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!
-
@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)
-
@frank said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Sorry basic question - why is NZ using a traffic light system rather than levels?
To have a system with vaccine passes and hospital load as the core of the risk factors rather than alert levels which was primarily based on case numbers in the community.
My guess as why a new system over rewriting the old one is that a clean break from the old system would be easier for people to get to grips with, and traffic lights because it ended up as 3 levels so that was a natural analogy (and green = safe and red = danger is known in other systems).
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@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)
JC covered in quite a lot of detail how there was no plan (more evidence to support that was the fact that things like the passport app didn't have contracts until mid October).
There have been several articles (feel free to look them up) where you would get a different clarifications depending on if you were talking to Cindy, Bloomfield, Robertson or Hipkins. They often contradicted themselves.
Perhaps you need to look at more that just the Labour media releases?
I don't have time to go into detail about the poor implementation, I'll let others chip in there. I need to find my kid's passports so they can see a movie...
-
@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
Unless they’re people who’re unlikely to vote for Labour anyway. Fuck those guys.
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@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?The problem before was they'd review the alert levels every 1-2 weeks and there was no indication of what was required before things would change. They have planned a few things now (moving to the traffic light system, removal of the Auckland border, phasing out of MIQ) but we're still in the same situation. Planning to reevaluate things every 2-4 weeks isn't really a plan. They must have some idea of when they see Auckland moving to Orange and when they see parts of the country moving to Green.
Instead of being upfront and saying that Auckland will likely be in Red until at least X date, and that it's unlikely for anywhere in the country to move to Green before Y date, they just leave everyone waiting with bated breath for the announcement that's nothing's changing and announce when the next announcement will be.
But those announcements wouldn't go down well as it would make it more obvious how large the costs are of their cautious approach. It's much easier slip it under the radar by pushing things out for 2 weeks at a time. After a few times it's already been a couple of months despite them knowing full well they weren't changing anything until then from the start.
It doesn't help that they weren't following the alert levels as described and now aren't following the traffic lights as described. Both for the same reason of them being too risky. They could at least say they're gradually moving to them over X period of time. Almost like a plan or something. Instead, it's just a "we'll review the current settings on X date".
They've rebranded with a new system but the underlying issues are still there. Tune in every two weeks to find out what freedoms your gracious leader deems you worthy of.
-
@anonymous said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@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?The problem before was they'd review the alert levels every 1-2 weeks and there was no indication of what was required before things would change. They have planned a few things now (moving to the traffic light system, removal of the Auckland border, phasing out of MIQ) but we're still in the same situation. Planning to reevaluate things every 2-4 weeks isn't really a plan. They must have some idea of when they see Auckland moving to Orange and when they see parts of the country moving to Green.
Instead of being upfront and saying that Auckland will likely be in Red until at least X date, and that it's unlikely for anywhere in the country to move to Green before Y date, they just leave everyone waiting with bated breath for the announcement that's nothing's changing and announce when the next announcement will be.
But those announcements wouldn't go down well as it would make it more obvious how large the costs are of their cautious approach. It's much easier slip it under the radar by pushing things out for 2 weeks at a time. After a few times it's already been a couple of months despite them knowing full well they weren't changing anything until then from the start.
It doesn't help that they weren't following the alert levels as described and now aren't following the traffic lights as described. Both for the same reason of them being too risky. They could at least say they're gradually moving to them over X period of time. Almost like a plan or something. Instead, it's just a "we'll review the current settings on X date".
They've rebranded with a new system but the underlying issues are still there. Tune in every two weeks to find out what freedoms your gracious leader deems you worthy of.
Or get vaccinated and have all the freedoms anyway. For vaccinated and exempt people, the main annoyance at Orange is wearing masks. Presumably the main annoyance at Red for that population will be masks + capacity limits.
We have a date for reducing the Auckland boundary to CVC compliance (and Auckland as a whole has passed 90%) or a negative test within 72 hours - this will be a small population by the time that date arrives.
We have dates for the removal of MIQ for vaccinated NZ citizens and residents, first from Australia, then the rest of the world, then other vaccinated travellers. An Australian option is not out of the question earlier, but in the meantime, we have a date.
We have been told that changing levels from now on is a watching brief with review dates in the calendar, and that the first review will only consider Orange and Red.
That seems reasonably clear. Specified criteria is hard when regions have different health capacities and also when the main restriction to capacity is staff availability which is not always clearly predictable.
-
@godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@anonymous said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@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?The problem before was they'd review the alert levels every 1-2 weeks and there was no indication of what was required before things would change. They have planned a few things now (moving to the traffic light system, removal of the Auckland border, phasing out of MIQ) but we're still in the same situation. Planning to reevaluate things every 2-4 weeks isn't really a plan. They must have some idea of when they see Auckland moving to Orange and when they see parts of the country moving to Green.
Instead of being upfront and saying that Auckland will likely be in Red until at least X date, and that it's unlikely for anywhere in the country to move to Green before Y date, they just leave everyone waiting with bated breath for the announcement that's nothing's changing and announce when the next announcement will be.
But those announcements wouldn't go down well as it would make it more obvious how large the costs are of their cautious approach. It's much easier slip it under the radar by pushing things out for 2 weeks at a time. After a few times it's already been a couple of months despite them knowing full well they weren't changing anything until then from the start.
It doesn't help that they weren't following the alert levels as described and now aren't following the traffic lights as described. Both for the same reason of them being too risky. They could at least say they're gradually moving to them over X period of time. Almost like a plan or something. Instead, it's just a "we'll review the current settings on X date".
They've rebranded with a new system but the underlying issues are still there. Tune in every two weeks to find out what freedoms your gracious leader deems you worthy of.
We have been told that changing levels from now on is a watching brief with review dates in the calendar, and that the first review will
only consider Orange and Red.ignore the published criteriaThere you go, fixed.
-
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@anonymous said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@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?The problem before was they'd review the alert levels every 1-2 weeks and there was no indication of what was required before things would change. They have planned a few things now (moving to the traffic light system, removal of the Auckland border, phasing out of MIQ) but we're still in the same situation. Planning to reevaluate things every 2-4 weeks isn't really a plan. They must have some idea of when they see Auckland moving to Orange and when they see parts of the country moving to Green.
Instead of being upfront and saying that Auckland will likely be in Red until at least X date, and that it's unlikely for anywhere in the country to move to Green before Y date, they just leave everyone waiting with bated breath for the announcement that's nothing's changing and announce when the next announcement will be.
But those announcements wouldn't go down well as it would make it more obvious how large the costs are of their cautious approach. It's much easier slip it under the radar by pushing things out for 2 weeks at a time. After a few times it's already been a couple of months despite them knowing full well they weren't changing anything until then from the start.
It doesn't help that they weren't following the alert levels as described and now aren't following the traffic lights as described. Both for the same reason of them being too risky. They could at least say they're gradually moving to them over X period of time. Almost like a plan or something. Instead, it's just a "we'll review the current settings on X date".
They've rebranded with a new system but the underlying issues are still there. Tune in every two weeks to find out what freedoms your gracious leader deems you worthy of.
We have been told that changing levels from now on is a watching brief with review dates in the calendar, and that the first review will
only consider Orange and Red.ignore the published criteriaThere you go, fixed.
Going faster would rely on modelling, which doesn't seem to be popular.
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
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.
That might be the problem. Perhaps she should treat people as adults instead?
-
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@stodders So will cold cases, as it’s winter. Why should we care again? Unless you’re claiming that people are being hospitalised and dying despite the vaccination rate being so high. Is that what you’re claiming?
No. I'm not claiming that. All I know is:
-
The vaccines do not confer immunity or prevent transmission.
-
Any beneficial effect the vaccines do have wears off, the vaccine manufacturers don’t know when.
-
Vaccines possibly don’t protect against new variants or mutations. Omicron testing will tell us more, but history suggests these types of virus are very difficult to vaccinate against.
-
Vaccines have unknown longterm side effects.
The vaccine rhetoric started with the position that vaccines were a two-shot ticket out of the pandemic.
Then this was amended to say that they stopped transmission in the vaccinated (that it was a pandemic of the unvaccinated).
Now we're at the point where the vaccines don't stop transmission or infection but they reduce the impact of the disease if you're unlucky enough to get it (given the statistics of infection). But, here comes the caveat, this only applies if you continue to get boosters for an unspecified period into the future.
I don't like the demonisation of people who have chosen to not get the vaccine. And when you look at the above and see how often the goalposts keep getting moved (as a result of hard scientific evidence, but why come out with statements claiming outlandish benefits if you doubt they will stand the test of time), it becomes harder to argue with people that have doubts about the true efficacy of the vaccines.
Which is when you get to the stage of vaccine mandates/compelled medical intervention. And IMO, that is a place I thought we'd never get back to, which saddens me immensely.
-