Coronavirus - New Zealand
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hooroo what's the point of planning and budgeting on something that has a slim chance of going to plan? You'd then have everyone bitching and moaning about how they had spent money, arranged functions etc etc and it changed on them.
Giving false hope isn't good leadership either.
I do think that there may be a bit more of a plan soon though hence the modelling being done on vaccination rates etc. There is a need to create a carrot instead of just pointing to the stick.
I wouldn't be making plans on it though. Way too much can happen.A plan isn't false hope. It's a plan. A plan can have what is deemed as bad outcomes as well as good. That's what planning is.
Has to have a point though. I still don't see what the type of plan we are talking about achieves apart from a waste of time.
There is a roadmap being formulated by the looks of things, based around vaccination rates which is a massive unknown being down to human choice. Anything set out after that is then variable based on something that we can't control short of rounding dips hits up with cattle prods.
Wow you would be awesome in business. Only living in the right now, no planning because future is uncertain, purely reactive.
Fair enough though, it kind of explains a lot.
That's a bit smart arse isn't it? What does it explain exactly?
Funnily enough I am actually a planner by career but also ones that sees no value in setting up measures and goals that experience shows cannot have a certain degree of certainty. I'm sure you are aware of the phases things go through and how plans remain fluid while working toward a goal until they reach levels of known achievability.
One of the biggest business delivery failings is trying to nail stuff down to early. Ever notice why so many projects go over the original investment case. Because everyone wanted a 'roadmap' quantified before planning was complete. I understand that some business cultures (an example I was given was a Japanese one) don't accept overruns because they invest in planning before promises. I digress.
I haven't said that the govt shouldn't plan. Far from it. I think they need to constantly re-plan based on what's happening and have underlying aims that they can be agile in achieving. Planning AND reacting are key.I read this shaking my head knowing not to carry on. Only plan if there is a certain degree of certainty. Good grief.
I don't believe for a second, based on your responses that you are a planner, but there you go.
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hooroo what's the point of planning and budgeting on something that has a slim chance of going to plan? You'd then have everyone bitching and moaning about how they had spent money, arranged functions etc etc and it changed on them.
Giving false hope isn't good leadership either.
I do think that there may be a bit more of a plan soon though hence the modelling being done on vaccination rates etc. There is a need to create a carrot instead of just pointing to the stick.
I wouldn't be making plans on it though. Way too much can happen.A plan isn't false hope. It's a plan. A plan can have what is deemed as bad outcomes as well as good. That's what planning is.
Has to have a point though. I still don't see what the type of plan we are talking about achieves apart from a waste of time.
There is a roadmap being formulated by the looks of things, based around vaccination rates which is a massive unknown being down to human choice. Anything set out after that is then variable based on something that we can't control short of rounding dips hits up with cattle prods.
Wow you would be awesome in business. Only living in the right now, no planning because future is uncertain, purely reactive.
Fair enough though, it kind of explains a lot.
That's a bit smart arse isn't it? What does it explain exactly?
Funnily enough I am actually a planner by career but also ones that sees no value in setting up measures and goals that experience shows cannot have a certain degree of certainty. I'm sure you are aware of the phases things go through and how plans remain fluid while working toward a goal until they reach levels of known achievability.
One of the biggest business delivery failings is trying to nail stuff down to early. Ever notice why so many projects go over the original investment case. Because everyone wanted a 'roadmap' quantified before planning was complete. I understand that some business cultures (an example I was given was a Japanese one) don't accept overruns because they invest in planning before promises. I digress.
I haven't said that the govt shouldn't plan. Far from it. I think they need to constantly re-plan based on what's happening and have underlying aims that they can be agile in achieving. Planning AND reacting are key.Well countering that I now manage large scale enterprise projects for a living, and I don't recognise at all your take on planning.
In my world if you are leading people through a complex change you lay out your assumptions, risks, constraints, resources and costs, deliverables and milestones, then set out what your intentions are based on that. Then you adapt as needed. And you do it all openly and honestly. The moment you start obfuscating you lose the trust of your stakeholders. It is the height of arrogance to decide on their behalf that there are things too complex for them to know, or that they don't have the brains to interpret what you are telling them. If someone else is picking up the tab they deserve to know everything you know, especially what options are available to them.
I have no idea why running projects or initiatives is different in the public sector, but if it is it might explain why they are so useless at delivery.
-
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Shaun Hendy on presser giving latest modelling
Vax alone won't give herd immunity at 90% of over 5's
However if you add in
Masks
Rapid Tests
Social Distancing
Contact Tracing
Limited border controlsyou can make it no worse than seasonal flu without lockdowns
However if we achieve only 80% of 5+ and relied only on vax modeling says 60K cases and 7K deaths p.a. so we would need to retain lockdowns
This is good and interesting info. I do find the modelling interesting, not that I have actually read one first hand ...
It reinforces my opinion that the only way will be 'accidental spread' and opening up after the facts-on-the-ground have changed. It would be difficult for any politician will decide to open up.
It reinforces my opinion change from a week or so ago that now is almost as good a time as any to change from elimination to management.
I'll be disappointed if the gangs turn out to be actually socially responsible ...
-
@crucial I was away but everyone said what I think anyway already ...
You do a high-level roadmap for communication and expectation setting purposes across all levels and audiences. Full of assumptions and caveats but it shows where you are going and gets buy ins and maybe get some good feedbacks so you refine it a bit (which people REALLY like because you took good feedback onboard). Stamp "DRAFT" on the first 3 versions at least, maybe all of them, it really doesn't matter As I say, max 10 slides.
Plans are detailed and you don't show most of them (maybe just an occasional extract when needed) because it's overload for any audience and always changing - but it's what you're executing. You keep your roadmap updated as a communication vehicle ongoing, and are open when it changes, state what has changed and so on. It expands a bit as time goes on. Still 10-15 slides max.
Btw I worked in Japan for years as a project manager. The projects run "on time and budget" because the planning is so good. BUT what you don't see is the Japanese are cr*p at roadmap building and getting alignment to even get stuff going, so it takes 2 years and lots of hidden cost to even get the project off the ground, then it hopefully runs on a railroad track for a year. BUT in Japan they are also completely thrown if things change much. Which is reality in a large global enterprise.
In the US they'll do the same thing in say 50-60% of the time. Get their budget wrong but have a huge contingency pre-allocated for that, accept overruns, and still come cheaper than Japan as well. I worked in Fortune 500 companies for ... let's say a "few years".
NZ government haven't put up a roadmap, sorry. They are not communicating, not helping people see where it's going i.e. direction. It's all being drip-fed so they can manage the politics of situation.
-
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hooroo what's the point of planning and budgeting on something that has a slim chance of going to plan? You'd then have everyone bitching and moaning about how they had spent money, arranged functions etc etc and it changed on them.
Giving false hope isn't good leadership either.
I do think that there may be a bit more of a plan soon though hence the modelling being done on vaccination rates etc. There is a need to create a carrot instead of just pointing to the stick.
I wouldn't be making plans on it though. Way too much can happen.A plan isn't false hope. It's a plan. A plan can have what is deemed as bad outcomes as well as good. That's what planning is.
Has to have a point though. I still don't see what the type of plan we are talking about achieves apart from a waste of time.
There is a roadmap being formulated by the looks of things, based around vaccination rates which is a massive unknown being down to human choice. Anything set out after that is then variable based on something that we can't control short of rounding dips hits up with cattle prods.
Wow you would be awesome in business. Only living in the right now, no planning because future is uncertain, purely reactive.
Fair enough though, it kind of explains a lot.
That's a bit smart arse isn't it? What does it explain exactly?
Funnily enough I am actually a planner by career but also ones that sees no value in setting up measures and goals that experience shows cannot have a certain degree of certainty. I'm sure you are aware of the phases things go through and how plans remain fluid while working toward a goal until they reach levels of known achievability.
One of the biggest business delivery failings is trying to nail stuff down to early. Ever notice why so many projects go over the original investment case. Because everyone wanted a 'roadmap' quantified before planning was complete. I understand that some business cultures (an example I was given was a Japanese one) don't accept overruns because they invest in planning before promises. I digress.
I haven't said that the govt shouldn't plan. Far from it. I think they need to constantly re-plan based on what's happening and have underlying aims that they can be agile in achieving. Planning AND reacting are key.Well countering that I now manage large scale enterprise projects for a living, and I don't recognise at all your take on planning.
In my world if you are leading people through a complex change you lay out your assumptions, risks, constraints, resources and costs, deliverables and milestones, then set out what your intentions are based on that. Then you adapt as needed. And you do it all openly and honestly. The moment you start obfuscating you lose the trust of your stakeholders. It is the height of arrogance to decide on their behalf that there are things too complex for them to know, or that they don't have the brains to interpret what you are telling them. If someone else is picking up the tab they deserve to know everything you know, especially what options are available to them.
I have no idea why running projects or initiatives is different in the public sector, but if it is it might explain why they are so useless at delivery.
I agree with all of that and although I am currently in the public sector (and your assumptions are true) the experience that I was getting at has been experienced elsewhere as well.
What I am trying to explain and seem to have got away from is that while overall plans on what to achieve and how you think you are going to get there are well and good, they aren't firm promises at the start and firm up along the lifecycle. When you have a lot of knowns then obviously your plans are firmer. When you try and combine delivery with discovery then you have to ensure that your stakeholders are well aware that is the approach and outcomes can change.
The discussion here was around people wanting to plan travel with some kind of knowledge of what the plan may be around MIQ in relation to other things happening. I was simply stating that knowing a car is being built and that if the everything goes to plan it will be ready by March is worthless when there is no certainty on when parts will arrive or what parts are available. You can plan all you like but the end user only gets an idea of what you want to achieve not what you will achieve.
I'm sure you have probably experienced a stakeholder holding you to task on a milestone even though you have always explained the dependencies?
I'm not saying that you only plan when there is certainty, far from it. Just saying there is little value in constantly explaining to the idiot in the back of the room that the car won't be ready until the wheels arrive so he will have to delay his launch plans. -
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Shaun Hendy on presser giving latest modelling
Vax alone won't give herd immunity at 90% of over 5's
However if you add in
Masks
Rapid Tests
Social Distancing
Contact Tracing
Limited border controlsyou can make it no worse than seasonal flu without lockdowns
However if we achieve only 80% of 5+ and relied only on vax modeling says 60K cases and 7K deaths p.a. so we would need to retain lockdowns
Back on this.
7k deaths p.a. That is about 1372 death per million.
That would put us roughly here in an international comparison using https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Between Russia and Namibia.
Obviously, Russia's numbers are pure hogwash and are in real about double. Don't know about NamibiaBest example there of a country with reliable stats is Switzerland.
These numbers are for more than one year. But in reality most places have 2 waves spread within a 12 month period that make up the bulk of their numbers, and Switzerland hasn't had a 3rd wave yet.So. If NZ had a freedom day with 80% vax - the model would be the equivalent of what happened to Switzerland who had one and half of their waves with zero vaccinations.
Or maybe a better comparison is Greece, with presumably healthcare system running on an oily rag like NZ's is designed to do. Their stats are also solid.
NZ won't have a freedom day approach though. It will have a managed exit wave approach. With probably just the promise of no more level 4s, but the ability to go into L3s if necessary.
I'd 'model it' with my finger in the air at sub-1000.
-
@l_n_p said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial I was away but everyone said what I think anyway already ...
You do a high-level roadmap for communication and expectation setting purposes across all levels and audiences. Full of assumptions and caveats but it shows where you are going and gets buy ins and maybe get some good feedbacks so you refine it a bit (which people REALLY like because you took good feedback onboard). Stamp "DRAFT" on the first 3 versions at least, maybe all of them, it really doesn't matter As I say, max 10 slides.
Plans are detailed and you don't show most of them (maybe just an occasional extract when needed) because it's overload for any audience and always changing - but it's what you're executing. You keep your roadmap updated as a communication vehicle ongoing, and are open when it changes, state what has changed and so on. It expands a bit as time goes on. Still 10-15 slides max.
Btw I worked in Japan for years as a project manager. The projects run "on time and budget" because the planning is so good. BUT what you don't see is the Japanese are cr*p at roadmap building and getting alignment to even get stuff going, so it takes 2 years and lots of hidden cost to even get the project off the ground, then it hopefully runs on a railroad track for a year. BUT in Japan they are also completely thrown if things change much. Which is reality in a large global enterprise.
In the US they'll do the same thing in say 50-60% of the time. Get their budget wrong but have a huge contingency pre-allocated for that, accept overruns, and still come cheaper than Japan as well. I worked in Fortune 500 companies for ... let's say a "few years".
NZ government haven't put up a roadmap, sorry. They are not communicating, not helping people see where it's going i.e. direction. It's all being drip-fed so they can manage the politics of situation.
Again. We are talking the same thing. I'm just saying that in the situation we are discussing (travel plans based on MIQ) there is little value in laying out those slides to the end user even while in draft because they can't do anything with them except cross their fingers.
As more boxes get ticked then it becomes more worthwhile to the end user (you) -
@taniwharugby shush. Cindy knows best
-
Here is more detail article about the Sean hendy model.
Covid-19 modelling: 90 percent vaccination needed to avoid lockdowns
37 minutes ago
New Covid-19 modelling shows that New Zealand will still need lockdowns to control the virus even if 80 percent of those over the age of five were vaccinated.
Even with an 80 percent vaccination rate, the modelling says there would be 7000 deaths and 60,000 hospitalisations per year.
However, the Te PÅ«naha Matatini modellers say the higher the level of vaccination across the country, the lower the need for higher alert levels.
Professor Michael Plank says if New Zealand can lift its vaccination rates well over 90 percent of over 12s, the virus can be controlled with more sustainable measures.
Those include testing, contact tracing, and mask use.
About 73 percent of the country's eligible population has currently received one dose of the Pfizer vaccine.
Modelling work from Te PÅ«naha Matatini in June showed vaccination alone would not be enough to protect new Zealand entirely, requiring other public health measures.
That has now been updated to reflect that the country could achieve 90 percent vaccine coverage across the total population.
Since the June work, the vaccine has been approved for use in Aotearoa for 12-15 year olds, with recent announcements from pharmaceutical companies suggesting that Covid-19 vaccines may soon be approved for use in children aged 5 - 11 years.
Dr Rachelle Binny said the modelling results released today showed the importance of reaching the highest possible vaccination rate.
"If nearly every New Zealander gets the vaccine, we could avoid the need for strict alert level 3 - 4 restrictions.
"The alternative is bleak. Failing to reach these high levels of vaccination would mean we will need to keep relying on lockdowns and tight border restrictions to avoid thousands of fatalities. This could cripple our healthcare system, and MÄori and Pacific communities would bear the brunt of this health burden."
Covid-19 modeller Shaun Hendy said because Delta was so transmissible, population immunity was probably out of reach through vaccination alone and additional health measures will be needed combination of masks, better ventilation and vaccine certificates.
He said if vaccination only reaches 80 percent, this could result in 60,000 hospitalisations in a one year period and 7000 fatalities.
He said the health sector wouldn't be able to cope and lockdowns will likely still be needed
"If we can get up into that 90 percent rate then we can say goodbye to lockdowns."
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial I think the issue is, and has been since last year, is the population as a whole are being treated like children.
I'd agree with that statement. Seems that many want it that way though.
And many act like children as well.I certainly think we got a bit comfy for a while there and Delta has been a kick in arse. The plan was to plan when they saw what was happening overseas.
-
@crucial tbh I think we see communication very very differently!
I communicate roadmap level (or make sure communication happens) to anyone affected because it will affect them at some point. Maybe I communicate less frequently. Maybe I show 7 of the 10 slides but it's essentially the same content.
I answer questions and if things are fluid I'm open on that and what's making things fluid i.e. things we don't know. People respect that immediately because you're being real and open. It means everyone is onboard the same train, huge goodwill.
In this case I'm an end-user
Anyway ...
-
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@rapido What I heard
"blah, blah, blah, blah If we can get up to that 90 percent then we can say goodbye to lockdowns blah blah blah blah the alternative is bleak"
I heard "Heads up - we'd like to vaccinate the 5-11 age group with Pfizer but are testing the waters" ...
The rest of the blah blah blah I knew
-
Stuff's version of Hendy model presser.
Some snippets:
New modelling prepared for the Government by Shaun Hendy suggests that New Zealand could see up to 7000 Covid-19 deaths a year even with a high proportion of the population jabbed.
The modelling from Te PÅ«naha Matatini suggests that if 80 per cent of those aged five or over were fully vaccinated - around 75 per cent of the entire country â Covid-19 would still cause a serious death toll without other restrictions.
Hendy projects it could cause just under 60,000 hospitalisations and just under 7000 deaths over a one-year period.
If 90 per cent of the 5+ population was reached however â around 85 per cent of the full population â then deaths could drop to around 600 over a year, or just 50 alongside some other health measures. Getting 85 per cent of the population fully vaccinated would be all but impossible if the vaccine remains restricted to those aged over 12 â over 99 per cent of those aged 12+ would need a jab if that were the case.
Ardern said this would not influence decision-making over whether to make the vaccine available to over-5s, however.
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@rapido just moving the goalposts about constantly
Maybe, but not what irks me.
What irks me is it is the modelling is the opposite of reality. It's a model of a freedom day scenario. We've already had internal freedoms for most of the outbreak.
NZ is not clamouring for some Boris-style "freedom Day".
Well, maybe you Aucklanders are?
NZ's internal population has not come out of a 4 months winter lockdown and 15 months of restrictions, hence clamouring for a freedom day.
NZ will be the opposite. Expecting a 'restrictions day'. From now on the virus is loose, we are partly protected by vaccinations but we will have X restrictions to manage it - and this is what the models looks like.
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hooroo what's the point of planning and budgeting on something that has a slim chance of going to plan? You'd then have everyone bitching and moaning about how they had spent money, arranged functions etc etc and it changed on them.
Giving false hope isn't good leadership either.
I do think that there may be a bit more of a plan soon though hence the modelling being done on vaccination rates etc. There is a need to create a carrot instead of just pointing to the stick.
I wouldn't be making plans on it though. Way too much can happen.A plan isn't false hope. It's a plan. A plan can have what is deemed as bad outcomes as well as good. That's what planning is.
Has to have a point though. I still don't see what the type of plan we are talking about achieves apart from a waste of time.
There is a roadmap being formulated by the looks of things, based around vaccination rates which is a massive unknown being down to human choice. Anything set out after that is then variable based on something that we can't control short of rounding dips hits up with cattle prods.
Wow you would be awesome in business. Only living in the right now, no planning because future is uncertain, purely reactive.
Fair enough though, it kind of explains a lot.
That's a bit smart arse isn't it? What does it explain exactly?
Funnily enough I am actually a planner by career but also ones that sees no value in setting up measures and goals that experience shows cannot have a certain degree of certainty. I'm sure you are aware of the phases things go through and how plans remain fluid while working toward a goal until they reach levels of known achievability.
One of the biggest business delivery failings is trying to nail stuff down to early. Ever notice why so many projects go over the original investment case. Because everyone wanted a 'roadmap' quantified before planning was complete. I understand that some business cultures (an example I was given was a Japanese one) don't accept overruns because they invest in planning before promises. I digress.
I haven't said that the govt shouldn't plan. Far from it. I think they need to constantly re-plan based on what's happening and have underlying aims that they can be agile in achieving. Planning AND reacting are key.Well countering that I now manage large scale enterprise projects for a living, and I don't recognise at all your take on planning.
In my world if you are leading people through a complex change you lay out your assumptions, risks, constraints, resources and costs, deliverables and milestones, then set out what your intentions are based on that. Then you adapt as needed. And you do it all openly and honestly. The moment you start obfuscating you lose the trust of your stakeholders. It is the height of arrogance to decide on their behalf that there are things too complex for them to know, or that they don't have the brains to interpret what you are telling them. If someone else is picking up the tab they deserve to know everything you know, especially what options are available to them.
I have no idea why running projects or initiatives is different in the public sector, but if it is it might explain why they are so useless at delivery.
I agree with all of that and although I am currently in the public sector (and your assumptions are true) the experience that I was getting at has been experienced elsewhere as well.
What I am trying to explain and seem to have got away from is that while overall plans on what to achieve and how you think you are going to get there are well and good, they aren't firm promises at the start and firm up along the lifecycle. When you have a lot of knowns then obviously your plans are firmer. When you try and combine delivery with discovery then you have to ensure that your stakeholders are well aware that is the approach and outcomes can change.
The discussion here was around people wanting to plan travel with some kind of knowledge of what the plan may be around MIQ in relation to other things happening. I was simply stating that knowing a car is being built and that if the everything goes to plan it will be ready by March is worthless when there is no certainty on when parts will arrive or what parts are available. You can plan all you like but the end user only gets an idea of what you want to achieve not what you will achieve.
I'm sure you have probably experienced a stakeholder holding you to task on a milestone even though you have always explained the dependencies?
I'm not saying that you only plan when there is certainty, far from it. Just saying there is little value in constantly explaining to the idiot in the back of the room that the car won't be ready until the wheels arrive so he will have to delay his launch plans.Yes I have, and it's their right to do it. Their stakeholders. They have a stake in the outcomes. So they deserve to be kept informed and it's my job to explain that we set the plan in motion using a baseline. That's what keeps me honest: I can change the plan but I have to explain what assumption was wrong, which risk (that hopefully I laid bear in advance) came into play. In essence, what changed. I don't get a free go at moving the goalposts just because something did change, but if I can explain why it couldn't reasonably have been avoided, all is good. We adjust the plan, reset the baseline and move on. If I avoided setting a baseline plan and holding myself accountable to it I wouldn't be much of a project manager.
As I have told literally thousands of people over my career, if you haven't got a plan you are quite literally just doing random stuff and hoping it works. If the reason that you don't have a plan is so you can screw up and not get called on it, then piss off and stop wasting my money and time.
I get they have to deal with political realities, but they should stop pretending it's virtuous. It's the opposite, it's cowardly.