Discussion:
How bad it could have been
Add Reply
Rich80105
2020-05-03 21:33:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/415739/covid-19-southern-dhb-releases-worst-case-scenario-modelling

Even with the lower num,ber of cases, a huge amount of other surgery
has had to be postponed - both for lack of resources as well as the
dangers of Covid infection for a vulnerable group.

and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414718/doctors-and-nurses-relieved-at-govt-s-cautious-approach
with many feeling htat we need further work on tracing before going to
level 2

So lets make sure we don't get a second wave . . .
Crash
2020-05-03 23:53:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/415739/covid-19-southern-dhb-releases-worst-case-scenario-modelling
Even with the lower num,ber of cases, a huge amount of other surgery
has had to be postponed - both for lack of resources as well as the
dangers of Covid infection for a vulnerable group.
and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414718/doctors-and-nurses-relieved-at-govt-s-cautious-approach
with many feeling htat we need further work on tracing before going to
level 2
So lets make sure we don't get a second wave . . .
Both of those cites relate to Health so none of them factor in
economic impact to the economy at large. Reducing Alert levels is
primarily to mitigate impact on the economy. The timing of those
reductions takes into account likely Health risks.


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-05-04 00:45:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/415739/covid-19-southern-dhb-releases-worst-case-scenario-modelling
Even with the lower num,ber of cases, a huge amount of other surgery
has had to be postponed - both for lack of resources as well as the
dangers of Covid infection for a vulnerable group.
and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414718/doctors-and-nurses-relieved-at-govt-s-cautious-approach
with many feeling htat we need further work on tracing before going to
level 2
So lets make sure we don't get a second wave . . .
Both of those cites relate to Health so none of them factor in
economic impact to the economy at large. Reducing Alert levels is
primarily to mitigate impact on the economy. The timing of those
reductions takes into account likely Health risks.
So far world experience of going out quickly hasn't always worked well
- think about Singapore and Sweden. China stayed in lockdown longer
than us with greater restrictions. The health and economic impacts are
linked - go out too soon and waste not only more lives, but weeks of
lockdown.

https://www.facebook.com/deryck.henley/videos/10206613783098707/?t=17
https://www.facebook.com/TheAMShowNZ/videos/254599102584718/?t=184
Crash
2020-05-04 08:09:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/415739/covid-19-southern-dhb-releases-worst-case-scenario-modelling
Even with the lower num,ber of cases, a huge amount of other surgery
has had to be postponed - both for lack of resources as well as the
dangers of Covid infection for a vulnerable group.
and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414718/doctors-and-nurses-relieved-at-govt-s-cautious-approach
with many feeling htat we need further work on tracing before going to
level 2
So lets make sure we don't get a second wave . . .
Both of those cites relate to Health so none of them factor in
economic impact to the economy at large. Reducing Alert levels is
primarily to mitigate impact on the economy. The timing of those
reductions takes into account likely Health risks.
So far world experience of going out quickly hasn't always worked well
- think about Singapore and Sweden. China stayed in lockdown longer
than us with greater restrictions. The health and economic impacts are
linked - go out too soon and waste not only more lives, but weeks of
lockdown.
https://www.facebook.com/deryck.henley/videos/10206613783098707/?t=17
https://www.facebook.com/TheAMShowNZ/videos/254599102584718/?t=184
How about Australia? They never went into such a severe lock-down as
we did. Their results to date seem similar to ours.


--
Crash McBash
George
2020-05-04 20:07:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 04 May 2020 20:09:44 +1200
Post by Crash
How about Australia? They never went into such a severe lock-down as
we did. Their results to date seem similar to ours.
Its given Cindy a daily political spot on national TV and now shes
heading for an Australian exposure.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Willy Nilly
2020-05-04 09:01:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
So far world experience of going out quickly hasn't always worked well
- think about Singapore and Sweden.
Joking, right? Sweden has passed the peak of their second wave. In a
few weeks they will reach herd immunity and their book closed on the
virus. Meanwhile we will turn into a "hermit kingdom", waiting
endlessly for the vaccine which never comes. Pretty obvious who is
going to be the more successful. Except to you.
Rich80105
2020-05-05 03:43:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Rich80105
So far world experience of going out quickly hasn't always worked well
- think about Singapore and Sweden.
Joking, right? Sweden has passed the peak of their second wave. In a
few weeks they will reach herd immunity and their book closed on the
virus. Meanwhile we will turn into a "hermit kingdom", waiting
endlessly for the vaccine which never comes. Pretty obvious who is
going to be the more successful. Except to you.
Yes you are right.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Rich80105
2020-05-05 04:53:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Rich80105
So far world experience of going out quickly hasn't always worked well
- think about Singapore and Sweden.
Joking, right? Sweden has passed the peak of their second wave. In a
few weeks they will reach herd immunity and their book closed on the
virus. Meanwhile we will turn into a "hermit kingdom", waiting
endlessly for the vaccine which never comes. Pretty obvious who is
going to be the more successful. Except to you.
Yes you are right.
Oh dear - desperation and pique leading to forgery - I did not write
the response above.
Willy Nilly
2020-05-05 05:46:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
Yes you are right.
Oh dear - desperation and pique leading to forgery - I did not write
the response above.
It did seem quite out of character, given that you are to PC what the
T-700s were to SkyNet.
Rich80105
2020-05-06 05:27:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
Yes you are right.
Oh dear - desperation and pique leading to forgery - I did not write
the response above.
It did seem quite out of character, given that you are to PC what the
T-700s were to SkyNet.
That isn;t nice
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Rich80105
2020-05-06 08:45:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
Yes you are right.
Oh dear - desperation and pique leading to forgery - I did not write
the response above.
It did seem quite out of character, given that you are to PC what the
T-700s were to SkyNet.
That isn;t nice
Indeed, posting under someone else's name is not nice.

Tony
2020-05-04 20:55:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/415739/covid-19-southern-dhb-releases-worst-case-scenario-modelling
Even with the lower num,ber of cases, a huge amount of other surgery
has had to be postponed - both for lack of resources as well as the
dangers of Covid infection for a vulnerable group.
and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414718/doctors-and-nurses-relieved-at-govt-s-cautious-approach
with many feeling htat we need further work on tracing before going to
level 2
So lets make sure we don't get a second wave . . .
Both of those cites relate to Health so none of them factor in
economic impact to the economy at large. Reducing Alert levels is
primarily to mitigate impact on the economy. The timing of those
reductions takes into account likely Health risks.
So far world experience of going out quickly hasn't always worked well
- think about Singapore and Sweden. China stayed in lockdown longer
than us with greater restrictions. The health and economic impacts are
linked - go out too soon and waste not only more lives, but weeks of
lockdown.
https://www.facebook.com/deryck.henley/videos/10206613783098707/?t=17
https://www.facebook.com/TheAMShowNZ/videos/254599102584718/?t=184
We are at an interesting point in this crisis.
To suggest, as more than one government official and the PM have suggested,
that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will extend level
3 is illogical.
It may well be that it is an empty threat used to encourage better behaviour
but it only takes one brain cell to see that it makes no sense.
There is one and only one indicator that matters and that is if there is a
marked and sustained increase in cases reported this week and early next week.
Obviously if the bad behaviour (and I do not condone it) does not result in an
increase in cases then the problem does not exist.
There is increasing pressure to open up commerce and industry again and there
is no reason, at this time, to not do so unless there is a hidden agenda.
Charities are suffering and those that they help are suffering as a
consequence. Many small businesses cannot open in level 3 and many more that
are restricted.
Also it makes no sense to re specify level 2 conditions, the existing level 2
rules are sensible enough.
So any thoughts of extending level 3 are not supported by logic unless of
course there really is an increase in cases.
Tony
2020-05-04 23:03:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 04 May 2020 15:55:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/415739/covid-19-southern-dhb-releases-worst-case-scenario-modelling
Even with the lower num,ber of cases, a huge amount of other surgery
has had to be postponed - both for lack of resources as well as the
dangers of Covid infection for a vulnerable group.
and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414718/doctors-and-nurses-relieved-at-govt-s-cautious-approach
with many feeling htat we need further work on tracing before going to
level 2
So lets make sure we don't get a second wave . . .
Both of those cites relate to Health so none of them factor in
economic impact to the economy at large. Reducing Alert levels is
primarily to mitigate impact on the economy. The timing of those
reductions takes into account likely Health risks.
So far world experience of going out quickly hasn't always worked well
- think about Singapore and Sweden. China stayed in lockdown longer
than us with greater restrictions. The health and economic impacts are
linked - go out too soon and waste not only more lives, but weeks of
lockdown.
https://www.facebook.com/deryck.henley/videos/10206613783098707/?t=17
https://www.facebook.com/TheAMShowNZ/videos/254599102584718/?t=184
We are at an interesting point in this crisis.
To suggest, as more than one government official and the PM have suggested,
that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will extend level
3 is illogical.
Except it is not what has being said.
It is exactly what was strongly implied yesterday by Dr. Bloomfield and the PM.
The move from 3 to 2 depends on
our not getting more cases of community contagion that canot be
quickly traced. Poor behaviour makes that more likely, which is why
you and most people deplore it.
Post by Tony
It may well be that it is an empty threat used to encourage better behaviour
but it only takes one brain cell to see that it makes no sense.
Covered above. If we had an outbreak we may have to go back to a
higher level, no-one wants that.
Post by Tony
There is one and only one indicator that matters and that is if there is a
marked and sustained increase in cases reported this week and early next week.
No, just evidence that community contagion had not been contained.
Same thing of course.
Cases now will not come from the recent behviour that you rightly
deplore, but from a couple of weeks ago. The timing is to cover that
period. There will be a risk in going down, but that risk is less if
the specialists believe they have community outbreaks under control.
All through, changes have been signalled based on scientific evidence.
In each case this has given warning and time to prepare, In each case
it has given time for continuing restrictions to be gone through a
number of times. In each case there has been the opportunity for
Opposition to call for decisions to be made one or two days earlier;
although all that has done is makethe government look calm,
considered, and able to give reasons for the timing that are not based
on 'gotcha' politicising - you call on how successful that has been
politically for government parties and the opposition.
That does not change the point which is that the number of cases is the only
real measure.
Post by Tony
Obviously if the bad behaviour (and I do not condone it) does not result in an
increase in cases then the problem does not exist.
We will not know for some time - and I suspect you do not mean that we
should wait on a decision until we know whether they have casued
another community outbreak.
Post by Tony
There is increasing pressure to open up commerce and industry again and there
is no reason, at this time, to not do so unless there is a hidden agenda.
Of course there is - is there anyone that does not agree?
Post by Tony
Charities are suffering and those that they help are suffering as a
consequence. Many small businesses cannot open in level 3 and many more that
are restricted.
The risk of a second wave of cases is worth basing the timing of
reducing restrictions to that based on science.
No cases means no current risk. We will have a second wave of sorts unless we
keep the borders closed and we get a vaccine. That is the downside of the
approach that we have taken.
Post by Tony
Also it makes no sense to re specify level 2 conditions, the existing level 2
rules are sensible enough.
Of course it makles sense to specify level 2 conditions; when we went
to level 3 we had the stupid behaviour you complained of - it takes
two or three days for the message to get through.
Post by Tony
So any thoughts of extending level 3 are not supported by logic unless of
course there really is an increase in cases.
We will not know if there are further cases from previous community
contagion until the 11th. Even then we will not be able to be certain
that there will not be further cases, which is why there will still be
some restrictions.
Which is an unrelated issue.
Rich80105
2020-05-05 01:08:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 04 May 2020 18:03:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
On Mon, 04 May 2020 15:55:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/415739/covid-19-southern-dhb-releases-worst-case-scenario-modelling
Even with the lower num,ber of cases, a huge amount of other surgery
has had to be postponed - both for lack of resources as well as the
dangers of Covid infection for a vulnerable group.
and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414718/doctors-and-nurses-relieved-at-govt-s-cautious-approach
with many feeling htat we need further work on tracing before going to
level 2
So lets make sure we don't get a second wave . . .
Both of those cites relate to Health so none of them factor in
economic impact to the economy at large. Reducing Alert levels is
primarily to mitigate impact on the economy. The timing of those
reductions takes into account likely Health risks.
So far world experience of going out quickly hasn't always worked well
- think about Singapore and Sweden. China stayed in lockdown longer
than us with greater restrictions. The health and economic impacts are
linked - go out too soon and waste not only more lives, but weeks of
lockdown.
https://www.facebook.com/deryck.henley/videos/10206613783098707/?t=17
https://www.facebook.com/TheAMShowNZ/videos/254599102584718/?t=184
We are at an interesting point in this crisis.
To suggest, as more than one government official and the PM have suggested,
that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will extend level
3 is illogical.
Except it is not what has being said.
It is exactly what was strongly implied yesterday by Dr. Bloomfield and the PM.
Cite?
Post by Tony
The move from 3 to 2 depends on
our not getting more cases of community contagion that canot be
quickly traced. Poor behaviour makes that more likely, which is why
you and most people deplore it.
Post by Tony
It may well be that it is an empty threat used to encourage better behaviour
but it only takes one brain cell to see that it makes no sense.
Covered above. If we had an outbreak we may have to go back to a
higher level, no-one wants that.
Post by Tony
There is one and only one indicator that matters and that is if there is a
marked and sustained increase in cases reported this week and early next week.
No, just evidence that community contagion had not been contained.
Same thing of course.
No, there is a significant difference.
Post by Tony
Cases now will not come from the recent behviour that you rightly
deplore, but from a couple of weeks ago. The timing is to cover that
period. There will be a risk in going down, but that risk is less if
the specialists believe they have community outbreaks under control.
All through, changes have been signalled based on scientific evidence.
In each case this has given warning and time to prepare, In each case
it has given time for continuing restrictions to be gone through a
number of times. In each case there has been the opportunity for
Opposition to call for decisions to be made one or two days earlier;
although all that has done is makethe government look calm,
considered, and able to give reasons for the timing that are not based
on 'gotcha' politicising - you call on how successful that has been
politically for government parties and the opposition.
That does not change the point which is that the number of cases is the only
real measure.
Post by Tony
Obviously if the bad behaviour (and I do not condone it) does not result in an
increase in cases then the problem does not exist.
We will not know for some time - and I suspect you do not mean that we
should wait on a decision until we know whether they have casued
another community outbreak.
Post by Tony
There is increasing pressure to open up commerce and industry again and there
is no reason, at this time, to not do so unless there is a hidden agenda.
Of course there is - is there anyone that does not agree?
Post by Tony
Charities are suffering and those that they help are suffering as a
consequence. Many small businesses cannot open in level 3 and many more that
are restricted.
The risk of a second wave of cases is worth basing the timing of
reducing restrictions to that based on science.
No cases means no current risk.
No it doesn't necessarily - we will continue to be at risk of new
cases arising from contagion from cases identified more than a few
weeks ago - the period after infection before symptoms occur.
Post by Tony
We will have a second wave of sorts unless we
keep the borders closed and we get a vaccine. That is the downside of the
approach that we have taken.
We are not planning on keeping the borders closed long term - just
having testing at the border and 14 day either self-isolation or
quarantine - we are getting reports on that in the daily briefings.
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Also it makes no sense to re specify level 2 conditions, the existing level 2
rules are sensible enough.
Of course it makles sense to specify level 2 conditions; when we went
to level 3 we had the stupid behaviour you complained of - it takes
two or three days for the message to get through.
Post by Tony
So any thoughts of extending level 3 are not supported by logic unless of
course there really is an increase in cases.
We will not know if there are further cases from previous community
contagion until the 11th. Even then we will not be able to be certain
that there will not be further cases, which is why there will still be
some restrictions.
Which is an unrelated issue.
It is the reason for the 11th being chosen as a date before which
there is insufficient information for a decision. So yes it is
relevant.
Tony
2020-05-05 01:20:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 18:03:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
On Mon, 04 May 2020 15:55:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/415739/covid-19-southern-dhb-releases-worst-case-scenario-modelling
Even with the lower num,ber of cases, a huge amount of other surgery
has had to be postponed - both for lack of resources as well as the
dangers of Covid infection for a vulnerable group.
and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414718/doctors-and-nurses-relieved-at-govt-s-cautious-approach
with many feeling htat we need further work on tracing before going to
level 2
So lets make sure we don't get a second wave . . .
Both of those cites relate to Health so none of them factor in
economic impact to the economy at large. Reducing Alert levels is
primarily to mitigate impact on the economy. The timing of those
reductions takes into account likely Health risks.
So far world experience of going out quickly hasn't always worked well
- think about Singapore and Sweden. China stayed in lockdown longer
than us with greater restrictions. The health and economic impacts are
linked - go out too soon and waste not only more lives, but weeks of
lockdown.
https://www.facebook.com/deryck.henley/videos/10206613783098707/?t=17
https://www.facebook.com/TheAMShowNZ/videos/254599102584718/?t=184
We are at an interesting point in this crisis.
To suggest, as more than one government official and the PM have suggested,
that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will extend level
3 is illogical.
Except it is not what has being said.
It is exactly what was strongly implied yesterday by Dr. Bloomfield and the PM.
Cite?
Post by Tony
The move from 3 to 2 depends on
our not getting more cases of community contagion that canot be
quickly traced. Poor behaviour makes that more likely, which is why
you and most people deplore it.
Post by Tony
It may well be that it is an empty threat used to encourage better behaviour
but it only takes one brain cell to see that it makes no sense.
Covered above. If we had an outbreak we may have to go back to a
higher level, no-one wants that.
Post by Tony
There is one and only one indicator that matters and that is if there is a
marked and sustained increase in cases reported this week and early next week.
No, just evidence that community contagion had not been contained.
Same thing of course.
No, there is a significant difference.
Not true.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Cases now will not come from the recent behviour that you rightly
deplore, but from a couple of weeks ago. The timing is to cover that
period. There will be a risk in going down, but that risk is less if
the specialists believe they have community outbreaks under control.
All through, changes have been signalled based on scientific evidence.
In each case this has given warning and time to prepare, In each case
it has given time for continuing restrictions to be gone through a
number of times. In each case there has been the opportunity for
Opposition to call for decisions to be made one or two days earlier;
although all that has done is makethe government look calm,
considered, and able to give reasons for the timing that are not based
on 'gotcha' politicising - you call on how successful that has been
politically for government parties and the opposition.
That does not change the point which is that the number of cases is the only
real measure.
Post by Tony
Obviously if the bad behaviour (and I do not condone it) does not result in an
increase in cases then the problem does not exist.
We will not know for some time - and I suspect you do not mean that we
should wait on a decision until we know whether they have casued
another community outbreak.
Post by Tony
There is increasing pressure to open up commerce and industry again and there
is no reason, at this time, to not do so unless there is a hidden agenda.
Of course there is - is there anyone that does not agree?
Post by Tony
Charities are suffering and those that they help are suffering as a
consequence. Many small businesses cannot open in level 3 and many more that
are restricted.
The risk of a second wave of cases is worth basing the timing of
reducing restrictions to that based on science.
No cases means no current risk.
No it doesn't necessarily - we will continue to be at risk of new
cases arising from contagion from cases identified more than a few
weeks ago - the period after infection before symptoms occur.
That period will be over by next Monday.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
We will have a second wave of sorts unless we
keep the borders closed and we get a vaccine. That is the downside of the
approach that we have taken.
We are not planning on keeping the borders closed long term - just
having testing at the border and 14 day either self-isolation or
quarantine - we are getting reports on that in the daily briefings.
Without a vaccine, opening the borders without quarantine will, not may, will
cause a second wave.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Also it makes no sense to re specify level 2 conditions, the existing level 2
rules are sensible enough.
Of course it makles sense to specify level 2 conditions; when we went
to level 3 we had the stupid behaviour you complained of - it takes
two or three days for the message to get through.
Post by Tony
So any thoughts of extending level 3 are not supported by logic unless of
course there really is an increase in cases.
We will not know if there are further cases from previous community
contagion until the 11th. Even then we will not be able to be certain
that there will not be further cases, which is why there will still be
some restrictions.
Which is an unrelated issue.
It is the reason for the 11th being chosen as a date before which
there is insufficient information for a decision. So yes it is
relevant.
No.
Rich80105
2020-05-05 02:11:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 04 May 2020 20:20:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 18:03:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
On Mon, 04 May 2020 15:55:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/415739/covid-19-southern-dhb-releases-worst-case-scenario-modelling
Even with the lower num,ber of cases, a huge amount of other surgery
has had to be postponed - both for lack of resources as well as the
dangers of Covid infection for a vulnerable group.
and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414718/doctors-and-nurses-relieved-at-govt-s-cautious-approach
with many feeling htat we need further work on tracing before going to
level 2
So lets make sure we don't get a second wave . . .
Both of those cites relate to Health so none of them factor in
economic impact to the economy at large. Reducing Alert levels is
primarily to mitigate impact on the economy. The timing of those
reductions takes into account likely Health risks.
So far world experience of going out quickly hasn't always worked well
- think about Singapore and Sweden. China stayed in lockdown longer
than us with greater restrictions. The health and economic impacts are
linked - go out too soon and waste not only more lives, but weeks of
lockdown.
https://www.facebook.com/deryck.henley/videos/10206613783098707/?t=17
https://www.facebook.com/TheAMShowNZ/videos/254599102584718/?t=184
We are at an interesting point in this crisis.
To suggest, as more than one government official and the PM have suggested,
that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will extend level
3 is illogical.
Except it is not what has being said.
It is exactly what was strongly implied yesterday by Dr. Bloomfield and the PM.
Cite?
Perhaps you missed that request, Tony. Do you have a cite for your
claim that one government official and the PM have said: "ïf the
behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will extend level 3"

You will not be able to.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The move from 3 to 2 depends on
our not getting more cases of community contagion that canot be
quickly traced. Poor behaviour makes that more likely, which is why
you and most people deplore it.
Post by Tony
It may well be that it is an empty threat used to encourage better behaviour
but it only takes one brain cell to see that it makes no sense.
Covered above. If we had an outbreak we may have to go back to a
higher level, no-one wants that.
Post by Tony
There is one and only one indicator that matters and that is if there is a
marked and sustained increase in cases reported this week and early next week.
No, just evidence that community contagion had not been contained.
Same thing of course.
No, there is a significant difference.
Not true.
It would matter if even one infection was identified that indicated
that community contagion had not been contained.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Cases now will not come from the recent behviour that you rightly
deplore, but from a couple of weeks ago. The timing is to cover that
period. There will be a risk in going down, but that risk is less if
the specialists believe they have community outbreaks under control.
All through, changes have been signalled based on scientific evidence.
In each case this has given warning and time to prepare, In each case
it has given time for continuing restrictions to be gone through a
number of times. In each case there has been the opportunity for
Opposition to call for decisions to be made one or two days earlier;
although all that has done is makethe government look calm,
considered, and able to give reasons for the timing that are not based
on 'gotcha' politicising - you call on how successful that has been
politically for government parties and the opposition.
That does not change the point which is that the number of cases is the only
real measure.
Post by Tony
Obviously if the bad behaviour (and I do not condone it) does not result in an
increase in cases then the problem does not exist.
We will not know for some time - and I suspect you do not mean that we
should wait on a decision until we know whether they have casued
another community outbreak.
Post by Tony
There is increasing pressure to open up commerce and industry again and there
is no reason, at this time, to not do so unless there is a hidden agenda.
Of course there is - is there anyone that does not agree?
Post by Tony
Charities are suffering and those that they help are suffering as a
consequence. Many small businesses cannot open in level 3 and many more that
are restricted.
The risk of a second wave of cases is worth basing the timing of
reducing restrictions to that based on science.
No cases means no current risk.
No it doesn't necessarily - we will continue to be at risk of new
cases arising from contagion from cases identified more than a few
weeks ago - the period after infection before symptoms occur.
That period will be over by next Monday.
Well done, Tony, that is one of the facts that you appear to have
missed previously. It does not of course mean that there is no further
infection possible, for various reasons.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
We will have a second wave of sorts unless we
keep the borders closed and we get a vaccine. That is the downside of the
approach that we have taken.
We are not planning on keeping the borders closed long term - just
having testing at the border and 14 day either self-isolation or
quarantine - we are getting reports on that in the daily briefings.
Without a vaccine, opening the borders without quarantine will, not may, will
cause a second wave.
So it is a good thing that, at this stage and for quite some time to
come, there are no proposals from government to open the borders
without either self-isolation or quarantine.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Also it makes no sense to re specify level 2 conditions, the existing level 2
rules are sensible enough.
Of course it makles sense to specify level 2 conditions; when we went
to level 3 we had the stupid behaviour you complained of - it takes
two or three days for the message to get through.
Post by Tony
So any thoughts of extending level 3 are not supported by logic unless of
course there really is an increase in cases.
We will not know if there are further cases from previous community
contagion until the 11th. Even then we will not be able to be certain
that there will not be further cases, which is why there will still be
some restrictions.
Which is an unrelated issue.
It is the reason for the 11th being chosen as a date before which
there is insufficient information for a decision. So yes it is
relevant.
No.
As you admitted above, Monday is significant in being the end of a
period where it was possible that identified cases may have caused
furhter infections. That is not absolute, but enough of a certainly
under current knowledge that it is the first reasonable date on which
to assess a possible change from Levl 3 to Level 2. If you had
anything else in mind, Tony, perhaps you could indicate just what yu
meant by your single word "No" response.
Tony
2020-05-05 02:42:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 20:20:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 18:03:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
On Mon, 04 May 2020 15:55:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/415739/covid-19-southern-dhb-releases-worst-case-scenario-modelling
Even with the lower num,ber of cases, a huge amount of other surgery
has had to be postponed - both for lack of resources as well as the
dangers of Covid infection for a vulnerable group.
and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414718/doctors-and-nurses-relieved-at-govt-s-cautious-approach
with many feeling htat we need further work on tracing before going to
level 2
So lets make sure we don't get a second wave . . .
Both of those cites relate to Health so none of them factor in
economic impact to the economy at large. Reducing Alert levels is
primarily to mitigate impact on the economy. The timing of those
reductions takes into account likely Health risks.
So far world experience of going out quickly hasn't always worked well
- think about Singapore and Sweden. China stayed in lockdown longer
than us with greater restrictions. The health and economic impacts are
linked - go out too soon and waste not only more lives, but weeks of
lockdown.
https://www.facebook.com/deryck.henley/videos/10206613783098707/?t=17
https://www.facebook.com/TheAMShowNZ/videos/254599102584718/?t=184
We are at an interesting point in this crisis.
To suggest, as more than one government official and the PM have suggested,
that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will extend level
3 is illogical.
Except it is not what has being said.
It is exactly what was strongly implied yesterday by Dr. Bloomfield and the PM.
Cite?
Perhaps you missed that request, Tony. Do you have a cite for your
claim that one government official and the PM have said: "ïf the
behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will extend level 3"
You will not be able to.
Can't you read?
I did not say that. Once more I did not say that (just in case you really can't
read)
Look back you liar and read what I said - here you are I will help you -
I wrote "It is exactly what was strongly implied yesterday by Dr. Bloomfield
and the PM." That was during yesterday's press conferences.
Before that I wrote "To suggest, as more than one government official and the
PM have suggested, that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve then we
will extend level 2"
In both cases I used the word suggest or implied (that requires you to
understand the English language), and that is what they did at both yesterday's
press conferences.
You had to remove the important words from what I wrote didn't you?
Transcripts may be available, feel free to search for them.
By the way the same implication occurred at 1pm today -were you watcing and
more importantly listening? The implication was impossible to misuderstand.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The move from 3 to 2 depends on
our not getting more cases of community contagion that canot be
quickly traced. Poor behaviour makes that more likely, which is why
you and most people deplore it.
Post by Tony
It may well be that it is an empty threat used to encourage better behaviour
but it only takes one brain cell to see that it makes no sense.
Covered above. If we had an outbreak we may have to go back to a
higher level, no-one wants that.
Post by Tony
There is one and only one indicator that matters and that is if there is a
marked and sustained increase in cases reported this week and early next week.
No, just evidence that community contagion had not been contained.
Same thing of course.
No, there is a significant difference.
Not true.
It would matter if even one infection was identified that indicated
that community contagion had not been contained.
No
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Cases now will not come from the recent behviour that you rightly
deplore, but from a couple of weeks ago. The timing is to cover that
period. There will be a risk in going down, but that risk is less if
the specialists believe they have community outbreaks under control.
All through, changes have been signalled based on scientific evidence.
In each case this has given warning and time to prepare, In each case
it has given time for continuing restrictions to be gone through a
number of times. In each case there has been the opportunity for
Opposition to call for decisions to be made one or two days earlier;
although all that has done is makethe government look calm,
considered, and able to give reasons for the timing that are not based
on 'gotcha' politicising - you call on how successful that has been
politically for government parties and the opposition.
That does not change the point which is that the number of cases is the only
real measure.
Post by Tony
Obviously if the bad behaviour (and I do not condone it) does not result
in
an
increase in cases then the problem does not exist.
We will not know for some time - and I suspect you do not mean that we
should wait on a decision until we know whether they have casued
another community outbreak.
Post by Tony
There is increasing pressure to open up commerce and industry again and there
is no reason, at this time, to not do so unless there is a hidden agenda.
Of course there is - is there anyone that does not agree?
Post by Tony
Charities are suffering and those that they help are suffering as a
consequence. Many small businesses cannot open in level 3 and many more that
are restricted.
The risk of a second wave of cases is worth basing the timing of
reducing restrictions to that based on science.
No cases means no current risk.
No it doesn't necessarily - we will continue to be at risk of new
cases arising from contagion from cases identified more than a few
weeks ago - the period after infection before symptoms occur.
That period will be over by next Monday.
Well done, Tony, that is one of the facts that you appear to have
missed previously. It does not of course mean that there is no further
infection possible, for various reasons.
Entirely off the point, a point you obtusively ignore.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
We will have a second wave of sorts unless we
keep the borders closed and we get a vaccine. That is the downside of the
approach that we have taken.
We are not planning on keeping the borders closed long term - just
having testing at the border and 14 day either self-isolation or
quarantine - we are getting reports on that in the daily briefings.
Without a vaccine, opening the borders without quarantine will, not may, will
cause a second wave.
So it is a good thing that, at this stage and for quite some time to
come, there are no proposals from government to open the borders
without either self-isolation or quarantine.
One day it will have to happen and you know it.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Also it makes no sense to re specify level 2 conditions, the existing
level
2
rules are sensible enough.
Of course it makles sense to specify level 2 conditions; when we went
to level 3 we had the stupid behaviour you complained of - it takes
two or three days for the message to get through.
Post by Tony
So any thoughts of extending level 3 are not supported by logic unless of
course there really is an increase in cases.
We will not know if there are further cases from previous community
contagion until the 11th. Even then we will not be able to be certain
that there will not be further cases, which is why there will still be
some restrictions.
Which is an unrelated issue.
It is the reason for the 11th being chosen as a date before which
there is insufficient information for a decision. So yes it is
relevant.
No.
As you admitted above, Monday is significant in being the end of a
period where it was possible that identified cases may have caused
furhter infections. That is not absolute, but enough of a certainly
under current knowledge that it is the first reasonable date on which
to assess a possible change from Levl 3 to Level 2. If you had
anything else in mind, Tony, perhaps you could indicate just what yu
meant by your single word "No" response.
I admitted nothing, you cannot debate without deliberately twisting my words.
Rich80105
2020-05-05 04:32:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 04 May 2020 21:42:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 20:20:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 18:03:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
On Mon, 04 May 2020 15:55:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/415739/covid-19-southern-dhb-releases-worst-case-scenario-modelling
Even with the lower num,ber of cases, a huge amount of other surgery
has had to be postponed - both for lack of resources as well as the
dangers of Covid infection for a vulnerable group.
and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414718/doctors-and-nurses-relieved-at-govt-s-cautious-approach
with many feeling htat we need further work on tracing before going to
level 2
So lets make sure we don't get a second wave . . .
Both of those cites relate to Health so none of them factor in
economic impact to the economy at large. Reducing Alert levels is
primarily to mitigate impact on the economy. The timing of those
reductions takes into account likely Health risks.
So far world experience of going out quickly hasn't always worked well
- think about Singapore and Sweden. China stayed in lockdown longer
than us with greater restrictions. The health and economic impacts are
linked - go out too soon and waste not only more lives, but weeks of
lockdown.
https://www.facebook.com/deryck.henley/videos/10206613783098707/?t=17
https://www.facebook.com/TheAMShowNZ/videos/254599102584718/?t=184
We are at an interesting point in this crisis.
To suggest, as more than one government official and the PM have suggested,
that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will extend level
3 is illogical.
Except it is not what has being said.
It is exactly what was strongly implied yesterday by Dr. Bloomfield and the PM.
Cite?
Perhaps you missed that request, Tony. Do you have a cite for your
claim that one government official and the PM have said: "ïf the
behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will extend level 3"
You will not be able to.
Can't you read?
I did not say that. Once more I did not say that (just in case you really can't
read)
Look back you liar and read what I said - here you are I will help you -
I wrote "It is exactly what was strongly implied yesterday by Dr. Bloomfield
and the PM." That was during yesterday's press conferences.
Before that I wrote "To suggest, as more than one government official and the
PM have suggested, that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve then we
will extend level 2"
In both cases I used the word suggest or implied (that requires you to
understand the English language), and that is what they did at both yesterday's
press conferences.
You had to remove the important words from what I wrote didn't you?
No, I merely looked for proof that the words you had quoted had been
said.
Post by Tony
Transcripts may be available, feel free to search for them.
In other words you made it all up . . .
Post by Tony
By the way the same implication occurred at 1pm today -were you watcing and
more importantly listening? The implication was impossible to misuderstand.
Your "implications" are what you think may have been said - your
interpretation. You cannot quote what is actually said, you are
therefore not credible
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The move from 3 to 2 depends on
our not getting more cases of community contagion that canot be
quickly traced. Poor behaviour makes that more likely, which is why
you and most people deplore it.
Post by Tony
It may well be that it is an empty threat used to encourage better behaviour
but it only takes one brain cell to see that it makes no sense.
Covered above. If we had an outbreak we may have to go back to a
higher level, no-one wants that.
Post by Tony
There is one and only one indicator that matters and that is if there is a
marked and sustained increase in cases reported this week and early next week.
No, just evidence that community contagion had not been contained.
Same thing of course.
No, there is a significant difference.
Not true.
It would matter if even one infection was identified that indicated
that community contagion had not been contained.
No
Well that is your opinion, which is not a reliable indication of
anything anyone has actually said.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Cases now will not come from the recent behviour that you rightly
deplore, but from a couple of weeks ago. The timing is to cover that
period. There will be a risk in going down, but that risk is less if
the specialists believe they have community outbreaks under control.
All through, changes have been signalled based on scientific evidence.
In each case this has given warning and time to prepare, In each case
it has given time for continuing restrictions to be gone through a
number of times. In each case there has been the opportunity for
Opposition to call for decisions to be made one or two days earlier;
although all that has done is makethe government look calm,
considered, and able to give reasons for the timing that are not based
on 'gotcha' politicising - you call on how successful that has been
politically for government parties and the opposition.
That does not change the point which is that the number of cases is the only
real measure.
Post by Tony
Obviously if the bad behaviour (and I do not condone it) does not result
in
an
increase in cases then the problem does not exist.
We will not know for some time - and I suspect you do not mean that we
should wait on a decision until we know whether they have casued
another community outbreak.
Post by Tony
There is increasing pressure to open up commerce and industry again and there
is no reason, at this time, to not do so unless there is a hidden agenda.
Of course there is - is there anyone that does not agree?
Post by Tony
Charities are suffering and those that they help are suffering as a
consequence. Many small businesses cannot open in level 3 and many more that
are restricted.
The risk of a second wave of cases is worth basing the timing of
reducing restrictions to that based on science.
No cases means no current risk.
No it doesn't necessarily - we will continue to be at risk of new
cases arising from contagion from cases identified more than a few
weeks ago - the period after infection before symptoms occur.
That period will be over by next Monday.
Well done, Tony, that is one of the facts that you appear to have
missed previously. It does not of course mean that there is no further
infection possible, for various reasons.
Entirely off the point, a point you obtusively ignore.
You had a point?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
We will have a second wave of sorts unless we
keep the borders closed and we get a vaccine. That is the downside of the
approach that we have taken.
We are not planning on keeping the borders closed long term - just
having testing at the border and 14 day either self-isolation or
quarantine - we are getting reports on that in the daily briefings.
Without a vaccine, opening the borders without quarantine will, not may, will
cause a second wave.
So it is a good thing that, at this stage and for quite some time to
come, there are no proposals from government to open the borders
without either self-isolation or quarantine.
One day it will have to happen and you know it.
"and for quite some time to come" Are yu trying to create an argument
over agreement?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Also it makes no sense to re specify level 2 conditions, the existing
level
2
rules are sensible enough.
Of course it makles sense to specify level 2 conditions; when we went
to level 3 we had the stupid behaviour you complained of - it takes
two or three days for the message to get through.
Post by Tony
So any thoughts of extending level 3 are not supported by logic unless of
course there really is an increase in cases.
We will not know if there are further cases from previous community
contagion until the 11th. Even then we will not be able to be certain
that there will not be further cases, which is why there will still be
some restrictions.
Which is an unrelated issue.
It is the reason for the 11th being chosen as a date before which
there is insufficient information for a decision. So yes it is
relevant.
No.
As you admitted above, Monday is significant in being the end of a
period where it was possible that identified cases may have caused
furhter infections. That is not absolute, but enough of a certainly
under current knowledge that it is the first reasonable date on which
to assess a possible change from Levl 3 to Level 2. If you had
anything else in mind, Tony, perhaps you could indicate just what yu
meant by your single word "No" response.
I admitted nothing, you cannot debate without deliberately twisting my words.
It was a description of your statement - you may prefer another word
but it does not change what you said.
Tony
2020-05-05 04:42:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 21:42:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 20:20:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 18:03:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
On Mon, 04 May 2020 15:55:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/415739/covid-19-southern-dhb-releases-worst-case-scenario-modelling
Even with the lower num,ber of cases, a huge amount of other surgery
has had to be postponed - both for lack of resources as well as the
dangers of Covid infection for a vulnerable group.
and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414718/doctors-and-nurses-relieved-at-govt-s-cautious-approach
with many feeling htat we need further work on tracing before going to
level 2
So lets make sure we don't get a second wave . . .
Both of those cites relate to Health so none of them factor in
economic impact to the economy at large. Reducing Alert levels is
primarily to mitigate impact on the economy. The timing of those
reductions takes into account likely Health risks.
So far world experience of going out quickly hasn't always worked well
- think about Singapore and Sweden. China stayed in lockdown longer
than us with greater restrictions. The health and economic impacts are
linked - go out too soon and waste not only more lives, but weeks of
lockdown.
https://www.facebook.com/deryck.henley/videos/10206613783098707/?t=17
https://www.facebook.com/TheAMShowNZ/videos/254599102584718/?t=184
We are at an interesting point in this crisis.
To suggest, as more than one government official and the PM have suggested,
that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will
extend
level
3 is illogical.
Except it is not what has being said.
It is exactly what was strongly implied yesterday by Dr. Bloomfield and
the
PM.
Cite?
Perhaps you missed that request, Tony. Do you have a cite for your
claim that one government official and the PM have said: "ïf the
behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will extend level 3"
You will not be able to.
Can't you read?
I did not say that. Once more I did not say that (just in case you really can't
read)
Look back you liar and read what I said - here you are I will help you -
I wrote "It is exactly what was strongly implied yesterday by Dr. Bloomfield
and the PM." That was during yesterday's press conferences.
Before that I wrote "To suggest, as more than one government official and the
PM have suggested, that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve then we
will extend level 2"
In both cases I used the word suggest or implied (that requires you to
understand the English language), and that is what they did at both yesterday's
press conferences.
You had to remove the important words from what I wrote didn't you?
No, I merely looked for proof that the words you had quoted had been
said.
Post by Tony
Transcripts may be available, feel free to search for them.
In other words you made it all up . . .
Post by Tony
By the way the same implication occurred at 1pm today -were you watcing and
more importantly listening? The implication was impossible to misuderstand.
Your "implications" are what you think may have been said - your
interpretation. You cannot quote what is actually said, you are
therefore not credible
So you do not watch the press conferences. That makes sense, after all they are
in English.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The move from 3 to 2 depends on
our not getting more cases of community contagion that canot be
quickly traced. Poor behaviour makes that more likely, which is why
you and most people deplore it.
Post by Tony
It may well be that it is an empty threat used to encourage better behaviour
but it only takes one brain cell to see that it makes no sense.
Covered above. If we had an outbreak we may have to go back to a
higher level, no-one wants that.
Post by Tony
There is one and only one indicator that matters and that is if there
is
a
marked and sustained increase in cases reported this week and early
next
week.
No, just evidence that community contagion had not been contained.
Same thing of course.
No, there is a significant difference.
Not true.
It would matter if even one infection was identified that indicated
that community contagion had not been contained.
No
Well that is your opinion, which is not a reliable indication of
anything anyone has actually said.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Cases now will not come from the recent behviour that you rightly
deplore, but from a couple of weeks ago. The timing is to cover that
period. There will be a risk in going down, but that risk is less if
the specialists believe they have community outbreaks under control.
All through, changes have been signalled based on scientific evidence.
In each case this has given warning and time to prepare, In each case
it has given time for continuing restrictions to be gone through a
number of times. In each case there has been the opportunity for
Opposition to call for decisions to be made one or two days earlier;
although all that has done is makethe government look calm,
considered, and able to give reasons for the timing that are not based
on 'gotcha' politicising - you call on how successful that has been
politically for government parties and the opposition.
That does not change the point which is that the number of cases is the only
real measure.
Post by Tony
Obviously if the bad behaviour (and I do not condone it) does not result
in
an
increase in cases then the problem does not exist.
We will not know for some time - and I suspect you do not mean that we
should wait on a decision until we know whether they have casued
another community outbreak.
Post by Tony
There is increasing pressure to open up commerce and industry again and there
is no reason, at this time, to not do so unless there is a hidden agenda.
Of course there is - is there anyone that does not agree?
Post by Tony
Charities are suffering and those that they help are suffering as a
consequence. Many small businesses cannot open in level 3 and many more that
are restricted.
The risk of a second wave of cases is worth basing the timing of
reducing restrictions to that based on science.
No cases means no current risk.
No it doesn't necessarily - we will continue to be at risk of new
cases arising from contagion from cases identified more than a few
weeks ago - the period after infection before symptoms occur.
That period will be over by next Monday.
Well done, Tony, that is one of the facts that you appear to have
missed previously. It does not of course mean that there is no further
infection possible, for various reasons.
Entirely off the point, a point you obtusively ignore.
You had a point?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
We will have a second wave of sorts unless we
keep the borders closed and we get a vaccine. That is the downside of the
approach that we have taken.
We are not planning on keeping the borders closed long term - just
having testing at the border and 14 day either self-isolation or
quarantine - we are getting reports on that in the daily briefings.
Without a vaccine, opening the borders without quarantine will, not may, will
cause a second wave.
So it is a good thing that, at this stage and for quite some time to
come, there are no proposals from government to open the borders
without either self-isolation or quarantine.
One day it will have to happen and you know it.
"and for quite some time to come" Are yu trying to create an argument
over agreement?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Also it makes no sense to re specify level 2 conditions, the existing
level
2
rules are sensible enough.
Of course it makles sense to specify level 2 conditions; when we went
to level 3 we had the stupid behaviour you complained of - it takes
two or three days for the message to get through.
Post by Tony
So any thoughts of extending level 3 are not supported by logic unless of
course there really is an increase in cases.
We will not know if there are further cases from previous community
contagion until the 11th. Even then we will not be able to be certain
that there will not be further cases, which is why there will still be
some restrictions.
Which is an unrelated issue.
It is the reason for the 11th being chosen as a date before which
there is insufficient information for a decision. So yes it is
relevant.
No.
As you admitted above, Monday is significant in being the end of a
period where it was possible that identified cases may have caused
furhter infections. That is not absolute, but enough of a certainly
under current knowledge that it is the first reasonable date on which
to assess a possible change from Levl 3 to Level 2. If you had
anything else in mind, Tony, perhaps you could indicate just what yu
meant by your single word "No" response.
I admitted nothing, you cannot debate without deliberately twisting my words.
It was a description of your statement - you may prefer another word
but it does not change what you said.
Rich80105
2020-05-05 06:46:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 04 May 2020 23:42:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 21:42:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 20:20:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 18:03:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
On Mon, 04 May 2020 15:55:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/415739/covid-19-southern-dhb-releases-worst-case-scenario-modelling
Even with the lower num,ber of cases, a huge amount of other surgery
has had to be postponed - both for lack of resources as well as the
dangers of Covid infection for a vulnerable group.
and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414718/doctors-and-nurses-relieved-at-govt-s-cautious-approach
with many feeling htat we need further work on tracing before going to
level 2
So lets make sure we don't get a second wave . . .
Both of those cites relate to Health so none of them factor in
economic impact to the economy at large. Reducing Alert levels is
primarily to mitigate impact on the economy. The timing of those
reductions takes into account likely Health risks.
So far world experience of going out quickly hasn't always worked well
- think about Singapore and Sweden. China stayed in lockdown longer
than us with greater restrictions. The health and economic impacts are
linked - go out too soon and waste not only more lives, but weeks of
lockdown.
https://www.facebook.com/deryck.henley/videos/10206613783098707/?t=17
https://www.facebook.com/TheAMShowNZ/videos/254599102584718/?t=184
We are at an interesting point in this crisis.
To suggest, as more than one government official and the PM have suggested,
that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will
extend
level
3 is illogical.
Except it is not what has being said.
It is exactly what was strongly implied yesterday by Dr. Bloomfield and
the
PM.
Cite?
Perhaps you missed that request, Tony. Do you have a cite for your
claim that one government official and the PM have said: "ïf the
behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will extend level 3"
You will not be able to.
Can't you read?
I did not say that. Once more I did not say that (just in case you really can't
read)
Look back you liar and read what I said - here you are I will help you -
I wrote "It is exactly what was strongly implied yesterday by Dr. Bloomfield
and the PM." That was during yesterday's press conferences.
Before that I wrote "To suggest, as more than one government official and the
PM have suggested, that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve then we
will extend level 2"
In both cases I used the word suggest or implied (that requires you to
understand the English language), and that is what they did at both yesterday's
press conferences.
You had to remove the important words from what I wrote didn't you?
No, I merely looked for proof that the words you had quoted had been
said.
Post by Tony
Transcripts may be available, feel free to search for them.
In other words you made it all up . . .
Post by Tony
By the way the same implication occurred at 1pm today -were you watcing and
more importantly listening? The implication was impossible to misuderstand.
Your "implications" are what you think may have been said - your
interpretation. You cannot quote what is actually said, you are
therefore not credible
So you do not watch the press conferences. That makes sense, after all they are
in English.
Yes, Tony is running. Ashamed, unable to support his "impressions" of
what he thought had been said, he is avoiding the proof that he is,
yet again, wrong.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The move from 3 to 2 depends on
our not getting more cases of community contagion that canot be
quickly traced. Poor behaviour makes that more likely, which is why
you and most people deplore it.
Post by Tony
It may well be that it is an empty threat used to encourage better behaviour
but it only takes one brain cell to see that it makes no sense.
Covered above. If we had an outbreak we may have to go back to a
higher level, no-one wants that.
Post by Tony
There is one and only one indicator that matters and that is if there
is
a
marked and sustained increase in cases reported this week and early
next
week.
No, just evidence that community contagion had not been contained.
Same thing of course.
No, there is a significant difference.
Not true.
It would matter if even one infection was identified that indicated
that community contagion had not been contained.
No
Well that is your opinion, which is not a reliable indication of
anything anyone has actually said.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Cases now will not come from the recent behviour that you rightly
deplore, but from a couple of weeks ago. The timing is to cover that
period. There will be a risk in going down, but that risk is less if
the specialists believe they have community outbreaks under control.
All through, changes have been signalled based on scientific evidence.
In each case this has given warning and time to prepare, In each case
it has given time for continuing restrictions to be gone through a
number of times. In each case there has been the opportunity for
Opposition to call for decisions to be made one or two days earlier;
although all that has done is makethe government look calm,
considered, and able to give reasons for the timing that are not based
on 'gotcha' politicising - you call on how successful that has been
politically for government parties and the opposition.
That does not change the point which is that the number of cases is the only
real measure.
Post by Tony
Obviously if the bad behaviour (and I do not condone it) does not result
in
an
increase in cases then the problem does not exist.
We will not know for some time - and I suspect you do not mean that we
should wait on a decision until we know whether they have casued
another community outbreak.
Post by Tony
There is increasing pressure to open up commerce and industry again and there
is no reason, at this time, to not do so unless there is a hidden agenda.
Of course there is - is there anyone that does not agree?
Post by Tony
Charities are suffering and those that they help are suffering as a
consequence. Many small businesses cannot open in level 3 and many more that
are restricted.
The risk of a second wave of cases is worth basing the timing of
reducing restrictions to that based on science.
No cases means no current risk.
No it doesn't necessarily - we will continue to be at risk of new
cases arising from contagion from cases identified more than a few
weeks ago - the period after infection before symptoms occur.
That period will be over by next Monday.
Well done, Tony, that is one of the facts that you appear to have
missed previously. It does not of course mean that there is no further
infection possible, for various reasons.
Entirely off the point, a point you obtusively ignore.
You had a point?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
We will have a second wave of sorts unless we
keep the borders closed and we get a vaccine. That is the downside of the
approach that we have taken.
We are not planning on keeping the borders closed long term - just
having testing at the border and 14 day either self-isolation or
quarantine - we are getting reports on that in the daily briefings.
Without a vaccine, opening the borders without quarantine will, not may, will
cause a second wave.
So it is a good thing that, at this stage and for quite some time to
come, there are no proposals from government to open the borders
without either self-isolation or quarantine.
One day it will have to happen and you know it.
"and for quite some time to come" Are yu trying to create an argument
over agreement?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Also it makes no sense to re specify level 2 conditions, the existing
level
2
rules are sensible enough.
Of course it makles sense to specify level 2 conditions; when we went
to level 3 we had the stupid behaviour you complained of - it takes
two or three days for the message to get through.
Post by Tony
So any thoughts of extending level 3 are not supported by logic unless of
course there really is an increase in cases.
We will not know if there are further cases from previous community
contagion until the 11th. Even then we will not be able to be certain
that there will not be further cases, which is why there will still be
some restrictions.
Which is an unrelated issue.
It is the reason for the 11th being chosen as a date before which
there is insufficient information for a decision. So yes it is
relevant.
No.
As you admitted above, Monday is significant in being the end of a
period where it was possible that identified cases may have caused
furhter infections. That is not absolute, but enough of a certainly
under current knowledge that it is the first reasonable date on which
to assess a possible change from Levl 3 to Level 2. If you had
anything else in mind, Tony, perhaps you could indicate just what yu
meant by your single word "No" response.
I admitted nothing, you cannot debate without deliberately twisting my words.
It was a description of your statement - you may prefer another word
but it does not change what you said.
Tony
2020-05-05 06:50:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 23:42:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 21:42:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 20:20:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 18:03:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
On Mon, 04 May 2020 15:55:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 09:33:44 +1200, Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/415739/covid-19-southern-dhb-releases-worst-case-scenario-modelling
Even with the lower num,ber of cases, a huge amount of other surgery
has had to be postponed - both for lack of resources as well as the
dangers of Covid infection for a vulnerable group.
and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414718/doctors-and-nurses-relieved-at-govt-s-cautious-approach
with many feeling htat we need further work on tracing before
going
to
level 2
So lets make sure we don't get a second wave . . .
Both of those cites relate to Health so none of them factor in
economic impact to the economy at large. Reducing Alert levels is
primarily to mitigate impact on the economy. The timing of those
reductions takes into account likely Health risks.
So far world experience of going out quickly hasn't always worked well
- think about Singapore and Sweden. China stayed in lockdown longer
than us with greater restrictions. The health and economic impacts are
linked - go out too soon and waste not only more lives, but weeks of
lockdown.
https://www.facebook.com/deryck.henley/videos/10206613783098707/?t=17
https://www.facebook.com/TheAMShowNZ/videos/254599102584718/?t=184
We are at an interesting point in this crisis.
To suggest, as more than one government official and the PM have suggested,
that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will
extend
level
3 is illogical.
Except it is not what has being said.
It is exactly what was strongly implied yesterday by Dr. Bloomfield and
the
PM.
Cite?
Perhaps you missed that request, Tony. Do you have a cite for your
claim that one government official and the PM have said: "ïf the
behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will extend level 3"
You will not be able to.
Can't you read?
I did not say that. Once more I did not say that (just in case you really can't
read)
Look back you liar and read what I said - here you are I will help you -
I wrote "It is exactly what was strongly implied yesterday by Dr. Bloomfield
and the PM." That was during yesterday's press conferences.
Before that I wrote "To suggest, as more than one government official and the
PM have suggested, that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve
then
we
will extend level 2"
In both cases I used the word suggest or implied (that requires you to
understand the English language), and that is what they did at both yesterday's
press conferences.
You had to remove the important words from what I wrote didn't you?
No, I merely looked for proof that the words you had quoted had been
said.
Post by Tony
Transcripts may be available, feel free to search for them.
In other words you made it all up . . .
Post by Tony
By the way the same implication occurred at 1pm today -were you watcing and
more importantly listening? The implication was impossible to misuderstand.
Your "implications" are what you think may have been said - your
interpretation. You cannot quote what is actually said, you are
therefore not credible
So you do not watch the press conferences. That makes sense, after all they are
in English.
Yes, Tony is running. Ashamed, unable to support his "impressions" of
what he thought had been said, he is avoiding the proof that he is,
yet again, wrong.
You are a liar, a defamer and an abuser. You cannot debate with me because you
automatically go on the defensive with anything I post.
How sad that someone as limited as you cannot be at least honest enough to
debate without twisting my words.
Sad and lonely no doubt.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The move from 3 to 2 depends on
our not getting more cases of community contagion that canot be
quickly traced. Poor behaviour makes that more likely, which is why
you and most people deplore it.
Post by Tony
It may well be that it is an empty threat used to encourage better
behaviour
but it only takes one brain cell to see that it makes no sense.
Covered above. If we had an outbreak we may have to go back to a
higher level, no-one wants that.
Post by Tony
There is one and only one indicator that matters and that is if there
is
a
marked and sustained increase in cases reported this week and early
next
week.
No, just evidence that community contagion had not been contained.
Same thing of course.
No, there is a significant difference.
Not true.
It would matter if even one infection was identified that indicated
that community contagion had not been contained.
No
Well that is your opinion, which is not a reliable indication of
anything anyone has actually said.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Cases now will not come from the recent behviour that you rightly
deplore, but from a couple of weeks ago. The timing is to cover that
period. There will be a risk in going down, but that risk is less if
the specialists believe they have community outbreaks under control.
All through, changes have been signalled based on scientific evidence.
In each case this has given warning and time to prepare, In each case
it has given time for continuing restrictions to be gone through a
number of times. In each case there has been the opportunity for
Opposition to call for decisions to be made one or two days earlier;
although all that has done is makethe government look calm,
considered, and able to give reasons for the timing that are not based
on 'gotcha' politicising - you call on how successful that has been
politically for government parties and the opposition.
That does not change the point which is that the number of cases is the only
real measure.
Post by Tony
Obviously if the bad behaviour (and I do not condone it) does not result
in
an
increase in cases then the problem does not exist.
We will not know for some time - and I suspect you do not mean that we
should wait on a decision until we know whether they have casued
another community outbreak.
Post by Tony
There is increasing pressure to open up commerce and industry again
and
there
is no reason, at this time, to not do so unless there is a hidden agenda.
Of course there is - is there anyone that does not agree?
Post by Tony
Charities are suffering and those that they help are suffering as a
consequence. Many small businesses cannot open in level 3 and many
more
that
are restricted.
The risk of a second wave of cases is worth basing the timing of
reducing restrictions to that based on science.
No cases means no current risk.
No it doesn't necessarily - we will continue to be at risk of new
cases arising from contagion from cases identified more than a few
weeks ago - the period after infection before symptoms occur.
That period will be over by next Monday.
Well done, Tony, that is one of the facts that you appear to have
missed previously. It does not of course mean that there is no further
infection possible, for various reasons.
Entirely off the point, a point you obtusively ignore.
You had a point?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
We will have a second wave of sorts unless we
keep the borders closed and we get a vaccine. That is the downside of the
approach that we have taken.
We are not planning on keeping the borders closed long term - just
having testing at the border and 14 day either self-isolation or
quarantine - we are getting reports on that in the daily briefings.
Without a vaccine, opening the borders without quarantine will, not may, will
cause a second wave.
So it is a good thing that, at this stage and for quite some time to
come, there are no proposals from government to open the borders
without either self-isolation or quarantine.
One day it will have to happen and you know it.
"and for quite some time to come" Are yu trying to create an argument
over agreement?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Also it makes no sense to re specify level 2 conditions, the existing
level
2
rules are sensible enough.
Of course it makles sense to specify level 2 conditions; when we went
to level 3 we had the stupid behaviour you complained of - it takes
two or three days for the message to get through.
Post by Tony
So any thoughts of extending level 3 are not supported by logic
unless
of
course there really is an increase in cases.
We will not know if there are further cases from previous community
contagion until the 11th. Even then we will not be able to be certain
that there will not be further cases, which is why there will still be
some restrictions.
Which is an unrelated issue.
It is the reason for the 11th being chosen as a date before which
there is insufficient information for a decision. So yes it is
relevant.
No.
As you admitted above, Monday is significant in being the end of a
period where it was possible that identified cases may have caused
furhter infections. That is not absolute, but enough of a certainly
under current knowledge that it is the first reasonable date on which
to assess a possible change from Levl 3 to Level 2. If you had
anything else in mind, Tony, perhaps you could indicate just what yu
meant by your single word "No" response.
I admitted nothing, you cannot debate without deliberately twisting my words.
It was a description of your statement - you may prefer another word
but it does not change what you said.
Rich80105
2020-05-05 08:52:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 05 May 2020 01:50:45 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 23:42:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 21:42:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 20:20:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 18:03:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
On Mon, 04 May 2020 15:55:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 09:33:44 +1200, Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/415739/covid-19-southern-dhb-releases-worst-case-scenario-modelling
Even with the lower num,ber of cases, a huge amount of other
surgery
has had to be postponed - both for lack of resources as well as the
dangers of Covid infection for a vulnerable group.
and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414718/doctors-and-nurses-relieved-at-govt-s-cautious-approach
with many feeling htat we need further work on tracing before
going
to
level 2
So lets make sure we don't get a second wave . . .
Both of those cites relate to Health so none of them factor in
economic impact to the economy at large. Reducing Alert levels is
primarily to mitigate impact on the economy. The timing of those
reductions takes into account likely Health risks.
So far world experience of going out quickly hasn't always worked well
- think about Singapore and Sweden. China stayed in lockdown longer
than us with greater restrictions. The health and economic impacts are
linked - go out too soon and waste not only more lives, but weeks of
lockdown.
https://www.facebook.com/deryck.henley/videos/10206613783098707/?t=17
https://www.facebook.com/TheAMShowNZ/videos/254599102584718/?t=184
We are at an interesting point in this crisis.
To suggest, as more than one government official and the PM have
suggested,
that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will
extend
level
3 is illogical.
Except it is not what has being said.
It is exactly what was strongly implied yesterday by Dr. Bloomfield and
the
PM.
Cite?
Perhaps you missed that request, Tony. Do you have a cite for your
claim that one government official and the PM have said: "ïf the
behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will extend level 3"
You will not be able to.
Can't you read?
I did not say that. Once more I did not say that (just in case you really can't
read)
Look back you liar and read what I said - here you are I will help you -
I wrote "It is exactly what was strongly implied yesterday by Dr. Bloomfield
and the PM." That was during yesterday's press conferences.
Before that I wrote "To suggest, as more than one government official and the
PM have suggested, that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve
then
we
will extend level 2"
In both cases I used the word suggest or implied (that requires you to
understand the English language), and that is what they did at both yesterday's
press conferences.
You had to remove the important words from what I wrote didn't you?
No, I merely looked for proof that the words you had quoted had been
said.
Post by Tony
Transcripts may be available, feel free to search for them.
In other words you made it all up . . .
Post by Tony
By the way the same implication occurred at 1pm today -were you watcing and
more importantly listening? The implication was impossible to misuderstand.
Your "implications" are what you think may have been said - your
interpretation. You cannot quote what is actually said, you are
therefore not credible
So you do not watch the press conferences. That makes sense, after all they are
in English.
Yes, Tony is running. Ashamed, unable to support his "impressions" of
what he thought had been said, he is avoiding the proof that he is,
yet again, wrong.
You are a liar, a defamer and an abuser. You cannot debate with me because you
automatically go on the defensive with anything I post.
How sad that someone as limited as you cannot be at least honest enough to
debate without twisting my words.
Sad and lonely no doubt.
All I asked was that you justify a claim you made. All you did was
abuse in an attempt to distract from your own failure. End of story.
Tony
2020-05-05 20:02:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 05 May 2020 01:50:45 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 23:42:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 21:42:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 20:20:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 18:03:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
On Mon, 04 May 2020 15:55:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
On Mon, 04 May 2020 11:53:25 +1200, Crash
On Mon, 04 May 2020 09:33:44 +1200, Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/415739/covid-19-southern-dhb-releases-worst-case-scenario-modelling
Even with the lower num,ber of cases, a huge amount of other
surgery
has had to be postponed - both for lack of resources as well as
the
dangers of Covid infection for a vulnerable group.
and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414718/doctors-and-nurses-relieved-at-govt-s-cautious-approach
with many feeling htat we need further work on tracing before
going
to
level 2
So lets make sure we don't get a second wave . . .
Both of those cites relate to Health so none of them factor in
economic impact to the economy at large. Reducing Alert levels is
primarily to mitigate impact on the economy. The timing of those
reductions takes into account likely Health risks.
So far world experience of going out quickly hasn't always worked
well
- think about Singapore and Sweden. China stayed in lockdown longer
than us with greater restrictions. The health and economic impacts
are
linked - go out too soon and waste not only more lives, but weeks of
lockdown.
https://www.facebook.com/deryck.henley/videos/10206613783098707/?t=17
https://www.facebook.com/TheAMShowNZ/videos/254599102584718/?t=184
We are at an interesting point in this crisis.
To suggest, as more than one government official and the PM have
suggested,
that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will
extend
level
3 is illogical.
Except it is not what has being said.
It is exactly what was strongly implied yesterday by Dr. Bloomfield and
the
PM.
Cite?
Perhaps you missed that request, Tony. Do you have a cite for your
claim that one government official and the PM have said: "ïf the
behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will extend level 3"
You will not be able to.
Can't you read?
I did not say that. Once more I did not say that (just in case you really can't
read)
Look back you liar and read what I said - here you are I will help you -
I wrote "It is exactly what was strongly implied yesterday by Dr. Bloomfield
and the PM." That was during yesterday's press conferences.
Before that I wrote "To suggest, as more than one government official and the
PM have suggested, that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve
then
we
will extend level 2"
In both cases I used the word suggest or implied (that requires you to
understand the English language), and that is what they did at both yesterday's
press conferences.
You had to remove the important words from what I wrote didn't you?
No, I merely looked for proof that the words you had quoted had been
said.
Post by Tony
Transcripts may be available, feel free to search for them.
In other words you made it all up . . .
Post by Tony
By the way the same implication occurred at 1pm today -were you watcing and
more importantly listening? The implication was impossible to misuderstand.
Your "implications" are what you think may have been said - your
interpretation. You cannot quote what is actually said, you are
therefore not credible
So you do not watch the press conferences. That makes sense, after all they are
in English.
Yes, Tony is running. Ashamed, unable to support his "impressions" of
what he thought had been said, he is avoiding the proof that he is,
yet again, wrong.
You are a liar, a defamer and an abuser. You cannot debate with me because you
automatically go on the defensive with anything I post.
How sad that someone as limited as you cannot be at least honest enough to
debate without twisting my words.
Sad and lonely no doubt.
All I asked was that you justify a claim you made. All you did was
abuse in an attempt to distract from your own failure. End of story.
I did not abuse at all until you did. That is the end of the story.
And I provided the source right at the beginning but you either did not read
that or decided to play youir silly game again.
Rich80105
2020-05-06 05:26:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 05 May 2020 01:50:45 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 23:42:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 21:42:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 20:20:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 18:03:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
On Mon, 04 May 2020 15:55:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
On Mon, 04 May 2020 11:53:25 +1200, Crash
On Mon, 04 May 2020 09:33:44 +1200, Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/415739/covid-19-southern-dhb-releases-worst-case-scenario-modelling
Even with the lower num,ber of cases, a huge amount of other
surgery
has had to be postponed - both for lack of resources as well as
the
dangers of Covid infection for a vulnerable group.
and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414718/doctors-and-nurses-relieved-at-govt-s-cautious-approach
with many feeling htat we need further work on tracing before
going
to
level 2
So lets make sure we don't get a second wave . . .
Both of those cites relate to Health so none of them factor in
economic impact to the economy at large. Reducing Alert levels is
primarily to mitigate impact on the economy. The timing of those
reductions takes into account likely Health risks.
So far world experience of going out quickly hasn't always worked
well
- think about Singapore and Sweden. China stayed in lockdown longer
than us with greater restrictions. The health and economic impacts
are
linked - go out too soon and waste not only more lives, but weeks
of
lockdown.
https://www.facebook.com/deryck.henley/videos/10206613783098707/?t=17
https://www.facebook.com/TheAMShowNZ/videos/254599102584718/?t=184
We are at an interesting point in this crisis.
To suggest, as more than one government official and the PM have
suggested,
that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will
extend
level
3 is illogical.
Except it is not what has being said.
It is exactly what was strongly implied yesterday by Dr. Bloomfield and
the
PM.
Cite?
Perhaps you missed that request, Tony. Do you have a cite for your
claim that one government official and the PM have said: "ïf the
behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will extend level 3"
You will not be able to.
Can't you read?
I did not say that. Once more I did not say that (just in case you really can't
read)
Look back you liar and read what I said - here you are I will help you -
I wrote "It is exactly what was strongly implied yesterday by Dr. Bloomfield
and the PM." That was during yesterday's press conferences.
Before that I wrote "To suggest, as more than one government official and the
PM have suggested, that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve
then
we
will extend level 2"
In both cases I used the word suggest or implied (that requires you to
understand the English language), and that is what they did at both yesterday's
press conferences.
You had to remove the important words from what I wrote didn't you?
No, I merely looked for proof that the words you had quoted had been
said.
Post by Tony
Transcripts may be available, feel free to search for them.
In other words you made it all up . . .
Post by Tony
By the way the same implication occurred at 1pm today -were you watcing and
more importantly listening? The implication was impossible to misuderstand.
Your "implications" are what you think may have been said - your
interpretation. You cannot quote what is actually said, you are
therefore not credible
So you do not watch the press conferences. That makes sense, after all they are
in English.
Yes, Tony is running. Ashamed, unable to support his "impressions" of
what he thought had been said, he is avoiding the proof that he is,
yet again, wrong.
You are a liar, a defamer and an abuser. You cannot debate with me because you
automatically go on the defensive with anything I post.
How sad that someone as limited as you cannot be at least honest enough to
debate without twisting my words.
Sad and lonely no doubt.
All I asked was that you justify a claim you made. All you did was
abuse in an attempt to distract from your own failure. End of story.
I did not abuse at all until you did. That is the end of the story.
And I provided the source right at the beginning but you either did not read
that or decided to play youir silly game again.
Sorry Tony
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Rich80105
2020-05-06 08:44:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 05 May 2020 01:50:45 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 23:42:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 21:42:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 20:20:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 18:03:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
On Mon, 04 May 2020 15:55:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
On Mon, 04 May 2020 11:53:25 +1200, Crash
On Mon, 04 May 2020 09:33:44 +1200, Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/415739/covid-19-southern-dhb-releases-worst-case-scenario-modelling
Even with the lower num,ber of cases, a huge amount of other
surgery
has had to be postponed - both for lack of resources as well as
the
dangers of Covid infection for a vulnerable group.
and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414718/doctors-and-nurses-relieved-at-govt-s-cautious-approach
with many feeling htat we need further work on tracing before
going
to
level 2
So lets make sure we don't get a second wave . . .
Both of those cites relate to Health so none of them factor in
economic impact to the economy at large. Reducing Alert levels is
primarily to mitigate impact on the economy. The timing of those
reductions takes into account likely Health risks.
So far world experience of going out quickly hasn't always worked
well
- think about Singapore and Sweden. China stayed in lockdown longer
than us with greater restrictions. The health and economic impacts
are
linked - go out too soon and waste not only more lives, but weeks
of
lockdown.
https://www.facebook.com/deryck.henley/videos/10206613783098707/?t=17
https://www.facebook.com/TheAMShowNZ/videos/254599102584718/?t=184
We are at an interesting point in this crisis.
To suggest, as more than one government official and the PM have
suggested,
that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will
extend
level
3 is illogical.
Except it is not what has being said.
It is exactly what was strongly implied yesterday by Dr. Bloomfield
and
the
PM.
Cite?
Perhaps you missed that request, Tony. Do you have a cite for your
claim that one government official and the PM have said: "ïf the
behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will extend level 3"
You will not be able to.
Can't you read?
I did not say that. Once more I did not say that (just in case you really
can't
read)
Look back you liar and read what I said - here you are I will help you -
I wrote "It is exactly what was strongly implied yesterday by Dr. Bloomfield
and the PM." That was during yesterday's press conferences.
Before that I wrote "To suggest, as more than one government official and the
PM have suggested, that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve
then
we
will extend level 2"
In both cases I used the word suggest or implied (that requires you to
understand the English language), and that is what they did at both
yesterday's
press conferences.
You had to remove the important words from what I wrote didn't you?
No, I merely looked for proof that the words you had quoted had been
said.
Post by Tony
Transcripts may be available, feel free to search for them.
In other words you made it all up . . .
Post by Tony
By the way the same implication occurred at 1pm today -were you watcing and
more importantly listening? The implication was impossible to misuderstand.
Your "implications" are what you think may have been said - your
interpretation. You cannot quote what is actually said, you are
therefore not credible
So you do not watch the press conferences. That makes sense, after all they are
in English.
Yes, Tony is running. Ashamed, unable to support his "impressions" of
what he thought had been said, he is avoiding the proof that he is,
yet again, wrong.
You are a liar, a defamer and an abuser. You cannot debate with me because you
automatically go on the defensive with anything I post.
How sad that someone as limited as you cannot be at least honest enough to
debate without twisting my words.
Sad and lonely no doubt.
All I asked was that you justify a claim you made. All you did was
abuse in an attempt to distract from your own failure. End of story.
I did not abuse at all until you did. That is the end of the story.
And I provided the source right at the beginning but you either did not read
that or decided to play youir silly game again.
Sorry Tony
More fraud - not a noble debating tactic pretending to be another
poster.
John Bowes
2020-05-05 08:52:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 23:42:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 21:42:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 20:20:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 18:03:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
On Mon, 04 May 2020 15:55:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 04 May 2020 09:33:44 +1200, Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/415739/covid-19-southern-dhb-releases-worst-case-scenario-modelling
Even with the lower num,ber of cases, a huge amount of other
surgery
has had to be postponed - both for lack of resources as well as the
dangers of Covid infection for a vulnerable group.
and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414718/doctors-and-nurses-relieved-at-govt-s-cautious-approach
with many feeling htat we need further work on tracing before
going
to
level 2
So lets make sure we don't get a second wave . . .
Both of those cites relate to Health so none of them factor in
economic impact to the economy at large. Reducing Alert levels is
primarily to mitigate impact on the economy. The timing of those
reductions takes into account likely Health risks.
So far world experience of going out quickly hasn't always worked
well
- think about Singapore and Sweden. China stayed in lockdown longer
than us with greater restrictions. The health and economic impacts
are
linked - go out too soon and waste not only more lives, but weeks of
lockdown.
https://www.facebook.com/deryck.henley/videos/10206613783098707/?t=17
https://www.facebook.com/TheAMShowNZ/videos/254599102584718/?t=184
We are at an interesting point in this crisis.
To suggest, as more than one government official and the PM have
suggested,
that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will
extend
level
3 is illogical.
Except it is not what has being said.
It is exactly what was strongly implied yesterday by Dr. Bloomfield and
the
PM.
Cite?
Perhaps you missed that request, Tony. Do you have a cite for your
claim that one government official and the PM have said: "ļf the
behaviour of a minority does not improve then we will extend level 3"
You will not be able to.
Can't you read?
I did not say that. Once more I did not say that (just in case you really can't
read)
Look back you liar and read what I said - here you are I will help you -
I wrote "It is exactly what was strongly implied yesterday by Dr. Bloomfield
and the PM." That was during yesterday's press conferences.
Before that I wrote "To suggest, as more than one government official and the
PM have suggested, that if the behaviour of a minority does not improve
then
we
will extend level 2"
In both cases I used the word suggest or implied (that requires you to
understand the English language), and that is what they did at both yesterday's
press conferences.
You had to remove the important words from what I wrote didn't you?
No, I merely looked for proof that the words you had quoted had been
said.
Post by Tony
Transcripts may be available, feel free to search for them.
In other words you made it all up . . .
Post by Tony
By the way the same implication occurred at 1pm today -were you watcing and
more importantly listening? The implication was impossible to misuderstand.
Your "implications" are what you think may have been said - your
interpretation. You cannot quote what is actually said, you are
therefore not credible
So you do not watch the press conferences. That makes sense, after all they are
in English.
Yes, Tony is running. Ashamed, unable to support his "impressions" of
what he thought had been said, he is avoiding the proof that he is,
yet again, wrong.
You are a liar, a defamer and an abuser. You cannot debate with me because you
automatically go on the defensive with anything I post.
How sad that someone as limited as you cannot be at least honest enough to
debate without twisting my words.
Sad and lonely no doubt.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The move from 3 to 2 depends on
our not getting more cases of community contagion that canot be
quickly traced. Poor behaviour makes that more likely, which is why
you and most people deplore it.
Post by Tony
It may well be that it is an empty threat used to encourage better
behaviour
but it only takes one brain cell to see that it makes no sense.
Covered above. If we had an outbreak we may have to go back to a
higher level, no-one wants that.
Post by Tony
There is one and only one indicator that matters and that is if there
is
a
marked and sustained increase in cases reported this week and early
next
week.
No, just evidence that community contagion had not been contained.
Same thing of course.
No, there is a significant difference.
Not true.
It would matter if even one infection was identified that indicated
that community contagion had not been contained.
No
Well that is your opinion, which is not a reliable indication of
anything anyone has actually said.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Cases now will not come from the recent behviour that you rightly
deplore, but from a couple of weeks ago. The timing is to cover that
period. There will be a risk in going down, but that risk is less if
the specialists believe they have community outbreaks under control.
All through, changes have been signalled based on scientific evidence.
In each case this has given warning and time to prepare, In each case
it has given time for continuing restrictions to be gone through a
number of times. In each case there has been the opportunity for
Opposition to call for decisions to be made one or two days earlier;
although all that has done is makethe government look calm,
considered, and able to give reasons for the timing that are not based
on 'gotcha' politicising - you call on how successful that has been
politically for government parties and the opposition.
That does not change the point which is that the number of cases is the
only
real measure.
Post by Tony
Obviously if the bad behaviour (and I do not condone it) does not
result
in
an
increase in cases then the problem does not exist.
We will not know for some time - and I suspect you do not mean that we
should wait on a decision until we know whether they have casued
another community outbreak.
Post by Tony
There is increasing pressure to open up commerce and industry again
and
there
is no reason, at this time, to not do so unless there is a hidden
agenda.
Of course there is - is there anyone that does not agree?
Post by Tony
Charities are suffering and those that they help are suffering as a
consequence. Many small businesses cannot open in level 3 and many
more
that
are restricted.
The risk of a second wave of cases is worth basing the timing of
reducing restrictions to that based on science.
No cases means no current risk.
No it doesn't necessarily - we will continue to be at risk of new
cases arising from contagion from cases identified more than a few
weeks ago - the period after infection before symptoms occur.
That period will be over by next Monday.
Well done, Tony, that is one of the facts that you appear to have
missed previously. It does not of course mean that there is no further
infection possible, for various reasons.
Entirely off the point, a point you obtusively ignore.
You had a point?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
We will have a second wave of sorts unless we
keep the borders closed and we get a vaccine. That is the downside of the
approach that we have taken.
We are not planning on keeping the borders closed long term - just
having testing at the border and 14 day either self-isolation or
quarantine - we are getting reports on that in the daily briefings.
Without a vaccine, opening the borders without quarantine will, not may, will
cause a second wave.
So it is a good thing that, at this stage and for quite some time to
come, there are no proposals from government to open the borders
without either self-isolation or quarantine.
One day it will have to happen and you know it.
"and for quite some time to come" Are yu trying to create an argument
over agreement?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Also it makes no sense to re specify level 2 conditions, the existing
level
2
rules are sensible enough.
Of course it makles sense to specify level 2 conditions; when we went
to level 3 we had the stupid behaviour you complained of - it takes
two or three days for the message to get through.
Post by Tony
So any thoughts of extending level 3 are not supported by logic
unless
of
course there really is an increase in cases.
We will not know if there are further cases from previous community
contagion until the 11th. Even then we will not be able to be certain
that there will not be further cases, which is why there will still be
some restrictions.
Which is an unrelated issue.
It is the reason for the 11th being chosen as a date before which
there is insufficient information for a decision. So yes it is
relevant.
No.
As you admitted above, Monday is significant in being the end of a
period where it was possible that identified cases may have caused
furhter infections. That is not absolute, but enough of a certainly
under current knowledge that it is the first reasonable date on which
to assess a possible change from Levl 3 to Level 2. If you had
anything else in mind, Tony, perhaps you could indicate just what yu
meant by your single word "No" response.
I admitted nothing, you cannot debate without deliberately twisting my words.
It was a description of your statement - you may prefer another word
but it does not change what you said.
You'd get more joy trying to debate with your grand or great grandchildren Tony. They'd probably debate more sensibly than the comprehensionless Rich as well :)
Gordon
2020-05-04 04:31:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/415739/covid-19-southern-dhb-releases-worst-case-scenario-modelling
Even with the lower num,ber of cases, a huge amount of other surgery
has had to be postponed - both for lack of resources as well as the
dangers of Covid infection for a vulnerable group.
and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414718/doctors-and-nurses-relieved-at-govt-s-cautious-approach
with many feeling htat we need further work on tracing before going to
level 2
So lets make sure we don't get a second wave . . .
Both of those cites relate to Health so none of them factor in
economic impact to the economy at large. Reducing Alert levels is
primarily to mitigate impact on the economy.
Well, I would argue so that the people do not revolt.
Loading...