Coronavirus - New Zealand
-
@Bones said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Why the fuck wouldn't they want to be tested? Prolly in the article but there's no way I'm reading that.
There is no legal avenue to compel citizens or permanent residents as they can't be stopped from returning, and tests are medical procedures, so can't be forced on people who are conscious and sane (being stupid is not insane). The extra 14 days is basically all we've got as leverage without a law change. With people on visas, they can be deported, so there is some leverage there.
-
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Bones said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Why the fuck wouldn't they want to be tested? Prolly in the article but there's no way I'm reading that.
There is no legal avenue to compel citizens or permanent residents as they can't be stopped from returning, and tests are medical procedures, so can't be forced on people who are conscious and sane (being stupid is not insane). The extra 14 days is basically all we've got as leverage without a law change. With people on visas, they can be deported, so there is some leverage there.
So you could offer the test, then those people who consent have the test, get shipped to hotels in the city. Decline the test, you get shipped to the military base at Whangaparoa for the full 14-28 days
-
Definitely legal. Simple approach would be start in the hotel, can't leave the room till the first test at 3 days. If you refuse or it's positive, shipped off to quarantine. If negative, stay in the hotel but get escorted walks. Test at day 12, same thing. If negative, release after day 14 (subject to no symptoms developing). If positive, off to quarantine.
Quarantine is the army barracks or similar.
-
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Bones said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Why the fuck wouldn't they want to be tested? Prolly in the article but there's no way I'm reading that.
There is no legal avenue to compel citizens or permanent residents as they can't be stopped from returning, and tests are medical procedures, so can't be forced on people who are conscious and sane (being stupid is not insane). The extra 14 days is basically all we've got as leverage without a law change. With people on visas, they can be deported, so there is some leverage there.
Yeah I wasn't getting at that - merely asking why they wouldn't just consent.
-
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Bones said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Why the fuck wouldn't they want to be tested? Prolly in the article but there's no way I'm reading that.
There is no legal avenue to compel citizens or permanent residents as they can't be stopped from returning, and tests are medical procedures, so can't be forced on people who are conscious and sane (being stupid is not insane). The extra 14 days is basically all we've got as leverage without a law change. With people on visas, they can be deported, so there is some leverage there.
So you could offer the test, then those people who consent have the test, get shipped to hotels in the city. Decline the test, you get shipped to the military base at Whangaparoa for the full 14-28 days
Why? I believe people should have their human rights respected. So if they don't want the test fair enough (its not the black death). And surely 14 days in isolation should be more than enough time to know if someone has this flu or not (esp from arrivals from low risk countries like Aust)
So if someone want to leave before 14 days is up and esp from high risk countries (UK) then they must have the test. Otherwise come to the country. Treat them well and put them up in a top hotel
Allow them out for a walk and fresh air with social distancing maintainedOne key though for NZ is continue to protect the vulnerable. This maybe should apply every year during flu season.
-
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Winger I spent 6 weeks in lockdown. At considerable expense to my business. Having a test and 14 days in isolation or quarantine seems a small price to pay to me
That was a Govt decision that didn't respect your human rights. As a law abiding healthy citizen to work and run your business. The impact of thsi has been a disaster for the economy.
Whats I'm saying is we should (once again) respect people's humans rights.
Not throw them all out the window. Let Govt's get away with this and we will be treated like naughty children with no rights full time. It's already happened with the police (it seems) now able to enter a house without a warrant. Its a risky road to move down too far -
The information supplied to the wife in quarantine in Melbourne, ( understand that for the 14 days you have no person in front of you except the 5 minute hazmat, face screen nurses during the test(s). Every human interaction is over the phone or a knock on the door indicating there's something in the hallway for you. So all the info was documents slid under the door) twice stressed that testing was voluntary and needed oral consent.
I just figured there was a difficult legal impediment to demand testing, because you get a very official legalese worded Notice of Detention document on day 1 and day 14. There must be something in the bedrock of the constitution that prevented "ordering" testing, I think.Also the doctors decided against the 3 day test based solely on over the phone symptom questions and answers. It didn't seem like the first test was much use in the whole 14 day process. Mind you they kept all the animals caged for the duration back then🙂
-
@Siam said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
The information supplied to the wife in quarantine in Melbourne, ( understand that for the 14 days you have no person in front of you except the 5 minute hazmat, face screen nurses during the test(s). Every human interaction is over the phone or a knock on the door indicating there's something in the hallway for you. ) twice stressed that testing was voluntary and needed oral consent.
I just figured there was a difficult legal impediment to demand testing, because you get a very official legalese worded Notice of Detention document on day 1 and day 14. There must be something in the bedrock of the constitution that prevented "ordering" testing, I think.Also the doctors decided against the 3 day test based solely on over the phone symptom questions and answers. It didn't seem like the first test was much use in the whole 14 day process. Mind you they kept all the animals caged for the duration back then🙂
The key there is proper quarantine. I don't believe we have done that up until now
-
so 2 new cases today, arrived in NZ from India on 5 June, child who travelled with them not been tested.
Doesnt say if they are still in quarantine, given thier 14 days ended yesterday...
edit: Newshub provides better detail
There have been two new cases of COVID-19 detected in the past 24 hours, Director-General of Health Ashley Bloomfield said on Saturday afternoon.
They are a couple who returned from India and arrived on June 5. Both are in their 20s. Both were asymptomatic, but the infection was picked up on the day 12 test while in managed isolation.
-
interesting to see our testing numbers back up too, daily test numbers from yesterday looks to be as high as during our 'peak' with a quick scan of numbers only 7 may higher than yesterday with 7,812
GUess it is due to the shit this week more people back to get tested
-
@Winger Vulnerable New Zealanders' right to life outweighs the civil liberty of freedom of movement for the recent arrivals until such time as the assumption of having Covid-19 can be tested. That's also the basis of my simple plan - the assumption is that they have it until they are proven not to by testing and monitoring of symptoms. People don't have to take the test, but if they don't, then the assumption remains that they have it until the 14 days has passed.
-
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Winger Vulnerable New Zealanders' right to life outweighs the civil liberty of freedom of movement for the recent arrivals until such time as the assumption of having Covid-19 can be tested. That's also the basis of my simple plan - the assumption is that they have it until they are proven not to by testing and monitoring of symptoms. People don't have to take the test, but if they don't, then the assumption remains that they have it until the 14 days has passed.
What about the rights of a owner of a tourism business that relies on overseas visitors
I'm in the older group now. My view its up to me to protect myself. Either by staying inside (that UK friends have done as their immune system is shot) or by looking after myself. Not some person that has had his or her life ruined (or partly ruined) by losing their job or business.
And life contain risks. My view its a balance between say the economy and sensible risk with this flu. So open the borders to low risk countries (like say Aust) and accept this risk to help get the tourist industry back on its feet. Otherwise the tourist industry is dead as no one will want to be locked up for 2 weeks.
This Govt went way over the top. The price was far too high. And if people willingly accept it once then what next. Maybe the speed limit cut in half.
-
Had friends arrive today from Australia with their 2 kids. They booked flights to Auckland a few weeks ago, with a domestic flight to QT a few hours later where they own a house. They'd obviously hoped to do managed iso there, and I reckon a week earlier would probably have been allowed to - and they would totally have respected the rules. But they had zero chance once the sisters did their thing.
Still, they're OK, just a day into iso so far, but positive. Helps to have each other, at least so far, that may well change soon!
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Winger Vulnerable New Zealanders' right to life outweighs the civil liberty of freedom of movement for the recent arrivals until such time as the assumption of having Covid-19 can be tested. That's also the basis of my simple plan - the assumption is that they have it until they are proven not to by testing and monitoring of symptoms. People don't have to take the test, but if they don't, then the assumption remains that they have it until the 14 days has passed.
What about the rights of a owner of a tourism business that relies on overseas visitors
I'm in the older group now. My view its up to me to protect myself. Either by staying inside (that UK friends have done as their immune system is shot) or by looking after myself. Not some person that has had his or her life ruined (or partly ruined) by losing their job or business.
And life contain risks. My view its a balance between say the economy and sensible risk with this flu. So open the borders to low risk countries (like say Aust) and accept this risk to help get the tourist industry back on its feet. Otherwise the tourist industry is dead as no one will want to be locked up for 2 weeks.
This Govt went way over the top. The price was far too high. And if people willingly accept it once then what next. Maybe the speed limit cut in half.
As long as tourists have a 2 week quarantine returning home, they aren't going anywhere whether we have them or not. The uncertainty and recessions everywhere also don't help as potential tourists don't want to spend the money and airlines are not keen to add capacity.
That aside, the right to earn a living is an ancient common law right (it's referred to in the Magna Carta), but it's not unlimited, and the evolution of human rights over time has always been alongside quarantine as our principal weapon against epidemics.