Coronavirus - New Zealand
-
@taniwharugby geez, and the media are normally so trustworthy.
Was reflecting about how upset some of the media were at being abused in the recent protest, and that arguably they've brought it on themselves by becoming advocates rather than neutral journalists. Once you're seen as partisan, people will target you and your opinions.
We live in crazy times, roll on 2022
-
@mikethesnow said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@victor-meldrew said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
We've been here before, Mike. Just like the early days in the UK where a women knocked down and killed by a car was recorded as Covid death because she tested positive 3 months earlier..
True but the impact of 1 death in NZ is far more significant than the UK
Nice
-
@mariner4life said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@mikethesnow said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@victor-meldrew said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
We've been here before, Mike. Just like the early days in the UK where a women knocked down and killed by a car was recorded as Covid death because she tested positive 3 months earlier..
True but the impact of 1 death in NZ is far more significant than the UK
Nice
Poltically
-
This post has taken me too long to get up the guts to write.
You see I'm a Professor in Public Health. One of the most important things in public health is "to do no harm". Or at least in a more practical sense, have the good by far outweigh the harms you cause with whatever intervention you choose.
This is about vaccine mandates. It's a complex and emotive issue.
The brutal truth is that there are no harm free choices here. All choices will have some harm.
But, deadlines are coming - here's our Ministry of Health's advice under public orders "Any health and disability workers (employed or voluntary, private and public) who fall under these roles must receive their first dose of the vaccine by 11.59pm 15 November 2021. They must receive their second dose by 1 January 2022."
That's Monday folks.
I'm not an “anti-vaxxer". I'm fully vaccinated.
But some people will choose not to follow these orders for various reasons. Some of them may be logical based on the data that there is no protection beyond 200 days, and the data on reductions in transmission are limited, and they are concerned about adverse events.
We all make different decisions given similar data because we are all different and have different ways of weighing risks and benefits. They may see the futility of a public health system which would on current evidence have to boost every 120-150 days to maintain vaccine efficacy. Or maybe they just don't like being told what to do, or have a more complex theory which may be spurious. Who really knows?
Anyway, the point is that there will always be a group who for whatever reason decides that, in this case, their bodily sovereignty, is sacred to them and they will refuse a public health order like this.
What this means is on Monday kids will turn up to school and their classroom teacher will no longer be there, that their mid-wife will no longer be working, that their doctor is no longer able to practice.
This will cause serious harm. It almost certainly will mean that our already overwhelmed health and education systems will not have the staff to carry out normal duties.
This debate has already caused substantial harm and division in our beautiful country.
I believe in the context of the recent Swedish data showing vaccine waning, that it's now obvious to any thinking person the futility of these mandates.
We can predict that the exact thing we are trying to avoid "overwhelming the health system" is exactly what we are going to do by firing health workers.
What government puts on its own handcuffs on and throws away the key?
This isn't us.
So sorry I can't stand by silently and watch this. I have to say something.
I'm sorry it's taken me so long to pluck up the courage.
Sorry if this upsets you, but come Monday I know of real teachers, real GPs, real mid-wives, real physios, real people without jobs. Real communities without their beloved teachers and health professionals who are here to care for them. These are my communities, my friends, my school.
These are mostly not lunatic fringe anti-vaxxers. They are people often making their own rationale decision. Yes its different than mine, but it is theirs.
I fear we are choosing more harm than good, and in my field that's just not acceptable. In fact it’s unethical and immoral.
Please think about what your thoughts are on this matter. It is really an important one for our society right now. Saying nothing when you think there will be more harm than good is complicit in supporting that harm.
Please comment, share, or do whatever you think is right here. Please if you do comment think about what you say and please confront the issues not the person.
Thanks for reading this,
Grant Schofield PhD
Professor of Public Health*disclaimer - these views are mine and don’t represent those of anyone else, including those who employ me.
-
I did ponder for a while about getting vaccinated and decided to go ahead.
The main reason was because I thought if I had passed on Covid ( which by the way appears to be rather an insidious illness and an undignified way to die for those that do) to at least one family member or friend or workmate and they had become debilitatingly ill or worse then I probably wouldn’t have been able to live with myself.
I am happy for people to make the choice but I would rather they make an informed and well researched choice even though that may be difficult with the lack of hard data available yet
-
@nevorian this seems to be most honest people's thinking. And I think it's fair enough as an argumentfor getting it.
Where I think it's wrong is when people go the other way, and say those who don't are bad people because they will spread it more and kill the vulnerable."But some people will choose not to follow these orders for various reasons. Some of them may be logical based on the data that there is no protection beyond 200 days, and the data on reductions in transmission are limited, and they are concerned about adverse events."
Acknowledged by an expert that the data on transmission is not strong enough right now.
-
@muddyriver Nice work mate, thanks for that. I've been clumsily putting forward a similar sentiment, albeit anonymously, on here lately. What you wrote really resonates with me. Thanks.
-
@muddyriver said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@nevorian this seems to be most honest people's thinking. And I think it's fair enough as an argumentfor getting it.
Where I think it's wrong is when people go the other way, and say those who don't are bad people because they will spread it more and kill the vulnerable."But some people will choose not to follow these orders for various reasons. Some of them may be logical based on the data that there is no protection beyond 200 days, and the data on reductions in transmission are limited, and they are concerned about adverse events."
Acknowledged by an expert that the data on transmission is not strong enough right now.
Firstly, thanks for your post and insights.
On the whole though I have to disagree. Not on any basis of transmission lessening (I have always thought that is a misunderstanding held by many) but because by and large these people are working in higher risk environments and therefore more likely not only to catch the virus but, if unvaccinated, the country has to deal with the consequences of their decisions along with them.
There are many many mandated laws in our society where people 'suffer' consequences for deciding for whatever logical reason of their own that the law shouldn't apply to them.
Smoking in public enclosures, wearing seatbelt, drink driving in the middle of the night on a country road with little likelihood of other traffic...
People are being asked to play their part in the best (not perfect) solution our society currently has or look after themselves.
Organisations by law have to provide certain levels of health and safety. The consequence of being unvaccinated in high risk workplaces is too high for it to be ignored.
I get all your points about boosters and that the mandates on health workers could impact one of the problems we are trying to put controls around. I support the right for people to make their own decisions on whatever grounds. Those choices are a known path though. -
Sorry guys that's not me that an nz professor of public health noted at the bottom.
-
@muddyriver said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Sorry guys that's not me that an nz professor of public health noted at the bottom.
So it's a quote? Might wanna post it as such next time
-
@muddyriver said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan it's from his personal Facebook page.
It says at the bottom. Sorry for the confusion
I saw the name at the bottom. But I don't know your real name so I assumed it was you the way it was written
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@muddyriver said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@nevorian this seems to be most honest people's thinking. And I think it's fair enough as an argumentfor getting it.
Where I think it's wrong is when people go the other way, and say those who don't are bad people because they will spread it more and kill the vulnerable."But some people will choose not to follow these orders for various reasons. Some of them may be logical based on the data that there is no protection beyond 200 days, and the data on reductions in transmission are limited, and they are concerned about adverse events."
Acknowledged by an expert that the data on transmission is not strong enough right now.
Firstly, thanks for your post and insights.
On the whole though I have to disagree. Not on any basis of transmission lessening (I have always thought that is a misunderstanding held by many) but because by and large these people are working in higher risk environments and therefore more likely not only to catch the virus but, if unvaccinated, the country has to deal with the consequences of their decisions along with them.
There are many many mandated laws in our society where people 'suffer' consequences for deciding for whatever logical reason of their own that the law shouldn't apply to them.
Smoking in public enclosures, wearing seatbelt, drink driving in the middle of the night on a country road with little likelihood of other traffic...
People are being asked to play their part in the best (not perfect) solution our society currently has or look after themselves.
Organisations by law have to provide certain levels of health and safety. The consequence of being unvaccinated in high risk workplaces is too high for it to be ignored.
I get all your points about boosters and that the mandates on health workers could impact one of the problems we are trying to put controls around. I support the right for people to make their own decisions on whatever grounds. Those choices are a known path though.Those high risk profession's become a lot more high risk if we don't have the required amount of staff to maintain them. If I get a cancer diagnosis I'd much rather get treatment from an unvaccinated health care worker than no treatment at all.
People are going to get Covid, and once they've had it they will have far better immunity to it than any vaccine can provide. Are those people still mandated to get a vaccine booster every 6 months? Once I've had it I sure as shit won't be keen on getting constant boosters, should I lose my job if I don't? Lose all of my freedoms?
This is all getting beyond ridiculous.
-
@no-quarter if you get cancer you may not get treated because of covid...
1 due to restrictions having caused more of a backlog
2 we will be short on staff meaning more backlog -
@mn5 said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Locations of interest in the rapa. That means Welly can’t be far away
Not surprising when you have 1,000’s of tools coming from the north protest down your way.
I have a relation (in-law) that would be able to work out the value of two $5 notes in their pocket go down and protest.
-
A job popped up on LinkedIn from the NZ Govt the other day, it was to develop diagnostic methods (mostly PCR) for Covid19. It required a PhD, and the salary range was NZ$60k to 80k.
Why would anyone with those, in demand, abilities apply? A country that offers poverty to the most in demand molecular biologists.