Coronavirus - New Zealand
-
@smudge said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@mn5 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
I just clicked on the link and his shit eating zoolander pout in the photo while horse racing is the most punchable thing I’ve seen in as long as I can remember.
He's not "horse racing".
Whatever. He’s on a horse and he looks like a fluffybunny.
-
@godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
I must say they seem extremely sorry they got caught.
Mum looks extra sorry...(or scary)
The cynical side of me says that their QC got name suppression so they had time to plan out their strategy and minimise damage. Those statements are scripted AF. Drafted by a QC and approved by a judge.
Now let's see how the Law Society acts.
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
I must say they seem extremely sorry they got caught.
Mum looks extra sorry...(or scary)
Classy post.
-
This might be the last item in the anti Covid suite to essentially eliminate long lockdowns in future:
Government urged to buy 'game changer' Covid-19 drug treatment https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/451512/government-urged-to-buy-game-changer-covid-19-drug-treatment
-
@godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
This might be the last item in the anti Covid suite to essentially eliminate long lockdowns in future:
Government urged to buy 'game changer' Covid-19 drug treatment https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/451512/government-urged-to-buy-game-changer-covid-19-drug-treatment
You have to take your hat off to the people developing these vaxs and treatments.
-
@chris-b I actually thought good on him when he started talking about it. But then he kinda went too far in saying absolutely lay off. Not that the death threat fringe would be watching the project or anything... or are they!!
I wouldn't be surprised if their respective folks just let them sort themselves out. The guys mum came out swinging pretty hard about it being a stellar dick move. I 100% agree that a big ol community sentence would be far better than a fine or similar.
-
The whole lockdown-breakers fleeing to Wanaka now being remorseful is one hell of a perfect storm for the media and social media, for a number of reasons:
- People from seemingly wealthy white families fleeing to their holiday home in Wanaka reeks of privilege and a "one rule for them, one rule for us" type attitude.
- The apparent misuse of the essential work letter to get across the border in the first place being extremely problematic for the lawyer especially.
- The initial pursuit of name suppression and use of a QC and probable PR company - again, while completely common and legal rights, smacks of privilege and something that wealthy white people do when they get in trouble
- The enormous potential economic and social consequences, had they spread covid to the South Island.
- The deliberate course of conduct of their actions, which only really stopped when they were dobbed in.
It's not hard to see why the general public are outraged at this. I'd say the holiday home will probably be up for sale pretty soon - they're not gonna be invited to the street BBQs anyway.
-
@aucklandwarlord Agreeing as I do that the pair broke the law, I’m in two minds about the actual seriousness of what they did.
There is a process that allows people to use exemptions to cross the border. Sure, they misused that but my logic says whoever designed the process accepted that the risks of crossing the border are low, otherwise they would have banned exemptions outright wouldn’t they? If that’s the case does it really matter how far they travel once they are through?
If the process lets them leave it presumes they are safe so why can’t they travel onwards? If Mercer is OK why not Hamilton? Or Wellington… or Wanaka?
-
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@aucklandwarlord Agreeing as I do that the pair broke the law, I’m in two minds about the actual seriousness of what they did.
There is a process that allows people to use exemptions to cross the border. Sure, they misused that but my logic says whoever designed the process accepted that the risks of crossing the border are low, otherwise they would have banned exemptions outright wouldn’t they? If that’s the case does it really matter how far they travel once they are through?
If the process lets them leave it presumes they are safe so why can’t they travel onwards? If Mercer is OK why not Hamilton? Or Wellington… or Wanaka?
The example it sets is clearly not a good one. If I read in the news that these people flout the rules and get away with it, why should I toe the line anymore? Why should I not do whatever I want to and screw the rules?
-
@jc was a Health Worker that used thier essential worker pass or letter to leave Auckland and go to Huntly for KFC a couple of weeks back.
The rules are great when everyone plays by them, but people are pushing them, and will do so more and more, especially when you consider the perceived failures of the Govt to protect us like they said they would and they impose restrictions on our lives and livelihoods
-
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@aucklandwarlord Agreeing as I do that the pair broke the law, I’m in two minds about the actual seriousness of what they did.
There is a process that allows people to use exemptions to cross the border. Sure, they misused that but my logic says whoever designed the process accepted that the risks of crossing the border are low, otherwise they would have banned exemptions outright wouldn’t they? If that’s the case does it really matter how far they travel once they are through?
If the process lets them leave it presumes they are safe so why can’t they travel onwards? If Mercer is OK why not Hamilton? Or Wellington… or Wanaka?
The example it sets is clearly not a good one. If I read in the news that these people flout the rules and get away with it, why should I toe the line anymore? Why should I not do whatever I want to and screw the rules?
Sure, and they’ll get their day of reckoning and the example will be set. But we had a couple of students a few weeks ago who got onto planes and travelled. Nobody wanted to kill them, and they didn’t have an exemption in their pocket.
People are in fact travelling. MPs, business people, whoever. But the distinction seems to me to be like “I can obviously travel using an exemption because I am a serious person doing important things, so me not having a single fucking clue whether I am a risk to others is not a question worthy of asking. But those scumbags are travelling for FUN. Who do they think they are?”. Rules, eh?
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@jc was a Health Worker that used thier essential worker pass or letter to leave Auckland and go to Huntly for KFC a couple of weeks back.
The rules are great when everyone plays by them, but people are pushing them, and will do so more and more, especially when you consider the perceived failures of the Govt to protect us like they said they would and they impose restrictions on our lives and livelihoods
Are they great though? The moment you start providing exemptions (and yes, I understand why they are needed), don’t the rules only remain fair if the exemptions require an additional action that everybody else without an exemption doesn’t have to go through?
For example if they said everybody with an exemption letter must remain self isolated at all times and be tested every day then you could say the exemption was a managed risk.
But this looks like an ignored risk. And if they can ignore some risks why can’t they ignore mine? Rules shouldn’t look like they have arbitrary enforcement.
-
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@aucklandwarlord Agreeing as I do that the pair broke the law, I’m in two minds about the actual seriousness of what they did.
There is a process that allows people to use exemptions to cross the border. Sure, they misused that but my logic says whoever designed the process accepted that the risks of crossing the border are low, otherwise they would have banned exemptions outright wouldn’t they? If that’s the case does it really matter how far they travel once they are through?
If the process lets them leave it presumes they are safe so why can’t they travel onwards? If Mercer is OK why not Hamilton? Or Wellington… or Wanaka?
I agree that in theory that the actual travel in itself isn't significantly more serious than someone who jumped in their car with the boat on the back and travelled to their bach in Northland or down to the Coromandel last month to ride out the lockdown somewhere more proximate to the beach. However, at that stage, Northland and Coromandel were both in lockdown as well, so if they had presented with symptoms and subsequently tested positive for Covid-19, there would have been some element of protection toward others through the general lockdown measures which were in place at both locations.
Had they left, while carrying the virus to a level 2 place such as Wanaka, people have their guard down a bit more, restrictions are a bit more relaxed, it would spread far easier in level 2 than in level 4.
The number of cases that still appear in MIQ and at the border show that simply having a negative test prior to leaving a Covid area isn't in itself conclusive that you don't have Covid, given everyone is required to have a negative test before getting on the plane to NZ, but we still have people arriving with the virus.
My understanding of the essential work process lets them leave for work which is deemed essential, so they are taking on some element of risk for sure, but it's because of the supposed nature and importance of their work that they're allowed to leave. I'm picking the border exemption letters are intended for a lawyer who might have to travel to Hamilton for a court hearing, but is expected back in Auckland once it is done, and therefore it is only a very small window of time they're out of the lockdown zone. If she was infectious without knowing, a 12 hour period of leaving carries significantly less of a window to infect others, rather than just leaving indefinitely, at which point she could infect people in an ongoing basis.
Society in general also loves a good scapegoat - these people will be it this time around. It's not like it was an innocent mistake, so they had to have known there was a risk this would all blow up in their faces.
-
At least they are talking about ways to not lockdown (was on radio) in future.
I will be into full civil disobedience if they do this again. I'm not even in AKL and this has cost me so much financially I will not repeat it. I will find a way to open my business, in some way (safely, I am responsible) and put a house on my property, and have a life again.
And just buy a pie at lunchtime FFS.
-
@snowy said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
At least they are talking about ways to not lockdown (was on radio) in future.
I will be into full civil disobedience if they do this again. I'm not even in AKL and this has cost me so much financially I will not repeat it. I will find a way to open my business, in some way (safely, I am responsible) and put a house on my property, and have a life again.
And just buy a pie at lunchtime FFS.
Yeah I don't think you'll be alone. It's hard to see kiwis as a whole being so compliant again.
I've been lucky for both lockdowns - for the 2020 one I ended up getting paid OT for working on weekends and in the evenings, and then the second time around I was working from home and had just picked up some added consultancy work. So both times I saved on fuel and other day-to-day expenses while also bringing in more than my actual salary. Most of my friends haven't been so lucky.
I'm gutted for the hospo and retail sectors and other businesses who are just trying to stay afloat amongst other mounting costs (increased wages and sick leave, added public holidays, increased materials costs). It'll take a long time to recover from this, one would think.
Obviously I know it's significantly more complex given the nature of supply chains, but seems a real shame that there weren't ways that things like mills could keep running to address the dire timber shortages. It's also a kick in the teeth for some companies that see the duopoly of supermarket chains pretty much printing money, cupcakes and other things being able to be sold online while the local butcher and greengrocer are being made to close.