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.



  • 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.



  • @hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @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.

    Bullshit.

    On Friday Australia's own Chief Medical Officer, Brendan Murphy, presented analysis of the actual infection trends, estimating that the reproductive number 'was below 1 in every state and territory before the stage three lockdowns took effect late last month.'

    As of the last available data, 83% of confirmed cases in Australia have recovered with confirmed case mortality comprising 1.2% and that's without Level Four house arrest. Why would New Zealand be different?



  • @JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @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.

    Do you really think the government doesn't have a plan? They do have a plan. They are doing all the things you want them to. They just aren't telling you everything they know. I'm perfectly happy for the government to keep some secrets at some times from its people. This is a free country. You can make an Official Information Request and, if refused, you can challenge that ruling. That's probably a lot more accountable than any project you have ever worked on. Jacinda can get sacked at any point without anyone having to give a reason why.

    It's basically pretty simple. New coronavirus cases can only appear in two ways. Either they are imported from another country or there is spread within the country. We have basically shut our border and used quarantining. The virus is unlikely to get in that way. Spread within the country is unlikely is you have contact tracing, lots of testing and if those with the virus self-isolate. The only way cases can spread is if people have the virus, don't take it seriously and go outside or there is undetected community transmission. This has been covered ad nauseam. That's why they are doing random testing of different communities.

    We can look at other countries. South Korea has relaxed their lock down and they are yet to see a massive uptick in cases. I don't know of any country in the world which has flattened the curve, only to see huge growth again.

    If we didn't go into lockdown at all, we would have 1% of the population dead and economic disaster until the virus burned through enough people or a vaccine was found. By going into lockdown, we have a chance to avoid those deaths and that scale of economic disaster. There does come a point where staying in level 3/4 is worse for the well being of New Zealanders than letting the virus burn through the population. Clearly every country in the world apart from like Belarus and Brazil seem to think that isn't the way to go.

    The problem is people are comparing the economy before lockdown to what it is with the lockdown. They are ignoring the effects that coronavirus would have had anyway.



  • @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @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.

    Bullshit.

    On Friday Australia's own Chief Medical Officer, Brendan Murphy, presented analysis of the actual infection trends, estimating that the reproductive number 'was below 1 in every state and territory before the stage three lockdowns took effect late last month.'

    As of the last available data, 83% of confirmed cases in Australia have recovered with confirmed case mortality comprising 1.2% and that's without Level Four house arrest. Why would New Zealand be different?

    I call bullshit on that quote BTW. I cannot find it anywhere on the internet. Apparently on April 17 Scott Morrison released data showing the R0 was now less than 1 in most states. So I doubt that, unless you can provide me with a link to the actual analysis. I'm sorry I don't get my news from opinion pieces. Why is Murphy also publicly stating "We have acted early and decisively to avoid catastrophic outcomes” if he believes that the R0 was already below 1 and restrictions weren't necessary.

    The arguments in that piece are also pointless because again he compares government assistance with the lockdown and says it is too much money per life. Fair enough argument. However, he completely ignores the counterfactual which is how much assistance would be needed even if there was no government enforced lockdown.

    I'm not saying New Zealand would be different. I'm agnostic as to whether level 4 restrictions are actually necessary. I did say that having entered level 4, it would be a shame to leave early and undo the hard work and make the pain be for nothing. If New Zealand could have seen a massive reduction in cases with only level 3 restrictions, that is great! That means we should be able to stay on top of the cases at level 1. Isn't that what we want and doesn't that go against JC's point about needing to live as hermits for years?



  • @Anonymous said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @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?

    It makes sense to me to criticise the government for currently having us in level 3 lock down. It makes sense to me to criticise the government for whatever the decision that is made on May 11. It doesn't make sense to criticise the government for potentially having us in lockdown from May 11 when we don't know what they will even do! If there is a continued lockdown, they will have to justify it then.

    If the evidence shows that the choice is between staying at level 2 for ever and keeping the virus contained or the spread of the virus, I would likely choose the spread of the virus. I don't see any reason why we would need to stay at level 2 forever though. If we stayed at level 4 for three months and banned all international travel then we would eliminate the virus and wouldn't need to stay at level 2 forever. There is no scenario where we stay at level 2 forever.



  • @hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @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.

    Bullshit.

    On Friday Australia's own Chief Medical Officer, Brendan Murphy, presented analysis of the actual infection trends, estimating that the reproductive number 'was below 1 in every state and territory before the stage three lockdowns took effect late last month.'

    As of the last available data, 83% of confirmed cases in Australia have recovered with confirmed case mortality comprising 1.2% and that's without Level Four house arrest. Why would New Zealand be different?

    I call bullshit on that quote BTW. I cannot find it anywhere on the internet. Apparently on April 17 Scott Morrison released data showing the R0 was now less than 1 in most states. So I doubt that, unless you can provide me with a link to the actual analysis. I'm sorry I don't get my news from opinion pieces. Why is Murphy also publicly stating "We have acted early and decisively to avoid catastrophic outcomes” if he believes that the R0 was already below 1 and restrictions weren't necessary.

    Because the analysis was conducted after the States and Territories implemented the restrictions.

    The arguments in that piece are also pointless because again he compares government assistance with the lockdown and says it is too much money per life. Fair enough argument. However, he completely ignores the counterfactual which is how much assistance would be needed even if there was no government enforced lockdown.

    A counterfactual is an academic exercise and anyone sensible pays it no mind because it relies on assumptions which didn't hold true.

    I'm not saying New Zealand would be different. I'm agnostic as to whether level 4 restrictions are actually necessary. I did say that having entered level 4, it would be a shame to leave early and undo the hard work and make the pain be for nothing. If New Zealand could have seen a massive reduction in cases with only level 3 restrictions, that is great! That means we should be able to stay on top of the cases at level 1. Isn't that what we want and doesn't that go against JC's point about needing to live as hermits for years?

    The point is the economic damage wrought on New Zealanders and Australians has outweighed the benefits. There is no reasonable prospect of a vaccine, so the exercise in trying to eliminate the virus has resulted in one of two course of actions:

    1. Closure of borders for the foreseeable future. Testing isn't a solution because it isn't currently accurate enough to maintain "elimination status" given lead times.
    2. Acceptance that the virus will remain and trying to ensure that the health system isn't overwhelmed.

    I also reject wholesale the notion that a government should keep information from citizens while it restricts liberties that define Western Liberal Democracies. In this matter I'm de Gaulle to your Pétain.



  • @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @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.

    Bullshit.

    On Friday Australia's own Chief Medical Officer, Brendan Murphy, presented analysis of the actual infection trends, estimating that the reproductive number 'was below 1 in every state and territory before the stage three lockdowns took effect late last month.'

    As of the last available data, 83% of confirmed cases in Australia have recovered with confirmed case mortality comprising 1.2% and that's without Level Four house arrest. Why would New Zealand be different?

    I call bullshit on that quote BTW. I cannot find it anywhere on the internet. Apparently on April 17 Scott Morrison released data showing the R0 was now less than 1 in most states. So I doubt that, unless you can provide me with a link to the actual analysis. I'm sorry I don't get my news from opinion pieces. Why is Murphy also publicly stating "We have acted early and decisively to avoid catastrophic outcomes” if he believes that the R0 was already below 1 and restrictions weren't necessary.

    Because the analysis was conducted after the States and Territories implemented the restrictions.

    The arguments in that piece are also pointless because again he compares government assistance with the lockdown and says it is too much money per life. Fair enough argument. However, he completely ignores the counterfactual which is how much assistance would be needed even if there was no government enforced lockdown.

    A counterfactual is an academic exercise and anyone sensible pays it no mind because it relies on assumptions which didn't hold true.

    I'm not saying New Zealand would be different. I'm agnostic as to whether level 4 restrictions are actually necessary. I did say that having entered level 4, it would be a shame to leave early and undo the hard work and make the pain be for nothing. If New Zealand could have seen a massive reduction in cases with only level 3 restrictions, that is great! That means we should be able to stay on top of the cases at level 1. Isn't that what we want and doesn't that go against JC's point about needing to live as hermits for years?

    The point is the economic damage wrought on New Zealanders and Australians has outweighed the benefits. There is no reasonable prospect of a vaccine, so the exercise in trying to eliminate the virus has resulted in one of two course of actions:

    1. Closure of borders for the foreseeable future. Testing isn't a solution because it isn't currently accurate enough to maintain "elimination status" given lead times.
    2. Acceptance that the virus will remain and trying to ensure that the health system isn't overwhelmed.

    I also reject wholesale the notion that a government should keep information from citizens while it restricts liberties that define Western Liberal Democracies. In this matter I'm de Gaulle to your Pétain.

    Yes but Murphy made the statement last Friday and was quoted in the Australian as having made it. So there was this mythical analysis for which your only source is an opinion piece and we have a quote of the person who apparently made the analysis seeming to contradict it on the very same day!

    Of course the counterfactual is relevant! Your argument is absurd. You are still assuming that there is no economic damage from coronavirus if we did not adopt any restrictions. Of course a counterfactual uses assumptions. We don't know exactly what the economic impact of cornavirus unchecked in New Zealand would be. That doesn't mean we should assume as you and Peter Creighton have done that the impact is none!

    Economics is bloody well full of models of what could happen! Those are counterfactuals! I don't expect you to know that but I do expect Peter Creighton!



  • If you're not blocked by reaching your free article limit, with the other article linked a few posts back.

    https://www.economist.com/asia/2020/04/23/what-next-for-countries-that-are-nearly-covid-free



  • @JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @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.

    https://www.nzcpr.com/new-zealands-democratic-vacuum/



  • @pakman said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    May have missed it, but haven't seen this posted: https://envirowatchrangitikei.wordpress.com/2020/04/23/an-open-letter-to-jacinda-adern-re-covid-19/

    That guy suggests the US expected deaths at 50k to 60k? They're already above that now.

    There's alarmism, but there's also minimisation.



  • @pakman said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @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.

    https://www.nzcpr.com/new-zealands-democratic-vacuum/

    Thanks for sharing that, very good read



  • @voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @pakman said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @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.

    https://www.nzcpr.com/new-zealands-democratic-vacuum/

    Thanks for sharing that, very good read

    There is some good points made in that article but also some very flawed thinking.

    For instance the writer makes the point that deaths in Italy are up 6 times what they normally are 'but Covid 19 only accounts for a quarter of that'. That's unmitigated bollocks.

    Similarly the writer says Spanish deaths are double what they normally are, but Covid 19 only accounts for half of the increase.

    Again bollocks. Those 2 countries allowed Covid to run riot within the health care system to the point that people with treatable illnesses (including Covid 19) are no longer being treated. That is the danger of taking the foot off the pedal too early.

    Having said that, I do agree with the major point being made that we should be managing the outbreak no eradicating it. Still, I think our approach in practice has been correct.

    My strategy would be to put off the worst of the outbreak for as long as possible to allow hospitals to prepare and research to be done on treatment and/or a vaccine.



  • @hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @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.

    Bullshit.

    On Friday Australia's own Chief Medical Officer, Brendan Murphy, presented analysis of the actual infection trends, estimating that the reproductive number 'was below 1 in every state and territory before the stage three lockdowns took effect late last month.'

    As of the last available data, 83% of confirmed cases in Australia have recovered with confirmed case mortality comprising 1.2% and that's without Level Four house arrest. Why would New Zealand be different?

    I call bullshit on that quote BTW. I cannot find it anywhere on the internet. Apparently on April 17 Scott Morrison released data showing the R0 was now less than 1 in most states. So I doubt that, unless you can provide me with a link to the actual analysis. I'm sorry I don't get my news from opinion pieces. Why is Murphy also publicly stating "We have acted early and decisively to avoid catastrophic outcomes” if he believes that the R0 was already below 1 and restrictions weren't necessary.

    Because the analysis was conducted after the States and Territories implemented the restrictions.

    The arguments in that piece are also pointless because again he compares government assistance with the lockdown and says it is too much money per life. Fair enough argument. However, he completely ignores the counterfactual which is how much assistance would be needed even if there was no government enforced lockdown.

    A counterfactual is an academic exercise and anyone sensible pays it no mind because it relies on assumptions which didn't hold true.

    I'm not saying New Zealand would be different. I'm agnostic as to whether level 4 restrictions are actually necessary. I did say that having entered level 4, it would be a shame to leave early and undo the hard work and make the pain be for nothing. If New Zealand could have seen a massive reduction in cases with only level 3 restrictions, that is great! That means we should be able to stay on top of the cases at level 1. Isn't that what we want and doesn't that go against JC's point about needing to live as hermits for years?

    The point is the economic damage wrought on New Zealanders and Australians has outweighed the benefits. There is no reasonable prospect of a vaccine, so the exercise in trying to eliminate the virus has resulted in one of two course of actions:

    1. Closure of borders for the foreseeable future. Testing isn't a solution because it isn't currently accurate enough to maintain "elimination status" given lead times.
    2. Acceptance that the virus will remain and trying to ensure that the health system isn't overwhelmed.

    I also reject wholesale the notion that a government should keep information from citizens while it restricts liberties that define Western Liberal Democracies. In this matter I'm de Gaulle to your Pétain.

    Yes but Murphy made the statement last Friday and was quoted in the Australian as having made it. So there was this mythical analysis for which your only source is an opinion piece and we have a quote of the person who apparently made the analysis seeming to contradict it on the very same day!

    So what you're saying is you didn't watch the press conference with Chief Health Officer Brendan Murphy and Prime Minister Scott Morrison last Friday so therefore it didn't happen?

    Of course the counterfactual is relevant! Your argument is absurd. You are still assuming that there is no economic damage from coronavirus if we did not adopt any restrictions. Of course a counterfactual uses assumptions. We don't know exactly what the economic impact of cornavirus unchecked in New Zealand would be. That doesn't mean we should assume as you and Peter Creighton have done that the impact is none!

    Economics is bloody well full of models of what could happen! Those are counterfactuals! I don't expect you to know that but I do expect Peter Creighton!

    You're missing the point - counterfactuals are supposed to show what would otherwise have happened had a different course of action been taken. When the modelling underpinning the alternative is grossly wrong, the assumptions don't hold for the primary. Case in point; Victoria's absurd assertion that 36,000 Victorians would have perished if not for the level three lockdown. Or expressed another way; if that rate was applied to the population of Sweden, 58,000 of them would have died. Currently it's ~2,200.

    It doesn't pass the common sense test.



  • @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @hydro11 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

    @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.

    Bullshit.

    On Friday Australia's own Chief Medical Officer, Brendan Murphy, presented analysis of the actual infection trends, estimating that the reproductive number 'was below 1 in every state and territory before the stage three lockdowns took effect late last month.'

    As of the last available data, 83% of confirmed cases in Australia have recovered with confirmed case mortality comprising 1.2% and that's without Level Four house arrest. Why would New Zealand be different?

    I call bullshit on that quote BTW. I cannot find it anywhere on the internet. Apparently on April 17 Scott Morrison released data showing the R0 was now less than 1 in most states. So I doubt that, unless you can provide me with a link to the actual analysis. I'm sorry I don't get my news from opinion pieces. Why is Murphy also publicly stating "We have acted early and decisively to avoid catastrophic outcomes” if he believes that the R0 was already below 1 and restrictions weren't necessary.

    Because the analysis was conducted after the States and Territories implemented the restrictions.

    The arguments in that piece are also pointless because again he compares government assistance with the lockdown and says it is too much money per life. Fair enough argument. However, he completely ignores the counterfactual which is how much assistance would be needed even if there was no government enforced lockdown.

    A counterfactual is an academic exercise and anyone sensible pays it no mind because it relies on assumptions which didn't hold true.

    I'm not saying New Zealand would be different. I'm agnostic as to whether level 4 restrictions are actually necessary. I did say that having entered level 4, it would be a shame to leave early and undo the hard work and make the pain be for nothing. If New Zealand could have seen a massive reduction in cases with only level 3 restrictions, that is great! That means we should be able to stay on top of the cases at level 1. Isn't that what we want and doesn't that go against JC's point about needing to live as hermits for years?

    The point is the economic damage wrought on New Zealanders and Australians has outweighed the benefits. There is no reasonable prospect of a vaccine, so the exercise in trying to eliminate the virus has resulted in one of two course of actions:

    1. Closure of borders for the foreseeable future. Testing isn't a solution because it isn't currently accurate enough to maintain "elimination status" given lead times.
    2. Acceptance that the virus will remain and trying to ensure that the health system isn't overwhelmed.

    I also reject wholesale the notion that a government should keep information from citizens while it restricts liberties that define Western Liberal Democracies. In this matter I'm de Gaulle to your Pétain.

    Yes but Murphy made the statement last Friday and was quoted in the Australian as having made it. So there was this mythical analysis for which your only source is an opinion piece and we have a quote of the person who apparently made the analysis seeming to contradict it on the very same day!

    So what you're saying is you didn't watch the press conference with Chief Health Officer Brendan Murphy and Prime Minister Scott Morrison last Friday so therefore it didn't happen?

    Of course the counterfactual is relevant! Your argument is absurd. You are still assuming that there is no economic damage from coronavirus if we did not adopt any restrictions. Of course a counterfactual uses assumptions. We don't know exactly what the economic impact of cornavirus unchecked in New Zealand would be. That doesn't mean we should assume as you and Peter Creighton have done that the impact is none!

    Economics is bloody well full of models of what could happen! Those are counterfactuals! I don't expect you to know that but I do expect Peter Creighton!

    You're missing the point - counterfactuals are supposed to show what would otherwise have happened had a different course of action been taken. When the modelling underpinning the alternative is grossly wrong, the assumptions don't hold for the primary. Case in point; Victoria's absurd assertion that 36,000 Victorians would have perished if not for the level three lockdown. Or expressed another way; if that rate was applied to the population of Sweden, 58,000 of them would have died. Currently it's ~2,200.

    It doesn't pass the common sense test.

    Don't speak too soon. There are some peculiar features with the Swedish statistics. Far too early to make calls like that.


Log in to reply