog before firing the engines?