Coronavirus - New Zealand



  • @Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/121206976/prime-minister-needs-to-be-held-to-account-over-coronavirus-claims

    Hopefully this sort of thing will become more common. Cindy can't just say blue sky shit without expecting questions to be asked

    It does have a tinge of searching for news though. Has anyone complained with reason or been affected by this potential 'misunderstanding'? To me elimination means elimination of danger...risk levels extremely low....f there is a case then an outbreak is able to be contained quickly. As long as we can go about our daily lives normally, then that's elimination of threat. In Risk terminology a risk has become an issue, mitigations have been applied to revert it back and the residual risk is low likelihood/High Impact. Still red but not likely.

    I have to say I am getting a bit tired of our so called reporters, who having to do their jobs instead of rehashing tweets, have shown very poor skills in finding 'real' stories and keep trying to invent issues to talk about.

    So you agree with the article then?

    Yes, the prime minister is technically correct in epidemiology speak. A Dictionary of Epidemiology, 4th edition, defines elimination as a "reduction of case transmission to a predetermined very low level".
    
    However, the prime minister knows very well the general population is not fluent in epidemiological jargon, so up until she decided to tell us on Monday that "elimination doesn't mean zero cases" it's fair to say we've been misled. Whether that was intentional or not, we don't know.
    
    The reason we don't know is because our media failed to question the prime minister about it, bar one question that skirted around the edge: "Prime Minister, just on the elimination target, you say this doesn't mean zero cases. Does this mean you're prepared, or, at least, expecting, to have the virus in the country until there's a vaccine?"
    
    At least one journalist should have asked the prime minister why she thought it was acceptable to use "elimination" in her public speeches, when her intended meaning of the word is different from the accepted everyday use and understanding. It is fair to say our news media – or at least our political journalists – can do a better job.
    

    I'd agree with that and it looks like you're saying much the same thing.

    Nah, I disagree with the last paragraph. It's using semantics to try and generate a story that doesn't exist. Messages need to be kept simple or they get woolly. She gave the detail verbally. They seem to imply that anything other than complete annihilation is a shift and people are being tricked.

    Wouldn't the expectation of the majority of New Zealanders be that "elimination" means the the complete removal or destruction of something?

    I'd suggest it would, especially in the face of a lack of detail about that the lower acceptable bound was. Where's the public messaging about "we have to get cases to this number and X per day to get to level Y"?

    That creating a false expectation though. The movement decisions aren't solely based on one number. If, say the number was 3 but those 3 cases had randomly appeared in places with no previous outbreak and couldn't be traced then that is reason for concern and investigation.

    I didn't say one number. My statement was consistent with the provided epidemiological definition which provides clarity and a real expectation - the very one the Government would be working towards. If they're not saying what that level is, then WTF are they working towards?

    For a government that is supposed to be excellent at messaging, they're spectacularly poor at telling New Zealanders why they're all being treated like criminals.



  • @canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/121206976/prime-minister-needs-to-be-held-to-account-over-coronavirus-claims

    Hopefully this sort of thing will become more common. Cindy can't just say blue sky shit without expecting questions to be asked

    It does have a tinge of searching for news though. Has anyone complained with reason or been affected by this potential 'misunderstanding'? To me elimination means elimination of danger...risk levels extremely low....f there is a case then an outbreak is able to be contained quickly. As long as we can go about our daily lives normally, then that's elimination of threat. In Risk terminology a risk has become an issue, mitigations have been applied to revert it back and the residual risk is low likelihood/High Impact. Still red but not likely.

    I have to say I am getting a bit tired of our so called reporters, who having to do their jobs instead of rehashing tweets, have shown very poor skills in finding 'real' stories and keep trying to invent issues to talk about.

    The PPE shortage is close to my heart. They keep saying they have it, but there is a lot of evidence to the contrary from a number of sources. No more softball pitches on topics like that

    I do agree that this annoys me too and is why I think the 'journalists' are doing a poor job. A question of 'Can you please explain why we keep hearing from frontline staff that they have PPE issues contrary to the official line' would be good.

    I do have some idea where some of the stories fall short of concern though. My sister is in public healthcare and has told me that they are battling with some staff in trying to sensibly manage the PPE. As example the guidelines may say to change a mask every 30 minutes (don't quote me on this, it is an attempt to explain) they have staff demanding a change of masks after every patient even if they have only spent a couple of minutes with them. Then the staff complain to the media. They are also struggling with staff just grabbing extras for home use who then complain if their supply is monitored.

    I don't doubt that these anecdotes aren't the complete story by any stretch and that given how useless some DHBs are there will also be some proper concerns as well and there is a mis-match in the official messages.



  • @Crucial I agree that the story will be more nuanced than simply saying they have enough or not enough. They could actually take the time to interview a bunch of people then form a more balanced opinion on what the situation is



  • @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/121206976/prime-minister-needs-to-be-held-to-account-over-coronavirus-claims

    Hopefully this sort of thing will become more common. Cindy can't just say blue sky shit without expecting questions to be asked

    It does have a tinge of searching for news though. Has anyone complained with reason or been affected by this potential 'misunderstanding'? To me elimination means elimination of danger...risk levels extremely low....f there is a case then an outbreak is able to be contained quickly. As long as we can go about our daily lives normally, then that's elimination of threat. In Risk terminology a risk has become an issue, mitigations have been applied to revert it back and the residual risk is low likelihood/High Impact. Still red but not likely.

    I have to say I am getting a bit tired of our so called reporters, who having to do their jobs instead of rehashing tweets, have shown very poor skills in finding 'real' stories and keep trying to invent issues to talk about.

    So you agree with the article then?

    Yes, the prime minister is technically correct in epidemiology speak. A Dictionary of Epidemiology, 4th edition, defines elimination as a "reduction of case transmission to a predetermined very low level".
    
    However, the prime minister knows very well the general population is not fluent in epidemiological jargon, so up until she decided to tell us on Monday that "elimination doesn't mean zero cases" it's fair to say we've been misled. Whether that was intentional or not, we don't know.
    
    The reason we don't know is because our media failed to question the prime minister about it, bar one question that skirted around the edge: "Prime Minister, just on the elimination target, you say this doesn't mean zero cases. Does this mean you're prepared, or, at least, expecting, to have the virus in the country until there's a vaccine?"
    
    At least one journalist should have asked the prime minister why she thought it was acceptable to use "elimination" in her public speeches, when her intended meaning of the word is different from the accepted everyday use and understanding. It is fair to say our news media – or at least our political journalists – can do a better job.
    

    I'd agree with that and it looks like you're saying much the same thing.

    Nah, I disagree with the last paragraph. It's using semantics to try and generate a story that doesn't exist. Messages need to be kept simple or they get woolly. She gave the detail verbally. They seem to imply that anything other than complete annihilation is a shift and people are being tricked.

    Wouldn't the expectation of the majority of New Zealanders be that "elimination" means the the complete removal or destruction of something?

    I'd suggest it would, especially in the face of a lack of detail about that the lower acceptable bound was. Where's the public messaging about "we have to get cases to this number and X per day to get to level Y"?

    That creating a false expectation though. The movement decisions aren't solely based on one number. If, say the number was 3 but those 3 cases had randomly appeared in places with no previous outbreak and couldn't be traced then that is reason for concern and investigation.

    I didn't say one number. My statement was consistent with the provided epidemiological definition which provides clarity and a real expectation - the very one the Government would be working towards. If they're not saying what that level is, then WTF are they working towards?

    For a government that is supposed to be excellent at messaging, they're spectacularly poor at telling New Zealanders why they're all being treated like criminals.

    I'm not sure if you missed the message but I certainly feel like I understand where they are aiming for. In my understanding from the press conferences they are trying to get to a point where they are satisfied that there are no hidden pockets of transmission and that if new cases appear, the source is easily understood. Alongside that they need to be able to quickly trace potential transmission. I don't think any of that is far away tbh and do think they are going through a very cautious approach on the return to 'normal'. If these aims are met and they still want restrictions for any long period then I will be concerned at overkill. Up to that point I support the approach.



  • https://stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/121269987/coronavirus-ministry-of-health-covid19-update

    One death, a handful of new cases mostly from known cluster. 77% of known cases recovered. Steady as she goes



  • These continued cases linked to known clusters (that have been known for some time) show what a pain this is to control and how it takes ages to declare 'safety' As long as someone is spreading it before they realise we can't open up safely unless we have really good contact tracing and lockdown of contacts. When I now apply that theory to more populous and less 'controlled' countries I really do wonder how they will find a good way out unless the virus burns itself out.



  • https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/health/how-covid19-kills-in-ferocious-rampage-from-brain-to-toes/news-story/76f8edff42d1302b2c9acc8211547ea6

    Not just the lungs in 5% of cases - a ghastly way to go.

    Elimination has a particular epidemiological meaning (not present in a region), but it would require eradication (not present anywhere - only smallpox has been eradicated) for Covid-19 to never surface here. Even with current border restrictions, we aren't going to stop citizens and residents returning, and at least some of them will depart quarantine as a false negative.

    Agree with @Crucial about the goal here. As long as we can trace all cases and contacts and isolate/quarantine them, that's as close to real elimination as we will get without a vaccine.



  • @Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/121206976/prime-minister-needs-to-be-held-to-account-over-coronavirus-claims

    Hopefully this sort of thing will become more common. Cindy can't just say blue sky shit without expecting questions to be asked

    It does have a tinge of searching for news though. Has anyone complained with reason or been affected by this potential 'misunderstanding'? To me elimination means elimination of danger...risk levels extremely low....f there is a case then an outbreak is able to be contained quickly. As long as we can go about our daily lives normally, then that's elimination of threat. In Risk terminology a risk has become an issue, mitigations have been applied to revert it back and the residual risk is low likelihood/High Impact. Still red but not likely.

    I have to say I am getting a bit tired of our so called reporters, who having to do their jobs instead of rehashing tweets, have shown very poor skills in finding 'real' stories and keep trying to invent issues to talk about.

    So you agree with the article then?

    Yes, the prime minister is technically correct in epidemiology speak. A Dictionary of Epidemiology, 4th edition, defines elimination as a "reduction of case transmission to a predetermined very low level".
    
    However, the prime minister knows very well the general population is not fluent in epidemiological jargon, so up until she decided to tell us on Monday that "elimination doesn't mean zero cases" it's fair to say we've been misled. Whether that was intentional or not, we don't know.
    
    The reason we don't know is because our media failed to question the prime minister about it, bar one question that skirted around the edge: "Prime Minister, just on the elimination target, you say this doesn't mean zero cases. Does this mean you're prepared, or, at least, expecting, to have the virus in the country until there's a vaccine?"
    
    At least one journalist should have asked the prime minister why she thought it was acceptable to use "elimination" in her public speeches, when her intended meaning of the word is different from the accepted everyday use and understanding. It is fair to say our news media – or at least our political journalists – can do a better job.
    

    I'd agree with that and it looks like you're saying much the same thing.

    Nah, I disagree with the last paragraph. It's using semantics to try and generate a story that doesn't exist. Messages need to be kept simple or they get woolly. She gave the detail verbally. They seem to imply that anything other than complete annihilation is a shift and people are being tricked.

    Wouldn't the expectation of the majority of New Zealanders be that "elimination" means the the complete removal or destruction of something?

    I'd suggest it would, especially in the face of a lack of detail about that the lower acceptable bound was. Where's the public messaging about "we have to get cases to this number and X per day to get to level Y"?

    That creating a false expectation though. The movement decisions aren't solely based on one number. If, say the number was 3 but those 3 cases had randomly appeared in places with no previous outbreak and couldn't be traced then that is reason for concern and investigation.

    I didn't say one number. My statement was consistent with the provided epidemiological definition which provides clarity and a real expectation - the very one the Government would be working towards. If they're not saying what that level is, then WTF are they working towards?

    For a government that is supposed to be excellent at messaging, they're spectacularly poor at telling New Zealanders why they're all being treated like criminals.

    I'm not sure if you missed the message but I certainly feel like I understand where they are aiming for. In my understanding from the press conferences they are trying to get to a point where they are satisfied that there are no hidden pockets of transmission and that if new cases appear, the source is easily understood. Alongside that they need to be able to quickly trace potential transmission.

    ...and what point is that? What are the metrics?



  • @antipodean 0 unexplained cases?



  • @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/121206976/prime-minister-needs-to-be-held-to-account-over-coronavirus-claims

    Hopefully this sort of thing will become more common. Cindy can't just say blue sky shit without expecting questions to be asked

    It does have a tinge of searching for news though. Has anyone complained with reason or been affected by this potential 'misunderstanding'? To me elimination means elimination of danger...risk levels extremely low....f there is a case then an outbreak is able to be contained quickly. As long as we can go about our daily lives normally, then that's elimination of threat. In Risk terminology a risk has become an issue, mitigations have been applied to revert it back and the residual risk is low likelihood/High Impact. Still red but not likely.

    I have to say I am getting a bit tired of our so called reporters, who having to do their jobs instead of rehashing tweets, have shown very poor skills in finding 'real' stories and keep trying to invent issues to talk about.

    So you agree with the article then?

    Yes, the prime minister is technically correct in epidemiology speak. A Dictionary of Epidemiology, 4th edition, defines elimination as a "reduction of case transmission to a predetermined very low level".
    
    However, the prime minister knows very well the general population is not fluent in epidemiological jargon, so up until she decided to tell us on Monday that "elimination doesn't mean zero cases" it's fair to say we've been misled. Whether that was intentional or not, we don't know.
    
    The reason we don't know is because our media failed to question the prime minister about it, bar one question that skirted around the edge: "Prime Minister, just on the elimination target, you say this doesn't mean zero cases. Does this mean you're prepared, or, at least, expecting, to have the virus in the country until there's a vaccine?"
    
    At least one journalist should have asked the prime minister why she thought it was acceptable to use "elimination" in her public speeches, when her intended meaning of the word is different from the accepted everyday use and understanding. It is fair to say our news media – or at least our political journalists – can do a better job.
    

    I'd agree with that and it looks like you're saying much the same thing.

    Nah, I disagree with the last paragraph. It's using semantics to try and generate a story that doesn't exist. Messages need to be kept simple or they get woolly. She gave the detail verbally. They seem to imply that anything other than complete annihilation is a shift and people are being tricked.

    Wouldn't the expectation of the majority of New Zealanders be that "elimination" means the the complete removal or destruction of something?

    I'd suggest it would, especially in the face of a lack of detail about that the lower acceptable bound was. Where's the public messaging about "we have to get cases to this number and X per day to get to level Y"?

    That creating a false expectation though. The movement decisions aren't solely based on one number. If, say the number was 3 but those 3 cases had randomly appeared in places with no previous outbreak and couldn't be traced then that is reason for concern and investigation.

    I didn't say one number. My statement was consistent with the provided epidemiological definition which provides clarity and a real expectation - the very one the Government would be working towards. If they're not saying what that level is, then WTF are they working towards?

    For a government that is supposed to be excellent at messaging, they're spectacularly poor at telling New Zealanders why they're all being treated like criminals.

    I'm not sure if you missed the message but I certainly feel like I understand where they are aiming for. In my understanding from the press conferences they are trying to get to a point where they are satisfied that there are no hidden pockets of transmission and that if new cases appear, the source is easily understood. Alongside that they need to be able to quickly trace potential transmission.

    ...and what point is that? What are the metrics?

    It isn’t as simple as numbers or a measure, that is the point. Just like any decision making based on data you need to apply an interpretation to the raw numbers. If you want some kind of firm definition of that interpretation then I think they have also made it clear what criteria they are looking at. Then you need to include other factors. Like how long have you been waiting to get to that point? Can you afford to go longer. It is way too simplistic to ask for some kind of numbers tipping point.



  • @Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @antipodean 0 unexplained cases?

    So you can have heaps of confirmed cases and growth in cases as long as you know where they came from..?



  • @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @antipodean 0 unexplained cases?

    So you can have heaps of confirmed cases and growth in cases as long as you know where they came from..?

    That won't happen if confirmed cases are staying in self-isolation. This is why we went to level 4 (we treated everyone as though they have COVID-19.



  • @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @antipodean 0 unexplained cases?

    So you can have heaps of confirmed cases and growth in cases as long as you know where they came from..?

    Presumably longer term, no new clusters (which are 10 or more cases attributed to one source), and infections below 100 with that number reducing over time.



  • @Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @antipodean 0 unexplained cases?

    So you can have heaps of confirmed cases and growth in cases as long as you know where they came from..?

    Presumably longer term, no new clusters (which are 10 or more cases attributed to one source), and infections below 100 with that number reducing over time.

    I get where @antipodean is coming from, and it’s captured right there in your response - “presumably”. Clearly you’re clever enough to understand a strategy, so why is it necessary for you to presume? Sure, some people need to have the message pitched to a less challenging level, but I don’t get the impression you or antipodean do so why don’t you have access to the unadulterated data and arguments? FWIW I think you’re probably correct, but you’re cutting the administration too much slack.



  • This from my sister back in Godzone:

    'In NZ we are in the luxurious position of not having community spread and that is due to well timed prudent lockdown measures. The only people complaining here get derided.'



  • @JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @antipodean 0 unexplained cases?

    So you can have heaps of confirmed cases and growth in cases as long as you know where they came from..?

    Presumably longer term, no new clusters (which are 10 or more cases attributed to one source), and infections below 100 with that number reducing over time.

    I get where @antipodean is coming from, and it’s captured right there in your response - “presumably”. Clearly you’re clever enough to understand a strategy, so why is it necessary for you to presume? Sure, some people need to have the message pitched to a less challenging level, but I don’t get the impression you or antipodean do so why don’t you have access to the unadulterated data and arguments? FWIW I think you’re probably correct, but you’re cutting the administration too much slack.

    The truth is the government doesn't know for sure and the model is probably robust. If you set certain criteria now and found out later it should include other criteria, that is a problem.



  • @JC metrics get published every day (number of new cases, sources, clusters, number of recovered cases, numbers in hospital an ICU, deaths). If we're asking what numbers would allow change of level, the probable answer is that the government doesn't know exactly because the health advice is probably changing as new evidence becomes available.



  • 9 new cases (4 confirmed, 5 probable)



  • @Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @JC metrics get published every day (number of new cases, sources, clusters, number of recovered cases, numbers in hospital an ICU, deaths). If we're asking what numbers would allow change of level, the probable answer is that the government doesn't know exactly because the health advice is probably changing as new evidence becomes available.

    That is what we're asking. If you embark on something major without knowing how you are going to measure success you can't hope to know if you've been successful. If you make a temporary change you need to know what criteria you're going to use to exit. These things are basic change management principles that governments the world over never seem to get right.

    If the government wants to temporarily infringe on our human rights they have an obligation to understand how they are going to hand them back to us, explain that to us and if something changes along the way offer us a chance to exit. In other words they need to define "temporary" with absolute precision. I did not agree to an open-ended handover of the running of my life to a government.



  • @JC it was agreed by our representatives in Parliament giving those powers to the government if an epidemic is declared.

    And if the government keeps publishing criteria and revising it regularly, how will that keep public confidence? People don't trust them now, and that would look like flip-flopping.



  • https://stuff.co.nz/business/121254612/coronavirus-business-owner-pockets-150000-from-government-wage-subsidy-and-hes-not-paying-it-back

    The guy actually has some good points. Nice of stuff to nullify any of the worthwhile stuff with that headline



  • @canefan well he explicitly questioned whether they can take it back off him - so while he did raise some good points (that I don't think the govt is oblivious to btw) he's come in pretty hot. But can't fault his dedication to his crew and their families.





  • @Paekakboyz said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @canefan well he explicitly questioned whether they can take it back off him - so while he did raise some good points (that I don't think the govt is oblivious to btw) he's come in pretty hot. But can't fault his dedication to his crew and their families.

    The photo with him in a sportscar just encourages the idea that all contractors are exploitative scum





  • @Paekakboyz said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @canefan well he explicitly questioned whether they can take it back off him - so while he did raise some good points (that I don't think the govt is oblivious to btw) he's come in pretty hot. But can't fault his dedication to his crew and their families.

    Although I had to laugh at his declaration that the govt is useless because they are wasting money but he’s happy to collect as much of it as he can. A man of principles quite obviously.



  • @Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Paekakboyz said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @canefan well he explicitly questioned whether they can take it back off him - so while he did raise some good points (that I don't think the govt is oblivious to btw) he's come in pretty hot. But can't fault his dedication to his crew and their families.

    Although I had to laugh at his declaration that the govt is useless because they are wasting money but he’s happy to collect as much of it as he can. A man of principles quite obviously.

    Yeah, if you’re in such good shape and don’t need the money then don’t take it. Instead, he’s taking it and then sticking the boot in. Also, going on about how much money you need to keep going seems a bit counter productive.



  • @Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Paekakboyz said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @canefan well he explicitly questioned whether they can take it back off him - so while he did raise some good points (that I don't think the govt is oblivious to btw) he's come in pretty hot. But can't fault his dedication to his crew and their families.

    Although I had to laugh at his declaration that the govt is useless because they are wasting money but he’s happy to collect as much of it as he can. A man of principles quite obviously.

    He's not the best advocate for the position it must be said



  • 40 staff not working for five weeks and so far that's only cost him $80K??

    Am I missing something or should I read the whole article?



  • @Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @JC it was agreed by our representatives in Parliament giving those powers to the government if an epidemic is declared.

    And if the government keeps publishing criteria and revising it regularly, how will that keep public confidence? People don't trust them now, and that would look like flip-flopping.

    Oh no. We can’t have them looking like they’re flip-flopping can we? That would be so politically inconvenient.

    This is simple. If they know what the exit criteria are they should tell us. If they don’t know they should tell us that instead. The former has a time limit, even if it’s just connected to a condition or event. But if the exit criteria are rational, the abrogation of our human rights is temporary.

    However if there aren’t any exit criteria it is entirely possible that there is no exit, ever. I’m not OK with living like that, and I don’t care what representatives decided it.

    I’m not impressed by arguments that things are constantly changing when the people making the argument are the ones who are changing things.



  • @JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @JC it was agreed by our representatives in Parliament giving those powers to the government if an epidemic is declared.

    And if the government keeps publishing criteria and revising it regularly, how will that keep public confidence? People don't trust them now, and that would look like flip-flopping.

    Oh no. We can’t have them looking like they’re flip-flopping can we? That would be so politically inconvenient.

    This is simple. If they know what the exit criteria are they should tell us. If they don’t know they should tell us that instead. The former has a time limit, even if it’s just connected to a condition or event. But if the exit criteria are rational, the abrogation of our human rights is temporary.

    However if there aren’t any exit criteria it is entirely possible that there is no exit, ever. I’m not OK with living like that, and I don’t care what representatives decided it.

    I’m not impressed by arguments that things are constantly changing when the people making the argument are the ones who are changing things.

    It’s a decision based on a situation of many variables, not one the can be locked in and held to.

    I get the element of frustration by some but things aren’t as simple as “when this number occurs”. It isn’t trying to save face either. You know exactly what would happen if they set some targets but didn’t move when the targets were met because of other information that had to hand.



  • @Toddy said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    40 staff not working for five weeks and so far that's only cost him $80K??

    Am I missing something or should I read the whole article?

    Who knows, maybe he “negotiated” with them to take a massive pay cut with the alternative of regrettably not being able to keep their jobs. He’s obviously a real gent.



  • @Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @JC it was agreed by our representatives in Parliament giving those powers to the government if an epidemic is declared.

    And if the government keeps publishing criteria and revising it regularly, how will that keep public confidence? People don't trust them now, and that would look like flip-flopping.

    Oh no. We can’t have them looking like they’re flip-flopping can we? That would be so politically inconvenient.

    This is simple. If they know what the exit criteria are they should tell us. If they don’t know they should tell us that instead. The former has a time limit, even if it’s just connected to a condition or event. But if the exit criteria are rational, the abrogation of our human rights is temporary.

    However if there aren’t any exit criteria it is entirely possible that there is no exit, ever. I’m not OK with living like that, and I don’t care what representatives decided it.

    I’m not impressed by arguments that things are constantly changing when the people making the argument are the ones who are changing things.

    It’s a decision based on a situation of many variables, not one the can be locked in and held to.

    I get the element of frustration by some but things aren’t as simple as “when this number occurs”. It isn’t trying to save face either. You know exactly what would happen if they set some targets but didn’t move when the targets were met because of other information that had to hand.

    Of course it’s complex. But they chose an extreme course that varies from the original premise. Originally they needed to flatten the curve so that our health services would cope. The compact with the public was that we would temporarily surrender some freedoms so that could happen. I assume that they’ve used the time to upgrade our health systems so that we are prepared for a future wave. But I don’t know, because nobody has told us how that’s going. Instead something changed: we were going to go for elimination, something that nobody is sure will work. That’s a significant movement of the goalposts.

    Assuming elimination works, what are the implications? The WHO said overnight that COVID passports shouldn’t be used because there’s no evidence that having the virus confers immunity. Think about that. We may be permanently stuck with this thing. If so, it’s about time someone started to talk with us about what rights and freedoms we are prepared to permanently give up. And the answer might be “none”. So be it.

    I’m much more likely to be in the high risk category than most here, and I’d rather not die. But I’m fucked if I want to be the reason people who are at very little risk have their lives and livelihoods ruined just so that I can get a few extra years of living like a hermit. Fuck that. I’d rather take my chances and let people with an actual future have one.



  • @JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @JC it was agreed by our representatives in Parliament giving those powers to the government if an epidemic is declared.

    And if the government keeps publishing criteria and revising it regularly, how will that keep public confidence? People don't trust them now, and that would look like flip-flopping.

    Oh no. We can’t have them looking like they’re flip-flopping can we? That would be so politically inconvenient.

    This is simple. If they know what the exit criteria are they should tell us. If they don’t know they should tell us that instead. The former has a time limit, even if it’s just connected to a condition or event. But if the exit criteria are rational, the abrogation of our human rights is temporary.

    However if there aren’t any exit criteria it is entirely possible that there is no exit, ever. I’m not OK with living like that, and I don’t care what representatives decided it.

    I’m not impressed by arguments that things are constantly changing when the people making the argument are the ones who are changing things.

    It’s a decision based on a situation of many variables, not one the can be locked in and held to.

    I get the element of frustration by some but things aren’t as simple as “when this number occurs”. It isn’t trying to save face either. You know exactly what would happen if they set some targets but didn’t move when the targets were met because of other information that had to hand.

    Of course it’s complex. But they chose an extreme course that varies from the original premise. Originally they needed to flatten the curve so that our health services would cope. The compact with the public was that we would temporarily surrender some freedoms so that could happen. I assume that they’ve used the time to upgrade our health systems so that we are prepared for a future wave. But I don’t know, because nobody has told us how that’s going. Instead something changed: we were going to go for elimination, something that nobody is sure will work. That’s a significant movement of the goalposts.

    Assuming elimination works, what are the implications? The WHO said overnight that COVID passports shouldn’t be used because there’s no evidence that having the virus confers immunity. Think about that. We may be permanently stuck with this thing. If so, it’s about time someone started to talk with us about what rights and freedoms we are prepared to permanently give up. And the answer might be “none”. So be it.

    I’m much more likely to be in the high risk category than most here, and I’d rather not die. But I’m fucked if I want to be the reason people who are at very little risk have their lives and livelihoods ruined just so that I can get a few extra years of living like a hermit. Fuck that. I’d rather take my chances and let people with an actual future have one.

    This is a great post mate



  • @JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @JC it was agreed by our representatives in Parliament giving those powers to the government if an epidemic is declared.

    And if the government keeps publishing criteria and revising it regularly, how will that keep public confidence? People don't trust them now, and that would look like flip-flopping.

    Oh no. We can’t have them looking like they’re flip-flopping can we? That would be so politically inconvenient.

    This is simple. If they know what the exit criteria are they should tell us. If they don’t know they should tell us that instead. The former has a time limit, even if it’s just connected to a condition or event. But if the exit criteria are rational, the abrogation of our human rights is temporary.

    However if there aren’t any exit criteria it is entirely possible that there is no exit, ever. I’m not OK with living like that, and I don’t care what representatives decided it.

    I’m not impressed by arguments that things are constantly changing when the people making the argument are the ones who are changing things.

    It’s a decision based on a situation of many variables, not one the can be locked in and held to.

    I get the element of frustration by some but things aren’t as simple as “when this number occurs”. It isn’t trying to save face either. You know exactly what would happen if they set some targets but didn’t move when the targets were met because of other information that had to hand.

    Of course it’s complex. But they chose an extreme course that varies from the original premise. Originally they needed to flatten the curve so that our health services would cope. The compact with the public was that we would temporarily surrender some freedoms so that could happen. I assume that they’ve used the time to upgrade our health systems so that we are prepared for a future wave. But I don’t know, because nobody has told us how that’s going. Instead something changed: we were going to go for elimination, something that nobody is sure will work. That’s a significant movement of the goalposts.

    Assuming elimination works, what are the implications? The WHO said overnight that COVID passports shouldn’t be used because there’s no evidence that having the virus confers immunity. Think about that. We may be permanently stuck with this thing. If so, it’s about time someone started to talk with us about what rights and freedoms we are prepared to permanently give up. And the answer might be “none”. So be it.

    I’m much more likely to be in the high risk category than most here, and I’d rather not die. But I’m fucked if I want to be the reason people who are at very little risk have their lives and livelihoods ruined just so that I can get a few extra years of living like a hermit. Fuck that. I’d rather take my chances and let people with an actual future have one.

    The government does a press conference every day and Ashley Bloomfield has done Facebook Q&A's. There has been plenty of accountability and openness on this issue. The government tells us how upgrading the system is going every day. They tell us how many tests are done; they talk about PPE; they talk about hospital capacity etc.

    I don't think anyone is talking about a few years of living like a hermit. Letting the virus ravage New Zealand would probably be preferable than 3 years of everyone being a hermit. But no one is suggesting that. It has only been 5 weeks and we are moving down the levels.

    You are better off saving your criticism for May 11 when the level will be reviewed again. Why get upset over a hypothetical?

    I'm also not sure what you mean by "no one is sure that elimination will work". Everyone knows that if there are less people with the virus in NZ and if there is contact tracing then there is less risk of the virus spreading. We think it is unlikely that the virus can be eradicated. We are giving up rights now by being in levels 3 & 4 for longer than you would like precisely so we don't have to live as hermits for 3 years. We can give up rights for a short amount of time, have only a small number of cases and than we can go back to largely life as normal (with no overseas travel).



  • @hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @JC it was agreed by our representatives in Parliament giving those powers to the government if an epidemic is declared.

    And if the government keeps publishing criteria and revising it regularly, how will that keep public confidence? People don't trust them now, and that would look like flip-flopping.

    Oh no. We can’t have them looking like they’re flip-flopping can we? That would be so politically inconvenient.

    This is simple. If they know what the exit criteria are they should tell us. If they don’t know they should tell us that instead. The former has a time limit, even if it’s just connected to a condition or event. But if the exit criteria are rational, the abrogation of our human rights is temporary.

    However if there aren’t any exit criteria it is entirely possible that there is no exit, ever. I’m not OK with living like that, and I don’t care what representatives decided it.

    I’m not impressed by arguments that things are constantly changing when the people making the argument are the ones who are changing things.

    It’s a decision based on a situation of many variables, not one the can be locked in and held to.

    I get the element of frustration by some but things aren’t as simple as “when this number occurs”. It isn’t trying to save face either. You know exactly what would happen if they set some targets but didn’t move when the targets were met because of other information that had to hand.

    Of course it’s complex. But they chose an extreme course that varies from the original premise. Originally they needed to flatten the curve so that our health services would cope. The compact with the public was that we would temporarily surrender some freedoms so that could happen. I assume that they’ve used the time to upgrade our health systems so that we are prepared for a future wave. But I don’t know, because nobody has told us how that’s going. Instead something changed: we were going to go for elimination, something that nobody is sure will work. That’s a significant movement of the goalposts.

    Assuming elimination works, what are the implications? The WHO said overnight that COVID passports shouldn’t be used because there’s no evidence that having the virus confers immunity. Think about that. We may be permanently stuck with this thing. If so, it’s about time someone started to talk with us about what rights and freedoms we are prepared to permanently give up. And the answer might be “none”. So be it.

    I’m much more likely to be in the high risk category than most here, and I’d rather not die. But I’m fucked if I want to be the reason people who are at very little risk have their lives and livelihoods ruined just so that I can get a few extra years of living like a hermit. Fuck that. I’d rather take my chances and let people with an actual future have one.

    The government does a press conference every day and Ashley Bloomfield has done Facebook Q&A's. There has been plenty of accountability and openness on this issue. The government tells us how upgrading the system is going every day. They tell us how many tests are done; they talk about PPE; they talk about hospital capacity etc.

    I don't think anyone is talking about a few years of living like a hermit. Letting the virus ravage New Zealand would probably be preferable than 3 years of everyone being a hermit. But no one is suggesting that. It has only been 5 weeks and we are moving down the levels.

    You are better off saving your criticism for May 11 when the level will be reviewed again. Why get upset over a hypothetical?

    I'm also not sure what you mean by "no one is sure that elimination will work". Everyone knows that if there are less people with the virus in NZ and if there is contact tracing then there is less risk of the virus spreading. We think it is unlikely that the virus can be eradicated. We are giving up rights now by being in levels 3 & 4 for longer than you would like precisely so we don't have to live as hermits for 3 years. We can give up rights for a short amount of time, have only a small number of cases and than we can go back to largely life as normal (with no overseas travel).

    All I can say is you have a much lower standard for accountability than I do. Having a press conference isn’t what I’m talking about. In my world I have always asked the people I work with “what’s the plan”. And I mean the entire plan. We talk about the assumptions and constraints, the unknowns and the variables. Then we agree and we publish it. Then people are accountable for it. Of course things change, but we have a baseline, and every change to the original plan means everything goes back on the table. I’d be very surprised if you, or anybody else whose ever worked on a formal project, doesn’t recognise this. It is the way you get things done.

    Why get upset over a hypothetical? Because the curtailing of freedoms isn’t hypothetical at all. It’s now the status quo. What’s hypothetical is, in fact, the exit from the curtailment of those freedoms, because that is based on a judgement call, the parameters of which we don’t know in advance.

    As for “no one is sure elimination will work”, what’s not to understand? We know we can probably keep cases where they are is we stick to Level 4. We don’t know whether they will ramp up again when we relax the levels again. It is distinctly possible that future experience shows us that we can’t contain it unless we remain at Level 4. So when you say we are living with Level 4 and 3 for a couple of weeks so we don’t have to live like hermits for 3 years, where is the evidence for that optimistic outlook? Because Jacinda told you? I get that’s their hope, but hoping isn’t a way to run a country.



  • @hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    We are giving up rights now by being in levels 3 & 4 for longer than you would like precisely so we don't have to live as hermits for 3 years.

    What would living like a hermit look like? Like level 3 & 4? So your argument is "we're living like hermits for an indistinct period of time so that we're not living like hermits for three years"?



  • @hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @JC it was agreed by our representatives in Parliament giving those powers to the government if an epidemic is declared.

    And if the government keeps publishing criteria and revising it regularly, how will that keep public confidence? People don't trust them now, and that would look like flip-flopping.

    Oh no. We can’t have them looking like they’re flip-flopping can we? That would be so politically inconvenient.

    This is simple. If they know what the exit criteria are they should tell us. If they don’t know they should tell us that instead. The former has a time limit, even if it’s just connected to a condition or event. But if the exit criteria are rational, the abrogation of our human rights is temporary.

    However if there aren’t any exit criteria it is entirely possible that there is no exit, ever. I’m not OK with living like that, and I don’t care what representatives decided it.

    I’m not impressed by arguments that things are constantly changing when the people making the argument are the ones who are changing things.

    It’s a decision based on a situation of many variables, not one the can be locked in and held to.

    I get the element of frustration by some but things aren’t as simple as “when this number occurs”. It isn’t trying to save face either. You know exactly what would happen if they set some targets but didn’t move when the targets were met because of other information that had to hand.

    Of course it’s complex. But they chose an extreme course that varies from the original premise. Originally they needed to flatten the curve so that our health services would cope. The compact with the public was that we would temporarily surrender some freedoms so that could happen. I assume that they’ve used the time to upgrade our health systems so that we are prepared for a future wave. But I don’t know, because nobody has told us how that’s going. Instead something changed: we were going to go for elimination, something that nobody is sure will work. That’s a significant movement of the goalposts.

    Assuming elimination works, what are the implications? The WHO said overnight that COVID passports shouldn’t be used because there’s no evidence that having the virus confers immunity. Think about that. We may be permanently stuck with this thing. If so, it’s about time someone started to talk with us about what rights and freedoms we are prepared to permanently give up. And the answer might be “none”. So be it.

    I’m much more likely to be in the high risk category than most here, and I’d rather not die. But I’m fucked if I want to be the reason people who are at very little risk have their lives and livelihoods ruined just so that I can get a few extra years of living like a hermit. Fuck that. I’d rather take my chances and let people with an actual future have one.

    The government does a press conference every day and Ashley Bloomfield has done Facebook Q&A's. There has been plenty of accountability and openness on this issue. The government tells us how upgrading the system is going every day. They tell us how many tests are done; they talk about PPE; they talk about hospital capacity etc.

    I don't think anyone is talking about a few years of living like a hermit. Letting the virus ravage New Zealand would probably be preferable than 3 years of everyone being a hermit. But no one is suggesting that. It has only been 5 weeks and we are moving down the levels.

    You are better off saving your criticism for May 11 when the level will be reviewed again. Why get upset over a hypothetical?

    I'm also not sure what you mean by "no one is sure that elimination will work". Everyone knows that if there are less people with the virus in NZ and if there is contact tracing then there is less risk of the virus spreading. We think it is unlikely that the virus can be eradicated. We are giving up rights now by being in levels 3 & 4 for longer than you would like precisely so we don't have to live as hermits for 3 years. We can give up rights for a short amount of time, have only a small number of cases and than we can go back to largely life as normal (with no overseas travel).

    I wouldn't call the press conferences being open about what's going on. The information they give us is the bare minimum they can get away with. Telling us there were X cases today is great when we have no idea what it means for us.

    If you wait until May 11 to be critical of the decision making, then you'll just make it so people can say, "Well no one was complaining about it then, so you can't be critical of them for it now."

    Everyone does know that if you prevent the virus from spreading, the virus won't spread. What we don't know is how much needs to be done to prevent it spreading, how much could one case spread at the different levels, how much needs to be done to stop that one case from spreading, what the chance of new cases being introduced are and how high of a risk for the introduction of new cases is acceptable. All we do know is that if we live like hermits for the rest of our lives, then we'll prevent maybe 1% of the population from dying.

    If elimination does work (quickly) and we're able to go back to normal and a vaccine comes a long in a year then great. But what if we have to stay at level 2 forever to keep it controlled? Level 3? 4? Unless we're able to get back to normal with this approach, is it even worth trying to eliminate it?





  • @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    We are giving up rights now by being in levels 3 & 4 for longer than you would like precisely so we don't have to live as hermits for 3 years.

    What would living like a hermit look like? Like level 3 & 4? So your argument is "we're living like hermits for an indistinct period of time so that we're not living like hermits for three years"?

    @JC used the term hermit so I cannot define that for you. Yes, that is exactly what we are doing. We are treating our best to eliminate the virus in New Zealand so we can get back to normal. It is much better than constantly having coronavirus in the community for a few years. That would lead to the shutdown of the economy for years.

    You may not like it but the reality is movie theatres, pools, gyms, libraries, bars etc were all closing before the government announced the shutdown. Look at the crowds in the first round of the NRL - only North Queensland got a decent one and they have a new stadium. Coronavirus in the community for a few years wouldn't be a few years with business as normal where 2% of the population just disappear. It would be years with no public swimming pools, libraries, gyms, cinema, theatre or community sport.


Log in to reply