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.
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.
-
-
@stodders said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@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.
By the by, I'm vaccinated. If someone isn't vaccinated, I'm still protected from severe illness if I were contract the disease by virtue of the fact of my vaccination status. I weighed the risks and made my decision. Effectively prohibiting people from engaging in society as a result of their vaccine status is a very slippery slope. What's next? Internment camps for unvaccinated?
If mandates are purely about risks to public health, then why are we not discussing more the elephant in the room which is that the majority of people dying (that are not elderly) of COVID have co-morbidities linked to diet and lack of exercise that put them more at risk from the disease. Longer term, improving the overall fitness of the population is probably the key to overcoming COVID.
-
-
@stodders said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@stodders said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@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.
By the by, I'm vaccinated. If someone isn't vaccinated, I'm still protected from severe illness if I were contract the disease by virtue of the fact of my vaccination status. I weighed the risks and made my decision. Effectively prohibiting people from engaging in society as a result of their vaccine status is a very slippery slope. What's next? Internment camps for unvaccinated?
If mandates are purely about risks to public health, then why are we not discussing more the elephant in the room which is that the majority of people dying (that are not elderly) of COVID have co-morbidities linked to diet and lack of exercise that put them more at risk from the disease. Longer term, improving the overall fitness of the population is probably the key to overcoming COVID.
Because if Labour promoted health for obese people in this country to help with COVID it would be deeply unpopular. Some one in the Greens would probably call them racist.
Labour math is equals unpopular don’t do it or drag it out as long as possible. Only interested in votes.
-
-
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
what piston wristed gibbons!
Absolute fluffybunnies. Kids shouldn’t be exposed to that bullshit.
-
@stodders said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@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.
- vaccines are not 100% so why bother; also masks aren't 100% so why bother; also distancing isn't 100% so why bother; seatbelts aren't 100% so why bother etc etc.
- the virus has unknown long term side effects.
-
-
I came on to say the same thing. Can I say C##ts?
Talking to the ex wife today who works in the beauty industry and manages a clinic. They have already had fake passports presented, and people crying about not being able to come in till green light. The instahoes won't get a jab but will get botox.
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@mikedogz yeah type see you next tuesday and the word filter takes over to produce: fluffybunnies
I bet they dont even realise the stupidity of what have done in order to protest 'freedom of choice'
Logic and reasoning aren’t particularly high on anti vaccers list of redeeming qualities. Fuck the government for making them lose their jobs…..but they’ll still go to that same government for the dole when this happens.
-
So a bunch of halfwit ferals* decide to interrupt kids sport at the end of a lockdown... a protest instigated by Mr Tamaki I see. Every time I think we've hit peak idiocy lately, someone has to surpass it...
(*) Interrupt kids sport and that's what someone is, regardless of whatever cause.
-
@donsteppa said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
So a bunch of halfwit ferals* decide to interrupt kids sport at the end of a lockdown... a protest instigated by Mr Tamaki I see. Every time I think we've hit peak idiocy lately, someone has to surpass it...
(*) Interrupt kids sport and that's what someone is, regardless of whatever cause.
I get pissed off when the rain interrupts my boys cricket like it did today, I’d be ropable if those fuckwits did it for one of his games.
The irony of them protesting “freedom” by taking away a kids pastime even if it’s only once is completely lost on them.
-
@mn5 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@donsteppa said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
So a bunch of halfwit ferals* decide to interrupt kids sport at the end of a lockdown... instigated by Mr Tamaki I see. Every time I think we've hit peak idiocy lately, someone has to surpass it...
(*) Interrupt kids sport and that's what someone is, regardless of whatever cause.
I get furious when the rain interrupts my boys cricket like it did today, I’d be ropable if those fuckwits did it for one of his games.
The irony of them protesting “freedom” by taking away a kids pastime even if it’s only once is completely lost on them.
Yep, I can't fathom looking up this morning to see the sort of scenes in those photos, and then it willfully moving onto the kids fields... yet up at Auckland Domain...
If those particular protesters had a half a mind, surely they'd have found a way to change their location or plans on the fly...
-
@donsteppa said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@mn5 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@donsteppa said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
So a bunch of halfwit ferals* decide to interrupt kids sport at the end of a lockdown... instigated by Mr Tamaki I see. Every time I think we've hit peak idiocy lately, someone has to surpass it...
(*) Interrupt kids sport and that's what someone is, regardless of whatever cause.
I get furious when the rain interrupts my boys cricket like it did today, I’d be ropable if those fuckwits did it for one of his games.
The irony of them protesting “freedom” by taking away a kids pastime even if it’s only once is completely lost on them.
Yep, I can't fathom looking up this morning to see the sort of scenes in those photos, and then it willfully moving onto the kids fields... yet up at Auckland Domain...
If those particular protesters had a half a mind, surely they'd have found a way to change their location or plans on the fly...
They’re too “oppressed” to think that logically or kindly.
-
@mn5 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@mikedogz yeah type see you next tuesday and the word filter takes over to produce: fluffybunnies
I bet they dont even realise the stupidity of what have done in order to protest 'freedom of choice'
Logic and reasoning aren’t particularly high on anti vaccers list of redeeming qualities. Fuck the government for making them lose their jobs…..but they’ll still go to that same government for the dole when this happens.
And they will beg for treatment from the government funded hospital when they get sick
-
@mn5 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@donsteppa said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
So a bunch of halfwit ferals* decide to interrupt kids sport at the end of a lockdown... a protest instigated by Mr Tamaki I see. Every time I think we've hit peak idiocy lately, someone has to surpass it...
(*) Interrupt kids sport and that's what someone is, regardless of whatever cause.
I get pissed off when the rain interrupts my boys cricket like it did today, I’d be ropable if those fuckwits did it for one of his games.
The irony of them protesting “freedom” by taking away a kids pastime even if it’s only once is completely lost on them.
Would have been time to fire up the quick roller
-
While I disagree in interrupting a kids game it may be a government funded hospital but don’t forget where the government gets its money. From the people. Whether you like it or not these protestors probably pay taxes and are therefore entitled to hospital care. I am amazed at the disdain that the vaxed have for those who choose not to have the vaccine. You are really showing you colors.
So after 2 years of trying to isolate a microscopic virus with failure now you probably will spend another 2 years figuring out how to manage living with it. Well of course you have your piñata to beat, the unvaxed, instead of blaming your government for the arrogance of containment. They should have focused on those at risk rather than controlling a healthy population. The NZ government has created ruin in peoples lives and brought you to a position where you look down on your fellow man. Don’t blame the unvaxed. Blame the government and the fools that voted for them.
Just want to let you know that if I see you on the street I will not look at you as potentially contagious. I am past the fear of covid. Most of you should be too if you look at then stats and science. I will shake your hand and not look down on you because you choose to obey a government that has their head up their ass.
What have we become?