Discussion:
Not for the first time -
Add Reply
Tony
2020-03-20 00:18:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
Crash
2020-03-20 08:04:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be trusted
to do the right thing.

That would not universally go down well here. Current measures here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good enough.

We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.



--
Crash McBash
Tony
2020-03-20 19:39:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been there for some
years.
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world despite being a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to walk around and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their preparedness,
something we did not have.
Rich80105
2020-03-20 20:40:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been there for some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world despite being a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to walk around and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
John Bowes
2020-03-21 00:31:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been there for some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world despite being a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to walk around and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic.
So what took them so bloody long to respond to it Rich? We should have been in lockdown WEEKS ago!

Not to mention the idiots waiting till the day before the Mosque massacre remembrance before putting a stop to it! This governments biggest fault is they spend far to much time talking about problems and not enough actually doing anything about them!
Post by Rich80105
It was put in place in 2010, and appears to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
Tony
2020-03-21 02:05:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been there for some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world despite being a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to walk around and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
Tony
2020-03-21 02:55:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been there for some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world despite being a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to walk around and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Rich80105
2020-03-21 04:17:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been there for some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world despite being a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to walk around and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.

The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the p[lan, ad the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Tony
2020-03-21 05:28:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been there for some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world despite being a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the p[lan, ad the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
Rich80105
2020-03-21 05:38:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been there for some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world despite being a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph above.

Sometimes it helps to look elsewhere for reasoned argument or facts:
A 16 March report:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress

and one of the results of that rapid but careful approach:
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
Tony
2020-03-21 06:56:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been there
for
some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world despite
being
a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph above.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
So you are happy to make political points. albeit rubbish, in a situation that
requires some caring.
OK no change then.
A lazy response from the government, possibly costing lives.
Rich80105
2020-03-22 00:22:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:56:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been there
for
some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world despite
being
a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph above.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
So you are happy to make political points. albeit rubbish, in a situation that
requires some caring.
OK no change then.
A lazy response from the government, possibly costing lives.
A lazy post from you, where the opposition has provided no useful
alternatives, except mindless criticism. What caring we you looking
for, Tony?
Tony
2020-03-22 01:08:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:56:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been there
for
some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world despite
being
a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph above.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
So you are happy to make political points. albeit rubbish, in a situation that
requires some caring.
OK no change then.
A lazy response from the government, possibly costing lives.
A lazy post from you, where the opposition has provided no useful
alternatives, except mindless criticism. What caring we you looking
for, Tony?
Not at all lazy. The government has quite clearly delayed the inevitable for
political reasons.
All they had to do was learn from overseas examples of good and bad decisions
but they did not.
It is you that does not care.
I am chairman of a New Zealand charity and we put a plan in place two weeks ago.
Shame on you for supporting a government that may well have cost lives
unnecessarily.
And shame on a gutless PM and fellow travellers.
We should be in lockdown now, just look at the UK experience.
Tony
2020-03-22 01:34:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:56:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been there
for
some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world despite
being
a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph above.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
So you are happy to make political points. albeit rubbish, in a situation that
requires some caring.
OK no change then.
A lazy response from the government, possibly costing lives.
A lazy post from you, where the opposition has provided no useful
alternatives, except mindless criticism. What caring we you looking
for, Tony?
Not at all lazy. The government has quite clearly delayed the inevitable for
political reasons.
All they had to do was learn from overseas examples of good and bad decisions
but they did not.
It is you that does not care.
I am chairman of a New Zealand charity and we put a plan in place two weeks ago.
Shame on you for supporting a government that may well have cost lives
unnecessarily.
And shame on a gutless PM and fellow travellers.
We should be in lockdown now, just look at the UK experience.
And as strong evidence of inability to govern or even answer questions here is -
https://thebfd.co.nz/2020/03/bfd-transcript-mike-hosking-with-jacinda-ardern-on-covid-19-control/

And please don't turn this into a Mike Hoskings hate rant, I don't like him
much either. Just read how a politician can avoid answering questions at a time
when honesty is needed more than at any other time in the past 100 years.
We should be in lockdown now.
Crash
2020-03-22 02:41:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 20:34:06 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:56:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been there
for
some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world despite
being
a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph above.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
So you are happy to make political points. albeit rubbish, in a situation that
requires some caring.
OK no change then.
A lazy response from the government, possibly costing lives.
A lazy post from you, where the opposition has provided no useful
alternatives, except mindless criticism. What caring we you looking
for, Tony?
Not at all lazy. The government has quite clearly delayed the inevitable for
political reasons.
All they had to do was learn from overseas examples of good and bad decisions
but they did not.
It is you that does not care.
I am chairman of a New Zealand charity and we put a plan in place two weeks ago.
Shame on you for supporting a government that may well have cost lives
unnecessarily.
And shame on a gutless PM and fellow travellers.
We should be in lockdown now, just look at the UK experience.
And as strong evidence of inability to govern or even answer questions here is -
https://thebfd.co.nz/2020/03/bfd-transcript-mike-hosking-with-jacinda-ardern-on-covid-19-control/
And please don't turn this into a Mike Hoskings hate rant, I don't like him
much either. Just read how a politician can avoid answering questions at a time
when honesty is needed more than at any other time in the past 100 years.
We should be in lockdown now.
I can understand a lock down - but not the whole country at once. I
live in a town way outside the metropolitan areas. Risk of infection
is a combination of population density and location of confirmed
cases. Where I live, density is low compared to our larger cities and
it is impossible to know where the nearest confirmed COVID-19 case is
because locations are only given by region.

By all means lock down cities with high-density housing and a number
of confirmed cases. I would suggest that decisions be made based on
local body districts - when such a district reaches a threshold that
lock down (level 4) is justified by very local considerations.


--
Crash McBash
Tony
2020-03-22 03:16:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 20:34:06 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:56:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test
positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to
stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are
suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the
restrictions
of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good
enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been there
for
some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world despite
being
a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph above.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
So you are happy to make political points. albeit rubbish, in a situation that
requires some caring.
OK no change then.
A lazy response from the government, possibly costing lives.
A lazy post from you, where the opposition has provided no useful
alternatives, except mindless criticism. What caring we you looking
for, Tony?
Not at all lazy. The government has quite clearly delayed the inevitable for
political reasons.
All they had to do was learn from overseas examples of good and bad decisions
but they did not.
It is you that does not care.
I am chairman of a New Zealand charity and we put a plan in place two weeks ago.
Shame on you for supporting a government that may well have cost lives
unnecessarily.
And shame on a gutless PM and fellow travellers.
We should be in lockdown now, just look at the UK experience.
And as strong evidence of inability to govern or even answer questions here is -
https://thebfd.co.nz/2020/03/bfd-transcript-mike-hosking-with-jacinda-ardern-on-covid-19-control/
And please don't turn this into a Mike Hoskings hate rant, I don't like him
much either. Just read how a politician can avoid answering questions at a time
when honesty is needed more than at any other time in the past 100 years.
We should be in lockdown now.
I can understand a lock down - but not the whole country at once. I
live in a town way outside the metropolitan areas. Risk of infection
is a combination of population density and location of confirmed
cases. Where I live, density is low compared to our larger cities and
it is impossible to know where the nearest confirmed COVID-19 case is
because locations are only given by region.
By all means lock down cities with high-density housing and a number
of confirmed cases. I would suggest that decisions be made based on
local body districts - when such a district reaches a threshold that
lock down (level 4) is justified by very local considerations.
No argument Crash.
My concern is that politics just may be deciding timing and actions.
My charity has stopped all activity because we are in daily contact with at
risk people and most of our volunteers are in that same category.
We need to make non-political decisions and we need to make them before there
is no other choice.
Tony
2020-03-22 04:25:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 20:34:06 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:56:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test
positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to
stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are
suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the
restrictions
of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a
bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's
discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any
other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be
trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures
here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good
enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of
their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been
there
for
some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world despite
being
a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their
preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph above.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
So you are happy to make political points. albeit rubbish, in a situation that
requires some caring.
OK no change then.
A lazy response from the government, possibly costing lives.
A lazy post from you, where the opposition has provided no useful
alternatives, except mindless criticism. What caring we you looking
for, Tony?
Not at all lazy. The government has quite clearly delayed the inevitable for
political reasons.
All they had to do was learn from overseas examples of good and bad decisions
but they did not.
It is you that does not care.
I am chairman of a New Zealand charity and we put a plan in place two weeks ago.
Shame on you for supporting a government that may well have cost lives
unnecessarily.
And shame on a gutless PM and fellow travellers.
We should be in lockdown now, just look at the UK experience.
And as strong evidence of inability to govern or even answer questions here is -
https://thebfd.co.nz/2020/03/bfd-transcript-mike-hosking-with-jacinda-ardern-on-covid-19-control/
And please don't turn this into a Mike Hoskings hate rant, I don't like him
much either. Just read how a politician can avoid answering questions at a time
when honesty is needed more than at any other time in the past 100 years.
We should be in lockdown now.
I can understand a lock down - but not the whole country at once. I
live in a town way outside the metropolitan areas. Risk of infection
is a combination of population density and location of confirmed
cases. Where I live, density is low compared to our larger cities and
it is impossible to know where the nearest confirmed COVID-19 case is
because locations are only given by region.
By all means lock down cities with high-density housing and a number
of confirmed cases. I would suggest that decisions be made based on
local body districts - when such a district reaches a threshold that
lock down (level 4) is justified by very local considerations.
No argument Crash.
My concern is that politics just may be deciding timing and actions.
My charity has stopped all activity because we are in daily contact with at
risk people and most of our volunteers are in that same category.
We need to make non-political decisions and we need to make them before there
is no other choice.
And it continues -
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120477240/coronavirus-doctor-group--raise-threat-level-now-or-risk-becoming-like-italy
Professionals telling us what they believe should be done.
and
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120481014/coronavirus-australian-states-to-go-into-lockdown
By all means make it regional but let's stop the carefully timed announcements
for political reasons.
Rich80105
2020-03-22 05:15:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 23:25:35 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 20:34:06 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:56:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test
positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to
stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are
suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the
restrictions
of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a
bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's
discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any
other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be
trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures
here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good
enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of
their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been
there
for
some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world
despite
being
a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to
walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of
living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their
preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears
to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph above.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
So you are happy to make political points. albeit rubbish, in a situation that
requires some caring.
OK no change then.
A lazy response from the government, possibly costing lives.
A lazy post from you, where the opposition has provided no useful
alternatives, except mindless criticism. What caring we you looking
for, Tony?
Not at all lazy. The government has quite clearly delayed the inevitable for
political reasons.
All they had to do was learn from overseas examples of good and bad decisions
but they did not.
It is you that does not care.
I am chairman of a New Zealand charity and we put a plan in place two weeks ago.
Shame on you for supporting a government that may well have cost lives
unnecessarily.
And shame on a gutless PM and fellow travellers.
We should be in lockdown now, just look at the UK experience.
And as strong evidence of inability to govern or even answer questions here is -
https://thebfd.co.nz/2020/03/bfd-transcript-mike-hosking-with-jacinda-ardern-on-covid-19-control/
And please don't turn this into a Mike Hoskings hate rant, I don't like him
much either. Just read how a politician can avoid answering questions at a time
when honesty is needed more than at any other time in the past 100 years.
We should be in lockdown now.
I can understand a lock down - but not the whole country at once. I
live in a town way outside the metropolitan areas. Risk of infection
is a combination of population density and location of confirmed
cases. Where I live, density is low compared to our larger cities and
it is impossible to know where the nearest confirmed COVID-19 case is
because locations are only given by region.
By all means lock down cities with high-density housing and a number
of confirmed cases. I would suggest that decisions be made based on
local body districts - when such a district reaches a threshold that
lock down (level 4) is justified by very local considerations.
No argument Crash.
My concern is that politics just may be deciding timing and actions.
My charity has stopped all activity because we are in daily contact with at
risk people and most of our volunteers are in that same category.
We need to make non-political decisions and we need to make them before there
is no other choice.
And it continues -
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120477240/coronavirus-doctor-group--raise-threat-level-now-or-risk-becoming-like-italy
Professionals telling us what they believe should be done.
and
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120481014/coronavirus-australian-states-to-go-into-lockdown
By all means make it regional but let's stop the carefully timed announcements
for political reasons.
Now you are just playing silly partisan politics. Tony. There is no
evidence of timing to suit any political purposes - shutting down
businesses and locking our people down before it is necessary is
silly. The fact that this is an issue is because we are in a fast
moving situation; but with a generally close consensus as to what
should happen next - just what we should be looking for to reduce
stress and division. It was a bit of a laugh to hear one politician
urgethe government to take one action only 15 minutes before the
goverment did indeed anounce that action - there would have been
fairly general knowledge in parliament of what had been recommended .
. .
Tony
2020-03-22 19:15:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 23:25:35 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 20:34:06 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:56:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans
accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test
positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required
to
stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are
suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the
restrictions
of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with
a
bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's
discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any
other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be
trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures
here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good
enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of
their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been
there
for
some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world
despite
being
a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to
walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense
level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of
living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their
preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New
Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears
to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and
closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph above.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
So you are happy to make political points. albeit rubbish, in a
situation
that
requires some caring.
OK no change then.
A lazy response from the government, possibly costing lives.
A lazy post from you, where the opposition has provided no useful
alternatives, except mindless criticism. What caring we you looking
for, Tony?
Not at all lazy. The government has quite clearly delayed the inevitable for
political reasons.
All they had to do was learn from overseas examples of good and bad decisions
but they did not.
It is you that does not care.
I am chairman of a New Zealand charity and we put a plan in place two
weeks
ago.
Shame on you for supporting a government that may well have cost lives
unnecessarily.
And shame on a gutless PM and fellow travellers.
We should be in lockdown now, just look at the UK experience.
And as strong evidence of inability to govern or even answer questions
here
is -
https://thebfd.co.nz/2020/03/bfd-transcript-mike-hosking-with-jacinda-ardern-on-covid-19-control/
And please don't turn this into a Mike Hoskings hate rant, I don't like him
much either. Just read how a politician can avoid answering questions at a time
when honesty is needed more than at any other time in the past 100 years.
We should be in lockdown now.
I can understand a lock down - but not the whole country at once. I
live in a town way outside the metropolitan areas. Risk of infection
is a combination of population density and location of confirmed
cases. Where I live, density is low compared to our larger cities and
it is impossible to know where the nearest confirmed COVID-19 case is
because locations are only given by region.
By all means lock down cities with high-density housing and a number
of confirmed cases. I would suggest that decisions be made based on
local body districts - when such a district reaches a threshold that
lock down (level 4) is justified by very local considerations.
No argument Crash.
My concern is that politics just may be deciding timing and actions.
My charity has stopped all activity because we are in daily contact with at
risk people and most of our volunteers are in that same category.
We need to make non-political decisions and we need to make them before there
is no other choice.
And it continues -
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120477240/coronavirus-doctor-group--raise-threat-level-now-or-risk-becoming-like-italy
Professionals telling us what they believe should be done.
and
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120481014/coronavirus-australian-states-to-go-into-lockdown
By all means make it regional but let's stop the carefully timed announcements
for political reasons.
Now you are just playing silly partisan politics. Tony.
I am not political it is you that has that problem.
Post by Rich80105
There is no
evidence of timing to suit any political purposes - shutting down
businesses and locking our people down before it is necessary is
silly.
This man says it is the right time and he is not alone, at leat 200 doctors say
the same things.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120435284/coronavirus-how-close-is-new-zealand-to-lockdowns
Post by Rich80105
The fact that this is an issue is because we are in a fast
moving situation; but with a generally close consensus as to what
should happen next - just what we should be looking for to reduce
stress and division. It was a bit of a laugh to hear one politician
urgethe government to take one action only 15 minutes before the
goverment did indeed anounce that action - there would have been
fairly general knowledge in parliament of what had been recommended .
. .
That consensus was imaginary.
Councils are closing libraries and other council buildings, perhaps they are
prepared to be non-political - time our government did the same.
Rich80105
2020-03-22 04:52:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 22:16:09 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 20:34:06 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:56:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test
positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to
stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are
suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the
restrictions
of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a
bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's
discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any
other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be
trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures
here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good
enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of
their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been
there
for
some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world despite
being
a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their
preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph above.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
So you are happy to make political points. albeit rubbish, in a situation that
requires some caring.
OK no change then.
A lazy response from the government, possibly costing lives.
A lazy post from you, where the opposition has provided no useful
alternatives, except mindless criticism. What caring we you looking
for, Tony?
Not at all lazy. The government has quite clearly delayed the inevitable for
political reasons.
All they had to do was learn from overseas examples of good and bad decisions
but they did not.
It is you that does not care.
I am chairman of a New Zealand charity and we put a plan in place two weeks ago.
Shame on you for supporting a government that may well have cost lives
unnecessarily.
And shame on a gutless PM and fellow travellers.
We should be in lockdown now, just look at the UK experience.
And as strong evidence of inability to govern or even answer questions here is -
https://thebfd.co.nz/2020/03/bfd-transcript-mike-hosking-with-jacinda-ardern-on-covid-19-control/
And please don't turn this into a Mike Hoskings hate rant, I don't like him
much either. Just read how a politician can avoid answering questions at a time
when honesty is needed more than at any other time in the past 100 years.
We should be in lockdown now.
I can understand a lock down - but not the whole country at once. I
live in a town way outside the metropolitan areas. Risk of infection
is a combination of population density and location of confirmed
cases. Where I live, density is low compared to our larger cities and
it is impossible to know where the nearest confirmed COVID-19 case is
because locations are only given by region.
By all means lock down cities with high-density housing and a number
of confirmed cases. I would suggest that decisions be made based on
local body districts - when such a district reaches a threshold that
lock down (level 4) is justified by very local considerations.
No argument Crash.
My concern is that politics just may be deciding timing and actions.
No evidence of that - but there is evidence of carefully worded
responses to questions and provocation to avoid panic (including panic
hoarding).
Post by Tony
My charity has stopped all activity because we are in daily contact with at
risk people and most of our volunteers are in that same category.
You were not alone in doing that depending on the age of volunteers
and the extent of contact with others, that process started about 3
weeks ago - some have been later (for example the last physical
meetings for Scouting will be tonight). The other major change is the
number working from home - government and large businesses have been
working on systems since January; this week will probably see around
half bank and insurance workers, and public servants not being in
their "normal" workplace.
Post by Tony
We need to make non-political decisions and we need to make them before there
is no other choice.
As is being done by many small and large businesses and other
organisations. I expect greater restrictions on meetings and movements
in the next week or 2 weeks - along the lines of the suggestions by
Crash. In effect, options are being well canvassed, so little comes as
a surprise; that is careful communications, not partisan politics.
James Christophers
2020-03-22 05:43:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:56:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been there
for
some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world despite
being
a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph above.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
So you are happy to make political points. albeit rubbish, in a situation that
requires some caring.
OK no change then.
A lazy response from the government, possibly costing lives.
A lazy post from you, where the opposition has provided no useful
alternatives, except mindless criticism. What caring we you looking
for, Tony?
Not at all lazy. The government has quite clearly delayed the inevitable for
political reasons.
All they had to do was learn from overseas examples of good and bad decisions
but they did not.
However grudgingly, even you must accept that any government can only act on the very best 'action and application' advice it can get. It then has to distill it, shaping it into policy and execution as quickly as it can while getting it **all** as near to 100% right as it is able. But - note particularly - it can only do this, in accordance with current legislation, current practice and the prevailing facilities, provisions and conditions under which combating a pandemic can be applied in **this** country, certainly not some other. This, note, along with the manifold potential ramifications of making even the smallest fatal decision which might too easily risk turning out to be both self-multiplying and irreversible.

So, sorry old bean but it all takes time.

In fact, there could be no better example of 'He who hesitates is lost' versus 'Look before you leap'. So for me, to date, I think that Ardern's administration has done itself proud.

From Roy Morgan survey results (preceding URL):

“New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has demonstrated impressive leadership since taking New Zealand’s top job in responding with empathy to the Christchurch mosque shootings a year ago and the tragedy caused by the eruption of White Island last year. Most recently, Ardern’s decisive leadership was demonstrated with New Zealand becoming the first country to impose harsh restriction on all foreign nationals from entering the country in response to the global COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic."

So with that unequivocal encomium and others like it coming at New Zealand and its prime minister, the world must now surely be gagging to read your high-falutin' countervailing criticisms of Ardern's policy vis-a-vis the current pandemic, strictly, of course, on a like-for-like, quotable fact-for-fact basis. Well you will, won't you?

And while you're at it, why not also provide your own version of 'fair and balanced' by dutifully amassing and correlating those massed legions of international anti-Ardern critics out there who slavishly support you, and kindly point us to them?

What's stopping you, eh?
Rich80105
2020-03-22 19:11:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 22:43:39 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:56:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been there
for
some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world despite
being
a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph above.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
So you are happy to make political points. albeit rubbish, in a situation that
requires some caring.
OK no change then.
A lazy response from the government, possibly costing lives.
A lazy post from you, where the opposition has provided no useful
alternatives, except mindless criticism. What caring we you looking
for, Tony?
Not at all lazy. The government has quite clearly delayed the inevitable for
political reasons.
All they had to do was learn from overseas examples of good and bad decisions
but they did not.
However grudgingly, even you must accept that any government can only act on the very best 'action and application' advice it can get. It then has to distill it, shaping it into policy and execution as quickly as it can while getting it **all** as near to 100% right as it is able. But - note particularly - it can only do this, in accordance with current legislation, current practice and the prevailing facilities, provisions and conditions under which combating a pandemic can be applied in **this** country, certainly not some other. This, note, along with the manifold potential ramifications of making even the smallest fatal decision which might too easily risk turning out to be both self-multiplying and irreversible.
So, sorry old bean but it all takes time.
In fact, there could be no better example of 'He who hesitates is lost' versus 'Look before you leap'. So for me, to date, I think that Ardern's administration has done itself proud.
“New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has demonstrated impressive leadership since taking New Zealand’s top job in responding with empathy to the Christchurch mosque shootings a year ago and the tragedy caused by the eruption of White Island last year. Most recently, Ardern’s decisive leadership was demonstrated with New Zealand becoming the first country to impose harsh restriction on all foreign nationals from entering the country in response to the global COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic."
So with that unequivocal encomium and others like it coming at New Zealand and its prime minister, the world must now surely be gagging to read your high-falutin' countervailing criticisms of Ardern's policy vis-a-vis the current pandemic, strictly, of course, on a like-for-like, quotable fact-for-fact basis. Well you will, won't you?
And while you're at it, why not also provide your own version of 'fair and balanced' by dutifully amassing and correlating those massed legions of international anti-Ardern critics out there who slavishly support you, and kindly point us to them?
What's stopping you, eh?
Well said; sadly 'fair and balanced' is not a characteristic of some
elements of our media:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018739390/media-strive-to-adapt-to-the-new-normal

and some suggestions to spot misinformation:
https://sciblogs.co.nz/guestwork/2020/03/19/how-to-spot-bogus-science-stories-and-read-the-news-like-a-scientist/
Tony
2020-03-22 19:33:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 22:43:39 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:56:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test
positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to
stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are
suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the
restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a
bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's
discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any
other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be
trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures
here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good
enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of
their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been
there
for
some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world despite
being
a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their
preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph above.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
So you are happy to make political points. albeit rubbish, in a situation that
requires some caring.
OK no change then.
A lazy response from the government, possibly costing lives.
A lazy post from you, where the opposition has provided no useful
alternatives, except mindless criticism. What caring we you looking
for, Tony?
Not at all lazy. The government has quite clearly delayed the inevitable for
political reasons.
All they had to do was learn from overseas examples of good and bad decisions
but they did not.
However grudgingly, even you must accept that any government can only act on
the very best 'action and application' advice it can get. It then has to
distill it, shaping it into policy and execution as quickly as it can while
getting it **all** as near to 100% right as it is able. But - note particularly
- it can only do this, in accordance with current legislation, current practice
and the prevailing facilities, provisions and conditions under which combating
a pandemic can be applied in **this** country, certainly not some other. This,
note, along with the manifold potential ramifications of making even the
smallest fatal decision which might too easily risk turning out to be both
self-multiplying and irreversible.
So, sorry old bean but it all takes time.
In fact, there could be no better example of 'He who hesitates is lost'
versus 'Look before you leap'. So for me, to date, I think that Ardern's
administration has done itself proud.
“New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has demonstrated impressive
leadership since taking New Zealand’s top job in responding with empathy to the
Christchurch mosque shootings a year ago and the tragedy caused by the eruption
of White Island last year. Most recently, Ardern’s decisive leadership was
demonstrated with New Zealand becoming the first country to impose harsh
restriction on all foreign nationals from entering the country in response to
the global COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic."
So with that unequivocal encomium and others like it coming at New Zealand
and its prime minister, the world must now surely be gagging to read your
high-falutin' countervailing criticisms of Ardern's policy vis-a-vis the
current pandemic, strictly, of course, on a like-for-like, quotable
fact-for-fact basis. Well you will, won't you?
And while you're at it, why not also provide your own version of 'fair and
balanced' by dutifully amassing and correlating those massed legions of
international anti-Ardern critics out there who slavishly support you, and
kindly point us to them?
What's stopping you, eh?
Well said; sadly 'fair and balanced' is not a characteristic of some
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018739390/media-strive-to-adapt-to-the-new-normal
https://sciblogs.co.nz/guestwork/2020/03/19/how-to-spot-bogus-science-stories-and-read-the-news-like-a-scientist/
Councils doing the correct thing. hundreds of teachers asking for school
closure, hundreds of doctors asking for a lockdown including world renowned
ones and you pontificate about absolute trivia again. No wonder we are in
trouble.
James Christophers
2020-03-22 20:56:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 22:43:39 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:56:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test
positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to
stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are
suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the
restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a
bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's
discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any
other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be
trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures
here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good
enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of
their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been
there
for
some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world
despite
being
a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to
walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of
living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their
preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears
to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph above.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
So you are happy to make political points. albeit rubbish, in a situation that
requires some caring.
OK no change then.
A lazy response from the government, possibly costing lives.
A lazy post from you, where the opposition has provided no useful
alternatives, except mindless criticism. What caring we you looking
for, Tony?
Not at all lazy. The government has quite clearly delayed the inevitable for
political reasons.
All they had to do was learn from overseas examples of good and bad decisions
but they did not.
However grudgingly, even you must accept that any government can only act on
the very best 'action and application' advice it can get. It then has to
distill it, shaping it into policy and execution as quickly as it can while
getting it **all** as near to 100% right as it is able. But - note particularly
- it can only do this, in accordance with current legislation, current practice
and the prevailing facilities, provisions and conditions under which combating
a pandemic can be applied in **this** country, certainly not some other. This,
note, along with the manifold potential ramifications of making even the
smallest fatal decision which might too easily risk turning out to be both
self-multiplying and irreversible.
So, sorry old bean but it all takes time.
In fact, there could be no better example of 'He who hesitates is lost'
versus 'Look before you leap'. So for me, to date, I think that Ardern's
administration has done itself proud.
“New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has demonstrated impressive
leadership since taking New Zealand’s top job in responding with empathy to the
Christchurch mosque shootings a year ago and the tragedy caused by the eruption
of White Island last year. Most recently, Ardern’s decisive leadership was
demonstrated with New Zealand becoming the first country to impose harsh
restriction on all foreign nationals from entering the country in response to
the global COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic."
So with that unequivocal encomium and others like it coming at New Zealand
and its prime minister, the world must now surely be gagging to read your
high-falutin' countervailing criticisms of Ardern's policy vis-a-vis the
current pandemic, strictly, of course, on a like-for-like, quotable
fact-for-fact basis. Well you will, won't you?
And while you're at it, why not also provide your own version of 'fair and
balanced' by dutifully amassing and correlating those massed legions of
international anti-Ardern critics out there who slavishly support you, and
kindly point us to them?
What's stopping you, eh?
Well said; sadly 'fair and balanced' is not a characteristic of some
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018739390/media-strive-to-adapt-to-the-new-normal
https://sciblogs.co.nz/guestwork/2020/03/19/how-to-spot-bogus-science-stories-and-read-the-news-like-a-scientist/
Councils doing the correct thing. hundreds of teachers asking for school
closure, hundreds of doctors asking for a lockdown including world renowned
ones and you pontificate about absolute trivia again. No wonder we are in
trouble.
Wherever and whenever public amenities, utilities and centres of learning etc. are closed, potential knock-on effects must occur. These must be calculated, and within a nicety. Any school is, unarguably, virus heaven; but schools are also every working single-mum's child-care centre. So the risks and consequences of shutting them down need no further elaboration.

All this, then, plus thousands of families already crammed into unfit housing where the chances of setting up a distance-learning environment are pie-in-the-sky.
Tony
2020-03-22 21:11:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 22:43:39 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:56:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans
accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test
positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required
to
stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are
suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the
restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone
with a
bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's
discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any
other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be
trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current
measures
here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good
enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of
their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not
been
there
for
some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world
despite
being
a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to
walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense
level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of
living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far
away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to
see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of
society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their
preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New
Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly
did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for
the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and
appears
to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least
partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and
closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph above.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
So you are happy to make political points. albeit rubbish, in a
situation
that
requires some caring.
OK no change then.
A lazy response from the government, possibly costing lives.
A lazy post from you, where the opposition has provided no useful
alternatives, except mindless criticism. What caring we you looking
for, Tony?
Not at all lazy. The government has quite clearly delayed the inevitable for
political reasons.
All they had to do was learn from overseas examples of good and bad decisions
but they did not.
However grudgingly, even you must accept that any government can only act on
the very best 'action and application' advice it can get. It then has to
distill it, shaping it into policy and execution as quickly as it can while
getting it **all** as near to 100% right as it is able. But - note particularly
- it can only do this, in accordance with current legislation, current practice
and the prevailing facilities, provisions and conditions under which combating
a pandemic can be applied in **this** country, certainly not some other. This,
note, along with the manifold potential ramifications of making even the
smallest fatal decision which might too easily risk turning out to be both
self-multiplying and irreversible.
So, sorry old bean but it all takes time.
In fact, there could be no better example of 'He who hesitates is lost'
versus 'Look before you leap'. So for me, to date, I think that Ardern's
administration has done itself proud.
“New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has demonstrated impressive
leadership since taking New Zealand’s top job in responding with empathy
to the
Christchurch mosque shootings a year ago and the tragedy caused by the eruption
of White Island last year. Most recently, Ardern’s decisive leadership
was
demonstrated with New Zealand becoming the first country to impose harsh
restriction on all foreign nationals from entering the country in response to
the global COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic."
So with that unequivocal encomium and others like it coming at New Zealand
and its prime minister, the world must now surely be gagging to read your
high-falutin' countervailing criticisms of Ardern's policy vis-a-vis the
current pandemic, strictly, of course, on a like-for-like, quotable
fact-for-fact basis. Well you will, won't you?
And while you're at it, why not also provide your own version of 'fair and
balanced' by dutifully amassing and correlating those massed legions of
international anti-Ardern critics out there who slavishly support you, and
kindly point us to them?
What's stopping you, eh?
Well said; sadly 'fair and balanced' is not a characteristic of some
Post by James Christophers
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018739390/media-strive-to-adapt-to-the-new-normal
https://sciblogs.co.nz/guestwork/2020/03/19/how-to-spot-bogus-science-stories-and-read-the-news-like-a-scientist/
Councils doing the correct thing. hundreds of teachers asking for school
closure, hundreds of doctors asking for a lockdown including world renowned
ones and you pontificate about absolute trivia again. No wonder we are in
trouble.
Wherever and whenever public amenities, utilities and centres of learning etc.
are closed, potential knock-on effects must occur. These must be calculated,
and within a nicety. Any school is, unarguably, virus heaven; but schools are
also every working single-mum's child-care centre. So the risks and
consequences of shutting them down need no further elaboration.
All this, then, plus thousands of families already crammed into unfit housing
where the chances of setting up a distance-learning environment are
pie-in-the-sky.
Ah, so let them all die eh? That is your message - we must learn from the
mistakes made in Italy and the UK - we refuse to do that at our peril.
Crash
2020-03-22 21:45:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 13:56:22 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 22:43:39 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:56:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test
positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to
stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are
suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the
restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a
bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's
discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any
other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be
trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures
here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good
enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of
their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been
there
for
some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world
despite
being
a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to
walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of
living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their
preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears
to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph above.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
So you are happy to make political points. albeit rubbish, in a situation
that
requires some caring.
OK no change then.
A lazy response from the government, possibly costing lives.
A lazy post from you, where the opposition has provided no useful
alternatives, except mindless criticism. What caring we you looking
for, Tony?
Not at all lazy. The government has quite clearly delayed the inevitable for
political reasons.
All they had to do was learn from overseas examples of good and bad decisions
but they did not.
However grudgingly, even you must accept that any government can only act on
the very best 'action and application' advice it can get. It then has to
distill it, shaping it into policy and execution as quickly as it can while
getting it **all** as near to 100% right as it is able. But - note particularly
- it can only do this, in accordance with current legislation, current practice
and the prevailing facilities, provisions and conditions under which combating
a pandemic can be applied in **this** country, certainly not some other. This,
note, along with the manifold potential ramifications of making even the
smallest fatal decision which might too easily risk turning out to be both
self-multiplying and irreversible.
So, sorry old bean but it all takes time.
In fact, there could be no better example of 'He who hesitates is lost'
versus 'Look before you leap'. So for me, to date, I think that Ardern's
administration has done itself proud.
“New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has demonstrated impressive
leadership since taking New Zealand’s top job in responding with empathy to the
Christchurch mosque shootings a year ago and the tragedy caused by the eruption
of White Island last year. Most recently, Ardern’s decisive leadership was
demonstrated with New Zealand becoming the first country to impose harsh
restriction on all foreign nationals from entering the country in response to
the global COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic."
So with that unequivocal encomium and others like it coming at New Zealand
and its prime minister, the world must now surely be gagging to read your
high-falutin' countervailing criticisms of Ardern's policy vis-a-vis the
current pandemic, strictly, of course, on a like-for-like, quotable
fact-for-fact basis. Well you will, won't you?
And while you're at it, why not also provide your own version of 'fair and
balanced' by dutifully amassing and correlating those massed legions of
international anti-Ardern critics out there who slavishly support you, and
kindly point us to them?
What's stopping you, eh?
Well said; sadly 'fair and balanced' is not a characteristic of some
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018739390/media-strive-to-adapt-to-the-new-normal
https://sciblogs.co.nz/guestwork/2020/03/19/how-to-spot-bogus-science-stories-and-read-the-news-like-a-scientist/
Councils doing the correct thing. hundreds of teachers asking for school
closure, hundreds of doctors asking for a lockdown including world renowned
ones and you pontificate about absolute trivia again. No wonder we are in
trouble.
Wherever and whenever public amenities, utilities and centres of learning etc. are closed, potential knock-on effects
must occur. These must be calculated, and within a nicety. Any school is, unarguably, virus heaven; but schools are
also every working single-mum's child-care centre. So the risks and consequences of shutting them down need no
further elaboration.
Correct, so long as we avoid a 'national shutdown'. Shutdowns should
occur but only in those areas where a credible risk of COVID-19 being
present or close by. As things stand, these measures may be justified
in Auckland, Wellington, Hamilton, and various places in various
regions with confirmed or a high number of suspected cases..

I live in a small town in Northland. There is one case in the region,
no way of knowing whether they are in Whangarei, Kaitaia, Kaikohe,
Kerikeri, Paihia, Russell, Opononi etc.. Wherever they live may be
justified to impose blanket shutdowns but other locations should be
able to operate normally until local conditions dictate otherwise.
Post by James Christophers
All this, then, plus thousands of families already crammed into unfit housing where the chances of setting up a
distance-learning environment are pie-in-the-sky.
There are a myriad of hurdles to distance-learning and high-density
housing is just one of many. Nothing new here.


--
Crash McBash
James Christophers
2020-03-22 23:04:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 13:56:22 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 22:43:39 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:56:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test
positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to
stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are
suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the
restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a
bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's
discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any
other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be
trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures
here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good
enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of
their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been
there
for
some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world
despite
being
a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to
walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of
living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their
preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears
to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph above.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
So you are happy to make political points. albeit rubbish, in a situation
that
requires some caring.
OK no change then.
A lazy response from the government, possibly costing lives.
A lazy post from you, where the opposition has provided no useful
alternatives, except mindless criticism. What caring we you looking
for, Tony?
Not at all lazy. The government has quite clearly delayed the inevitable for
political reasons.
All they had to do was learn from overseas examples of good and bad decisions
but they did not.
However grudgingly, even you must accept that any government can only act on
the very best 'action and application' advice it can get. It then has to
distill it, shaping it into policy and execution as quickly as it can while
getting it **all** as near to 100% right as it is able. But - note particularly
- it can only do this, in accordance with current legislation, current practice
and the prevailing facilities, provisions and conditions under which combating
a pandemic can be applied in **this** country, certainly not some other. This,
note, along with the manifold potential ramifications of making even the
smallest fatal decision which might too easily risk turning out to be both
self-multiplying and irreversible.
So, sorry old bean but it all takes time.
In fact, there could be no better example of 'He who hesitates is lost'
versus 'Look before you leap'. So for me, to date, I think that Ardern's
administration has done itself proud.
“New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has demonstrated impressive
leadership since taking New Zealand’s top job in responding with empathy to the
Christchurch mosque shootings a year ago and the tragedy caused by the eruption
of White Island last year. Most recently, Ardern’s decisive leadership was
demonstrated with New Zealand becoming the first country to impose harsh
restriction on all foreign nationals from entering the country in response to
the global COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic."
So with that unequivocal encomium and others like it coming at New Zealand
and its prime minister, the world must now surely be gagging to read your
high-falutin' countervailing criticisms of Ardern's policy vis-a-vis the
current pandemic, strictly, of course, on a like-for-like, quotable
fact-for-fact basis. Well you will, won't you?
And while you're at it, why not also provide your own version of 'fair and
balanced' by dutifully amassing and correlating those massed legions of
international anti-Ardern critics out there who slavishly support you, and
kindly point us to them?
What's stopping you, eh?
Well said; sadly 'fair and balanced' is not a characteristic of some
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018739390/media-strive-to-adapt-to-the-new-normal
https://sciblogs.co.nz/guestwork/2020/03/19/how-to-spot-bogus-science-stories-and-read-the-news-like-a-scientist/
Councils doing the correct thing. hundreds of teachers asking for school
closure, hundreds of doctors asking for a lockdown including world renowned
ones and you pontificate about absolute trivia again. No wonder we are in
trouble.
Wherever and whenever public amenities, utilities and centres of learning etc. are closed, potential knock-on effects
must occur. These must be calculated, and within a nicety. Any school is, unarguably, virus heaven; but schools are
also every working single-mum's child-care centre. So the risks and consequences of shutting them down need no
further elaboration.
Correct, so long as we avoid a 'national shutdown'. Shutdowns should
occur but only in those areas where a credible risk of COVID-19 being
present or close by. As things stand, these measures may be justified
in Auckland, Wellington, Hamilton, and various places in various
regions with confirmed or a high number of suspected cases..
All UK schools are now closed - this reflecting the extent of the virus having so far outwitted attempts to contain it. The UK's infection rate is now virtually asymptotic to infinity while, to the impotent horror of the local residents, coastal towns and holiday resorts are being infested by thousands of now-unemployed day-trippers for whom random, uncontrolled cross-infection seems to be the last thing on their minds.

Social mayhem, some might say:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/index.html
Post by Crash
I live in a small town in Northland. There is one case in the region,
no way of knowing whether they are in Whangarei, Kaitaia, Kaikohe,
Kerikeri, Paihia, Russell, Opononi etc.. Wherever they live may be
justified to impose blanket shutdowns but other locations should be
able to operate normally until local conditions dictate otherwise.
Here, there are recently reported indications that infection has now begun breaking out from the isolated single-and-local to the community-and-general. This is where considerations of nationwide lockouts and lock-downs enter into the equation...
Post by Crash
Post by James Christophers
All this, then, plus thousands of families already crammed into unfit housing where the chances of setting up a
distance-learning environment are pie-in-the-sky.
There are a myriad of hurdles to distance-learning and high-density
housing is just one of many. Nothing new here.
Yet it's all part of a now-intractable mix where in which there are irreducible parallels with Newton's Third Law of Motion.

Now add Orr's just announced introduction of $30 million of govt bond-buying (i.e. "Quantitative Easing", that weasel term that simply means magicked-up printed-paper), to inject debt-liquidity into the economy via the retail banking sector so as to keep those supermarket tills chiming up and down the country...

So it's down that same well-trodden rocky road we go to end up...mmmm...where, exactly..?

Luckily, core Crown debt is currently below 20% of GDP and our overseas credit is still good so there's wiggle-room to be had...

...for now...

We do our best but, for now, all bets are off...
JohnO
2020-03-23 00:16:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"The UK's infection rate is now virtually asymptotic to infinity"

Heh! You may want to reflect on the mathematical fallacy there.
James Christophers
2020-03-23 00:37:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JohnO
"The UK's infection rate is now virtually asymptotic to infinity"
Heh! You may want to reflect on the mathematical fallacy there.
Not really - the intention is to liken by allusion.
JohnO
2020-03-24 05:40:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
"The UK's infection rate is now virtually asymptotic to infinity"
Heh! You may want to reflect on the mathematical fallacy there.
Not really - the intention is to liken by allusion.
Yes, really. Infection rate is capped at 100% so "asymptotic to infinity" is mathematically nonsense.
James Christophers
2020-03-24 22:16:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
"The UK's infection rate is now virtually asymptotic to infinity"
Heh! You may want to reflect on the mathematical fallacy there.
Not really - the intention is to liken by allusion.
Yes, really. Infection rate is capped at 100% so "asymptotic to infinity" is mathematically nonsense.
Of course. Mathematically. I suppose one could say much the same about, say, 'stratospheric' and its only too common usage, and there's nothing like a misplaced inexactitude to stir the pedant's turgid juices into life, is there?

But reflecting for a moment: with 'criteria' having almost completely displaced 'criterion' in everyday speech, it was cheering to hear an RNZ reporter the other day delivering to air, "There are many criterions (sic) that will affect the outcome..."

Now, if only she could have topped it off with, "And, by the way, that's criterions with a greengrocer's apostrophe"!

Even so, one must not permit such things to mitigate against linguistic progress since there's not a huge amount - aaarrghhhh! - of anything in any way, shape or form - AAArrghhhh! - one can do about it, is there?
Gordon
2020-03-25 04:03:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
"The UK's infection rate is now virtually asymptotic to infinity"
Heh! You may want to reflect on the mathematical fallacy there.
Not really - the intention is to liken by allusion.
Yes, really. Infection rate is capped at 100% so "asymptotic to infinity" is mathematically nonsense.
Of course. Mathematically. I suppose one could say much the same about, say, 'stratospheric' and its only too common usage, and there's nothing like a misplaced inexactitude to stir the pedant's turgid juices into life, is there?
But reflecting for a moment: with 'criteria' having almost completely displaced 'criterion' in everyday speech, it was cheering to hear an RNZ reporter the other day delivering to air, "There are many criterions (sic) that will affect the outcome..."
Now, if only she could have topped it off with, "And, by the way, that's criterions with a greengrocer's apostrophe"!
Even so, one must not permit such things to mitigate against linguistic progress since there's not a huge amount - aaarrghhhh! - of anything in any way, shape or form - AAArrghhhh! - one can do about it, is there?
James, are you feeling okay?
James Christophers
2020-03-25 21:12:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
"The UK's infection rate is now virtually asymptotic to infinity"
Heh! You may want to reflect on the mathematical fallacy there.
Not really - the intention is to liken by allusion.
Yes, really. Infection rate is capped at 100% so "asymptotic to infinity" is mathematically nonsense.
Of course. Mathematically. I suppose one could say much the same about, say, 'stratospheric' and its only too common usage, and there's nothing like a misplaced inexactitude to stir the pedant's turgid juices into life, is there?
But reflecting for a moment: with 'criteria' having almost completely displaced 'criterion' in everyday speech, it was cheering to hear an RNZ reporter the other day delivering to air, "There are many criterions (sic) that will affect the outcome..."
Now, if only she could have topped it off with, "And, by the way, that's criterions with a greengrocer's apostrophe"!
Even so, one must not permit such things to mitigate against linguistic progress since there's not a huge amount - aaarrghhhh! - of anything in any way, shape or form - AAArrghhhh! - one can do about it, is there?
James, are you feeling okay?
I thank you kindly, Gordon, Fact is, I've never felt better!

So may I suggest your concerns might be better addressed to TonyUnk and his extraordinary meltdown in this his own thread, date-stamped 24 Mar 4.54 UTC?

To lose the plot in someone else's thread is bad enough; but to completely lose it during a discourse you yourself have introduced but, as ever, have failed to develop in any meaningful way, marks a man with a compulsion to render his own cognitive condition open to question.
Tony
2020-03-25 21:40:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Gordon
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
"The UK's infection rate is now virtually asymptotic to infinity"
Heh! You may want to reflect on the mathematical fallacy there.
Not really - the intention is to liken by allusion.
Yes, really. Infection rate is capped at 100% so "asymptotic to infinity"
is mathematically nonsense.
Of course. Mathematically. I suppose one could say much the same about,
say, 'stratospheric' and its only too common usage, and there's nothing like a
misplaced inexactitude to stir the pedant's turgid juices into life, is there?
But reflecting for a moment: with 'criteria' having almost completely
displaced 'criterion' in everyday speech, it was cheering to hear an RNZ
reporter the other day delivering to air, "There are many criterions (sic) that
will affect the outcome..."
Now, if only she could have topped it off with, "And, by the way, that's
criterions with a greengrocer's apostrophe"!
Even so, one must not permit such things to mitigate against linguistic
progress since there's not a huge amount - aaarrghhhh! - of anything in any
way, shape or form - AAArrghhhh! - one can do about it, is there?
James, are you feeling okay?
I thank you kindly, Gordon, Fact is, I've never felt better!
So may I suggest your concerns might be better addressed to TonyUnk and his
extraordinary meltdown in this his own thread, date-stamped 24 Mar 4.54 UTC?
To lose the plot in someone else's thread is bad enough; but to completely
lose it during a discourse you yourself have introduced but, as ever, have
failed to develop in any meaningful way, marks a man with a compulsion to
render his own cognitive condition open to question.
Has your dementia been diagnosed? Time you got a check up.
Rich80105
2020-03-26 01:31:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:40:46 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Gordon
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
"The UK's infection rate is now virtually asymptotic to infinity"
Heh! You may want to reflect on the mathematical fallacy there.
Not really - the intention is to liken by allusion.
Yes, really. Infection rate is capped at 100% so "asymptotic to infinity"
is mathematically nonsense.
Of course. Mathematically. I suppose one could say much the same about,
say, 'stratospheric' and its only too common usage, and there's nothing like a
misplaced inexactitude to stir the pedant's turgid juices into life, is there?
But reflecting for a moment: with 'criteria' having almost completely
displaced 'criterion' in everyday speech, it was cheering to hear an RNZ
reporter the other day delivering to air, "There are many criterions (sic) that
will affect the outcome..."
Now, if only she could have topped it off with, "And, by the way, that's
criterions with a greengrocer's apostrophe"!
Even so, one must not permit such things to mitigate against linguistic
progress since there's not a huge amount - aaarrghhhh! - of anything in any
way, shape or form - AAArrghhhh! - one can do about it, is there?
James, are you feeling okay?
I thank you kindly, Gordon, Fact is, I've never felt better!
So may I suggest your concerns might be better addressed to TonyUnk and his
extraordinary meltdown in this his own thread, date-stamped 24 Mar 4.54 UTC?
To lose the plot in someone else's thread is bad enough; but to completely
lose it during a discourse you yourself have introduced but, as ever, have
failed to develop in any meaningful way, marks a man with a compulsion to
render his own cognitive condition open to question.
Has your dementia been diagnosed? Time you got a check up.
I am not surprised you are trying to forget, Tony, but to remind you
the post referred to is probably this:
________
">Still if you do not believe your posts are valid I wil not argue
with
Post by Tony
you; after all as you are prone to say it is just an opinion . . .
Actually I have never ever said that - and you cannot find a quote. So
you are lying still.
Well there you, are proof of your guilt finally.
From Rich "I will always use sarcasm instead of facts" and Keith
"Never use 3 words when 30 superfluous ones will do" Warren aka "James
Christophers" as you very well know.
Clearly I was wrong to suggest that you both self flagellate, the
truth is probably even more gross. You are absolute trash - you both
put politics ahead of this country's people, you both put your
stupidity up as a banner in front of the world as if it was of some
value and your bitter contempt for ordinary people and envy of
successful ones is legendary. You deserve each other."
——————————————

Certainly there appears no reason to think that either James
Christophers or you Tony are suffering from dementia,but clearly you
are having a problem in responding in a reasoned way to many posts on
nz.general. This is however not a consistent feature of your posts,
and I am confident that you are capable of returning to a more
reasoned poster.
Tony
2020-03-26 02:25:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:40:46 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Gordon
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
"The UK's infection rate is now virtually asymptotic to infinity"
Heh! You may want to reflect on the mathematical fallacy there.
Not really - the intention is to liken by allusion.
Yes, really. Infection rate is capped at 100% so "asymptotic to infinity"
is mathematically nonsense.
Of course. Mathematically. I suppose one could say much the same about,
say, 'stratospheric' and its only too common usage, and there's nothing like a
misplaced inexactitude to stir the pedant's turgid juices into life, is there?
But reflecting for a moment: with 'criteria' having almost completely
displaced 'criterion' in everyday speech, it was cheering to hear an RNZ
reporter the other day delivering to air, "There are many criterions (sic) that
will affect the outcome..."
Now, if only she could have topped it off with, "And, by the way, that's
criterions with a greengrocer's apostrophe"!
Even so, one must not permit such things to mitigate against linguistic
progress since there's not a huge amount - aaarrghhhh! - of anything in any
way, shape or form - AAArrghhhh! - one can do about it, is there?
James, are you feeling okay?
I thank you kindly, Gordon, Fact is, I've never felt better!
So may I suggest your concerns might be better addressed to TonyUnk and his
extraordinary meltdown in this his own thread, date-stamped 24 Mar 4.54 UTC?
To lose the plot in someone else's thread is bad enough; but to completely
lose it during a discourse you yourself have introduced but, as ever, have
failed to develop in any meaningful way, marks a man with a compulsion to
render his own cognitive condition open to question.
Has your dementia been diagnosed? Time you got a check up.
I am not surprised you are trying to forget, Tony, but to remind you
________
">Still if you do not believe your posts are valid I wil not argue
with
Post by Tony
you; after all as you are prone to say it is just an opinion . . .
Actually I have never ever said that - and you cannot find a quote. So
you are lying still.
Well there you, are proof of your guilt finally.
From Rich "I will always use sarcasm instead of facts" and Keith
"Never use 3 words when 30 superfluous ones will do" Warren aka "James
Christophers" as you very well know.
Clearly I was wrong to suggest that you both self flagellate, the
truth is probably even more gross. You are absolute trash - you both
put politics ahead of this country's people, you both put your
stupidity up as a banner in front of the world as if it was of some
value and your bitter contempt for ordinary people and envy of
successful ones is legendary. You deserve each other."
——————————————
Certainly there appears no reason to think that either James
Christophers or you Tony are suffering from dementia,but clearly you
are having a problem in responding in a reasoned way to many posts on
nz.general. This is however not a consistent feature of your posts,
and I am confident that you are capable of returning to a more
reasoned poster.
Don't be so silly.
Neither you or Mr. Warren are capable of reasoned interface with me and indeed
with most posters here.
The history is clear.
As I made celar (thank you for repeating it) -
You first of all retreat into sarcasm and when that fails you make things up -
the evidence is overwhelming. And when that fails you become abusive as in this
post where you have used all three cowardly attempts to extract yourself from
your pitiable behaviour.
Mr. Warren on the other hand is simply a low life. his only reason for
existance is to ridicule anybody who disagrees with him and he does so in a
particularly inane and childish way.
An excellent example of you and his silliness was last Monday when I posted in
this newsgroup how I believed we should lock down this country, but no you both
immediately reverted to type and became derisive.
Then a few hours later the government did exactly what I had hoped for.
Get a life and join Mr. Warren in his self imposed imaginary life (think about
it!).
Neither of you care about the people of this country and both of you would be
delighted to see our democracy in tatters - shame on you both.
Rich80105
2020-03-26 03:50:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 21:25:35 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:40:46 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Gordon
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
"The UK's infection rate is now virtually asymptotic to infinity"
Heh! You may want to reflect on the mathematical fallacy there.
Not really - the intention is to liken by allusion.
Yes, really. Infection rate is capped at 100% so "asymptotic to infinity"
is mathematically nonsense.
Of course. Mathematically. I suppose one could say much the same about,
say, 'stratospheric' and its only too common usage, and there's nothing like a
misplaced inexactitude to stir the pedant's turgid juices into life, is there?
But reflecting for a moment: with 'criteria' having almost completely
displaced 'criterion' in everyday speech, it was cheering to hear an RNZ
reporter the other day delivering to air, "There are many criterions (sic) that
will affect the outcome..."
Now, if only she could have topped it off with, "And, by the way, that's
criterions with a greengrocer's apostrophe"!
Even so, one must not permit such things to mitigate against linguistic
progress since there's not a huge amount - aaarrghhhh! - of anything in any
way, shape or form - AAArrghhhh! - one can do about it, is there?
James, are you feeling okay?
I thank you kindly, Gordon, Fact is, I've never felt better!
So may I suggest your concerns might be better addressed to TonyUnk and his
extraordinary meltdown in this his own thread, date-stamped 24 Mar 4.54 UTC?
To lose the plot in someone else's thread is bad enough; but to completely
lose it during a discourse you yourself have introduced but, as ever, have
failed to develop in any meaningful way, marks a man with a compulsion to
render his own cognitive condition open to question.
Has your dementia been diagnosed? Time you got a check up.
I am not surprised you are trying to forget, Tony, but to remind you
________
">Still if you do not believe your posts are valid I wil not argue
with
Post by Tony
you; after all as you are prone to say it is just an opinion . . .
Actually I have never ever said that - and you cannot find a quote. So
you are lying still.
Well there you, are proof of your guilt finally.
From Rich "I will always use sarcasm instead of facts" and Keith
"Never use 3 words when 30 superfluous ones will do" Warren aka "James
Christophers" as you very well know.
Clearly I was wrong to suggest that you both self flagellate, the
truth is probably even more gross. You are absolute trash - you both
put politics ahead of this country's people, you both put your
stupidity up as a banner in front of the world as if it was of some
value and your bitter contempt for ordinary people and envy of
successful ones is legendary. You deserve each other."
——————————————
Certainly there appears no reason to think that either James
Christophers or you Tony are suffering from dementia,but clearly you
are having a problem in responding in a reasoned way to many posts on
nz.general. This is however not a consistent feature of your posts,
and I am confident that you are capable of returning to a more
reasoned poster.
Don't be so silly.
Neither you or Mr. Warren are capable of reasoned interface with me and indeed
with most posters here.
The history is clear.
As I made celar (thank you for repeating it) -
You first of all retreat into sarcasm and when that fails you make things up -
the evidence is overwhelming. And when that fails you become abusive as in this
post where you have used all three cowardly attempts to extract yourself from
your pitiable behaviour.
Mr. Warren on the other hand is simply a low life. his only reason for
existance is to ridicule anybody who disagrees with him and he does so in a
particularly inane and childish way.
An excellent example of you and his silliness was last Monday when I posted in
this newsgroup how I believed we should lock down this country, but no you both
immediately reverted to type and became derisive.
No I did not. I acknowledged that even experts had different views on
timing, but that there was considerable consensus. But you claimed
that the government were delaying decisions for partisan political
purposes, which I said there was no evidence for.

The reality is that since last Monday, it has been clear that a
timetable with stages was needed to enable movement around the country
to be limited, but also to enable some to move; knowing that a
lockdown was coming. For example universities had been planning for
ceasing lectures the previous week, and practicing ''distance
learning'' - following the announcments on the Monday, many students
returned home, which has now given us university hostels now avaiabe
for other purposes if required.

I believe that you were merely consumed by your partisan bitterness
and were attributing your own prejudices on the process - you never
had proof of decisions being delayed for political purposes, and still
don't, but you could not see past your own opinions to the reality of
a lack of any support for your assertion.

Not everything had been anticipate of course - the need for additional
time for people travelling across Cook Strait had not been
anticipated, but the speed of decisions, and the coverage of arising
issues, remains a good example of teamwork, preparedness by the
professionals advising government, and a skillfully crafted
communications programme. It is clear that all were waiting until
there was some community spread before the closure decision was
announced; those who thought about it were not surprised when the two
cases which could not be tracked triggered the response.

Your mistrust of government has been consistent, Tony, but it has at
times blinded you to reality - this is an example of that blindness.
Post by Tony
Then a few hours later the government did exactly what I had hoped for.
Get a life and join Mr. Warren in his self imposed imaginary life (think about
it!).
Neither of you care about the people of this country and both of you would be
delighted to see our democracy in tatters - shame on you both.
Tony
2020-03-26 04:18:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 21:25:35 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:40:46 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Gordon
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
"The UK's infection rate is now virtually asymptotic to infinity"
Heh! You may want to reflect on the mathematical fallacy there.
Not really - the intention is to liken by allusion.
Yes, really. Infection rate is capped at 100% so "asymptotic to infinity"
is mathematically nonsense.
Of course. Mathematically. I suppose one could say much the same about,
say, 'stratospheric' and its only too common usage, and there's nothing like a
misplaced inexactitude to stir the pedant's turgid juices into life, is there?
But reflecting for a moment: with 'criteria' having almost completely
displaced 'criterion' in everyday speech, it was cheering to hear an RNZ
reporter the other day delivering to air, "There are many criterions (sic) that
will affect the outcome..."
Now, if only she could have topped it off with, "And, by the way, that's
criterions with a greengrocer's apostrophe"!
Even so, one must not permit such things to mitigate against linguistic
progress since there's not a huge amount - aaarrghhhh! - of anything in any
way, shape or form - AAArrghhhh! - one can do about it, is there?
James, are you feeling okay?
I thank you kindly, Gordon, Fact is, I've never felt better!
So may I suggest your concerns might be better addressed to TonyUnk and his
extraordinary meltdown in this his own thread, date-stamped 24 Mar 4.54 UTC?
To lose the plot in someone else's thread is bad enough; but to completely
lose it during a discourse you yourself have introduced but, as ever, have
failed to develop in any meaningful way, marks a man with a compulsion to
render his own cognitive condition open to question.
Has your dementia been diagnosed? Time you got a check up.
I am not surprised you are trying to forget, Tony, but to remind you
________
">Still if you do not believe your posts are valid I wil not argue
with
Post by Tony
you; after all as you are prone to say it is just an opinion . . .
Actually I have never ever said that - and you cannot find a quote. So
you are lying still.
Well there you, are proof of your guilt finally.
From Rich "I will always use sarcasm instead of facts" and Keith
"Never use 3 words when 30 superfluous ones will do" Warren aka "James
Christophers" as you very well know.
Clearly I was wrong to suggest that you both self flagellate, the
truth is probably even more gross. You are absolute trash - you both
put politics ahead of this country's people, you both put your
stupidity up as a banner in front of the world as if it was of some
value and your bitter contempt for ordinary people and envy of
successful ones is legendary. You deserve each other."
——————————————
Certainly there appears no reason to think that either James
Christophers or you Tony are suffering from dementia,but clearly you
are having a problem in responding in a reasoned way to many posts on
nz.general. This is however not a consistent feature of your posts,
and I am confident that you are capable of returning to a more
reasoned poster.
Don't be so silly.
Neither you or Mr. Warren are capable of reasoned interface with me and indeed
with most posters here.
The history is clear.
As I made celar (thank you for repeating it) -
You first of all retreat into sarcasm and when that fails you make things up -
the evidence is overwhelming. And when that fails you become abusive as in this
post where you have used all three cowardly attempts to extract yourself from
your pitiable behaviour.
Mr. Warren on the other hand is simply a low life. his only reason for
existance is to ridicule anybody who disagrees with him and he does so in a
particularly inane and childish way.
An excellent example of you and his silliness was last Monday when I posted in
this newsgroup how I believed we should lock down this country, but no you both
immediately reverted to type and became derisive.
No I did not. I acknowledged that even experts had different views on
timing, but that there was considerable consensus. But you claimed
that the government were delaying decisions for partisan political
purposes, which I said there was no evidence for.
The reality is that since last Monday, it has been clear that a
timetable with stages was needed to enable movement around the country
to be limited, but also to enable some to move; knowing that a
lockdown was coming. For example universities had been planning for
ceasing lectures the previous week, and practicing ''distance
learning'' - following the announcments on the Monday, many students
returned home, which has now given us university hostels now avaiabe
for other purposes if required.
I believe that you were merely consumed by your partisan bitterness
and were attributing your own prejudices on the process - you never
had proof of decisions being delayed for political purposes, and still
don't, but you could not see past your own opinions to the reality of
a lack of any support for your assertion.
Not everything had been anticipate of course - the need for additional
time for people travelling across Cook Strait had not been
anticipated, but the speed of decisions, and the coverage of arising
issues, remains a good example of teamwork, preparedness by the
professionals advising government, and a skillfully crafted
communications programme. It is clear that all were waiting until
there was some community spread before the closure decision was
announced; those who thought about it were not surprised when the two
cases which could not be tracked triggered the response.
Your mistrust of government has been consistent, Tony, but it has at
times blinded you to reality - this is an example of that blindness.
If you really believe any of that shit then you are quilty as charged. You do
not care about the people of this country, the only thing you care about is
stupid poltical rhetoric. You have proven that here and no doubt elsewhere.
What I wrote is 100% accurate and your attempts to change that reality is
absurd.
Go away little man and enjoy your dotage.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Then a few hours later the government did exactly what I had hoped for.
Get a life and join Mr. Warren in his self imposed imaginary life (think about
it!).
Neither of you care about the people of this country and both of you would be
delighted to see our democracy in tatters - shame on you both.
George
2020-03-26 19:14:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 21:25:35 -0500
Post by Tony
Don't be so silly.
Neither you or Mr. Warren are capable of reasoned interface with me
and indeed with most posters here.
The history is clear.
As I made celar (thank you for repeating it) -
You first of all retreat into sarcasm and when that fails you make
things up - the evidence is overwhelming. And when that fails you
become abusive as in this post where you have used all three cowardly
attempts to extract yourself from your pitiable behaviour.
Mr. Warren on the other hand is simply a low life. his only reason
for existance is to ridicule anybody who disagrees with him and he
does so in a particularly inane and childish way.
An excellent example of you and his silliness was last Monday when I
posted in this newsgroup how I believed we should lock down this
country, but no you both immediately reverted to type and became
derisive. Then a few hours later the government did exactly what I
had hoped for. Get a life and join Mr. Warren in his self imposed
imaginary life (think about it!).
Neither of you care about the people of this country and both of you
would be delighted to see our democracy in tatters - shame on you
both.
The only problem I have with the shutdown is
Who decrees when it ends?
And with police patrolling and questioning any and all.
At what stage do we find that there are certain places to go and
any-one straying is taken in for questioning. (already happening)
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Tony
2020-03-26 20:16:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 21:25:35 -0500
Post by Tony
Don't be so silly.
Neither you or Mr. Warren are capable of reasoned interface with me
and indeed with most posters here.
The history is clear.
As I made celar (thank you for repeating it) -
You first of all retreat into sarcasm and when that fails you make
things up - the evidence is overwhelming. And when that fails you
become abusive as in this post where you have used all three cowardly
attempts to extract yourself from your pitiable behaviour.
Mr. Warren on the other hand is simply a low life. his only reason
for existance is to ridicule anybody who disagrees with him and he
does so in a particularly inane and childish way.
An excellent example of you and his silliness was last Monday when I
posted in this newsgroup how I believed we should lock down this
country, but no you both immediately reverted to type and became
derisive. Then a few hours later the government did exactly what I
had hoped for. Get a life and join Mr. Warren in his self imposed
imaginary life (think about it!).
Neither of you care about the people of this country and both of you
would be delighted to see our democracy in tatters - shame on you
both.
The only problem I have with the shutdown is
Who decrees when it ends?
And with police patrolling and questioning any and all.
At what stage do we find that there are certain places to go and
any-one straying is taken in for questioning. (already happening)
You are not alone, we need to be vigilant - but the alternative would see
thousands of deaths - so for the moment waiting watching and behaving properly.
John Bowes
2020-03-26 23:38:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 21:25:35 -0500
Post by Tony
Don't be so silly.
Neither you or Mr. Warren are capable of reasoned interface with me
and indeed with most posters here.
The history is clear.
As I made celar (thank you for repeating it) -
You first of all retreat into sarcasm and when that fails you make
things up - the evidence is overwhelming. And when that fails you
become abusive as in this post where you have used all three cowardly
attempts to extract yourself from your pitiable behaviour.
Mr. Warren on the other hand is simply a low life. his only reason
for existance is to ridicule anybody who disagrees with him and he
does so in a particularly inane and childish way.
An excellent example of you and his silliness was last Monday when I
posted in this newsgroup how I believed we should lock down this
country, but no you both immediately reverted to type and became
derisive. Then a few hours later the government did exactly what I
had hoped for. Get a life and join Mr. Warren in his self imposed
imaginary life (think about it!).
Neither of you care about the people of this country and both of you
would be delighted to see our democracy in tatters - shame on you
both.
The only problem I have with the shutdown is
Who decrees when it ends?
And with police patrolling and questioning any and all.
At what stage do we find that there are certain places to go and
any-one straying is taken in for questioning. (already happening)
You are not alone, we need to be vigilant - but the alternative would see
thousands of deaths - so for the moment waiting watching and behaving properly.
Even though I'm a firm believer in freedom in the current situation repressing certain of them makes good sense. the only problem I've had with the lockdown is the government were a week late (at least) in doing the sensible thing.

Richie's blind support of the government is typical of the comprehensionless fool!
Rich80105
2020-03-26 23:17:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
The only problem I have with the shutdown is
Who decrees when it ends?
And with police patrolling and questioning any and all.
At what stage do we find that there are certain places to go and
any-one straying is taken in for questioning. (already happening)
We didn't get much notice for going into lockdown, but it was
signalled in time for urgent actions before we went into stage 4. The
rationale for coming out are still not clear, but restrictions in
Chimna are being relaxed already; it will depend on how well we stop
new infections will largely determine when it is lifted; I expect it
will be longer again before people come into the country without
testing. We know there will be no change for at least 10 days, and
more likely longer, but it will be determined by the science rather
than the whim of any single politician.

The rules around straying are still being worked through, but are
based on the need to keep people isolated in their "bubble" as far as
possible :
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/26-03-2020/siouxsie-wiles-toby-morris-youre-waking-up-in-lockdown-nz-heres-how-it-works/
(there are quite a few other good articles about Covid-19 on that site
as well.

I have not been to a supermarket since last Monday; there are 5
supermarkets fairly close, but I'd prefer not to wait too long in a
queue; and deliveries are booked up for quite a long time.

There are risks with driving too far - nobody wants to have to deal
with breakdowns too far from home, but it seems what you may get
stopped by police for is getting clearer:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12320218

I will probably go to my closest supermarket in another week, but I
suspect police will be symathetic where a family is delivering a child
under joint custody to the other parent provided it is reasonably
close - a drive to another city may be undesirable.

In effect if it is not essential to travel, people shouldn't; and
doing what you shouldn't can lead to prosecution, but it does seem
that the basic rules are coming as a surprise to quite a few people .
. . . which is why police are mostly giving warnings
Gordon
2020-03-27 04:16:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
The only problem I have with the shutdown is
Who decrees when it ends?
And with police patrolling and questioning any and all.
At what stage do we find that there are certain places to go and
any-one straying is taken in for questioning. (already happening)
We didn't get much notice for going into lockdown, but it was
signalled in time for urgent actions before we went into stage 4.
1) I think that 30 plus hours was about right. The public was ready to go
home as they knew things were about to get alot worse if they did not.

2) Rockets have stages, pehaps also covid19 but the response has levels.

The
Post by Rich80105
rationale for coming out are still not clear, but restrictions in
Chimna are being relaxed already; it will depend on how well we stop
new infections will largely determine when it is lifted;
Do not expect the lifting to be very high, nor last long before we have to
go into hiding again. (level 4). Covid is amongst us and is here to stay. At
present we are like the native people who have had their country overun by
colonynisers and the new diseases they brought.
Post by Rich80105
The rules around straying are still being worked through, but are
based on the need to keep people isolated in their "bubble" as far as
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/26-03-2020/siouxsie-wiles-toby-morris-youre-waking-up-in-lockdown-nz-heres-how-it-works/
(there are quite a few other good articles about Covid-19 on that site
as well.
Compound interest, to take the $ view. Or the old If a lilly in a pond
doubles in size each day and covers all of the pond in 30 days. How long
does it take to cover half the pond?

People who undersatand that it starts off small and suddenly it is huge.
Post by Rich80105
There are risks with driving too far - nobody wants to have to deal
with breakdowns too far from home,
Sure, but in this case about one transporting the virus. That is the issue.

In Italy when they were about locked down the northern part of Italy, many
country people fled to the South. Covid19 was so happy, it was on its way
for a whole new lot of people to infect.
Post by Rich80105
I will probably go to my closest supermarket in another week, but I
suspect police will be symathetic where a family is delivering a child
under joint custody to the other parent provided it is reasonably
close - a drive to another city may be undesirable.
In effect if it is not essential to travel, people shouldn't; and
doing what you shouldn't can lead to prosecution, but it does seem
that the basic rules are coming as a surprise to quite a few people .
. . . which is why police are mostly giving warnings
How about we try this.

if it is not essential to travel, then do not, as if you do risks giving
people, including your loved ones Covid19; but it does seem
that common sense rules Okay is not ruling right now for some people.


If this great country of ours is to win the war against Covid19 then the
message must be clear and strong. Anything else is no good.
James Christophers
2020-03-27 04:44:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
The only problem I have with the shutdown is
Who decrees when it ends?
And with police patrolling and questioning any and all.
At what stage do we find that there are certain places to go and
any-one straying is taken in for questioning. (already happening)
We didn't get much notice for going into lockdown, but it was
signalled in time for urgent actions before we went into stage 4.
1) I think that 30 plus hours was about right. The public was ready to go
home as they knew things were about to get alot worse if they did not.
2) Rockets have stages, pehaps also covid19 but the response has levels.
The
Post by Rich80105
rationale for coming out are still not clear, but restrictions in
Chimna are being relaxed already; it will depend on how well we stop
new infections will largely determine when it is lifted;
Do not expect the lifting to be very high, nor last long before we have to
go into hiding again. (level 4). Covid is amongst us and is here to stay.
Reported 4 hours ago:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2020/03/coronavirus-85-new-cases-in-new-zealand.html

So as yet no deaths but we'll be lucky if it continues this way for much longer. (I'm reliably informed this country has approximately 250 ventilators.)

Incidentally, South Africa goes into lockdown at noon tomorrow (NZ time) while so far having sustained no deaths. And this in a country that's been swarming with overseas visitors over the past four months or so.

Their population is roughly 11 times ours and the number of cases is in the region of 700. Could have been much, much worse.
Gordon
2020-03-27 03:36:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 21:25:35 -0500
Post by Tony
Don't be so silly.
Neither you or Mr. Warren are capable of reasoned interface with me
and indeed with most posters here.
The history is clear.
As I made celar (thank you for repeating it) -
You first of all retreat into sarcasm and when that fails you make
things up - the evidence is overwhelming. And when that fails you
become abusive as in this post where you have used all three cowardly
attempts to extract yourself from your pitiable behaviour.
Mr. Warren on the other hand is simply a low life. his only reason
for existance is to ridicule anybody who disagrees with him and he
does so in a particularly inane and childish way.
An excellent example of you and his silliness was last Monday when I
posted in this newsgroup how I believed we should lock down this
country, but no you both immediately reverted to type and became
derisive. Then a few hours later the government did exactly what I
had hoped for. Get a life and join Mr. Warren in his self imposed
imaginary life (think about it!).
Neither of you care about the people of this country and both of you
would be delighted to see our democracy in tatters - shame on you
both.
The only problem I have with the shutdown is
Who decrees when it ends?
George, this is simple. The Government. They put it in place and they are
"directing" for want of a better word, the country through this experience.

They will have their advisors and experts whom will guide them.
Post by Rich80105
And with police patrolling and questioning any and all.
Fair enough, this is a lock down. People need to stay put as much as
possible and they need to get the message.
Post by Rich80105
At what stage do we find that there are certain places to go and
any-one straying is taken in for questioning. (already happening)
People who stray need to be questioned.

This is time for the common good to rule.

It is going to be interesting to see how the US of A and other "divided"
countries get on.
George
2020-03-27 18:56:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 27 Mar 2020 03:36:50 GMT
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 21:25:35 -0500
Post by Tony
Don't be so silly.
Neither you or Mr. Warren are capable of reasoned interface with me
and indeed with most posters here.
The history is clear.
As I made celar (thank you for repeating it) -
You first of all retreat into sarcasm and when that fails you make
things up - the evidence is overwhelming. And when that fails you
become abusive as in this post where you have used all three
cowardly attempts to extract yourself from your pitiable behaviour.
Mr. Warren on the other hand is simply a low life. his only reason
for existance is to ridicule anybody who disagrees with him and he
does so in a particularly inane and childish way.
An excellent example of you and his silliness was last Monday when
I posted in this newsgroup how I believed we should lock down this
country, but no you both immediately reverted to type and became
derisive. Then a few hours later the government did exactly what I
had hoped for. Get a life and join Mr. Warren in his self imposed
imaginary life (think about it!).
Neither of you care about the people of this country and both of
you would be delighted to see our democracy in tatters - shame on
you both.
The only problem I have with the shutdown is
Who decrees when it ends?
George, this is simple. The Government. They put it in place and they
are "directing" for want of a better word, the country through this
experience.
They will have their advisors and experts whom will guide them.
Post by Rich80105
And with police patrolling and questioning any and all.
Fair enough, this is a lock down. People need to stay put as much as
possible and they need to get the message.
Post by Rich80105
At what stage do we find that there are certain places to go and
any-one straying is taken in for questioning. (already happening)
People who stray need to be questioned.
This is time for the common good to rule.
It is going to be interesting to see how the US of A and other
"divided" countries get on.
This is the trouble.
Those who rule have decreed and in this case perhaps for our safety.
What follows may not be
I have read sufficiently to know that there is always an under lying
event that brings in governments that we may not have voted for.
The German 'Crystal Night' comes to mind
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
James Christophers
2020-03-27 20:51:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On 27 Mar 2020 03:36:50 GMT
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 21:25:35 -0500
Post by Tony
Don't be so silly.
Neither you or Mr. Warren are capable of reasoned interface with me
and indeed with most posters here.
The history is clear.
As I made celar (thank you for repeating it) -
You first of all retreat into sarcasm and when that fails you make
things up - the evidence is overwhelming. And when that fails you
become abusive as in this post where you have used all three
cowardly attempts to extract yourself from your pitiable behaviour.
Mr. Warren on the other hand is simply a low life. his only reason
for existance is to ridicule anybody who disagrees with him and he
does so in a particularly inane and childish way.
An excellent example of you and his silliness was last Monday when
I posted in this newsgroup how I believed we should lock down this
country, but no you both immediately reverted to type and became
derisive. Then a few hours later the government did exactly what I
had hoped for. Get a life and join Mr. Warren in his self imposed
imaginary life (think about it!).
Neither of you care about the people of this country and both of
you would be delighted to see our democracy in tatters - shame on
you both.
The only problem I have with the shutdown is
Who decrees when it ends?
George, this is simple. The Government. They put it in place and they
are "directing" for want of a better word, the country through this
experience.
They will have their advisors and experts whom will guide them.
Post by Rich80105
And with police patrolling and questioning any and all.
Fair enough, this is a lock down. People need to stay put as much as
possible and they need to get the message.
Post by Rich80105
At what stage do we find that there are certain places to go and
any-one straying is taken in for questioning. (already happening)
People who stray need to be questioned.
This is time for the common good to rule.
It is going to be interesting to see how the US of A and other
"divided" countries get on.
This is the trouble.
Those who rule have decreed and in this case perhaps for our safety.
What follows may not be
I have read sufficiently to know that there is always an under lying
event that brings in governments that we may not have voted for.
The German 'Crystal Night' comes to mind
Kristallnacht was entirely propaganda-driven, that propaganda having been specifically shaped and delivered to scapegoat a small ethnic minority for all the ills and impoverishment of Germany and the world in general. This impoverishment was caused principally by the ruinous provisions of the Treaty of Versailles (1920) and the Great Depression of the early 1930’s.

IOW, there is no equivalence that I can discern.

Tony
2020-03-22 19:20:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:56:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test
positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to
stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are
suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the
restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good
enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been there
for
some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world despite
being
a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph above.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
So you are happy to make political points. albeit rubbish, in a situation that
requires some caring.
OK no change then.
A lazy response from the government, possibly costing lives.
A lazy post from you, where the opposition has provided no useful
alternatives, except mindless criticism. What caring we you looking
for, Tony?
Not at all lazy. The government has quite clearly delayed the inevitable for
political reasons.
All they had to do was learn from overseas examples of good and bad decisions
but they did not.
However grudgingly, even you must accept that any government can only act on
the very best 'action and application' advice it can get. It then has to
distill it, shaping it into policy and execution as quickly as it can while
getting it **all** as near to 100% right as it is able. But - note particularly
- it can only do this, in accordance with current legislation, current practice
and the prevailing facilities, provisions and conditions under which combating
a pandemic can be applied in **this** country, certainly not some other. This,
note, along with the manifold potential ramifications of making even the
smallest fatal decision which might too easily risk turning out to be both
self-multiplying and irreversible.
So, sorry old bean but it all takes time.
In fact, there could be no better example of 'He who hesitates is lost' versus
'Look before you leap'. So for me, to date, I think that Ardern's
administration has done itself proud.
“New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has demonstrated impressive
leadership since taking New Zealand’s top job in responding with empathy to
the Christchurch mosque shootings a year ago and the tragedy caused by the
eruption of White Island last year. Most recently, Ardern’s decisive
leadership was demonstrated with New Zealand becoming the first country to
impose harsh restriction on all foreign nationals from entering the country in
response to the global COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic."
So with that unequivocal encomium and others like it coming at New Zealand and
its prime minister, the world must now surely be gagging to read your
high-falutin' countervailing criticisms of Ardern's policy vis-a-vis the
current pandemic, strictly, of course, on a like-for-like, quotable
fact-for-fact basis. Well you will, won't you?
And while you're at it, why not also provide your own version of 'fair and
balanced' by dutifully amassing and correlating those massed legions of
international anti-Ardern critics out there who slavishly support you, and
kindly point us to them?
What's stopping you, eh?
What absolute nonsense you do spew from time to time. Thhe government had all
the evidnce necessary but sat on their hands. Simple fact. They should be
acting more strongly now.
James Christophers
2020-03-22 21:55:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:56:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test
positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to
stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are
suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the
restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a
bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's
discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any
other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be
trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures
here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good
enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of
their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been
there
for
some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world
despite
being
a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to
walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of
living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their
preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears
to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph above.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
So you are happy to make political points. albeit rubbish, in a situation that
requires some caring.
OK no change then.
A lazy response from the government, possibly costing lives.
A lazy post from you, where the opposition has provided no useful
alternatives, except mindless criticism. What caring we you looking
for, Tony?
Not at all lazy. The government has quite clearly delayed the inevitable for
political reasons.
All they had to do was learn from overseas examples of good and bad decisions
but they did not.
However grudgingly, even you must accept that any government can only act on
the very best 'action and application' advice it can get. It then has to
distill it, shaping it into policy and execution as quickly as it can while
getting it **all** as near to 100% right as it is able. But - note particularly
- it can only do this, in accordance with current legislation, current practice
and the prevailing facilities, provisions and conditions under which combating
a pandemic can be applied in **this** country, certainly not some other. This,
note, along with the manifold potential ramifications of making even the
smallest fatal decision which might too easily risk turning out to be both
self-multiplying and irreversible.
So, sorry old bean but it all takes time.
In fact, there could be no better example of 'He who hesitates is lost' versus
'Look before you leap'. So for me, to date, I think that Ardern's
administration has done itself proud.
“New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has demonstrated impressive
leadership since taking New Zealand’s top job in responding with empathy to
the Christchurch mosque shootings a year ago and the tragedy caused by the
eruption of White Island last year. Most recently, Ardern’s decisive
leadership was demonstrated with New Zealand becoming the first country to
impose harsh restriction on all foreign nationals from entering the country in
response to the global COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic."
So with that unequivocal encomium and others like it coming at New Zealand and
its prime minister, the world must now surely be gagging to read your
high-falutin' countervailing criticisms of Ardern's policy vis-a-vis the
current pandemic, strictly, of course, on a like-for-like, quotable
fact-for-fact basis. Well you will, won't you?
And while you're at it, why not also provide your own version of 'fair and
balanced' by dutifully amassing and correlating those massed legions of
international anti-Ardern critics out there who slavishly support you, and
kindly point us to them?
What's stopping you, eh?
What absolute nonsense you do spew from time to time. Thhe government had all
the evidnce necessary..
You have not one single clue what evidence the government had or did not have, you laughably presumptuous little nobody.
Post by Tony
but sat on their hands. Simple fact.
As I said...
Post by Tony
They should be acting more strongly now.
Yet more utterly specious generality from you merely so you can continue megaphoning your pathological contrariness - your schtick to the letter.

So read, learn and inwardly digest Colin Peacock's superb cataloguing of the way the media and its hopelessly unqualified cohort of hangers-on have muddied the waters with diametrically opposed arguments coming from all quarters, virtually all of them from suggestible know-nothing blowhards like you.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018739390/media-strive-to-adapt-to-the-new-normal

(Previously posted by "Rich")
Tony
2020-03-22 23:20:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:56:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans
accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test
positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required
to
stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are
suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the
restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with
a
bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's
discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any
other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be
trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures
here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good
enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of
their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been
there
for
some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world
despite
being
a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to
walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense
level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of
living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their
preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New
Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears
to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and
closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph above.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
So you are happy to make political points. albeit rubbish, in a
situation
that
requires some caring.
OK no change then.
A lazy response from the government, possibly costing lives.
A lazy post from you, where the opposition has provided no useful
alternatives, except mindless criticism. What caring we you looking
for, Tony?
Not at all lazy. The government has quite clearly delayed the inevitable for
political reasons.
All they had to do was learn from overseas examples of good and bad decisions
but they did not.
However grudgingly, even you must accept that any government can only act on
the very best 'action and application' advice it can get. It then has to
distill it, shaping it into policy and execution as quickly as it can while
getting it **all** as near to 100% right as it is able. But - note particularly
- it can only do this, in accordance with current legislation, current practice
and the prevailing facilities, provisions and conditions under which combating
a pandemic can be applied in **this** country, certainly not some other. This,
note, along with the manifold potential ramifications of making even the
smallest fatal decision which might too easily risk turning out to be both
self-multiplying and irreversible.
So, sorry old bean but it all takes time.
In fact, there could be no better example of 'He who hesitates is lost' versus
'Look before you leap'. So for me, to date, I think that Ardern's
administration has done itself proud.
“New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has demonstrated impressive
leadership since taking New Zealand’s top job in responding with empathy to
the Christchurch mosque shootings a year ago and the tragedy caused by the
eruption of White Island last year. Most recently, Ardern’s decisive
leadership was demonstrated with New Zealand becoming the first country to
impose harsh restriction on all foreign nationals from entering the country in
response to the global COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic."
So with that unequivocal encomium and others like it coming at New Zealand and
its prime minister, the world must now surely be gagging to read your
high-falutin' countervailing criticisms of Ardern's policy vis-a-vis the
current pandemic, strictly, of course, on a like-for-like, quotable
fact-for-fact basis. Well you will, won't you?
And while you're at it, why not also provide your own version of 'fair and
balanced' by dutifully amassing and correlating those massed legions of
international anti-Ardern critics out there who slavishly support you, and
kindly point us to them?
What's stopping you, eh?
What absolute nonsense you do spew from time to time. Thhe government had all
the evidnce necessary..
but sat on their hands. Simple fact.
As I said...
Post by Tony
They should be acting more strongly now.
Abuse gone from here.
James Christophers
2020-03-23 00:46:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:56:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans
accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test
positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required
to
stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are
suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the
restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with
a
bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's
discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any
other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be
trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures
here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good
enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of
their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been
there
for
some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world
despite
being
a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to
walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense
level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of
living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to
see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of
society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their
preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New
Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and
appears
to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least
partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and
closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may
lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph above.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
So you are happy to make political points. albeit rubbish, in a
situation
that
requires some caring.
OK no change then.
A lazy response from the government, possibly costing lives.
A lazy post from you, where the opposition has provided no useful
alternatives, except mindless criticism. What caring we you looking
for, Tony?
Not at all lazy. The government has quite clearly delayed the inevitable for
political reasons.
All they had to do was learn from overseas examples of good and bad decisions
but they did not.
However grudgingly, even you must accept that any government can only act on
the very best 'action and application' advice it can get. It then has to
distill it, shaping it into policy and execution as quickly as it can while
getting it **all** as near to 100% right as it is able. But - note particularly
- it can only do this, in accordance with current legislation, current practice
and the prevailing facilities, provisions and conditions under which combating
a pandemic can be applied in **this** country, certainly not some other. This,
note, along with the manifold potential ramifications of making even the
smallest fatal decision which might too easily risk turning out to be both
self-multiplying and irreversible.
So, sorry old bean but it all takes time.
In fact, there could be no better example of 'He who hesitates is lost' versus
'Look before you leap'. So for me, to date, I think that Ardern's
administration has done itself proud.
“New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has demonstrated impressive
leadership since taking New Zealand’s top job in responding with empathy to
the Christchurch mosque shootings a year ago and the tragedy caused by the
eruption of White Island last year. Most recently, Ardern’s decisive
leadership was demonstrated with New Zealand becoming the first country to
impose harsh restriction on all foreign nationals from entering the country in
response to the global COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic."
So with that unequivocal encomium and others like it coming at New Zealand and
its prime minister, the world must now surely be gagging to read your
high-falutin' countervailing criticisms of Ardern's policy vis-a-vis the
current pandemic, strictly, of course, on a like-for-like, quotable
fact-for-fact basis. Well you will, won't you?
And while you're at it, why not also provide your own version of 'fair and
balanced' by dutifully amassing and correlating those massed legions of
international anti-Ardern critics out there who slavishly support you, and
kindly point us to them?
What's stopping you, eh?
What absolute nonsense you do spew from time to time. Thhe government had all
the evidnce necessary..
but sat on their hands. Simple fact.
As I said...
Post by Tony
They should be acting more strongly now.
Abuse gone from here.
Wow! Such towering potency in infantile denial of plain, observable fact!

While the sorry truth you cannot bear to stomach remains sweetly held and preserved for as long as Google my idly decide, and much good may it do both your withered soul and your vaulting conceits.
Tony
2020-03-23 00:56:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:56:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at
orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans
accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test
positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are
required
to
stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on
denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are
suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the
restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone
with
a
bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's
discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or
any
other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot
be
trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current
measures
here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is
good
enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware
of
their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not
been
there
for
some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the
extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world
despite
being
a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe
to
walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense
level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity
of
living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far
away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined
to
see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of
society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their
preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New
Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly
did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for
the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and
appears
to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least
partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and
closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than
a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does
feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards
employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities
have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres;
Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that
from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that
the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may
lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and
the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders -
your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph above.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
So you are happy to make political points. albeit rubbish, in a
situation
that
requires some caring.
OK no change then.
A lazy response from the government, possibly costing lives.
A lazy post from you, where the opposition has provided no useful
alternatives, except mindless criticism. What caring we you looking
for, Tony?
Not at all lazy. The government has quite clearly delayed the
inevitable
for
political reasons.
All they had to do was learn from overseas examples of good and bad decisions
but they did not.
However grudgingly, even you must accept that any government can only
act
on
the very best 'action and application' advice it can get. It then has to
distill it, shaping it into policy and execution as quickly as it can while
getting it **all** as near to 100% right as it is able. But - note particularly
- it can only do this, in accordance with current legislation, current practice
and the prevailing facilities, provisions and conditions under which combating
a pandemic can be applied in **this** country, certainly not some other. This,
note, along with the manifold potential ramifications of making even the
smallest fatal decision which might too easily risk turning out to be both
self-multiplying and irreversible.
So, sorry old bean but it all takes time.
In fact, there could be no better example of 'He who hesitates is lost' versus
'Look before you leap'. So for me, to date, I think that Ardern's
administration has done itself proud.
“New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has demonstrated impressive
leadership since taking New Zealand’s top job in responding with
empathy
to
the Christchurch mosque shootings a year ago and the tragedy caused by the
eruption of White Island last year. Most recently, Ardern’s decisive
leadership was demonstrated with New Zealand becoming the first country to
impose harsh restriction on all foreign nationals from entering the
country
in
response to the global COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic."
So with that unequivocal encomium and others like it coming at New
Zealand
and
its prime minister, the world must now surely be gagging to read your
high-falutin' countervailing criticisms of Ardern's policy vis-a-vis the
current pandemic, strictly, of course, on a like-for-like, quotable
fact-for-fact basis. Well you will, won't you?
And while you're at it, why not also provide your own version of 'fair and
balanced' by dutifully amassing and correlating those massed legions of
international anti-Ardern critics out there who slavishly support you, and
kindly point us to them?
What's stopping you, eh?
What absolute nonsense you do spew from time to time. Thhe government had all
the evidnce necessary..
but sat on their hands. Simple fact.
As I said...
Post by Tony
They should be acting more strongly now.
Abuse gone from here.
James Christophers
2020-03-24 01:21:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:56:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at
orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans
accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test
positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are
required
to
stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on
denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are
suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the
restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone
with
a
bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's
discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or
any
other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot
be
trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current
measures
here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is
good
enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware
of
their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not
been
there
for
some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the
extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world
despite
being
a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe
to
walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense
level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity
of
living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far
away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined
to
see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of
society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their
preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New
Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly
did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for
the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and
appears
to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least
partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and
closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than
a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does
feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of
timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards
employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities
have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres;
Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some
subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that
from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that
the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government
is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may
lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and
the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders -
your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph
above.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in
a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
So you are happy to make political points. albeit rubbish, in a
situation
that
requires some caring.
OK no change then.
A lazy response from the government, possibly costing lives.
A lazy post from you, where the opposition has provided no useful
alternatives, except mindless criticism. What caring we you looking
for, Tony?
Not at all lazy. The government has quite clearly delayed the
inevitable
for
political reasons.
All they had to do was learn from overseas examples of good and bad
decisions
but they did not.
However grudgingly, even you must accept that any government can only
act
on
the very best 'action and application' advice it can get. It then has to
distill it, shaping it into policy and execution as quickly as it can while
getting it **all** as near to 100% right as it is able. But - note
particularly
- it can only do this, in accordance with current legislation, current
practice
and the prevailing facilities, provisions and conditions under which
combating
a pandemic can be applied in **this** country, certainly not some other.
This,
note, along with the manifold potential ramifications of making even the
smallest fatal decision which might too easily risk turning out to be both
self-multiplying and irreversible.
So, sorry old bean but it all takes time.
In fact, there could be no better example of 'He who hesitates is lost'
versus
'Look before you leap'. So for me, to date, I think that Ardern's
administration has done itself proud.
“New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has demonstrated impressive
leadership since taking New Zealand’s top job in responding with
empathy
to
the Christchurch mosque shootings a year ago and the tragedy caused by the
eruption of White Island last year. Most recently, Ardern’s decisive
leadership was demonstrated with New Zealand becoming the first country to
impose harsh restriction on all foreign nationals from entering the
country
in
response to the global COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic."
So with that unequivocal encomium and others like it coming at New
Zealand
and
its prime minister, the world must now surely be gagging to read your
high-falutin' countervailing criticisms of Ardern's policy vis-a-vis the
current pandemic, strictly, of course, on a like-for-like, quotable
fact-for-fact basis. Well you will, won't you?
And while you're at it, why not also provide your own version of 'fair and
balanced' by dutifully amassing and correlating those massed legions of
international anti-Ardern critics out there who slavishly support you, and
kindly point us to them?
What's stopping you, eh?
What absolute nonsense you do spew from time to time. Thhe government had all
the evidnce necessary..
but sat on their hands. Simple fact.
As I said...
Post by Tony
They should be acting more strongly now.
Abuse gone from here.
Wow! To win one Pyrrhic victory might well look like success to an absurdly self-unware narcissus such as you, but to win two - unchallenged and in the same thread, to boot - begins to look like masochistic genius!
Tony
2020-03-24 01:36:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Herewith
Rich80105
2020-03-24 02:12:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:36:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Herewith
Why are you outing yourself now? Or are both Tony and Keith Warren
both pseudonyms and yur real name something else?
Tony
2020-03-24 02:52:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:36:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Herewith
Why are you outing yourself now? Or are both Tony and Keith Warren
both pseudonyms and yur real name something else?
The real question is why are you pretending that you do not know who Mr. Warren
is.
I never "out myself" I leave that behaviour to you and Mr. Warren who self
flagellate on the hour every hour.
Rich80105
2020-03-24 03:39:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 21:52:09 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:36:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Herewith
Why are you outing yourself now? Or are both Tony and Keith Warren
both pseudonyms and yur real name something else?
The real question is why are you pretending that you do not know who Mr. Warren
is.
How would I know who he is - I have not seen any posts under that name
to nz.general, but I do not post under my own name either.
Post by Tony
I never "out myself" I leave that behaviour to you and Mr. Warren who self
flagellate on the hour every hour.
That is why I asked if that is what you were doing of course Tony. For
all I know your name could as easily be Gladys - why could you not be
Keith Warren? I do not post under my real name; it is a simple
precaution against nutters.

Still if you do not believe your posts are valid I wil not argue with
you; after all as you are prone to say it is just an opinion . . .
Tony
2020-03-24 03:54:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 21:52:09 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:36:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Herewith
Why are you outing yourself now? Or are both Tony and Keith Warren
both pseudonyms and yur real name something else?
The real question is why are you pretending that you do not know who Mr. Warren
is.
How would I know who he is - I have not seen any posts under that name
to nz.general, but I do not post under my own name either.
Post by Tony
I never "out myself" I leave that behaviour to you and Mr. Warren who self
flagellate on the hour every hour.
That is why I asked if that is what you were doing of course Tony. For
all I know your name could as easily be Gladys - why could you not be
Keith Warren? I do not post under my real name; it is a simple
precaution against nutters.
Still if you do not believe your posts are valid I wil not argue with
you; after all as you are prone to say it is just an opinion . . .
Actually I have never ever said that - and you cannot find a quote. So you are
lying still.
Well there you, are proof of your guilt finally.
From Rich "I will always use sarcasm instead of facts" and Keith "Never use 3
words when 30 superfluous ones will do" Warren aka "James Christophers" as you
very well know.
Clearly I was wrong to suggest that you both self flagellate, the truth is
probably even more gross. You are absolute trash - you both put politics ahead
of this country's people, you both put your stupidity up as a banner in front
of the world as if it was of some value and your bitter contempt for ordinary
people and envy of successful ones is legendary. You deserve each other.
John Bowes
2020-03-24 04:27:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 21:52:09 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:36:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Herewith
Why are you outing yourself now? Or are both Tony and Keith Warren
both pseudonyms and yur real name something else?
The real question is why are you pretending that you do not know who Mr. Warren
is.
How would I know who he is - I have not seen any posts under that name
to nz.general, but I do not post under my own name either.
Post by Tony
I never "out myself" I leave that behaviour to you and Mr. Warren who self
flagellate on the hour every hour.
That is why I asked if that is what you were doing of course Tony. For
all I know your name could as easily be Gladys - why could you not be
Keith Warren? I do not post under my real name; it is a simple
precaution against nutters.
Still if you do not believe your posts are valid I wil not argue with
you; after all as you are prone to say it is just an opinion . . .
Actually I have never ever said that - and you cannot find a quote. So you are
lying still.
Well there you, are proof of your guilt finally.
From Rich "I will always use sarcasm instead of facts" and Keith "Never use 3
words when 30 superfluous ones will do" Warren aka "James Christophers" as you
very well know.
Clearly I was wrong to suggest that you both self flagellate, the truth is
probably even more gross. You are absolute trash - you both put politics ahead
of this country's people, you both put your stupidity up as a banner in front
of the world as if it was of some value and your bitter contempt for ordinary
people and envy of successful ones is legendary. You deserve each other.
Well said as always Tony.
George
2020-03-24 18:50:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 21:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 4:54:30 PM UTC+13,
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 21:52:09 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:36:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon
Post by Tony
Herewith
Why are you outing yourself now? Or are both Tony and Keith
Warren both pseudonyms and yur real name something else?
The real question is why are you pretending that you do not know who Mr. Warren
is.
How would I know who he is - I have not seen any posts under that
name to nz.general, but I do not post under my own name either.
Post by Tony
I never "out myself" I leave that behaviour to you and Mr. Warren
who self flagellate on the hour every hour.
That is why I asked if that is what you were doing of course Tony.
For all I know your name could as easily be Gladys - why could you
not be Keith Warren? I do not post under my real name; it is a
simple precaution against nutters.
Still if you do not believe your posts are valid I wil not argue
with you; after all as you are prone to say it is just an
opinion . . .
Actually I have never ever said that - and you cannot find a quote.
So you are lying still.
Well there you, are proof of your guilt finally.
From Rich "I will always use sarcasm instead of facts" and Keith
"Never use 3 words when 30 superfluous ones will do" Warren aka
"James Christophers" as you very well know.
Clearly I was wrong to suggest that you both self flagellate, the
truth is probably even more gross. You are absolute trash - you
both put politics ahead of this country's people, you both put your
stupidity up as a banner in front of the world as if it was of some
value and your bitter contempt for ordinary people and envy of
successful ones is legendary. You deserve each other.
Well said as always Tony.
One of our more reputable posters.
Drives the two nutters mentioned above into their own little pen...
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
John Bowes
2020-03-24 04:25:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 21:52:09 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:36:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Herewith
Why are you outing yourself now? Or are both Tony and Keith Warren
both pseudonyms and yur real name something else?
The real question is why are you pretending that you do not know who Mr. Warren
is.
How would I know who he is - I have not seen any posts under that name
to nz.general, but I do not post under my own name either.
Post by Tony
I never "out myself" I leave that behaviour to you and Mr. Warren who self
flagellate on the hour every hour.
That is why I asked if that is what you were doing of course Tony. For
all I know your name could as easily be Gladys - why could you not be
Keith Warren? I do not post under my real name; it is a simple
precaution against nutters.
Still if you do not believe your posts are valid I wil not argue with
you; after all as you are prone to say it is just an opinion . . .
You're hding from nutters? From your posts I'd bet you'd be happiest surrounded by nutters :)
John Bowes
2020-03-22 01:18:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 01:56:28 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:28:57 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:55:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been there
for
some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world despite
being
a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to walk
around
and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
For example
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120467455/coronavirus-were-underestimating-covid19--experts-debate-govt-response
Which of course does not criticise the plan at all, but does feature
one prominent public health expert questioning the issue of timing.
Which is exactly my point. The government was tardy.
Post by Rich80105
There has been a lot of progress towards the next step, government
departments and many businesses are already moving towards employees
being enabled to work at home as much as possible; Universities have
moved towards using video rather than large lecture theatres; Schools
have trialled secondary pupils working from home for some subjects.
These have identified some system issuesbut it is expected that from
tomorrow far fewer employees will be travelling to work.
The comment by Baker is well timed - it is sending a message that the
move to higher alert level may come very quickly; the government is
maintaining a difficult balance between too rapid change that may lose
cooperation and create too high stress levels. Both the plan, and the
implementation of that plan, are being carried out with great
integrity and concern for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - your
niggardly carping is mere shallow antagonism for no good reason.
Your offensive response is as expected.
That's OK Tony, you are entitled to your opinion; but I do note that
you do not acknowledge the point I was making in the paragraph above.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
from which it is evident that New Zealand has moved quickly, but in a
measured way that has not caused more than necessary stress
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8333-net-trust-score-political-leaders-march-20-2020-202003190756
So you are happy to make political points. albeit rubbish, in a situation that
requires some caring.
OK no change then.
A lazy response from the government, possibly costing lives.
A lazy post from you, where the opposition has provided no useful
alternatives, except mindless criticism. What caring we you looking
for, Tony?
some caring that doesn't involve you white washing a useless government that's only full of talk but bugger all action when they should be acting Rich!
Rich80105
2020-03-21 03:23:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:05:13 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been there for some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world despite being a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to walk around and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
Superficially I can understand why you may say that - after all the
plan was put together in 2010 following the SARS scare; and revised in
2017 - both during the term of the Key/English governments. You may
have been concerned that the plans were affected by the huge pressure
the then government was putting on spending on health, but I don't
think that is sufficient evidence to claim a fault with the plan - in
the 2017 election year the plan will not have had much (if any)
political input. So unless you have a specific criticism I suspect you
are just deperately blathering.

Now the general plan will have been modified for the specific
circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic, but it appears that major
decisions are folloing hte advice of the public health experts - there
appears to be good cooperation between the academic professionals and
the operational side; regular announcments and explanations by
qualified people have been open about what is not yet known and also
what are likely next steps; and our PM has been praised
internationally for prompt and effective action - in contrast to some
other countries where politicians are not as good at listening and
responding to existing plans and expert advice.
Tony
2020-03-21 04:17:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:05:13 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been there for some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world despite being a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to walk around and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
A "manifestly" poor plan implemented too late.
Superficially I can understand why you may say that - after all the
plan was put together in 2010 following the SARS scare; and revised in
2017 - both during the term of the Key/English governments. You may
have been concerned that the plans were affected by the huge pressure
the then government was putting on spending on health, but I don't
think that is sufficient evidence to claim a fault with the plan - in
the 2017 election year the plan will not have had much (if any)
political input. So unless you have a specific criticism I suspect you
are just deperately blathering.
Now the general plan will have been modified for the specific
circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic, but it appears that major
decisions are folloing hte advice of the public health experts - there
appears to be good cooperation between the academic professionals and
the operational side; regular announcments and explanations by
qualified people have been open about what is not yet known and also
what are likely next steps; and our PM has been praised
internationally for prompt and effective action - in contrast to some
other countries where politicians are not as good at listening and
responding to existing plans and expert advice.
None of which is of value.
This "plan" important as it is was implemented about 2 weeks later than it
should have been.
And if you think that is a political comment then you really have lost it..
Gordon
2020-03-21 05:14:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:05:13 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
[snip]
Post by Rich80105
Now the general plan will have been modified for the specific
circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic, but it appears that major
decisions are folloing hte advice of the public health experts - there
appears to be good cooperation between the academic professionals and
the operational side; regular announcments and explanations by
qualified people have been open about what is not yet known and also
what are likely next steps; and our PM has been praised
internationally for prompt and effective action - in contrast to some
other countries where politicians are not as good at listening and
responding to existing plans and expert advice.
It is interesting, to me at least, because in the Canterbury earthquakes
it was the case that the experts who spent their tme studying earthquakes
came out and said what they new, and what they expected to happen.
Probabilities were soon in the mix. Overall the polticians aimed for photo
opotunities and the the GNS folks speak.

It is good to see the same happening again, although each case is different.

From memory four scients got thrown in jail for being misrepresented is what
they siad about a swarm of small earthquakes after a politician had muddied
the waters by saying that the chance of a big one was very low owing to all
the small ones. Then the big one arrived.

From memory the country was Italy.

Finally, what ever the Government does, it is a lose lose situation. Too
soon and cries of communist/facist to lax and they should have acted
earlier.
Tony
2020-03-21 02:08:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:39:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:18:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
has Singapore been prepared well in advance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120433407/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked--and-what-we-can-all-learn
While that is part of it, another part is that Singaporeans accept
greater levels of state monitoring and control. If you test positive,
for example, you are not allowed to go home - you are required to stay
where the state dictates. The article is strong on denigrating
self-isolation, implying that those who test positive or are suspected
of carrying the virus cannot be trusted to observe the restrictions of
self-isolation. While that may be a fair comment, someone with a bit
of a cough can be locked away by the state at the state's discretion.
There is no debate on family hardships this might cause or any other
implications - the State knows best and individuals cannot be trusted
to do the right thing.
That would not universally go down well here. Current measures here
are far more acceptable and as yet their effectiveness is good enough.
We can certainly learn from Singapore but we need to beware of their
propensity to imposer State control and suppress dissent.
All of which is true, or at least it used to be, I have not been there for some
years.
It is still true, although the last time I was there the extreme
levels appeared to have been reduced.
Post by Tony
However Singapore is one of the cleanest cities in the world despite being a
few degrees from the equator and has little crime. Very safe to walk around and
a fascinating mix of cultures.
Quite a contrast to New Zealand. We are far from their intense level
of international trading, far from their relative uniformity of living
places, far away from their population density, and hence far away
from their willingness to cooperate, their willingness to take
communal actions for their own safety, and far less inclined to see
themselves as able to separate themselves from the rest of society.
Post by Tony
I am not suggesting we follow them but was praising their preparedness,
something we did not have.
I accept that you did not have any preparedness
You are certifiably arrogant, you know I did not mean that.
In fact I am far better prepared than most for reasons tghat are non of your
business.
I was referring to the government's avoidable delay in implementing anything of
value.
Post by Rich80105
; many New Zealanders
would have been in your position, but our governent manifestly did
have a plan - not specifically for Covid-19 of course, but for the
possibility of a Pandemic. It was put in place in 2010, and appears to
have been quite robust. Our response was limited by supplies of
testing materials, but that appears to have been at least partially
overcome. The direct decisions about travel, immigration and closing
activities have been closely linked to scientific evidence; the
economic response has been directed to common good rather than a
narrow partisan response.
Loading...