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?
-
@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
-
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@kirwan Yup - as you say If Cindy followed her own Guidelines Akl would be at Orange.
90% each Auckland DHB, not Auckland metro as a whole, and that was to transition to the traffic light system early at Red. The specific promise about Orange was all regions would transition at Orange if all DHBs reached 90% double dose.
Also congrats to Canterbury for reaching 90% double dose.
-
@crucial Thanks, but too slow. It was covered above;
The government has introduced a new system, but isn't following it until a random time period later determined by licking a finger and feeling for wind direction.
Nothing to do with the number of sick people, or any hospital load. Just a shit scared goverment worried about losing votes.
Just the normal lack of delivery from this bunch of morons.
-
@kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial Thanks, but too slow. It was covered above;
The government has introduced a new system, but isn't following it until a random time period later determined by licking a finger and feeling for wind direction.
Nothing to do with the number of sick people, or any hospital load. Just a shit scared goverment worried about losing votes.
Just the normal lack of delivery from this bunch of morons.
I know you are just being anti anything about this but for ages all you did was whinge like fuck about wanting some certainty and a plan. Well they gave you one including a time frame for decisions (not random) and a reason (which I'm not saying was a good one) for that plan.
Now you are still whinging and ignoring what they have implemented to do so.
The traffic light system IS about hospital load. It clearly states that in the short summaries of each level.
They said here are the levels, here's when you will move into them. The starting levels wont be against the criteria as we will take a conservative approach and here's when the first review based on the criteria will be.
I'm not sure what else you want except for them to do things exactly the way you want.
Carefully transitioning (whether the right or wrong way to do things in your opinion) has been a consistency from this govt and don't we want consistency? -
@kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial complaining about a lack of plan is/was valid. Complaining about a poorly implemented plan is also valid.
By all means disagree with the plan just stop claiming that there wasn't one, that it hasn't been explained and they keep contradicting themselves because none of that is true.
There was a plan, it was explained from the outset, the initial settings and the approach taken was explained clearly and the next steps were given timings. The proof, of course will come in whether they continue to follow that plan (as I said from the outset).Which parts have been poorly implemented? That's the first time you've mentioned that and I'd be interested in knowing.
If you just mean the initial level settings then you clearly haven't followed the cautious approach they have always taken (with their reasoning that they don't want to yo-yo)