Coronavirus - New Zealand
-
@nzzp said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
This graphic is quite good
Disagree. Deceptive in its simplicity ignoring the likelihood of each possible transmission. And as pointed out, you don't have exponential growth continuously.
Of course it is simplistic. The purpose is to provide a simple explanation to people who don’t grasp how exponential events can be disrupted.
It is those that think that as one person they can’t have much effect that increase risk to everyone else.
Think of it as a risk diagram rather than an infection one.This level of simplicity drives the hysteria.
Remember, your target audience is 50% made up of people with less than 100IQ. Regrettably, nuance is not something that works. I think the comms is pretty good - it shows people visually that if they isolate by not contacting other people, it dramatically cuts the transmission. Have you seen anything better?
Yes, because as Antipodean states that drives hysteria. Saying half the population has less than 100 iq doesn't change that.
-
I am finding it interesting that even in this thread the most doomish and prepared to shut business and schools down are govt employed or have partners that are work in industries in no danger of shutting down.
Convesely the ones wanting to err on the optimistic side seem to be those who will most financially effected. -
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@nzzp said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
This graphic is quite good
Disagree. Deceptive in its simplicity ignoring the likelihood of each possible transmission. And as pointed out, you don't have exponential growth continuously.
Of course it is simplistic. The purpose is to provide a simple explanation to people who don’t grasp how exponential events can be disrupted.
It is those that think that as one person they can’t have much effect that increase risk to everyone else.
Think of it as a risk diagram rather than an infection one.This level of simplicity drives the hysteria.
Remember, your target audience is 50% made up of people with less than 100IQ. Regrettably, nuance is not something that works. I think the comms is pretty good - it shows people visually that if they isolate by not contacting other people, it dramatically cuts the transmission. Have you seen anything better?
Yes - targeted campaign. Wash your hands, don't touch your face, learn to cough like a civilised person, maintain some space and if you display these symptoms, go get tested.
Keep it simple for simple people without telling everyone to get into their prepper dungeon.
I find it interesting that you view that graphic as a warning on how you may contract the virus rather than an education on how you can assist in stopping the spread by reducing contact.
Perhaps my explanation of its shortcomings wasn't good enough, because that's not what I said.
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@nzzp said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
This graphic is quite good
Disagree. Deceptive in its simplicity ignoring the likelihood of each possible transmission. And as pointed out, you don't have exponential growth continuously.
Of course it is simplistic. The purpose is to provide a simple explanation to people who don’t grasp how exponential events can be disrupted.
It is those that think that as one person they can’t have much effect that increase risk to everyone else.
Think of it as a risk diagram rather than an infection one.This level of simplicity drives the hysteria.
Remember, your target audience is 50% made up of people with less than 100IQ. Regrettably, nuance is not something that works. I think the comms is pretty good - it shows people visually that if they isolate by not contacting other people, it dramatically cuts the transmission. Have you seen anything better?
Yes - targeted campaign. Wash your hands, don't touch your face, learn to cough like a civilised person, maintain some space and if you display these symptoms, go get tested.
Keep it simple for simple people without telling everyone to get into their prepper dungeon.
On average I seem to remember getting a virus of some sort, whether flu or a gastrointestinal virus maybe once a year despite washing my hands and not coughing over people. The risk still remains and if we really want to ensure that spread doesn’t get out of hand then reducing contact and close contact as much as practicable is surely a good thing?
Why stop there? Surely mandatory home detention for everyone?
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
I am finding it interesting that even in this thread the most doomish and prepared to shut business and schools down are govt employed or have partners that are work in industries in no danger of shutting down.
Convesely the ones wanting to err on the optimistic side seem to be those who will most financially effected.Standard bias, nearly impossible to eradicate.
-
But it could have an impact that nobody expects, if the government shuts down business, you want to take a bet on how much resentment will build between govt employees and the rest of the population. We could see major issues if the govt takes that action prematurely. They would be effectively be creating a haves and have nots.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback if it lasts long enough for that level of resentment to build, plenty of those government employees will have already ended up unemployed. Been there done that during the GFC, and I have no illusions this time if there’s any lengthy shutdown too.
-
@Donsteppa said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback if it lasts long enough for that level of resentment to build, plenty of those government employees will have already ended up unemployed. Been there done that during the GFC, and I have no illusions this time if there’s any lengthy shutdown too.
I doubt that this time around. It was a National govt. during the GFC and trimming beurecrats is their gig
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback as an example, he made a big deal of per capita figures for US infections, but then largely ignored the same for testing. He also didn't apply the simple overlay of time particularly well on the testing and infection rates in the US. It also fails to look at structural issues and demographics when he forecasts the US path to mirror others.
I'm not being critical, it was very thorough, and certainly well superior than anything I could come up with.
My point is really that for all that data, we still have a huge unknown. And I do think the US is in for a tough ride, particularly the lower income demographic.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Donsteppa said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback if it lasts long enough for that level of resentment to build, plenty of those government employees will have already ended up unemployed. Been there done that during the GFC, and I have no illusions this time if there’s any lengthy shutdown too.
I doubt that this time around. It was a National govt. during the GFC and trimming beurecrats is their gig
In our case the process began under Labour, the 2008 election just arrived before they could finish the job.
-
i suspect this may be an unwelcome question, but who’s going to pay for all of this? I know the standard response: the taxpayers, but if you have a whole lot of people who’ve lost their jobs and a whole lot of self employed and companies who haven’t been able to turn a profit who exactly is going to pay all this tax? Or perhaps they’re intending to borrow their way out - I’m not sure 0.25% is going to tempt too many lenders.
-
@JC said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
i suspect this may be an unwelcome question, but who’s going to pay for all of this? I know the standard response: the taxpayers, but if you have a whole lot of people who’ve lost their jobs and a whole lot of self employed and companies who haven’t been able to turn a profit who exactly is going to pay all this tax? Or perhaps they’re intending to borrow their way out - I’m not sure 0.25% is going to tempt too many lenders.
Which leads to my point about public servants... To be fair they should have pay rises capped or even pay cuts, and of course a large cut in numbers in line with the public sector.
-
Large scale pay cuts, whether public service or private sector or both, will cause the economy to go into a death spiral. The economy (GDP) is essentially the aggregate of all spending, and reducing pay at a time like this will reduce spending, which then reduces GDP, which then reduces taxes and in turn reduces spending, GDP, taxes etc. Additionally, the most common stated borrowing limit for government is percentage of GDP - cutting spending lowers GDP, and the ability of government to borrow is cut with it.
Funding the borrowing is probably going to be via the Reserve Bank buying bonds aka Quantitative Easing. This is a fancy way of saying printing money, but avoids the loss of confidence from actually printing money (incidentally, the Reserve Bank has enough replacement cash for the next 3 years).
-
Things are on the verge of shutdown in NZ. The idea of border restrictions was right but the execution in hindsight was insufficient. Not enough checks, not enough tracking of incoming people. And of course importantly failure of people to adhere to guidelines. There are about to be massive restrictions and cessations in the sector I work in and related medical sectors. The time for containment has come and gone, the government and the population have collectively failed to contain spread of the virus and increasing numbers of us will have to pay
-
@Kirwan It's been pointed out elsewhere that were definitely some errors in the analysis, but there were some interesting points about what level of death do we trade against economic impact, can a more nuanced approach be taken (South Korea, Taiwan etc), and what trade offs do me make each year with seasonal diseases? On the other hand, NZ and other countries have to tailor their response to what they can expect people to do and accept, what they have the capacity to implement, their current seasonal situation, and also consider higher estimates of deaths than the middle-case, as they are dealing with something new and uncertain.
-
Doesn't help that NZ only had 200 ICU places at the start of the pandemic, so while we are scaling up as fast as we can, the capacity was at risk of being overwhelmed rapidly - apparently adequate ICU capacity is the difference between a 1% and 2% death rate.
-
One of many depressing sights over the last few weeks has been our local Chinese restaurant going from needing a table booking most nights, to having about thee tables busy at best last week (and one table the week before).
Been a good excuse to buy a couple of extra Chinese takeaways lately, but...
-
@Donsteppa yeah, hospitality hard hit.
Deliberately went out to a mates Indian restaurant this week, and popped into our favorite pub today to eat and drink. Tough times.
Consider buying a gift card for hospitality businesses you want to support
-
@Donsteppa yeah seen a few of the sit down restaurants here looking to offer takeaway as people stay away...
Is going to be interesting to see who make it out the other end...
I am hoping my job will be safe, but you just dont know, I reckon if I lost my job, I could survive maybe 2 months with our savings, without touching my Kiwisaver (if there is anything left...)
-
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Doesn't help that NZ only had 200 ICU places at the start of the pandemic, so while we are scaling up as fast as we can, the capacity was at risk of being overwhelmed rapidly - apparently adequate ICU capacity is the difference between a 1% and 2% death rate.
At least from what I’ve heard they have gearing up for a number of weeks now. Phrases like going to war being used.