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?
-
@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.
-
@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:
@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.
The reasoning was basically nothing more than them wanting to be cautious. In other words, they don't want to upset anyone. Can't have people being angry that they're letting covid out of Auckland so we'll keep the border. Can't have people angry about being in lockdown still so we'll let them be able to do a few more things (like meeting a few people outside, why did that take so long to be allowed?).
I think there's zero chance that Auckland will be in Orange this year given they're keeping the border into the new year. They're extremely slow at accepting more risk. Basically, they wait until pretty much everyone is getting annoyed at them for being so slow before they take on a little bit more.
-
@anonymous 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:
@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.
The reasoning was basically nothing more than them wanting to be cautious. In other words, they don't want to upset anyone. Can't have people being angry that they're letting covid out of Auckland so we'll keep the border. Can't have people angry about being in lockdown still so we'll let them be able to do a few more things (like meeting a few people outside, why did that take so long to be allowed?).
I think there's zero chance that Auckland will be in Orange this year given they're keeping the border into the new year. They're extremely slow at accepting more risk. Basically, they wait until pretty much everyone is getting annoyed at them for being so slow before they take on a little bit more.
So in short, they aren't following their own system which will contribute to confusion. Just as I was saying.
-
Postponed, or cancelled ...given that location is a brothel...at least the groom can claim he was dragged there by his mates!
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Postponed, or cancelled ...given that location is a brothel...at least the groom can claim he was dragged there by his mates!
Wedding on ice. Groom in hot water 🤣
-
@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:
@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.
Don't know why you think they are complicated when the changes and process are explained out like she is addressing a bunch of schoolkids.
This is from the transcript at the announcement and took a few minutes to find. It was broadcast and written about for the next few days*As we step into the framework for the first time, the way we use this criteria has been different to the way that we will apply it in the future. We have been cautious, and that’s because we want to carefully transition, without seeing cases take off. And so today, having weighed these factors up, I can confirm the following regions will move in at red this Friday: Northland, Auckland, Taupō and Rotorua Lakes Districts, Kawerau, Whakatāne, and Ōpōtiki Districts, Gisborne District, Wairoa District; Rangitīkei, Whanganui, and Ruapehu Districts. The rest of the North Island will move in at orange. The whole of the South Island will also move in at orange. These settings will be in place for the next two weeks.
Cabinet will review settings again and provide an update before the summer break on Monday, 13 December. We will then hold for roughly a month to allow us to see the impact of the shifts and allow the settings to bed in. They’ll then be reviewed again in the week of Monday, 17 January. From there, we’ll get into a regular routine of reviewing settings on a fortnightly basis.*
With this initial designation, a key consideration has been vaccination levels. All of the districts listed today have done an amazing job reaching into their communities, but still have double-dose rates in the 70 percent range for the eligible population. We know the higher the vaccination levels, the greater protection. Our hope is that we will continue to see a lift in rates over the next fortnight, when we come to consider settings again in a few weeks.
-
glacially slow