sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

New Zealand can take ideas and lessons for the Covid-19 path ahead from other small, developed countries such as Singapore, Denmark and Israel, David Skilling says

New Zealand can take ideas and lessons for the Covid-19 path ahead from other small, developed countries such as Singapore, Denmark and Israel, David Skilling says

There are ideas and lessons New Zealand can take onboard from other small, developed countries such as Singapore, Denmark and Israel as the Covid-19 pandemic moves into its next stage, suggests David Skilling.

Skilling, director at economic advisory firm Landfall Strategy Group and former chief executive of public policy think tank the New Zealand Institute, now lives in the Netherlands having moved from Singapore in 2019. With a specific focus on small, advanced economies, Skilling sees learnings for NZ from overseas as it grapples with the current Delta variant outbreak and looks to reopen to the world.

Speaking to interest.co.nz in a Zoom interview, Skilling notes Singapore took a similar approach to New Zealand in the early stages of the Covid pandemic, by trying to get case numbers as close to zero as possible. Even though Singapore now has one of the highest vaccination rates, they're still imposing restrictions with Covid cases in the community.

"They're now trying to get into this balancing act of how do we sensibly reopen, get jobs back, get the economy moving in a way that doesn't jeopardise public health outcomes as well. They have various travel windows that are open, they are actively thinking about how do you loosen quarantine arrangements, what's the timeline for reopening the economy," Skilling says.

"They are being very pragmatic, very balanced about it if you like, understanding that there are trade-offs, that you can't keep the economy closed indefinitely. So they are edging their way forward signaling that they're going to be opening up over the next several months. They're going to do that in an incremental way, [and] they're going to tighten up if they need to."

"But in general they've got a pretty clear direction of travel. And I think over the next two, three months we'll see Singapore begin to open up quite markedly. They are very aware that there are going to be some risks associated with that, which they will manage as those risks manifest. But I think they are in a position where, because vaccination rates are so high, they've got a public health system that's very functional and the [Covid] death rates remain really low, there's a sense they really are in a position to move," Skilling says.

On August 12 the NZ Government outlined a risked-based approach for how the country could gradually reopen to the world from the first quarter of 2022. Travelers were to be categorised either low, medium or high-risk depending on where they come from and their vaccination status. Businesses and organisations needing to send staff overseas were to be invited to partake in a pilot project involving some isolation at home upon their return.

However, the current community Delta outbreak has seen opening up to the world slip down the Government's priority list. When it's a focus again, Skilling says there's a lot to learn from Singapore.

"There are things to learn from Singapore in terms of logistics, the techniques, what the strategy looks like, but also there are things to learn from Singapore in terms of how do you begin to adjust from Covid being a global pandemic to something that's endemic, that's going to be with us for some time. We'll never completely kill it, at least not for the foreseeable future, [so] we have to learn to live with it," says Skilling.

"To me that's the bigger learning from Singapore and from some others, is how do you adjust your mindsets and your approach to something that's endemic?"

Skilling is supportive of the NZ government's reluctance, so far, to set a specific vaccination rate target arguing there's no magic number.

"Even if you get vaccination rates of 80%, 90%, which is where Singapore, Denmark and the like are, you are going to have Delta spreading. You'll have cases, you'll have hospitalisations, you'll have deaths. There is no magic number of vaccinations that will satisfy the elimination criteria."

Denmark's recent move to remove formal Covid restrictions is an acceptance that the virus is endemic, he says.

"I think the reality for New Zealand is there is no magic vaccination rate that we can then relax and things will go back to normal. Israel is the classic example of this. It led the world in terms of very high vaccination rates, then began to normalise and then discovered actually cases were rocketing. Not so much hospitalisations and deaths, but certainly the number of cases. So they had to clamp down again. And in the last week or so they've begun a systematic programme of third shots, and they're talking now about getting supplies so they can give fourth shots to people if required," says Skilling.

It's possible to return to a "normal-ish" world, but not 2019 normal, he adds.

"The unfortunate reality is that normal is not going to be zero cases or zero deaths." 

"In a sense because New Zealand has been so successful in keeping the cases and the deaths so low compared to other countries, and as far as I can tell the voting base also regard it as a huge success, that makes it a bit more difficult to begin to depart from that policy setting which is quite a binary one [where] we're going for zero," says Skilling.

"Moving to a more grey set of scenarios is a tricky thing to do both as a matter of policy but also as a matter of politics. Covid is always better seen as a marathon rather than a sprint. New Zealand did extraordinarily well through the early stages of Covid in terms of keeping cases and deaths down and being able to reopen the economy. But the reality is there is no finishing line for Covid. And Israel gives us an indication it's going to keep rolling probably for years to come." 

"So I think the trick is just because something worked incredibly well in the early days...doesn't mean that we can keep on rolling that strategy out indefinitely. At some point we do need to transition to something else. And I think that's where looking at the international experience, Singapore, Denmark, Israel and the like is quite instructive. It gives us a sense of what other tradeoffs, what other choices are open to us, and what has worked well and not well," says Skilling.

"I don't think we can continue running the elimination strategy indefinitely, and my sense is that's now becoming the consensus view. The challenge is what does that actually look like specifically? And that's going to be quite a difficult conversation to have."

'It is unfortunately everyone for themselves'

Skilling last spoke to interest.co.nz in April 2020, in the early days of the pandemic. In that interview he made the point that there was a lack of global coordination in the fight against Covid-19. He still sees that as a problem now, noting the unfortunate reality is even though a pandemic is a global event, all politics is local.

"I'm not expecting to see a global response from the G20, the WHO, UN. It is unfortunately everyone for themselves. The consequence of that is that suggests there is going to be ongoing spread in many parts of the developing world. It raises the likelihood of further [virus] mutations, which will ultimately affect all of us," says Skilling.

"From an economic and commercial perspective it also means if you look at many developing countries that are essential to global supply chains, South East Asia being one obvious one where from Malaysia to Vietnam to Indonesia and the Philippines, [they] are all really struggling with Covid. You're going to have parts of the global supply chain that just aren't functioning fully because of the huge pressure, be it lockdowns, people being sick and the like. So even if you take it from a narrow economic perspective, it's bad news. And certainly from a broader health and social perspective it's awful news. But I don't see that changing anytime soon, unfortunately."

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

92 Comments

One has to live with covid19 in one form or the other. Vaccination is the way forward.

From October in NSW, all those are fully vaccinated will be allowed to travel and think in many countries like Singapore.

Let fully vaccinated people be allowed to travel (unless do not believe in vaccination) and let everyone carry the vaccination card with them and many here in NZ may argue but if someone has the right to choose and not opt to vaccinate so does other people and establishment / shops should have right, if they do not want to entertain people who choose not to vaccinate.

Though some may cry about freedom of choice blah blah but we are living in new world so if someone has right to decide not to vaccinate, other people too should have right to decide if they want to deal with unvaccinated people or not as everyone should have choice - so does employer.

Need bold leadership - missing in Jacinda Arden.

Up
7

If you are vaccinated, what is it about the unvaccinated that you are afraid of? Will you be just as afraid of little kids because they are unvaxxed?

Or is it just that you want everyone else to be like you.

Up
21

Vaccine is only 95% effective excessive exposure to  bio terrorists (or those who knowingly choose to spread deadly pathogens) dramatically increases the risk of being infected despite the vaccine.

Up
5

Because, once again, the vaccine is not perfect. It does not totally prevent infection, or prevent severe illness and death.

Yes, it would be nice if it was perfect. It isn't. So we have to operate in the reality we live in, not the reality we might prefer. Like most things in life.

Up
10

Yes wouldn't it be nice if life was perfect. But at this stage the long term effects of the pfizer vax are not certain. That's why pfizer refuse to supply it unless it is on a no guarantee and no liability basis. Fair enough because people aren't prepared to wait until full testing is complete. Grant Robertson signed the liability waiver on behalf of NZ. 

My own uneducated guess is the vax will very likely be less trouble than the disease for someone my age, so on that basis I have taken it. But no way would I coerce a much younger person to take it for my benefit.

As you say, we have to operate in reality. The reality is there will be around a million unjabbed kiwis and no good will come from alienating them. They will eventually get at least as much immunity from catching the disease and so it will recede to the same level as though everyone was jabbed.

Up
7

The reality is there will be around a million unjabbed kiwis and no good will come from alienating them.

I think you're missing the point.

Every COVID patient in hospital is taking up scarce health resources that someone else needs. Hospitalisation from COVID is greatly reduced if you take the vaccine. Therefore, it is in everyone's interest that everyone take the vaccine.

Putting restrictions on unvaxxed people is an additional piece of pressure to encourage people to do the right thing by society, because apparently there's a sizeable group of people (you claim a million, I think it'll actually be quite a bit less than that, in the long-run) that simply refuse to do what is best for themselves and society at large.

So far we haven't tried any particular carrots to encourage vaccine, nor any particular sticks. This is an easy stick to use.

Up
2

Every smoker in hospital is taking up scarce health resources. Every obese person. Everyone that doesn't wear a seatbelt, etc, etc. A vax with ZERO long term safety should never be forced on the population. It should be every person's personal decision to take it or not. 

Up
2

I've gone over this multiple times already.

Those things are not comparable because they're not infectious diseases, and there aren't cheap, safe, and effective vaccines to prevent them. The hospital system has been designed with capacity for treating those things because they're predictable on a population basis. The hospital system hasn't been designed for COVID.

Up
3

Unvaccinated people utilising ICU capability means less emergency treatment availability for "routine" non covid injuries, illnesses etc (unless they stay at home to avoid illness).

Up
14

Unvaccinated people won't be using the ICU, if the self entitled, back to the BAU extinction event mob are grounded.

Up
5

Many occupants of ICU will be there because they rolled the dice and lost, through many years of abusing their bodies or undertaking risky pastimes. Should we also ban smoking, fizzy drinks, alcohol, KFC and motorbikes because they put people in the hospital system?

Up
13

If they all got sick at the rate of covid infections and illnesses we'd probably have to.

Up
7

Should the same reasoning in these columns be applied to those  Kiwis ( the majority) that are unvaccinated against influenza each year. Should it now become  mandatory that all Kiwis are vaccinated against influenza  yearly ( and next year may be a bumper) to avoid clogging up the  health system  unnecessarily when vaccines are readily available.   

Up
5

Should the same reasoning in these columns be applied to those  Kiwis ( the majority) that are unvaccinated against influenza each year.

No, because COVID is not influenza. There are multiple differences between the diseases and their effects on populations without resistance (in short, most people have some past exposure to influenza, but practically no one in NZ has past exposure to COVID), so there is no equivalence there.

People keep saying "what about smokers, what about obese people, what about the flu?" those things are NOT EQUIVALENT to COVID. That's the answer as to why they are treated differently.

If they were equivalent, they would be treated the same. They aren't, so they aren't. Very easy to understand.

Up
4

What I do find very easy to understand is a young fit person who is already feeling left behind by runaway house prices resisting taking the vax (that even the manufacturer won't guarantee) when an older fat unhealthy politician/employer etc says they should take it to avoid overloading the health system. Chickens coming home to roost.

Up
2

That's some real desperation going on there to justify not taking a free, safe and very effective vaccine, to protect against an illness that some have called "the worst week of my life, by far" and "sickest I've ever been".

Getting sick to protest against other things going on in society is not noble, nor effective. It's stupid.

Rolling the dice that you won't get long COVID, which is likely to put a large damper on your future earning capacity and therefore ability to buy a house, to protest house prices... wow.

Up
2

I didn't say it's logical, I said I understand why they feel disinclined to listen to the politicians. I know you are clever enough to understand that too.

As for safety of the pfizer, you haven't addressed the fact they only supply it on a no liability basis. They will happily take our money only if we promise not to ask for it back if there is a problem down the track.

Up
1

They will happily take our money only if we promise not to ask for it back if there is a problem down the track.

Just like when Fletcher's signed up to do the EQC response in Christchurch it was on a no liability basis.

It is likely the vaccine distributors simply would refuse to take the liability. Not sure what governments are supposed to do, refuse the vaccine? Tell their population "sorry, no vaccine for you, we won't take on this risk on your behalf, even if you think that's our job and we take on all sorts of risks the rest of the time anyway"?

The clinical trials had showed it was safe enough for emergency use, which other countries in the world authorised it under and used. That has proven so far to be quite safe, aside from the Astra Zeneca blood clot scare which the authorities IMO over-reacted to, and in doing-so slowed down the vaccine rollout and likely cost far more lives than they could ever save from the blood clots.

Up
1

Yes I would sign the liability waiver too if I didn't want to be tossed out at the next election. But only after I had Medsafe covering my arse. And it would be unrealistic to expect Medsafe approval to be anything other than a rubber stamping exercise when other countries had already approved it.

Up
2

Lanthanide, you are repeating ad nauseum the spin of this givernment!! To top it off and really get up a lot of people’s noses, you propose divisive and in some cases simply indefensible arguments such as denying people healthcare by way of proposed public policy. This is happening on a daily basis to the point that I feel it is sickening for any rational and critically thinking person. There are certain civil liberties and basic human rights we currently still enjoy in NZ. Your constant argument to erode those, is what concerns me most!

I am fast getting to the point where I will vote with my wallet. I will stop my monthly financial support for interest website as an unvaccinated person because I believe your highly repetitive spin has gone too far on this forum. And the most beautiful thing about that will be, I don’t have to read your relentless barrage of discriminatory ideas that seem to try and influence public opinion. And you are doing this in such a way that I am beginning to question the wisdom of having public forums anywhere these days. Perhaps this should be a wakeup call for David Chaston. This hysteria being driven by people like you Lanthanide, is unforgivable. I am out of here.

Up
0

What a very worrying response, from someone clearly who has zero medical or health care experience .

Up
1

Care to elaborate? Or do you just want to make empty insinuations and leave it up to the reader's imagination as to what is wrong with what I said?

Up
0

Until there is a vaccine for children then I don't want unvaccinated people around my son (if we opt to live with COVID) and I will try to socially distance and always wear a mask to reduce the chance of bringing it into my house. 

If that means no eating out at places that allow unvaccinated people in, no conferences, no going to crowded sports events then so be it. 

I'll probably miss out on some opportunities but that's ok. Once there is a way to protect children then my stance will change. Until then I'm willing to compromise on anything.

Up
10

Would your son go to school? 

Up
7

Yes he will, wearing a mask. Hopefully the stance changes and school teachers get asked to get vaccinated. 

Regardless help is on the way. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/covid-19-coronavirus-delta-outbreak-pf…

Up
0

Similar stance here

Up
2

There is close to a zero risk for children from Covid. The latest studies show the vaccines is actually 20x risker for children than actually getting Covid. Stop with the fear. Your child is safe, even around unvaccinated people. 

Up
1

Can you at least provide a reference to your claim please. You do realise some kids have underlying health conditions much like adults don't you? Cancer, obesity, diabetes, immunocompromise etc etc,,,, what do you propose these kids do? Suck it up and move on?

Up
0

Your fear is palpable. I find it very alarming we have such number of people driving this fear based opinion that unvaccinated people are a ‘higher risk’ than vaccinated people. WTF? Can nobody read or think straight anymore?

https://www.science.org/news/2021/08/grim-warning-israel-vaccination-blunts-does-not-defeat-delta

Next off the rank, here is an opinion from some one who is surely more qualified and knowledgable than our beloved Ms Wiles, oh so often quoted.

https://nulluslocussinegenio.com/2021/09/13/why-mass-vaccinations-prolong-and-make-epidemics-deadlier-real-vaccine-expert-calls-out-flawed-government-pandemic-strategy/

Now, if the above link is read carefully, you will notice the following gem:

Mass vaccination campaigns may have a beneficial short-time effect in that they reduce viral spread and protect vulnerable people from disease (e.g., elderly people and those with underlying disease), but will eventually drive the propagation of more infectious variants. Dominant circulation of the latter will lead to a resurgence of viral infectious pressure, thereby eroding the innate immune defense of the unvaccinated (i.e., mostly younger age groups including children) and thus making them more susceptible to contracting Covid-19 disease. This already explains why mass vaccination campaigns conducted in the middle of a pandemic will only cause Sars-CoV-2 to engender more disease and claim more human lives. Because of this mass vaccination program, waves of morbidity will continue for much longer, as more (recovery from) disease cases will be required to compensate for the erosion of the population’s innate immunity and, therefore, to make up for the latter’s deficient contribution to HI. [Herd Immunity].

And I am eagerly awaiting to be “Lanthanised”, and subsequently euthanised for the “public good” LOL!

Up
1

The vaccinated don't want you getting away with not having to pump a few cc of an unknown substance in your arm. Its human nature that I have found across the board with life in general. People are uncomfortable with you doing something in life that they are not doing. Everyone has to be "In the same boat".

Up
8

You wouldn’t mind living next door to a p’d up gangster as it’s fine that they are different? I’m not sure which is statistically more dangerous - I’m guessing the antivaxer 

Up
8

He would most probably mind living next door to a P'd up gangster

Up
4

What the hell sort of "logic" is this? 

Because yea, an antvaxer is equally as likely as a p'd up gangster to act aggressively and cause damage to people and property /s

Up
2

I suspect that in the last 12 months in the US, more people have died from contracting COVID from their neighbour than have died from their neighbour murdering them with a weapon.

Up
2

Exactly. Who's everyone else to tell me I can't go the wrong way down a one way street. I'm a free thinker.

Up
4

Open up your medicine cabinet and give me a thorough breakdown of all the ingredients while you are at it? 

Up
3

This "unknown substance" line is so strange.

As one nurse put it to someone whose life they were trying to save: you said you refused the vaccine because you didn't know what was in it, but I've just given you 5 different drugs trying to save your life and you didn't ask me what was in any of those.

Really it's just excuse after excuse after excuse to justify not taking an action, no matter how illogical those excuses are.

Up
10

You are correct, but its not the "we dont know what is in it" that is the problem, its the "this has not been around long enough to know what the potential long term side effects will be" 

Where as, all the other 5 drugs you just gave me have been studied, used and observed for decades. 

Up
2

Science suggests that vaccines very seldom have any "long term side effects": https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/vaccines-are-highly-…-

Also, we don't have decades of evidence of how those drugs react when treating COVID-19, because it hasn't existed for decades.

Anyone fretting over the very slim chances of "long term side-effects" from the COVID-19 vaccine, should also be fretting over the very slim chances that the drugs used to treat COVID-19 will cause "long term side-effects", although they should mainly be concerned that the drugs don't give them long term side effects because COVID-19 kills them first.

In fact I would say in general, medical errors and malpractice are a bigger risk to your life than COVID-19 vaccine is. The safest way to avoid medical errors and malpractice is not to go into hospital with COVID.

Up
0

Science says that because ALL other vaccines were only ever launched after years of trials and testing. They knew the long term effects by then. Science also says mRNA technology has been around for 30+ years and in all that time no company was ever able to bring a mRNA vax to market because they all failed phase 3 trials. Every single one. But now, we've rushed one to market and no one has any legal liability for it. Maybe it will be fine, but there is a very real risk to them that no one can quantify because they simply don't have the data. Oh, and on top of that it seems they only last about 6 months, then you are back to square one. 

Up
2

Science also says mRNA technology has been around for 30+ years

Technology, yes, vaccines, no.

and in all that time no company was ever able to bring a mRNA vax to market because they all failed phase 3 trials.

Phase 1 and phase 2 trials are safety. Phase 3 is efficacy.

Up
2

You're certainly likely to end up with "long term side effects" should you be unlucky enough to have to go on a ventilator - including cognitive impairment and PTSD. And to think a little jab in the arm gives you nearly 100% protection against that outcome.

Up
1

Vaccine is only ~39% effective at preventing delta infections according to data from Israel.[reference 1]  In vitro studies confirm that the vaccine is ineffective against delta.[reference 2]  Teenagers are six times more likely to have myocarditis that be hospitalized by covid.[reference 3]  Why then, with all this data are the media and politicians so myopically obsessed with vaccinating everyone? 

[1] https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/reports/vaccine-efficacy-safety-follow-up-committee/he/files_publications_corona_two-dose-vaccination-data.pdf

[2] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.22.457114v1

[3] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v1

Shouldn’t we instead be obsessed with general health and immune function?  What's your vitamin D3 status? is it up to 50 ng/mL?  no? well then you should take 3000 IU vitamin D3 until it is.  What's your zinc level?  How fat are you? Oh you're a sedentary fatty! well stop eating McDonalds and do some exercise.     

Up
8

Mate you lose all respect when you post non peer reviewed publications to “support” your spurious claims. Please come back to us when you have a clue about how to critique the scientific literature. 

Up
15

Your opinions have absolutely no basis and are wrong. I've read your references.

[1] - The data is explained in Hebrew. You have cherry picked one data point on one month and given the lack of English in the article it's not clear at all what it refers to.

[2] A study in mice where C-19 delta was mutated further to see how efficacious current vaccines would be on extreme changes

[3] Couldn't be arsed given what a waste of time the firs two are

You might as well reference reddit posts. Keep your uneducated rants to yourself and get vaccinated.

Up
17

I applaud your thoroughness. Probably easiest just to ignore him though. 

Up
8

I doubt he read the paper.  Most of the paper (reference 2 above) was in vitro on human cells.  

Up
1

Having a tantrum doesn’t change the data.

The in vitro human data on vaccine efficacy was published in science.[reference 1]  It clearly shows waning effectiveness of the vaccine generated antibodies, particularly when compared to naturally acquired immunity which is far superior.  The above ref also shows the same, and it wasn't just on mice as they were using human cells for the in vitro studies.  The Israel data shows the same - you don’t need to speak Hebrew, just look at the table.  Try thinking in a Bayesian way and note that all evidence points in one direction.

[1] https://www.science.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.abh1766

Up
4

Take a look at the latest study of fatalities by vaccination status by the ONS in UK.

Basically vaccination reduces the risk of death from Covid to almost nothing.

 

Up
8

You could argue that the chance of death from covid if you're young and healthy is also "almost nothing".  YOu should post a link to your data.  Look, Im pro vaccine but just not for everyone.  It seems like a strategically bad move to be forcing this this thing to kids, young adults, and people who've already recovered from covid.    

Up
5

You sound like a pro-lifer who is anti-condom.

Up
3

You sound like an apparatchik.

Up
3

Here you go: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarr…

Yes, children are at very low risk, and last I saw under 12's weren't allowed to get the vaccine here.

About 0.05% of NZ population has recovered from Covid, so that's hardly a big issue here.

I just think asserting that the vaccines don't work will put off people who really should have them, and is at best disingenuous and at worst malicious.

Up
1

Well someone in the UK is lying because the latest data from Scotland shows (despite them trying hard to mask it) that during August 80% of deaths were in vaccinated individuals. The UK is only now entering the period where vaccine efficacy is starting to wane. Sure the vax's looked good at stopping death early on, but we know efficacy wanes and when it does you get data like they are now seeing in Israel and Scotland. 

 

https://toysmatrix.com/80-of-covid-deaths-in-scotland-during-august-wer…

Up
0

Has it occurred to you that in a population 100% vaccinated, 100% of the deaths would be among the vaccinated?

How about the fact that the higher risk people have much higher vaccination rates. High risk people that are vaccinated are likely still at a higher risk of dying than a low risk person that is unvaccinated.

Cherry picked statistics without context aren't much use.

Up
2

Can we agree that if 50% of the population are vaccinated and 50% of deaths are from vaccinated people then that means the vaccine is useless?  I'm not even sure if that's true?  Unfortunately the large pfizer clinical trial was stopped after 6 months and whitewashed by vaccinating the control arm.  We'll never really know what the long term benefits / harms of vaccination are. 

The problem is you're discounting completely all downsides of vaccination.  One major downside with the current vaccine is that you're programming peoples B-cells to make antibodies to a spike protein which doesn’t exist in nature anymore.  The dominant covid strain produces S-protin with epitopes (amino acid recognition sites) that have mutated.  So yes those vaccines work, but only at very high antibody titers, meaning you constantly have to have booster shots, and there's increased risk of vaccine enhanced disease.  Young people who's risk from covid is almost zero would be far better off making their own antibodies to the latest S-protein.  They'll also be making antibodies and getting T-cell immunity to all the other proteins that the delta strain produces.  I haven’t even mentioned myocarditis or other risks from systemic administration of the lipid nanoparticle mrna vaccine.    

 

 

Up
1

The headline is slightly disengenieous -- ( where is the bloody spellcheck folks)  Covid is a flu type virus - and given the centuries that flu has been around -- covid will be too -  its simply going to move to a BAU phase just like RSV and FLU  -- and unlike Smallpox, and TB for example that can or have been eradicated. 

In a years time -- we will al have the choice to get a booster jab or not and take our chances - in the same way for years we have had a flu vaccine option -- just the Covid vaccine is far more effective than the current flu jabs as there are far less strains of Covid currently. 

 

Up
4

There it is. That is the reality. The vaccine offers protection but that will apply, relatively to the physical condition of each individual. In other words there will not be a uniform reaction across the board person by person. Take it, like it or lump it, in so much it is your decision, your right to decide all on your own, whether or not Covid is more or less dangerous than the vaccine that provides protection from it.  Research it well before you decide folks because Covid, like the cruel sea, don’t take prisoners, if you get it wrong.

Up
7

Zero context in terms of " in a way that doesn't jeopardise public health outcomes as well"

>5,800 people die from other causes like heart disease - substantially more than COVID, and yet we don't throw hundred of billions of dollars and shut down the country and take away peoples freedoms for heart disease

I'm tired of the fear based approach to managing COVID,

It is here to stay - we need to get as many people vaccinated as possible and then stand back and come up with pragmatic solutions rather than zero tolerance which is proving to be both a) costly in many ways and b) unrealistic'/ idealistic

Up
6

In the USA and UK, 1/500 people have already died from covid. That would be 10,000 people in NZ, so given your number it does deserve a lot of attention

Up
9

Please check your numbers again.

Up
0

They look about right to me. 

Up
9

Yup about right. A little higher even, and people aren't done dying of it yet (in the US at least). 

Up
6

The math is technically correct but you have to remember a lot of the deaths (prob 500k) occurred in the US prior to vaccines (but also not delta) so it would be a fair assumption to say with a highly vaccinated population it would be less than 1 in 500 due to vaccines reducing infection and death. 

Up
3

Sure. Highly-vaccinated population is the goal, but we don’t have one yet.

Up
2

The original comment I was replying to mentioned 5800 deaths due to other causes, the majority of which will also not be in young, fit and healthy people.

Up
0

in 2018, 4,674 deaths are just from heart disease, yet there are many many other key causes such as 10,311 from circulatory system diseases

influenza and pneumonia had 689. Check it out for yourself on the ministry of health website https://minhealthnz.shinyapps.io/mortality-web-tool/

The Stats NZ website says there were 57,723 live births registered and 33,486 deaths registered to June 2021 - net increase of 24,000 people

The point is that the risk to younger people is tiny i.e. well below 1% of those infected will likely die, if your older >60 then that clearly has a much higher %, but the issue I have is the massive focus on a risk that is statistically less significant than other health related issues that have been killing more NZérs every year without all of the hype, cost and fear....

Relative context around the actual risk of death is missing and would the worst case scenario if we were as vaccinated as we're going to get, be worse than any normal causes of death? 

That question remain unanswered, while we spend billions and have people hiding at home suspicious of those anti-vaxers and people who refuse to put relatively new drugs into their body

Up
1

on a risk that is statistically less significant than other health related issues that have been killing more NZérs every year without all of the hype, cost and fear....

Once again, those other causes of deaths are mostly not infectious diseases. An infectious disease for which a cheap, safe and very effective vaccine exists.

If cheap, safe and very effective vaccine existed for all of those other maladies, then we'd use them, too.

Up
2

That's my point, we accept those risks and still get high death tolls - but not for covid

Up
1

Because COVID is an infectious disease.

Up
1

And yet we no longer accept millions of deaths from measles and whooping cough, that's right, because there's safe and effective vaccines available.

Up
1

The numbers carry a lot more meaning when broken out against age brackets and categories of those with at-risk health issues, however.
The implied risk is very much less than the suggested 1/500 if you are young and healthy. Not zero, but not nearly as bad.

I think the media's general failure to qualify such stats quite irresponsible in driving fear and decision making.

Up
8

I guess it depends on what media you follow but I would say this is quite clear. It turns out not everybody is young and healthy.

Up
5

Singapore "has a public health system that is really functional " therein lies the crunch NZ doesn't have that and because of that it will be an Achilles heel to any attempt at managing integration with the rest of the world. 

Up
4

You also can't 'catch' heart disease, inherited conditions notwithstanding

Up
4

I somewhat agree, but assuming we get back to elimination we may as well try and stay there as long as possible and learn from what other countries succeed at. Israel for example are averaging 30 deaths a day at present with less than double our population, that’s 10k per year. They still have to wear masks indoors, they still have some travel restrictions. Is opening up really worth that?

Up
6

Things were great in level 1.  Sure I didn’t get to go overseas but nz is amazing.  Why cant we just lock up the border with the only access through an impenetrable miq

Up
7

I disagree. Even if we achieve elimination we have nothing further to learn by delaying reopening. Further we will never be more vaccinated than we will be this November/December. 

Pfizer Vaccine effectiveness falls as time progrees. If we don't open now morale will collapse & our position will weaken as don't expect as strong an uptake in the boosters as the initial vaccine.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-effec…

We need to give the over 65s a booster in December and open in early January. Take the hit in February, March when our Healthcare system isn't overwhelmed by the other  seasonal viruses. 

Time is of the essence. We must not dither. 

 

Up
7

Brilliant and intelligent interview!!!  There are few views that are as informed and unbiased as David Skiling's

Up
4

Some good points for consideration by Skilling.  NZ will not be able to target, and certainly not maintain, the elimination strategy forever and it is pretty obvious now that Covid in its myriad of forms, present and future, will be with us for a long time.  First priority, which we have been rather complacent with up until recent times, is to get NZ vaccinated as fully as possible. At the same time the learning from Israel and others show that we will still have people getting seriously sick from Covid even at high vaccination rates when we do depart from the elimination approach. So, we should make best use of the low case number position that we have now to expand ICU ventilator capabilities for the time when we might need them when we open up to the rest of the world.  I recently read that NZ has one of the lowest ratios in the developed world regarding ventilators per 1000 of population.  We struggled with the recent RSV that swept the country with respect to access to acute respiratory care for children who contracted this virus and yet we now know that the Delta variant, unlike the initial Covid virus, strikes children as much as adults. We should be prepared!

The other thing Skilling mentions which I fully agree with is the lack of global leadership that has been shown by the WHO during the course of this pandemic.  Surely this situation is exactly why we have a WHO in the first place.  Whilst I accept they have no jurisdiction over sovereign states, some global plan of attack and provision of resources in critical locations should have been forthcoming from them.  We have seen how some countries unable to control Covid with their own resources have had case numbers escalate to the point when conditions are ripe for new and more dangerous variants of Covid.  These variants in turn have spread to other parts of the world.  The WHO should have co-ordinated more help where individual countries were unable to meet this challenge.

Up
1

We have enough ventilators. They brought 100s. We Just don't have  enough sklled people to use them. If only we had more ICU nurses & less real-estate agents. But I guess that isn't the Kiwi way. 

Up
8

Nurses and real estate agents. Representing the extreme ends of the social benefit / social destruction spectrum there.

Up
2

In my view success or failure will be entirely judged by how many people get vaccinated before reopening next year. Let's use the UK as a learning experience:

Total Covid-19 deaths in the UK between January and July this year (so includes Indian and UK variants): 

51,281 

Fully vaccinated Covid-19 deaths 21 days or more after second dose:

458

So people are around 112 times more likely to die without being fully vaccinated.

Up
4

To be fair you cannot compare the first outbreak to Delta when many of the highly vulnerable have already been taken out in the first wave and many have already caught it and recovered so have some level of natural immunity. If we have seven waves of this or more which looks highly likely the number of total deaths would continue to fall anyway, even without vaccination. Of more interest to me was the number of people who have caught Delta in NZ and have actually ended up in ICU. The numbers support the fact that you could get sick, really sick from Delta but your statistically unlikely to die from it. So the number in NZ is now about 1000 and 1 very old person with underlying health issues has died, You simply cannot justify a continued lockdown or even any more lockdowns from October onwards. NZ will simply have to accept a small number of deaths each year like it does already by not supporting people with rare illnesses that have very expensive treatments associated with them. 

With the money that these lockdowns have cost we could have saved hundreds of other people over decades to come. Thats the flip side so were the lockdowns really worth it ?

Just imagine if we had spent billions of dollars on hospitals and actually paid those doctors and nurses more money to keep them, you know the people we couldn't afford to pay any more money to a couple of years ago and even now. I would suggest we would have had the option of no lockdowns at all.

 

Up
5

There are lies, damned lies and covid statistics.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths
Match up the dates on death statistics and then switch to the vaccination tab and look at the start date. Then, I would hope you scratch your head and ask your self what they actually measured.

The full dates on the study were January 2 to July 2.

Up
1

So far, we have had @1000 cases in the Delta outbreak, not too many hospitalisations or ICU cases,  and one death - a very frail elderly lady  who was not strong enough to be ventilated. On the face of it, it does seem that Delta is not as deadly as Covid was in the first and second waves. This is true of the US and UK, too, where the vast majority of deaths are among unvaccinated people. But our full vaccination rate is still very low, around half or even less than theirs, and was even lower when this outbreak flared up a month or so ago. It would be informative if one of the rather tame press pack put that question to Dr Bloomfield at the daily presser. BTW, has anyone noticed that the questions tend to be tougher when Ms Ardern is not there? So few questions, so many unspoken answers.

Up
1

NSW has around 10% of their cases ending up in hospital so I don't think it's any less deadly, it's just the majority of our cases are in young people (more than 60% younger than 30) and some of the elderly and vulnerable were vaccinated prior.

https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-no…

 

Up
1

Why would that be any different in NSW? There were 22 deaths last week out of 4700 active cases.
Since the Covid  outbreak began, 240 deaths from 46,000 cases in NSW, almost all Delta related.  
The past wave from earlier Covid strains in Victoria saw 826 deaths out of 26000 cases. I think it is clear from those figures that Delta, for whatever reason, isn’t deadlier. 

Figures from JHU.

Up
0

I wanted to enjoy reading the 250+ comments on the last covid-related article here but about 100 or so of the comments were from  Lanthanide  who has appoitnted themselves as the covid police. Even if there are some fair points it is repetitive and tiring. Already seems to have started on this one.

Up
2

While debating an opposing view with Lanth on this thread,  I for one rate his/her comments as some of the most valuable contributions to discussions on this website. 

Up
7

Some rare praise. Thanks.

Up
6

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-coronavirus-delta-outbreak-the-three-main-treatments-for-the-virus/NG3OO75F2LULCTVF5SVE62HFH4/

There's an incredibly depressing Herald article where Ashley Bloomfield talks about treatments for covid19.  The gist of the article is that Vitamin C, D3,  zinc & ivermectin are useless, but dexamethasone, remdesivir and tocilizumab are great  ….. what the heck!

Remdesivir is a useless piece of crap.  It’s literally a useless medication according to all the clinical trials.  See C19study.com 

Dexamethasone – why the heck are they even talking about this corticosteroid?  This is what you get in hospital when you’re in seriously bad shape.  Apparently, it’s well known by front line doctors that methylprednisolone is superior for covid, so nobody’s even using dexamethasone.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34033648/

Tocilizumab This is another expensive useless piece of crap.   It’s monoclonal antibody of the IL-6 inhibitor class which has been tested and failed in multiple clinical trials.  Roche pretty much admitted the treatment is useless.

https://youtu.be/gf_oY1WmYZM  (see 3 min in)

https://youtu.be/IygQtBuH2Eo   (see 2 min 50 sec)

 

This is so depressing.  I find myself wondering whether the health authorities are deliberately trying to make the problem worse.  How else could you interpret it when they’re denying treatments that work in favor of expensive treatments that don’t?

Up
0