Coronavirus - New Zealand



  • @nzzp said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    So, if you live with someone who has C19, you do NOT get tested unless you present with respiratory symptoms consistent with C19. That absolutely blows my tiny little brain up. I'm going to sleep on this, can't figure it out right now.

    I assume it has to do with the fact that members of the same household and other close contacts of those who have tested positive are automatically considered a probable case and must isolate and will be monitored the same way as people who have tested positive.

    The risk of getting false negatives may also play a role.



  • https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120912750/coronavirus-how-new-zealands-level-4-covid19-lockdown-might-end

    This guy Hendy is starting to really annoy me, classic academic with no skin in the game, and even worse he is just a complex modeler.... grandoise term for a not grandoise role.. Now he is saying we could need 6-8 weeks full lockdown and then possibly going back into Lockdown as a country or in regions again and again if any new flare ups occur. Fuck. Off. Hendy I will take him seriously when he volunteers to lose his job and not work for the next 12 months id we extend the lockdown, let him feel some of the pain he is so keen to inflict. You can just tell he is loving his time in the spotlight that the media is giving him.
    /rant over



  • @Donsteppa said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    I'm probably quibbling around the margins of the economic impact, but two things that surprised me as the first announcements about level 4 evolved:

    • I hadn't anticipated the closures being so narrow that supermarkets and dairies could open, but fruit shops and butchers could not. i.e. we could have helped keep a couple of smaller shops near us running rather than queuing for an hour at New World this morning with a ton of other people...

    • There has been a lack of imagination around any exception process. e.g. you can run a meat works chain, but not (non-urgent) roadworks in the open air where there's usually plenty of separation between workers (certainly on the large project near us there usually was).

    Social media went feral back when the Warehouse briefly decided it was an essential service, I wonder if that became an additional yardstick of what would be tolerated economically.

    I think there has been inconsistency in the approach of most of the nations we monitor closely. In fact, people in many of those countries, such as the USA, England and Australia have complained about restrictions either being too harsh or too relaxed. Almost every country has had a different response to the pandemic threat, and many (including us and the other 3 named as examples) have at times altered their strategies at least daily. I think it illustrates how difficult managing the crisis has proven to be. Some of the sharpest minds in the world are trying to solve this challenge and no one appears to have all the answers



  • @Stargazer said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @nzzp said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    So, if you live with someone who has C19, you do NOT get tested unless you present with respiratory symptoms consistent with C19. That absolutely blows my tiny little brain up. I'm going to sleep on this, can't figure it out right now.

    I assume it has to do with the fact that members of the same household and other close contacts of those who have tested positive are automatically considered a probable case and must isolate and will be monitored the same way as people who have tested positive.

    The risk of getting false negatives may also play a role.

    Righto, so the Stuff article at the bottom says a probable case is:

    This is a person who has returned a negative laboratory test result but the clinician looking after the person has diagnosed them as a probable case due to their exposure history and their clinical symptoms. These cases are actually treated as if they were a positive laboratory confirmed case and the actions taken are the same as for a confirmed case. That is self-isolation and active contact tracing."

    so a number of false negatives already, for people presenting with symptoms.

    Here's the thing I'm trying to get my head around. We know that this virus has a long incubation period. We know that a number of people are asymptomatic (and it sounds like people can have it without symptoms). This makes me wonder how reliable the cases are - basically to be counted as a 'case', you are showing symptoms and either test positive, or be in contact with someone who tested positive.

    If you can have it and be asymptomatic, then we have no ideahow many people are carrying the virus, but not showing symptoms.

    Presumably this also means that the false negative rate in testing is not good.

    If we can't eradicate this during the lockdown (and I presume it can't be lifted early given the lack of information), then we're into these flare up situations. If we do get flare ups in locations where people weren't tested, then I am going to be pretty disappointed.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120861484/what-are-probable-cases-and-why-are-they-rising



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback couldn't like your post more. Your post about your employees has been circling in my head, and I'm getting tired of the likes of Jacinda and Trudeau talking about worring about the economy later.



  • @Kirwan Truedeau is irrelevant for me but is that what Jacinda has said? That they will worry about it later, despite pumping money back into business to help them stay afloat where possible?



  • @Kirwan @Baron-Silas-Greenback - I see no evidence that the government isn't incredibly concerned about the economy. They're spending billions to support it.

    I didn't think that the article that so triggered the Baron said anything other than common sense. He starts by saying that the results of the lockdown have been really encouraging but then goes on (presumably prompted by the journalist) to talk of other scenario's. Like if it flares up again, if people don't do what they're told. Again basic common sense - the worst affected (per head) nation on earth, has had fewer than 150K cases. Even if you said they had 10 times as many as reported that's still only 2.5% of their overall population. It stands to reason that you have to remain vigilant after the initial outbreak. Right up until a vaccine.

    It's why pandemic modelling always has successive waves of cases.



  • @dogmeat Is or isn't? (Your first line)



  • What do we think will happen when the 4 weeks is up? ( we will know before then of course)



  • @Hooroo cheers - corrected. Slightly changes the nuance...



  • @Virgil
    Level 3 Restrict
    Heightened risk that disease is not contained.
    Risk assessment
    Community transmission occurring OR
    Multiple clusters break out.
    Range of measures
    These can all be applied locally or nationally:
    travel in areas with clusters or community transmission limited
    affected educational facilities closed
    mass gatherings cancelled
    public venues closed (eg libraries, museums, cinemas, food courts, gyms, pools, amusement parks)
    alternative ways of working required and some non-essential businesses should close
    non face-to-face primary care consultations
    non acute (elective) services and procedures in hospitals deferred and healthcare staff reprioritised.

    My guess as of today is country moves to Lvl 3 but anywhere that looks like it may have an incipient outbreak goes back to lvl 4. Wage subsidy continues. Hospo industry still shut down. Companies encouraged to have as many as possible work from home and have to record everyone on their premises even for a couple of minutes (couriers excepted) Schools remain closed for another two weeks Travel between regions banned except for essential.... whatever that means

    I think the key to a relaxation is a better form of contact tracing



  • @dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    I think the key to a relaxation is a better form of contact tracing

    yes, and potential eradication in the community.

    If we eradicate in the community, then a faster turnaround test and contact tracing lets people get back towards normality. Limit socialisation, but record it - basically you'd be expected to (through and App?) idenitfy everyone you have had close contact with in the past X days.

    We still seem to be largely flying blind though, and don't have good answers to a heap of questions.

    • How long after you get infected do symptoms start?
    • Can you infect people before symptoms start, and what's the infection risks at different stages of the disease?
    • Can you have C19, be asymptomatic and still transmit the disease?

    As we understand this better (and I"m sure it's close), the shape of a post-L4 starts to clarify. If people are only an infection risk for 48 hours before symptoms show, then that's a whole different risk level to being 7 days infectious.



  • @Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Kirwan Truedeau is irrelevant for me but is that what Jacinda has said? That they will worry about it later, despite pumping money back into business to help them stay afloat where possible?

    Worry about it later is a direct Trudeau quote. Jacinda has said that she will not put the economy before peoples lives, admittedly early in the crisis.

    IMO, that's in the same boat, as we routinely put the ecomomy before people's lives. We have a rationed health system (we don't provide life saving drugs to some people if it's too expensive, for example).

    I just get concerned when I hear people like Dr Bloomfield talk about eradicating the virus. At what cost?

    At the moment if we get just two suicides for a hopeless outlook thanks to job losses, then we have double the death rate of the virus. I want to know they have a line in the sand where, as Antipodean keeps stating, the cure is worse than the disease.

    I'm not seeing it, I see a pretty dogmatic, almost blinkered approach at the moment. As if cratering the economy can be fixed later.



  • @Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Kirwan Truedeau is irrelevant for me but is that what Jacinda has said? That they will worry about it later, despite pumping money back into business to help them stay afloat where possible?

    Worry about it later is a direct Trudeau quote. Jacinda has said that she will not put the economy before peoples lives, admittedly early in the crisis.

    IMO, that's in the same boat, as we routinely put the ecomomy before people's lives. We have a rationed health system (we don't provide life saving drugs to some people if it's too expensive, for example).

    I just get concerned when I hear people like Dr Bloomfield talk about eradicating the virus. At what cost?

    At the moment if we get just two suicides for a hopeless outlook thanks to job losses, then we have double the death rate of the virus. I want to know they have a line in the sand where, as Antipodean keeps stating, the cure is worse than the disease.

    I'm not seeing it, I see a pretty dogmatic, almost blinkered approach at the moment. As if cratering the economy can be fixed later.

    I don't have that downbeat look to this. That is part of what we will go through and not a reason to change anything in my view. People are going to die and some will kill themselves and that is a sad outcome but not one that I think we need to be doing anything different because.



  • @Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    I'm not seeing it, I see a pretty dogmatic, almost blinkered approach at the moment. As if cratering the economy can be fixed later.

    I'm not convinced that the Govt will really understand how the economy works. There's some real risks with all governments wanting to borrow at the same time to stimulate. I can't see a way for the economy to really restart by increasing taxes and increased wages, combined with stimulus , but I suspect that's the route that we'll see taken.



  • @Kirwan We also put peoples lives ahead of the economy every single day of the year - terminal cancer patients Alzheimer sufferers. The list is a very long one and as a society it is what we expect our governments to do.

    I've said before - it is not a binary choice - the trick is to get the balance right, but that's an impossible task. At the moment with caveats I think the govt is doing OK.

    The argument we've only had x cases or y deaths doesn't really wash for me - exactly. It's working.



  • @dogmeat
    Everyone knows and says it isn't a binary choice, but the govt isn't acting much like that. People love saying that the virus transmits exponentially, but so does an economic collapse. And we are about to experience one.



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @dogmeat
    Everyone knows and says it isn't a binary choice, but the govt isn't acting much like that. People love saying that the virus transmits exponentially, but so does an economic collapse. And we are about to experience one.

    Auckland Council have suspended almost all of their works.https://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/articles/news/2020/04/auckland-council-managing-the-financial-cost-of-covid-19/

    Folk in councils seem to be getting really mixed messages about expanding their workload to stimulate the economy and keep people employed, and yet being told to stop spending money.



  • @Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Kirwan Truedeau is irrelevant for me but is that what Jacinda has said? That they will worry about it later, despite pumping money back into business to help them stay afloat where possible?

    Worry about it later is a direct Trudeau quote. Jacinda has said that she will not put the economy before peoples lives, admittedly early in the crisis.

    IMO, that's in the same boat, as we routinely put the ecomomy before people's lives. We have a rationed health system (we don't provide life saving drugs to some people if it's too expensive, for example).

    I just get concerned when I hear people like Dr Bloomfield talk about eradicating the virus. At what cost?

    At the moment if we get just two suicides for a hopeless outlook thanks to job losses, then we have double the death rate of the virus. I want to know they have a line in the sand where, as Antipodean keeps stating, the cure is worse than the disease.

    I'm not seeing it, I see a pretty dogmatic, almost blinkered approach at the moment. As if cratering the economy can be fixed later.

    I don't have that downbeat look to this. That is part of what we will go through and not a reason to change anything in my view. People are going to die and some will kill themselves and that is a sad outcome but not one that I think we need to be doing anything different because.

    Give yourself time as this economic collapse starts blooming outwards and starts badly effecting people you know.



  • @dogmeat Don't we also put the economy ahead of lives every single year as well. Do we put enough $ into DHB's every year so that they can save everyone possible? Do we fund every drug available to extend peoples lives/give them their lives back?



  • @nzzp have AC stopped sending out rates notices as well?



  • @booboo apparently GPs have had a massive loss of revenue because alert level 4 means people just aren't going, even though they are allowed to.



  • @taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @nzzp have AC stopped sending out rates notices as well?

    oh, my sides 🙂



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback I agree we are in for a very rough ride economically for the next 3-5 years. The hope is we can contain it to mid 70's scale rather than mid 30's. Because successive governments have managed the economy prudently I am optimistic that we can. We are also structurally better equipped than in either the 70's or 30's.

    Part of the issue is the majority of NZers haven't experienced large unemployment before. Last time was 91?

    I am very concerned. However I don't see many other countries who are managing the crisis effectively. Taiwan, Sth Korea. Singapore - maybe? Australia seem to be doing well but that seems happy chance more than policy. Almost every country that has been held up as the poster child of minimal intervention has gradually moved into the mire. On that basis I am prepared to accept the short sharp shock treatment, but it is a gamble. That's why the fucking lockdown breakers - both individuals and companies really fuck me off



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Kirwan Truedeau is irrelevant for me but is that what Jacinda has said? That they will worry about it later, despite pumping money back into business to help them stay afloat where possible?

    Worry about it later is a direct Trudeau quote. Jacinda has said that she will not put the economy before peoples lives, admittedly early in the crisis.

    IMO, that's in the same boat, as we routinely put the ecomomy before people's lives. We have a rationed health system (we don't provide life saving drugs to some people if it's too expensive, for example).

    I just get concerned when I hear people like Dr Bloomfield talk about eradicating the virus. At what cost?

    At the moment if we get just two suicides for a hopeless outlook thanks to job losses, then we have double the death rate of the virus. I want to know they have a line in the sand where, as Antipodean keeps stating, the cure is worse than the disease.

    I'm not seeing it, I see a pretty dogmatic, almost blinkered approach at the moment. As if cratering the economy can be fixed later.

    I don't have that downbeat look to this. That is part of what we will go through and not a reason to change anything in my view. People are going to die and some will kill themselves and that is a sad outcome but not one that I think we need to be doing anything different because.

    Give yourself time as this economic collapse starts blooming outwards and starts badly effecting you know.

    I understand that will happen as it will drastically affect me and our business.

    I prefer talking about how we can get out of this economically rather than the flip side and talk about why we didn't do anything to save the thousands that died.



  • @Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Kirwan Truedeau is irrelevant for me but is that what Jacinda has said? That they will worry about it later, despite pumping money back into business to help them stay afloat where possible?

    Worry about it later is a direct Trudeau quote. Jacinda has said that she will not put the economy before peoples lives, admittedly early in the crisis.

    IMO, that's in the same boat, as we routinely put the ecomomy before people's lives. We have a rationed health system (we don't provide life saving drugs to some people if it's too expensive, for example).

    I just get concerned when I hear people like Dr Bloomfield talk about eradicating the virus. At what cost?

    At the moment if we get just two suicides for a hopeless outlook thanks to job losses, then we have double the death rate of the virus. I want to know they have a line in the sand where, as Antipodean keeps stating, the cure is worse than the disease.

    I'm not seeing it, I see a pretty dogmatic, almost blinkered approach at the moment. As if cratering the economy can be fixed later.

    I don't have that downbeat look to this. That is part of what we will go through and not a reason to change anything in my view. People are going to die and some will kill themselves and that is a sad outcome but not one that I think we need to be doing anything different because.

    Give yourself time as this economic collapse starts blooming outwards and starts badly effecting you know.

    I understand that will happen as it will drastically affect me and our business.

    I prefer talking about how we can get out of this economically rather than the flip side and talk about why we didn't do anything to save the thousands that died.

    With respect it doesn't seem that way. You seem to be just accepting the govt response and not really believing the argument that irreparable damage is being done to peoples lives as we sit at home, a bomb is ticking away. Thousands that could have died? There is a halfway point.. other countries have shown us. We went full tilt... costs be damned.
    Looking at the above criteria for level 3... why did we ever leave that? The criteria are exactly what we have ever had.



  • https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/120872779/roads-empty-as-lockdown-nears-halfway-mark

    Looks like the official data shows us taking this seriously.



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Kirwan Truedeau is irrelevant for me but is that what Jacinda has said? That they will worry about it later, despite pumping money back into business to help them stay afloat where possible?

    Worry about it later is a direct Trudeau quote. Jacinda has said that she will not put the economy before peoples lives, admittedly early in the crisis.

    IMO, that's in the same boat, as we routinely put the ecomomy before people's lives. We have a rationed health system (we don't provide life saving drugs to some people if it's too expensive, for example).

    I just get concerned when I hear people like Dr Bloomfield talk about eradicating the virus. At what cost?

    At the moment if we get just two suicides for a hopeless outlook thanks to job losses, then we have double the death rate of the virus. I want to know they have a line in the sand where, as Antipodean keeps stating, the cure is worse than the disease.

    I'm not seeing it, I see a pretty dogmatic, almost blinkered approach at the moment. As if cratering the economy can be fixed later.

    I don't have that downbeat look to this. That is part of what we will go through and not a reason to change anything in my view. People are going to die and some will kill themselves and that is a sad outcome but not one that I think we need to be doing anything different because.

    Give yourself time as this economic collapse starts blooming outwards and starts badly effecting you know.

    I understand that will happen as it will drastically affect me and our business.

    I prefer talking about how we can get out of this economically rather than the flip side and talk about why we didn't do anything to save the thousands that died.

    With respect it doesn't seem that way. You seem to be just accepting the govt response and not really believing the argument that irreparable damage is being done to peoples lives as we sit at home, a bomb is ticking away. Thousands that could have died? There is a halfway point.. other countries have shown us. We went full tilt... costs be damned.
    Looking at the above criteria for level 3... why did we ever leave that? The criteria are exactly what we have ever had.

    and in this instance, I am happy with the response, despite the impact it will have on our business.

    If it is twice as bad as GFC then so be it. I don't mind having to work hard and starting again. It won't be from scratch.





  • @Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/120890068/coronavirus-one-dead-but-road-toll-down-more-than-16andcounting

    Something else to consider in the death counts - a lower road toll.

    Not worth considering at all. Thats like saying Hitler was helping prevent old age cancer in jews....

    But if we do go down this rabbit hole... the numebr one target ofall these health officials sugary drinks.... mot people wouldnt mind that being banned. But number 2.. alcohol. All the arguments they make add up form a public health perspective.... lets see how Hooroo responds to that 'greater good' argument. 🙂



  • @dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Kirwan @Baron-Silas-Greenback - I see no evidence that the government isn't incredibly concerned about the economy. They're spending billions to support it.

    I’ve tried to stay well away from this but I couldn’t let this go by unchallenged.

    Spending money the way the government is doing is not supporting the economy. It is moving money - that they don’t actually have, by the way - from one part of the economy to another. Every dollar they spend this way is a dollar not spent on something they previously thought was essential. If that was infrastructure, which boosts GDP, then that infrastructure will not now be built.

    The way to repair the economy is to let the economy do what it does, finding the most efficient way to allocate the available resources with the intention of increasing their value. That is something that clearly isn’t happening at the moment, because the majority of participants in the economy are banned from working.

    However good the intentions of the government are, they aren’t supporting the economy as much as running it.



  • @Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    Something else to consider in the death counts - a lower road toll.

    yeah I expect the Easter Road Death Toll should be the lowest in decades...

    As people have been saying, the actual toll on peoples wellbeing will linger for a long time after we return to whatever our new normal will be.

    THe true toll of this epidemic and lockdown wont be known for months or years I expect, IMO there is no right way of doing this, maybe we went to L4 too early, maybe we went too late?

    For me the border restrictions were a few weeks back and still are now a key component in us eradicating this virus in NZ.





  • @JC The money they are spending now is new borrowing so it hasn't taken money away from any other area of spending.

    they have also borrowed for the recovery which will see additional infrastructure spending

    Finally if people lose jobs and companies go under the economy contracts. The government has taken steps to mitigate both those scenarios. That's supporting the economy surely. But yeah they are running the economy in a way we haven't seen since the early 80's. Hopefully they aren't ruining it as much as Muldoon did.



  • @dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @JC The money they are spending now is new borrowing so it hasn't taken money away from any other area of spending.

    they have also borrowed for the recovery which will see additional infrastructure spending

    Finally if people lose jobs and companies go under the economy contracts. The government has taken steps to mitigate both those scenarios. That's supporting the economy surely. But yeah they are running the economy in a way we haven't seen since the early 80's. Hopefully they aren't ruining it as much as Muldoon did.

    Have they really though? The wage subsidy wasnt for a lockdown, it was for a slow down. Then they went full nuclear and shut everything down. I havent seen anything significant that will even scratch the surface of the carnage they are unleashing.



  • @taniwharugby the main weakness I see in NZ strategy is how to get out of it.

    If the virus is eradicated in NZ that’s excellent. But when do you allow international travel again?

    Don’t get me wrong - I’d rather be in NZ right now than UK, that’s unquestionable. But I just can’t see how the measures can be unwound. I can see NZ closing borders / locking people down in phases for up to 3 - 5 years. We are equally as vulnerable up here, altho I expect if the antibodies tests come available the results will be eye opening.



  • @MajorRage my brother and I are debating this. He trades jet fuel and is betting the bank on a quick resumption of international travel.

    I'm telling him he's deluded.

    Then it gets all brotherly 🙂



  • @JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Kirwan @Baron-Silas-Greenback - I see no evidence that the government isn't incredibly concerned about the economy. They're spending billions to support it.

    I’ve tried to stay well away from this but I couldn’t let this go by unchallenged.

    Spending money the way the government is doing is not supporting the economy. It is moving money - that they don’t actually have, by the way - from one part of the economy to another. Every dollar they spend this way is a dollar not spent on something they previously thought was essential. If that was infrastructure, which boosts GDP, then that infrastructure will not now be built.

    The way to repair the economy is to let the economy do what it does, finding the most efficient way to allocate the available resources with the intention of increasing their value. That is something that clearly isn’t happening at the moment, because the majority of participants in the economy are banned from working.

    However good the intentions of the government are, they aren’t supporting the economy as much as running it.

    And this is the bit that really concerns me. One thing politicans have shown (from all parties) is that they shouldn't be running the economy. The farce of them picking what is an essential service underlines that completely.

    I also probably have irrational concerns about leaders that use terms like "comrade" unironically getting a taste of running the economy.



  • @Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/120890068/coronavirus-one-dead-but-road-toll-down-more-than-16andcounting

    Something else to consider in the death counts - a lower road toll.

    Yeah, articles like this make me feel sick to be honest.



  • @Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/120890068/coronavirus-one-dead-but-road-toll-down-more-than-16andcounting

    Something else to consider in the death counts - a lower road toll.

    Yeah, articles like this make me feel sick to be honest.

    That and cleaner air and all the rest of the dross around "benefits of lockdown" Personally, I want to get out and about again.

    It's a stupid train of thought that the attached article is a benefit. It's not, it's an outcome.


Log in to reply