Coronavirus - New Zealand
-
@victor-meldrew I completely to agree with that, but the pro mandates argument is that the vaccine has significant effects vs transmission thus your a bad person if you don't get it, even if your risk of hospitalization is extremely low.
I dispute this point because despite the trials data, as stated above there has been very rapid infections rates in 100% areas.
-
@muddyriver said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@victor-meldrew I completely to agree with that, but the pro mandates argument is that the vaccine has significant effects vs transmission thus your a bad person if you don't get it, even if your risk of hospitalization is extremely low.
I dispute this point because despite the trials data, as stated above there has been very rapid infections rates in 100% areas.
Fair enough - though vaccination does reduce transmission by 60+%
-
Portugal isnt anywhere near 100% vaccinated although Gibraltar is Different countries report against different targets. Our World in Data takes those results and puts them all as a % of the totalk population.
Portugal cases are rising but way less so and less steeply than in earlier waves
Meanwhile admissions to hospital aren't really rising
and the number of deaths is showing nowhere near the same rise as in previous waves or the increase in cases
-
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Portugal isnt anywhere near 100% vaccinated although Gibraltar is Different countries report against different targets. Our World in Data takes those results and puts them all as a % of the totalk population.
Portugal cases are rising but way less so and less steeply than in earlier waves
Meanwhile admissions to hospital aren't really rising
and the number of deaths is showing nowhere near the same rise as in previous waves or the increase in cases
Correct about Portugal. Not sure where I saw the 100% stat about them. Looking at ourworld, they have the world's 3rd highest vaccinated population
And yet the virus transmission rate is increasing...
-
@stodders I guess the argument there is, would it be even more so if they had less vaccination, stands to reason if the virus is still there, with high vaccination rates, that vaccinated people will continue to spread it, supposedly slower given we know it doesnt stop transmission all together.
BUt the key data is hospitalisation rates, if these are steady despite the increase in infections, then it points to the vaccine doing its job, infection rates arent helpful, just assist in the scremongering.
BUt what it does point to is learnign to live with Covid, cos it is here to stay.
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@stodders I guess the argument there is, would it be even more so if they had less vaccination, stands to reason if the virus is still there, with high vaccination rates, that vaccinated people will continue to spread it, supposedly slower given we know it doesnt stop transmission all together.
BUt the key data is hospitalisation rates, if these are steady despite the increase in infections, then it points to the vaccine doing its job, infection rates arent helpful, just assist in the scremongering.
BUt what it does point to is learnign to live with Covid, cos it is here to stay.
Infection rates? Old money. As far as I am concerned it is an irrelevant stat. Used by media or some governments to scare people, or for antivaxxers to prove that vax isn't working. Hospitalisations are the big stat now. Along with percentages of vaxxed vs unvaxxed people hospitalised
-
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@stodders I guess the argument there is, would it be even more so if they had less vaccination, stands to reason if the virus is still there, with high vaccination rates, that vaccinated people will continue to spread it, supposedly slower given we know it doesnt stop transmission all together.
BUt the key data is hospitalisation rates, if these are steady despite the increase in infections, then it points to the vaccine doing its job, infection rates arent helpful, just assist in the scremongering.
BUt what it does point to is learnign to live with Covid, cos it is here to stay.
Infection rates? Old money. As far as I am concerned it is an irrelevant stat. Used by media or some governments to scare people, or for antivaxxers to prove that vax isn't working. Hospitalisations are the big stat now. Along with percentages of vaxxed vs unvaxxed people hospitalised
I agree that it shouldn't be the highlight stat anymore but as it is the pre-cursor stat (especially when area based) it is still good to know.
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@stodders I guess the argument there is, would it be even more so if they had less vaccination, stands to reason if the virus is still there, with high vaccination rates, that vaccinated people will continue to spread it, supposedly slower given we know it doesnt stop transmission all together.
BUt the key data is hospitalisation rates, if these are steady despite the increase in infections, then it points to the vaccine doing its job, infection rates arent helpful, just assist in the scremongering.
BUt what it does point to is learnign to live with Covid, cos it is here to stay.
Infection rates? Old money. As far as I am concerned it is an irrelevant stat. Used by media or some governments to scare people, or for antivaxxers to prove that vax isn't working. Hospitalisations are the big stat now. Along with percentages of vaxxed vs unvaxxed people hospitalised
I agree that it shouldn't be the highlight stat anymore but as it is the pre-cursor stat (especially when area based) it is still good to know.
Only if it isn't used for the wrong purpose. If infection rates climbed but there as no significant effect on hospitalisation rates, to conclude that a place needs to tighten restrictions for example, is drawing the wrong conclusion from the data IMHO
-
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@stodders I guess the argument there is, would it be even more so if they had less vaccination, stands to reason if the virus is still there, with high vaccination rates, that vaccinated people will continue to spread it, supposedly slower given we know it doesnt stop transmission all together.
BUt the key data is hospitalisation rates, if these are steady despite the increase in infections, then it points to the vaccine doing its job, infection rates arent helpful, just assist in the scremongering.
BUt what it does point to is learnign to live with Covid, cos it is here to stay.
Infection rates? Old money. As far as I am concerned it is an irrelevant stat. Used by media or some governments to scare people, or for antivaxxers to prove that vax isn't working. Hospitalisations are the big stat now. Along with percentages of vaxxed vs unvaxxed people hospitalised
I agree that it shouldn't be the highlight stat anymore but as it is the pre-cursor stat (especially when area based) it is still good to know.
Only if it isn't used for the wrong purpose. If infection rates climbed but there as no significant effect on hospitalisation rates, to conclude that a place needs to tighten restrictions for example, is drawing the wrong conclusion from the data IMHO
Traffic light criteria is based on hospital stress rather than infection rates though isn't it?
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@stodders I guess the argument there is, would it be even more so if they had less vaccination, stands to reason if the virus is still there, with high vaccination rates, that vaccinated people will continue to spread it, supposedly slower given we know it doesnt stop transmission all together.
BUt the key data is hospitalisation rates, if these are steady despite the increase in infections, then it points to the vaccine doing its job, infection rates arent helpful, just assist in the scremongering.
BUt what it does point to is learnign to live with Covid, cos it is here to stay.
Infection rates? Old money. As far as I am concerned it is an irrelevant stat. Used by media or some governments to scare people, or for antivaxxers to prove that vax isn't working. Hospitalisations are the big stat now. Along with percentages of vaxxed vs unvaxxed people hospitalised
I agree that it shouldn't be the highlight stat anymore but as it is the pre-cursor stat (especially when area based) it is still good to know.
Only if it isn't used for the wrong purpose. If infection rates climbed but there as no significant effect on hospitalisation rates, to conclude that a place needs to tighten restrictions for example, is drawing the wrong conclusion from the data IMHO
Traffic light criteria is based on hospital stress rather than infection rates though isn't it?
Not for Auckland it's not. Last I heard we had what 5 people in ICU a few weeks back?
-
@kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@stodders I guess the argument there is, would it be even more so if they had less vaccination, stands to reason if the virus is still there, with high vaccination rates, that vaccinated people will continue to spread it, supposedly slower given we know it doesnt stop transmission all together.
BUt the key data is hospitalisation rates, if these are steady despite the increase in infections, then it points to the vaccine doing its job, infection rates arent helpful, just assist in the scremongering.
BUt what it does point to is learnign to live with Covid, cos it is here to stay.
Infection rates? Old money. As far as I am concerned it is an irrelevant stat. Used by media or some governments to scare people, or for antivaxxers to prove that vax isn't working. Hospitalisations are the big stat now. Along with percentages of vaxxed vs unvaxxed people hospitalised
I agree that it shouldn't be the highlight stat anymore but as it is the pre-cursor stat (especially when area based) it is still good to know.
Only if it isn't used for the wrong purpose. If infection rates climbed but there as no significant effect on hospitalisation rates, to conclude that a place needs to tighten restrictions for example, is drawing the wrong conclusion from the data IMHO
Traffic light criteria is based on hospital stress rather than infection rates though isn't it?
Not for Auckland it's not. Last I heard we had what 5 people in ICU a few weeks back?
I meant once it's up and running. The proof will be on the 15th as they always stated that AKL would start in Red.
-
Going to the movies tonight;
"In line with current NZ Government restrictions for Cinemas, all customers 12 years and over must present a valid Government Vaccine Pass upon entering our venues and have a second form of photo ID available. Customers under 12 years must be accompanied by a vaccinated caregiver."
So I have to bring my 12 + 14 year old's freaking passport to the movies FFS.
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@stodders I guess the argument there is, would it be even more so if they had less vaccination, stands to reason if the virus is still there, with high vaccination rates, that vaccinated people will continue to spread it, supposedly slower given we know it doesnt stop transmission all together.
BUt the key data is hospitalisation rates, if these are steady despite the increase in infections, then it points to the vaccine doing its job, infection rates arent helpful, just assist in the scremongering.
BUt what it does point to is learnign to live with Covid, cos it is here to stay.
Infection rates? Old money. As far as I am concerned it is an irrelevant stat. Used by media or some governments to scare people, or for antivaxxers to prove that vax isn't working. Hospitalisations are the big stat now. Along with percentages of vaxxed vs unvaxxed people hospitalised
I agree that it shouldn't be the highlight stat anymore but as it is the pre-cursor stat (especially when area based) it is still good to know.
Only if it isn't used for the wrong purpose. If infection rates climbed but there as no significant effect on hospitalisation rates, to conclude that a place needs to tighten restrictions for example, is drawing the wrong conclusion from the data IMHO
Traffic light criteria is based on hospital stress rather than infection rates though isn't it?
Not for Auckland it's not. Last I heard we had what 5 people in ICU a few weeks back?
I meant once it's up and running. The proof will be on the 15th as they always stated that AKL would start in Red.
Isn't the fact that they have announced all these area's starting light mean it's not related to current load? They contradict themselves almost on a daily basis
-
@kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@stodders I guess the argument there is, would it be even more so if they had less vaccination, stands to reason if the virus is still there, with high vaccination rates, that vaccinated people will continue to spread it, supposedly slower given we know it doesnt stop transmission all together.
BUt the key data is hospitalisation rates, if these are steady despite the increase in infections, then it points to the vaccine doing its job, infection rates arent helpful, just assist in the scremongering.
BUt what it does point to is learnign to live with Covid, cos it is here to stay.
Infection rates? Old money. As far as I am concerned it is an irrelevant stat. Used by media or some governments to scare people, or for antivaxxers to prove that vax isn't working. Hospitalisations are the big stat now. Along with percentages of vaxxed vs unvaxxed people hospitalised
I agree that it shouldn't be the highlight stat anymore but as it is the pre-cursor stat (especially when area based) it is still good to know.
Only if it isn't used for the wrong purpose. If infection rates climbed but there as no significant effect on hospitalisation rates, to conclude that a place needs to tighten restrictions for example, is drawing the wrong conclusion from the data IMHO
Traffic light criteria is based on hospital stress rather than infection rates though isn't it?
Not for Auckland it's not. Last I heard we had what 5 people in ICU a few weeks back?
I meant once it's up and running. The proof will be on the 15th as they always stated that AKL would start in Red.
Isn't the fact that they have announced all these area's starting light mean it's not related to current load? They contradict themselves almost on a daily basis
No. They have been really clear on this for weeks. Everyone would start then two weeks after the lights would be assessed under the framework.
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@stodders I guess the argument there is, would it be even more so if they had less vaccination, stands to reason if the virus is still there, with high vaccination rates, that vaccinated people will continue to spread it, supposedly slower given we know it doesnt stop transmission all together.
BUt the key data is hospitalisation rates, if these are steady despite the increase in infections, then it points to the vaccine doing its job, infection rates arent helpful, just assist in the scremongering.
BUt what it does point to is learnign to live with Covid, cos it is here to stay.
Infection rates? Old money. As far as I am concerned it is an irrelevant stat. Used by media or some governments to scare people, or for antivaxxers to prove that vax isn't working. Hospitalisations are the big stat now. Along with percentages of vaxxed vs unvaxxed people hospitalised
I agree that it shouldn't be the highlight stat anymore but as it is the pre-cursor stat (especially when area based) it is still good to know.
Only if it isn't used for the wrong purpose. If infection rates climbed but there as no significant effect on hospitalisation rates, to conclude that a place needs to tighten restrictions for example, is drawing the wrong conclusion from the data IMHO
Traffic light criteria is based on hospital stress rather than infection rates though isn't it?
Not for Auckland it's not. Last I heard we had what 5 people in ICU a few weeks back?
I meant once it's up and running. The proof will be on the 15th as they always stated that AKL would start in Red.
Isn't the fact that they have announced all these area's starting light mean it's not related to current load? They contradict themselves almost on a daily basis
No. They have been really clear on this for weeks. Everyone would start then two weeks after the lights would be assessed under the framework.
ok, if they have been clear then answer a simple question; why? Why not assess at the start of the new system? Over two weeks not enough time to count people in hospital?
-
@kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@stodders I guess the argument there is, would it be even more so if they had less vaccination, stands to reason if the virus is still there, with high vaccination rates, that vaccinated people will continue to spread it, supposedly slower given we know it doesnt stop transmission all together.
BUt the key data is hospitalisation rates, if these are steady despite the increase in infections, then it points to the vaccine doing its job, infection rates arent helpful, just assist in the scremongering.
BUt what it does point to is learnign to live with Covid, cos it is here to stay.
Infection rates? Old money. As far as I am concerned it is an irrelevant stat. Used by media or some governments to scare people, or for antivaxxers to prove that vax isn't working. Hospitalisations are the big stat now. Along with percentages of vaxxed vs unvaxxed people hospitalised
I agree that it shouldn't be the highlight stat anymore but as it is the pre-cursor stat (especially when area based) it is still good to know.
Only if it isn't used for the wrong purpose. If infection rates climbed but there as no significant effect on hospitalisation rates, to conclude that a place needs to tighten restrictions for example, is drawing the wrong conclusion from the data IMHO
Traffic light criteria is based on hospital stress rather than infection rates though isn't it?
Not for Auckland it's not. Last I heard we had what 5 people in ICU a few weeks back?
I meant once it's up and running. The proof will be on the 15th as they always stated that AKL would start in Red.
Isn't the fact that they have announced all these area's starting light mean it's not related to current load? They contradict themselves almost on a daily basis
No. They have been really clear on this for weeks. Everyone would start then two weeks after the lights would be assessed under the framework.
ok, if they have been clear then answer a simple question; why? Why not assess at the start of the new system? Over two weeks not enough time to count people in hospital?
The reasoning was explained at the time also. Look it up. You may not agree with the reasons but it was explained.
-
just been out for a liquid lunch, restaurant was very busy, showed our C-passport, but thier scanner wasnt working so only sighted...
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@stodders I guess the argument there is, would it be even more so if they had less vaccination, stands to reason if the virus is still there, with high vaccination rates, that vaccinated people will continue to spread it, supposedly slower given we know it doesnt stop transmission all together.
BUt the key data is hospitalisation rates, if these are steady despite the increase in infections, then it points to the vaccine doing its job, infection rates arent helpful, just assist in the scremongering.
BUt what it does point to is learnign to live with Covid, cos it is here to stay.
Infection rates? Old money. As far as I am concerned it is an irrelevant stat. Used by media or some governments to scare people, or for antivaxxers to prove that vax isn't working. Hospitalisations are the big stat now. Along with percentages of vaxxed vs unvaxxed people hospitalised
I agree that it shouldn't be the highlight stat anymore but as it is the pre-cursor stat (especially when area based) it is still good to know.
Only if it isn't used for the wrong purpose. If infection rates climbed but there as no significant effect on hospitalisation rates, to conclude that a place needs to tighten restrictions for example, is drawing the wrong conclusion from the data IMHO
Traffic light criteria is based on hospital stress rather than infection rates though isn't it?
Not for Auckland it's not. Last I heard we had what 5 people in ICU a few weeks back?
I meant once it's up and running. The proof will be on the 15th as they always stated that AKL would start in Red.
Isn't the fact that they have announced all these area's starting light mean it's not related to current load? They contradict themselves almost on a daily basis
No. They have been really clear on this for weeks. Everyone would start then two weeks after the lights would be assessed under the framework.
ok, if they have been clear then answer a simple question; why? Why not assess at the start of the new system? Over two weeks not enough time to count people in hospital?
The reasoning was explained at the time also. Look it up. You may not agree with the reasons but it was explained.
Buried in google results of announcements of announcements of announcements.
Of course I disagree with making these system more complicated than they need to be. It's my job to simplify stupid requirements.