Post by Crash Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 23:57:02 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
But I can see why you liked the article you posted, Tony - it must
have pushed a lot of buttons for you. Opinion presented as fact -
false assertions presented as reality, intensely critical without
evidence, false "science" that has already been proved wrong; false
assertons about actual results and alternative actions, and the
suggestion that the emotive language was rational by going over the
top at the end with other ujustifiable assumptions. "Right!"up your
garden path it led you, with the pretence of taking you somewhere -
leading right up to the essential dishonesty of describing our current
situation as catastrophic arising from a fraudulent level of
misinformation, deceit, exaggeration and hysteria - a description that
most New Zealadners would not recognise as being true .
According to the introduction, the article was "contributed" by New
Zealand journalist Peter Drew. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to
anything this so-called journalist has ever written before - I suspect
it is as fake as the whole website. But I am sure you will take that
with the "Right" positive attitude you pride youself in having . . .
Not surprisingly, there was more homage to your reactionary disregard
for scientific truth elsewhere on the site - you must have loved this
Unlike Rich, I will comment on the first article Tony cited in his OP
- the open letter to our PM.
While it is not clear that your comment implied criticism of my
response, Crash, it would have been be a fair criticism. Certainly I
read the article, although I was suspicious that it did not seem to
have any rational link to Environmental Health.
To have the quotation The first casualty of war is the truth
followed in the following paragraph by "Our country as we know it has
been ripped apart in the blink of an eye, perhaps never to fully
return. The economy and businesses decimated for the foreseeable
future. Mental health problems and social problems set to explode with
devastating consequences. The damage done is catastrophic. " without
any supporting words appeared to me to be an attempt at proving that
truth had indeed been a casualty with respect to the article. I am
not aware of any significant proportion of our companies have been
destroyed; many businesses have been able to continue considerable
work while working from home, but some industries have been adversely
affected, particularly as government support did not cover continuing
commitments to rent - banks have permitted mortgage payments to
belimited for a period (at no real cost to the banks of course), but
while I know that some landlords have reduced or waived rent for the
preriod of lockdown, some have vigorously pursued full rental
payments. Certainly there has been little call for government to cover
that problem. The Article concluded with similar hyperbole which I
referred to in my initial comments
In contrast to government actions, John Key has made some statements
that could perhaps have been of concern, although published after the
"Key believed companies would, after lockdown, operate with
significantly fewer people another looming issue for commercial
Everyone is going to kick out 20 per cent of their people . . . even
if the company is doing well . . . their worst performers. Never waste
I dont want to be doom and gloom but property might take longer [to
recover] it just has to go lower over time.
From which I conclude that "never waste a crisis" is a saying that can
perhaps be agreed (although with different implications) by all
political parties as well as writers of sensationalist garbage like
the "open letter" to which Tony drew our attention under a fairly
dismissive Subject heading.
You have well covered other aspects of the "article" in your comments
I spent some time looking for evidence of a New Zealand Journalist
named Peter Drew, and concuded that it was not his real name. I have
been critical of some of our news media for the low quality of many
articles, but I believe this "article" would have been rejected by
editors at all recognised publishers.
In conclusion, as I have said before, I suspect this was a deliberate
troll attempt by Tony - he must be delighted at the time wasted on a
very inferior diatribe which I suspect even he does not believe. So
chalk up one troll win to Tony!
Post by Crash
"So, the question we need to approach with rational thinking,
evidence, and facts is this. Was there/is there a sufficiently extreme
level of critical danger facing New Zealand that warrants such
damaging measures being taken? Is there a global pandemic of such
unprecedented veracity and lethality sweeping across the world that it
demands this extreme action for the good of the nation?"
In the next paragraph he identifies that experts warned, prior to the
level 4 lock-down, that up to 80,000 lives could be lost. What is
missing is how long these losses would have taken - a month is
catastrophic, 5 years less so.
He then goes on to compare evidence known at the time the letter was
written but may not have been know at the time the Level 4 lock-down
decision was made. When I read an opinion such as this my interest
wanes when a such clearly invalid justification is made.
Decisions taken by politicians are always based on the best advice
they can get. However it is the politician, not the sources of
advice, that are subsequently held to account at the ballot box. All
politicians therefore include political implications in the decisions
- it is simply not possible to take decisions based purely on advice
without a thought to future political implications.
In the future I believe that the validity of the decisions made on the
pandemic levels and the timing of decisions will be tested mostly by
comparing NZ to Australia, not the sciences (which are evolving at
pace). Both countries are similar enough, with differing decisions
being taken, for the comparison to be reasonably valid on a per-capita