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..?
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean 0 unexplained cases?
So you can have heaps of confirmed cases and growth in cases as long as you know where they came from..?
That won't happen if confirmed cases are staying in self-isolation. This is why we went to level 4 (we treated everyone as though they have COVID-19.
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean 0 unexplained cases?
So you can have heaps of confirmed cases and growth in cases as long as you know where they came from..?
Presumably longer term, no new clusters (which are 10 or more cases attributed to one source), and infections below 100 with that number reducing over time.
-
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean 0 unexplained cases?
So you can have heaps of confirmed cases and growth in cases as long as you know where they came from..?
Presumably longer term, no new clusters (which are 10 or more cases attributed to one source), and infections below 100 with that number reducing over time.
I get where @antipodean is coming from, and it’s captured right there in your response - “presumably”. Clearly you’re clever enough to understand a strategy, so why is it necessary for you to presume? Sure, some people need to have the message pitched to a less challenging level, but I don’t get the impression you or antipodean do so why don’t you have access to the unadulterated data and arguments? FWIW I think you’re probably correct, but you’re cutting the administration too much slack.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
@canefan a lot of thier headlines are pathetic...
-
@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
-
@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.