Coronavirus - New Zealand
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial 160+ guests.
I sympathise that she can't have what she wants on her big day but tbf she was taking a risk in her planning by going over the possible limit.
With New Zealand's government, how the fuck could she plan without just trying for one of the biggest days of her life? Not sure why you feel it's ok to victim blame here.
I'm not victim blaming. I said it's shit that her risk didn't pay off.
It would have been great for her if it had.We've been in covid uncertainty for almost two years now
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial 160+ guests.
I sympathise that she can't have what she wants on her big day but tbf she was taking a risk in her planning by going over the possible limit.
With New Zealand's government, how the fuck could she plan without just trying for one of the biggest days of her life? Not sure why you feel it's ok to victim blame here.
I'm not victim blaming. I said it's shit that her risk didn't pay off.
It would have been great for her if it had.We've been in covid uncertainty for almost two years now
It's not her fault the goverment changes plans with the wind.
-
@kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial 160+ guests.
I sympathise that she can't have what she wants on her big day but tbf she was taking a risk in her planning by going over the possible limit.
With New Zealand's government, how the fuck could she plan without just trying for one of the biggest days of her life? Not sure why you feel it's ok to victim blame here.
I'm not victim blaming. I said it's shit that her risk didn't pay off.
It would have been great for her if it had.We've been in covid uncertainty for almost two years now
It's not her fault the goverment changes plans with the wind.
That's just silly (in this situation).
The level system was in place for ages and inviting over 100 people could only work out there in level 1 so ANY move in levels would have stuffed plans. Under the traffic lights it was clear that there would be a move to Red under a community breakout so once again 100 would be the limit.
Unless she made her guest list before March 2020 and hasn't re-thought it she has taken a risk on the country remaining in Orange. That's not from random govt changes. -
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial 160+ guests.
I sympathise that she can't have what she wants on her big day but tbf she was taking a risk in her planning by going over the possible limit.
With New Zealand's government, how the fuck could she plan without just trying for one of the biggest days of her life? Not sure why you feel it's ok to victim blame here.
haaaave you not been reading the last couple of years?
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial 160+ guests.
I sympathise that she can't have what she wants on her big day but tbf she was taking a risk in her planning by going over the possible limit.
With New Zealand's government, how the fuck could she plan without just trying for one of the biggest days of her life? Not sure why you feel it's ok to victim blame here.
I'm not victim blaming. I said it's shit that her risk didn't pay off.
It would have been great for her if it had.We've been in covid uncertainty for almost two years now
It's not her fault the goverment changes plans with the wind.
That's just silly (in this situation).
The level system was in place for ages and inviting over 100 people could only work out there in level 1 so ANY move in levels would have stuffed plans. Under the traffic lights it was clear that there would be a move to Red under a community breakout so once again 100 would be the limit.
Unless she made her guest list before March 2020 and hasn't re-thought it she has taken a risk on the country remaining in Orange. That's not from random govt changes.Traffic Light System came in December, and got changes just this week. Levels were applied with varying criteria not based on any science (cabinet often ignored advice). Also were applied differently for the same scenerios in different areas of the country.
Impossible to predict and random seems pretty right to me.
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial 160+ guests.
I sympathise that she can't have what she wants on her big day but tbf she was taking a risk in her planning by going over the possible limit.
It's like people getting stuck overseas when travelling for non essential reasons. The risk was known and well spelled out. The result is shit though.I have a workmate also doing a wedding in a few weeks. It is planned to the Nth degree and she deliberately kept numbers down and let guests know they couldn't attend if un-vaxxed.
She took the approach of wanting certainty and avoiding last minute disappointment and stress.Yep, shit choices to have to make but they are choices.
Heavy on the assumptions aren’t you? Young women plan their weddings for years. When my friend started planning her wedding, way prior to Covid lockdowns being a thing, 160 guests wasn’t controversial. She went ahead with this date based on the mistaken assumption that when the government said vaccination was the way out they wouldn’t keep moving the fucking goalposts.
Everyone on the guest list has done absolutely everything asked of us but the government hasn’t. Clearly they don’t have a plan that captures all the pieces that need to be in place before we can do normal things like having 160 person weddings. You know, like vaccinations reaching a threshold, hospitals having sufficient capacity, MIQ being up to standard, appropriate testing being in place. Instead we’re apparently just supposed to accept that those days are gone. When did that happen?
Frankly it’s hilarious that your expectations are so high of her planning responsibilities when you completely absolve the government from having any need to do the same.
-
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial 160+ guests.
I sympathise that she can't have what she wants on her big day but tbf she was taking a risk in her planning by going over the possible limit.
It's like people getting stuck overseas when travelling for non essential reasons. The risk was known and well spelled out. The result is shit though.I have a workmate also doing a wedding in a few weeks. It is planned to the Nth degree and she deliberately kept numbers down and let guests know they couldn't attend if un-vaxxed.
She took the approach of wanting certainty and avoiding last minute disappointment and stress.Yep, shit choices to have to make but they are choices.
Heavy on the assumptions aren’t you? Young women plan their weddings for years. When my friend started planning her wedding, way prior to Covid lockdowns being a thing, 160 guests wasn’t controversial. She went ahead with this date based on the mistaken assumption that when the government said vaccination was the way out they wouldn’t keep moving the fucking goalposts.
Everyone on the guest list has done absolutely everything asked of us but the government hasn’t. Clearly they don’t have a plan that captures all the pieces that need to be in place before we can do normal things like having 160 person weddings. You know, like vaccinations reaching a threshold, hospitals having sufficient capacity, MIQ being up to standard, appropriate testing being in place. Instead we’re apparently just supposed to accept that those days are gone. When did that happen?
Frankly it’s hilarious that your expectations are so high of her planning responsibilities when you completely absolve the government from having any need to do the same.
Talk about muddying the waters on a simple observation.
Is it really unreasonable to comment that we know we live in an unpredictable crappy situation at the moment and have done for nearly two years. The rules on gatherings under the levels system didn't change and nor have they under the traffic lights. If she continued to plan for 160 on the hope that we would be either level 1, Orange or Green, or have waved Covid goodbye that was a risk she was obviously willing to take.
I gave an example of someone in the same situation who decided not to take the risk and will be going ahead under Red without disappointment.
It was an observation on the personal choice. Not one I would have taken or encouraged someone too.
My son and partner have put theirs on ice until they see a clear path from the govt rather than forge ahead anyway and blame others.
According to this thread it is plainly obvious that the govt can't/won't lay out clear future shifts that they will stick with. Surely you just work with that knowledge rather than against it? -
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial 160+ guests.
I sympathise that she can't have what she wants on her big day but tbf she was taking a risk in her planning by going over the possible limit.
It's like people getting stuck overseas when travelling for non essential reasons. The risk was known and well spelled out. The result is shit though.I have a workmate also doing a wedding in a few weeks. It is planned to the Nth degree and she deliberately kept numbers down and let guests know they couldn't attend if un-vaxxed.
She took the approach of wanting certainty and avoiding last minute disappointment and stress.Yep, shit choices to have to make but they are choices.
Heavy on the assumptions aren’t you? Young women plan their weddings for years. When my friend started planning her wedding, way prior to Covid lockdowns being a thing, 160 guests wasn’t controversial. She went ahead with this date based on the mistaken assumption that when the government said vaccination was the way out they wouldn’t keep moving the fucking goalposts.
Everyone on the guest list has done absolutely everything asked of us but the government hasn’t. Clearly they don’t have a plan that captures all the pieces that need to be in place before we can do normal things like having 160 person weddings. You know, like vaccinations reaching a threshold, hospitals having sufficient capacity, MIQ being up to standard, appropriate testing being in place. Instead we’re apparently just supposed to accept that those days are gone. When did that happen?
Frankly it’s hilarious that your expectations are so high of her planning responsibilities when you completely absolve the government from having any need to do the same.
Talk about muddying the waters on a simple observation.
Is it really unreasonable to comment that we know we live in an unpredictable crappy situation at the moment and have done for nearly two years. The rules on gatherings under the levels system didn't change and nor have they under the traffic lights. If she continued to plan for 160 on the hope that we would be either level 1, Orange or Green, or have waved Covid goodbye that was a risk she was obviously willing to take.
I gave an example of someone in the same situation who decided not to take the risk and will be going ahead under Red without disappointment.
It was an observation on the personal choice. Not one I would have taken or encouraged someone too.
My son and partner have put theirs on ice until they see a clear path from the govt rather than forge ahead anyway and blame others.
According to this thread it is plainly obvious that the govt can't/won't lay out clear future shifts that they will stick with. Surely you just work with that knowledge rather than against it?Yes, it’s unreasonable. We were having a discussion about how shit it is that people with longstanding plans have had them put in jeopardy with an impending move to Red, especially the embarrassment of having to choose who to cull. Whether or not the alert system or lockdowns or whatever changed, the fact that 160 needs to change to 100 is an embarrassing situation.
You jumped in with “shoulda known better”. Well she didn’t. And she shouldn’t have to be trying to anticipate the motivations of a bunch of incompetents who deploy slogans instead of ability.
-
@rapido said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Imagine dis-inviting people from your wedding!!!
Excruciating. Would hate to be in that position.
If Jacinda manages to wriggle her own wedding in unaffected there will be bridezillas all over NZ collectively losing their shit
-
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial 160+ guests.
I sympathise that she can't have what she wants on her big day but tbf she was taking a risk in her planning by going over the possible limit.
It's like people getting stuck overseas when travelling for non essential reasons. The risk was known and well spelled out. The result is shit though.I have a workmate also doing a wedding in a few weeks. It is planned to the Nth degree and she deliberately kept numbers down and let guests know they couldn't attend if un-vaxxed.
She took the approach of wanting certainty and avoiding last minute disappointment and stress.Yep, shit choices to have to make but they are choices.
Heavy on the assumptions aren’t you? Young women plan their weddings for years. When my friend started planning her wedding, way prior to Covid lockdowns being a thing, 160 guests wasn’t controversial. She went ahead with this date based on the mistaken assumption that when the government said vaccination was the way out they wouldn’t keep moving the fucking goalposts.
Everyone on the guest list has done absolutely everything asked of us but the government hasn’t. Clearly they don’t have a plan that captures all the pieces that need to be in place before we can do normal things like having 160 person weddings. You know, like vaccinations reaching a threshold, hospitals having sufficient capacity, MIQ being up to standard, appropriate testing being in place. Instead we’re apparently just supposed to accept that those days are gone. When did that happen?
Frankly it’s hilarious that your expectations are so high of her planning responsibilities when you completely absolve the government from having any need to do the same.
Talk about muddying the waters on a simple observation.
Is it really unreasonable to comment that we know we live in an unpredictable crappy situation at the moment and have done for nearly two years. The rules on gatherings under the levels system didn't change and nor have they under the traffic lights. If she continued to plan for 160 on the hope that we would be either level 1, Orange or Green, or have waved Covid goodbye that was a risk she was obviously willing to take.
I gave an example of someone in the same situation who decided not to take the risk and will be going ahead under Red without disappointment.
It was an observation on the personal choice. Not one I would have taken or encouraged someone too.
My son and partner have put theirs on ice until they see a clear path from the govt rather than forge ahead anyway and blame others.
According to this thread it is plainly obvious that the govt can't/won't lay out clear future shifts that they will stick with. Surely you just work with that knowledge rather than against it?Yes, it’s unreasonable. We were having a discussion about how shit it is that people with longstanding plans have had them put in jeopardy with an impending move to Red, especially the embarrassment of having to choose who to cull. Whether or not the alert system or lockdowns or whatever changed, the fact that 160 needs to change to 100 is an embarrassing situation.
You jumped in with “shoulda known better”. Well she didn’t. And she shouldn’t have to be trying to anticipate the motivations of a bunch of incompetents who deploy slogans instead of ability.
Point was that there was no anticipation needed (not for the last two years anyway) If you can’t see that we’ll obviously disagree.
-
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@rapido said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Imagine dis-inviting people from your wedding!!!
Excruciating. Would hate to be in that position.
If Jacinda manages to wriggle her own wedding in unaffected there will be bridezillas all over NZ collectively losing their shit
Weddings are allowed.
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@rapido said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Imagine dis-inviting people from your wedding!!!
Excruciating. Would hate to be in that position.
If Jacinda manages to wriggle her own wedding in unaffected there will be bridezillas all over NZ collectively losing their shit
Weddings are allowed.
With limits on guest numbers depending on the traffic light mode. So if we go to red I guess she will need to trim numbers as well, assuming she isn't having a small affair
-
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@rapido said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Imagine dis-inviting people from your wedding!!!
Excruciating. Would hate to be in that position.
If Jacinda manages to wriggle her own wedding in unaffected there will be bridezillas all over NZ collectively losing their shit
She should go all Boris have it anyway, 250 guests flown in from all over the globe, no quarantine.
Then claim it was a work event.
Honestly, she's so amatuer.
-
@majorrage said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
I'll say this now as a prediction.
In New Zealand, traffic lights are suddenly going to have a 4th light. That's above the red light.
I have $100 bet with my wife on basically a red+
Laid out all the steps on the 5th of Jan, and the government has done each one so far. Their mismanagement is comically predictable
-
@kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@majorrage said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
I'll say this now as a prediction.
In New Zealand, traffic lights are suddenly going to have a 4th light. That's above the red light.
I have $100 bet with my wife on basically a red+
Laid out all the steps on the 5th of Jan, and the government has done each one so far. Their mismanagement is comically predictable
Was talking to a doctor mate. All these stalling tactics but to what end? Sure some kids and boosters will get done. But the longer they try to delay the more strain will come on in the depths of winter when hospitals are typically very busy anyway
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial 160+ guests.
I sympathise that she can't have what she wants on her big day but tbf she was taking a risk in her planning by going over the possible limit.
It's like people getting stuck overseas when travelling for non essential reasons. The risk was known and well spelled out. The result is shit though.I have a workmate also doing a wedding in a few weeks. It is planned to the Nth degree and she deliberately kept numbers down and let guests know they couldn't attend if un-vaxxed.
She took the approach of wanting certainty and avoiding last minute disappointment and stress.Yep, shit choices to have to make but they are choices.
Heavy on the assumptions aren’t you? Young women plan their weddings for years. When my friend started planning her wedding, way prior to Covid lockdowns being a thing, 160 guests wasn’t controversial. She went ahead with this date based on the mistaken assumption that when the government said vaccination was the way out they wouldn’t keep moving the fucking goalposts.
Everyone on the guest list has done absolutely everything asked of us but the government hasn’t. Clearly they don’t have a plan that captures all the pieces that need to be in place before we can do normal things like having 160 person weddings. You know, like vaccinations reaching a threshold, hospitals having sufficient capacity, MIQ being up to standard, appropriate testing being in place. Instead we’re apparently just supposed to accept that those days are gone. When did that happen?
Frankly it’s hilarious that your expectations are so high of her planning responsibilities when you completely absolve the government from having any need to do the same.
Talk about muddying the waters on a simple observation.
Is it really unreasonable to comment that we know we live in an unpredictable crappy situation at the moment and have done for nearly two years. The rules on gatherings under the levels system didn't change and nor have they under the traffic lights. If she continued to plan for 160 on the hope that we would be either level 1, Orange or Green, or have waved Covid goodbye that was a risk she was obviously willing to take.
I gave an example of someone in the same situation who decided not to take the risk and will be going ahead under Red without disappointment.
It was an observation on the personal choice. Not one I would have taken or encouraged someone too.
My son and partner have put theirs on ice until they see a clear path from the govt rather than forge ahead anyway and blame others.
According to this thread it is plainly obvious that the govt can't/won't lay out clear future shifts that they will stick with. Surely you just work with that knowledge rather than against it?Yes, it’s unreasonable. We were having a discussion about how shit it is that people with longstanding plans have had them put in jeopardy with an impending move to Red, especially the embarrassment of having to choose who to cull. Whether or not the alert system or lockdowns or whatever changed, the fact that 160 needs to change to 100 is an embarrassing situation.
You jumped in with “shoulda known better”. Well she didn’t. And she shouldn’t have to be trying to anticipate the motivations of a bunch of incompetents who deploy slogans instead of ability.
Point was that there was no anticipation needed (not for the last two years anyway) If you can’t see that we’ll obviously disagree.
And I’m saying she sent out her “save the date” cards, which are a thing now, 2 years ago. She’s been planning her wedding that long. Ever since then any reduction in numbers would mean disinviting someone, which is fraught with problems. And tell me precisely when the earliest date was when she knew that target number of people to be culled was 60 rather than 40 or 80? That would be when the traffic light system was put in place wouldn’t it? The fact is she STILL doesn’t know. But you know that, you’re just doubling down on a boneheaded remark.
-
@kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@majorrage said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
I'll say this now as a prediction.
In New Zealand, traffic lights are suddenly going to have a 4th light. That's above the red light.
I have $100 bet with my wife on basically a red+
Laid out all the steps on the 5th of Jan, and the government has done each one so far. Their mismanagement is comically predictable
Only 100? If she wants to bet bigger happy to go against … I’ll even give favorable odds!!
-
its probably still far enough out from the next election for them to start worrying about sticking to thier word...I fully expect regional lockdowns at least though, although not sure how compliant Auckland will be given they will likely be the region first to fall to moronic!
I guess the only thing in our favour, with our pro-active govt. is that we have been able to largely sit back and watch the pandemic unfold around the world and set in motion well laid out plans for how we will respond to keep our country moving and our people safe...