-
@taniwharugby shush. Cindy knows best
-
Here is more detail article about the Sean hendy model.
Covid-19 modelling: 90 percent vaccination needed to avoid lockdowns
37 minutes ago
New Covid-19 modelling shows that New Zealand will still need lockdowns to control the virus even if 80 percent of those over the age of five were vaccinated.
Even with an 80 percent vaccination rate, the modelling says there would be 7000 deaths and 60,000 hospitalisations per year.
However, the Te PΕ«naha Matatini modellers say the higher the level of vaccination across the country, the lower the need for higher alert levels.
Professor Michael Plank says if New Zealand can lift its vaccination rates well over 90 percent of over 12s, the virus can be controlled with more sustainable measures.
Those include testing, contact tracing, and mask use.
About 73 percent of the country's eligible population has currently received one dose of the Pfizer vaccine.
Modelling work from Te PΕ«naha Matatini in June showed vaccination alone would not be enough to protect new Zealand entirely, requiring other public health measures.
That has now been updated to reflect that the country could achieve 90 percent vaccine coverage across the total population.
Since the June work, the vaccine has been approved for use in Aotearoa for 12-15 year olds, with recent announcements from pharmaceutical companies suggesting that Covid-19 vaccines may soon be approved for use in children aged 5 - 11 years.
Dr Rachelle Binny said the modelling results released today showed the importance of reaching the highest possible vaccination rate.
"If nearly every New Zealander gets the vaccine, we could avoid the need for strict alert level 3 - 4 restrictions.
"The alternative is bleak. Failing to reach these high levels of vaccination would mean we will need to keep relying on lockdowns and tight border restrictions to avoid thousands of fatalities. This could cripple our healthcare system, and MΔori and Pacific communities would bear the brunt of this health burden."
Covid-19 modeller Shaun Hendy said because Delta was so transmissible, population immunity was probably out of reach through vaccination alone and additional health measures will be needed combination of masks, better ventilation and vaccine certificates.
He said if vaccination only reaches 80 percent, this could result in 60,000 hospitalisations in a one year period and 7000 fatalities.
He said the health sector wouldn't be able to cope and lockdowns will likely still be needed
"If we can get up into that 90 percent rate then we can say goodbye to lockdowns."
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial I think the issue is, and has been since last year, is the population as a whole are being treated like children.
I'd agree with that statement. Seems that many want it that way though.
And many act like children as well.I certainly think we got a bit comfy for a while there and Delta has been a kick in arse. The plan was to plan when they saw what was happening overseas.
-
@crucial tbh I think we see communication very very differently!
I communicate roadmap level (or make sure communication happens) to anyone affected because it will affect them at some point. Maybe I communicate less frequently. Maybe I show 7 of the 10 slides but it's essentially the same content.
I answer questions and if things are fluid I'm open on that and what's making things fluid i.e. things we don't know. People respect that immediately because you're being real and open. It means everyone is onboard the same train, huge goodwill.
In this case I'm an end-user
Anyway ...
-
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@rapido What I heard
"blah, blah, blah, blah If we can get up to that 90 percent then we can say goodbye to lockdowns blah blah blah blah the alternative is bleak"
I heard "Heads up - we'd like to vaccinate the 5-11 age group with Pfizer but are testing the waters" ...
The rest of the blah blah blah I knew
-
Stuff's version of Hendy model presser.
Some snippets:
New modelling prepared for the Government by Shaun Hendy suggests that New Zealand could see up to 7000 Covid-19 deaths a year even with a high proportion of the population jabbed.
The modelling from Te PΕ«naha Matatini suggests that if 80 per cent of those aged five or over were fully vaccinated - around 75 per cent of the entire country β Covid-19 would still cause a serious death toll without other restrictions.
Hendy projects it could cause just under 60,000 hospitalisations and just under 7000 deaths over a one-year period.
If 90 per cent of the 5+ population was reached however β around 85 per cent of the full population β then deaths could drop to around 600 over a year, or just 50 alongside some other health measures. Getting 85 per cent of the population fully vaccinated would be all but impossible if the vaccine remains restricted to those aged over 12 β over 99 per cent of those aged 12+ would need a jab if that were the case.
Ardern said this would not influence decision-making over whether to make the vaccine available to over-5s, however.
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@rapido just moving the goalposts about constantly
Maybe, but not what irks me.
What irks me is it is the modelling is the opposite of reality. It's a model of a freedom day scenario. We've already had internal freedoms for most of the outbreak.
NZ is not clamouring for some Boris-style "freedom Day".
Well, maybe you Aucklanders are?
NZ's internal population has not come out of a 4 months winter lockdown and 15 months of restrictions, hence clamouring for a freedom day.
NZ will be the opposite. Expecting a 'restrictions day'. From now on the virus is loose, we are partly protected by vaccinations but we will have X restrictions to manage it - and this is what the models looks like.
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@hooroo what's the point of planning and budgeting on something that has a slim chance of going to plan? You'd then have everyone bitching and moaning about how they had spent money, arranged functions etc etc and it changed on them.
Giving false hope isn't good leadership either.
I do think that there may be a bit more of a plan soon though hence the modelling being done on vaccination rates etc. There is a need to create a carrot instead of just pointing to the stick.
I wouldn't be making plans on it though. Way too much can happen.A plan isn't false hope. It's a plan. A plan can have what is deemed as bad outcomes as well as good. That's what planning is.
Has to have a point though. I still don't see what the type of plan we are talking about achieves apart from a waste of time.
There is a roadmap being formulated by the looks of things, based around vaccination rates which is a massive unknown being down to human choice. Anything set out after that is then variable based on something that we can't control short of rounding dips hits up with cattle prods.
Wow you would be awesome in business. Only living in the right now, no planning because future is uncertain, purely reactive.
Fair enough though, it kind of explains a lot.
That's a bit smart arse isn't it? What does it explain exactly?
Funnily enough I am actually a planner by career but also ones that sees no value in setting up measures and goals that experience shows cannot have a certain degree of certainty. I'm sure you are aware of the phases things go through and how plans remain fluid while working toward a goal until they reach levels of known achievability.
One of the biggest business delivery failings is trying to nail stuff down to early. Ever notice why so many projects go over the original investment case. Because everyone wanted a 'roadmap' quantified before planning was complete. I understand that some business cultures (an example I was given was a Japanese one) don't accept overruns because they invest in planning before promises. I digress.
I haven't said that the govt shouldn't plan. Far from it. I think they need to constantly re-plan based on what's happening and have underlying aims that they can be agile in achieving. Planning AND reacting are key.Well countering that I now manage large scale enterprise projects for a living, and I don't recognise at all your take on planning.
In my world if you are leading people through a complex change you lay out your assumptions, risks, constraints, resources and costs, deliverables and milestones, then set out what your intentions are based on that. Then you adapt as needed. And you do it all openly and honestly. The moment you start obfuscating you lose the trust of your stakeholders. It is the height of arrogance to decide on their behalf that there are things too complex for them to know, or that they don't have the brains to interpret what you are telling them. If someone else is picking up the tab they deserve to know everything you know, especially what options are available to them.
I have no idea why running projects or initiatives is different in the public sector, but if it is it might explain why they are so useless at delivery.
I agree with all of that and although I am currently in the public sector (and your assumptions are true) the experience that I was getting at has been experienced elsewhere as well.
What I am trying to explain and seem to have got away from is that while overall plans on what to achieve and how you think you are going to get there are well and good, they aren't firm promises at the start and firm up along the lifecycle. When you have a lot of knowns then obviously your plans are firmer. When you try and combine delivery with discovery then you have to ensure that your stakeholders are well aware that is the approach and outcomes can change.
The discussion here was around people wanting to plan travel with some kind of knowledge of what the plan may be around MIQ in relation to other things happening. I was simply stating that knowing a car is being built and that if the everything goes to plan it will be ready by March is worthless when there is no certainty on when parts will arrive or what parts are available. You can plan all you like but the end user only gets an idea of what you want to achieve not what you will achieve.
I'm sure you have probably experienced a stakeholder holding you to task on a milestone even though you have always explained the dependencies?
I'm not saying that you only plan when there is certainty, far from it. Just saying there is little value in constantly explaining to the idiot in the back of the room that the car won't be ready until the wheels arrive so he will have to delay his launch plans.Yes I have, and it's their right to do it. Their stakeholders. They have a stake in the outcomes. So they deserve to be kept informed and it's my job to explain that we set the plan in motion using a baseline. That's what keeps me honest: I can change the plan but I have to explain what assumption was wrong, which risk (that hopefully I laid bear in advance) came into play. In essence, what changed. I don't get a free go at moving the goalposts just because something did change, but if I can explain why it couldn't reasonably have been avoided, all is good. We adjust the plan, reset the baseline and move on. If I avoided setting a baseline plan and holding myself accountable to it I wouldn't be much of a project manager.
As I have told literally thousands of people over my career, if you haven't got a plan you are quite literally just doing random stuff and hoping it works. If the reason that you don't have a plan is so you can screw up and not get called on it, then piss off and stop wasting my money and time.
I get they have to deal with political realities, but they should stop pretending it's virtuous. It's the opposite, it's cowardly.
-
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
I get they have to deal with political realities, but they should stop pretending it's virtuous. It's the opposite, it's cowardly.
Especially when you specifically talk about your "Team of Five Million" and you're the leader (or management group) of that team, you seriously need to live up to that.
"All talk no stalk" was the expression in my day for this type of non leadership. Seems just a bit sexist now π
-
@rapido great calibration to real world data.
If field observations don't match the model, the model is wrong I see this professionally - people bash inputs into models, and then take the outputs as gospel. They aren't. They are the outputs based on the inputs, with the assumptions baked into a simplified model. This really challenges the quality of the modelling
-
@rapido as I said above, the modelling we have been given tends to be worst case scenario (scare tactics?) and in most cases they haven't played out that way.
Here is an article from Jones yesterday
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@rapido as I said above, the modelling we have been given tends to be worst case scenario (scare tactics?) and in most cases they haven't played out that way.
Here is an article from Jones yesterday
Happened to bump into a mate who is an ED consultant in AKLD. Said its all go down in South Auckland, some really sick people (not just over 50s) ending up in hospital. No tests, no vax, families all getting sick and not testing but still mixing. Reckons a lot of the modelling would be accurate if we just let everyone do whatever they wanted
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@l_n_p yep, they are always comparing, so will be aiming to exceed anything anyone else does, so the legacy will be Cindy/NZ handled the pandemic better than any other country.
I know my wife would love to see her mum and dad, especially with the latter not in great health, but she is just like plenty of others on both sides of this.
I think I read something like 20,000 people tried to get into MIQ around the Christmas period with 2,000 spots available? Plus I wonder how many didnt both trying, knowing it would be a wasted effort.
They really need a prioritised system. They have had plenty of time to work out criteria and requirements.
I do get the feeling that some of the problem is caused by people who need to see the reality of the situation. I think Hipkins said this a while back and got flamed for it so they have steered clear.
Can't believe the number of people bitching and moaning that they can't get a place because they 'want to come back and see their newly born cousin/nephew etc' FFS, the kid won't know!
I get that family is big for some people but when when something like that clogs up the system for people trying a possible last visit for their parent with cancer or someone trying to return home for good once an overseas job has finished. Even businesses that, I'm sure might be able to do better with in person meetings, aren't going down if they don't.
It just seems like car drivers complaining about the congestion on the road when they are part of the cause.
Even if 50% of the places were put aside for a priority queue it would help those that truly have to get back and not just want to.They didn't make a system like that because it's a massive piece of work, would cost a huge amount to run it because it would require a large number of staff and work per application (because people lie, so applications would require documents as proof of meeting the criteria, and verification of documents), and most of the last 18 months has largely seen supply = demand, so it wouldn't have achieved anything.
Yep. Said as much 6 months ago. The need for something was becoming evident back then though as actual need increased. The easy assessments (i.e. letter from a doctor that your parent was about to die) weren't enough.
I maintain that they have had time to add to the system. Visa dates are easy to prove. We already check if people are coming back to stay or if they have recently left etc. Some wide ranging groups can at least categorise people.
Half the spots based on priority categories would help IMO.As a guy who used to work in visa processing, you are drastically oversimplifying what would be required in real life. If the system is points-based like resident visas, applicants need to document every claim to points, and processing officers need to check those documents to try to minimise fraud, because people will absolutely lie to get a place. How to allocate points will also be extremely contentious.
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@rapido as I said above, the modelling we have been given tends to be worst case scenario (scare tactics?) and in most cases they haven't played out that way.
Here is an article from Jones yesterday
If it is an attempt at scare tactics, it seems very poorly thought out. WTF kind of message is "Get vaccinated, but getting vaccinated won't do enough to protect you"?
That's really going to motivate the people who are unsure to get vaccinated
Coronavirus - New Zealand