By Jenée Tibshraeny
Cabinet’s decision to move Auckland to Level 3 could mark a turning point in New Zealand’s Covid-19 response.
Its decision indicated the Government’s willingness to take on more risk for the sake of Aucklanders’ mental and financial health.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said New Zealand is retaining the elimination strategy. The aim is still to try to get on top of cases as they arise.
At Level 4 we could contain, but not completely remove the virus from the community - that is, stop cases that haven’t already been identified as contacts from popping up.
The likelihood of being able to do so at Level 3 is of course lower, but not impossible - at least in the eyes of the Director-General of Health Ashely Bloomfield.
Nonetheless, there’s clearly a risk we might have no choice but to start suppressing, rather than trying to completely stamp out Covid-19.
Does this mean the strategy used to date failed? No. It means there are limits to Level 4’s usefulness when we’re up against a highly infectious virus.
Why did we even bother? We had no option, as a largely unvaccinated population with limited intensive care capacity, but to give a heavy-handed lockdown a good crack.
Should the Government have made Auckland push on for a bit longer to further test the limits of Level 4? This is the billion-dollar question, which has no clear-cut answer.
Cabinet was faced with choosing the least worst option.
While epidemiologists and health experts have expressed a higher level of unease around the decision than we’ve heard from them to date, anecdotal evidence suggests a number of Aucklanders were reaching breaking point at Level 4.
Which brings me to the criticism that Cabinet made a political decision.
This is true. But every Covid-related decision has been political. Governing is political.
The difference between Monday’s decision and all the other Covid-related decisions is that Cabinet believed throwing everything at eliminating Covid-19 was no longer the best political option.
Why then didn’t the Prime Minister just say that, instead of going to great lengths to emphasise the fact Cabinet followed Bloomfield’s health advice?
This is fair question. Ardern’s commentary sounded disingenuous.
Sure, she couldn’t have told Aucklanders, at the end of their tether, the price they may pay for their KFC is a socially-distanced or sickly Christmas.
Nor could she have eroded confidence in the Government’s response.
But she should’ve acknowledged there’s more to this Covid-19 response than science, and all the trade-offs constantly need reassessing.
There is also a strong case for the Government to publish a bullet-pointed facts sheet at the same time as the press conference, outlining the decisions announced.
People shouldn’t have to wade through a sea of words to get the information they need to live their lives or operate their businesses.
Nonetheless, the tone the Prime Minister strikes during her addresses - while patronising to some - will still be well-received by most. She'd be using a different approach otherwise.
Ardern will be conscious of using the platform to provide health advice to people who don’t necessarily engage with mainstream media, or check government websites for official information.
She will also be aware of the power she has to unify people at a time social cohesion is particularly important.
Of course this is political, but what’s the counterfactual?
Ardern has over the past few weeks been changing her language to try to warm people up to the idea that we will likely at some stage have to live with Covid-19 in the community.
Plan A was that this would happen once we’ve all had a chance to be vaccinated and the borders are slowly reopened.
This plan was never clear-cut. Countries with high vaccination rates are still imposing restrictions to contain the virus.
But, with Auckland moving to Level 3 while new unlinked cases keep cropping up, we might need to start dealing with more cases in the community before many of us are fully vaccinated.
The next couple of weeks will be crucial in determining what the rest of 2021 will look like.
All we can do is hope for the best, prepare for something worse, and plan for changes of plan.
174 Comments
Yip, it's clearly a class war, with those who are privileged and generally protected from the likely health outcomes of COVID but financially affected by lockdowns being very willing to let COVID rip through the community and kill hundreds or thousands of people, because it is not likely to be their lives at risk.
Not quite sure I'd frame it in those terms, but it's a tale as old as time; make sure everyone's frightened for their lives, and then convince them all that you're the only one who can save them. G. W. did such a good job of it in the early 2000s, but with a global pandemic, everyone gets to play. Once a sufficient proportion of your constituency is cowering under the umbrella of power, you've got them eating out of your hand.
You think the less priveleged are not financially (and subsequently mentally) stretched during this ? They are likely worse off, getting the bare minimum from their employer, having everyone at home eating every day, water, power. The disadvantaged are even further disadvantaged during level 4.
What this lockdown has shown is just how bad inequality, and inequitable outcomes have become in lower socio economic areas. The lack of health infrastructure in these areas and years of ignoring it are coming home to roost.
I didn't dismiss it. I replied to the criticism by pointing out some facts - that 85% of people approve of the government's overall response, which implies a majority of the disadvantaged that we're talking about must be happy with it, since we 'know' that those most unhappy with it are right-wing voters who tend to be wealthier on average.
That's not dismissing, that'd addressing and responding to the point that was made. You may not agree with my response, but it was nonetheless a genuine response.
The next comment was a dismissal of what I said - that the polls are binary and lack nuance, ie, just ignore that evidence.
Why are they even polling or focus grouping? If your politically independent ministerial health experts advise you what to do and you do that. Then there is no need to poll. Because you are following the health advice. But unfortunately the last 18 months have had the politicisation turned up to 11 from the civil servants and the government. Not to mention their politically aligned science commentators.
Why are they even polling or focus grouping?
Political parties routine poll. Except for National under Collins because she's scared of what the polls will say and doesn't want to give her opponents in caucus any more ammunition to use against her.
Further more the polls I'm talking about are the ones conducted by media companies, not the government.
You should ask the media why they poll, apparently it's a bad thing to do.
And this is just the one they have had to admit to so far.
Information provided to the Act Party showed the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) spent $252,945 on research including opinion polling and focus groups relating to the public campaign Unite Against Covid-19.
Focus groups and polling is not A/B testing or qualifying the quality of public health messages.
In any event, they have not had a great RoI given the complaints from Pasifika and Maori communities that they aren't hearing the message. They could have avoided that abhorrent waste by just asking a handful of Pasifika GPs on what to do, and they would have received free and actionable advice that would have worked. This would have also made events such as the mass vaccination event in Manukau much more successful. But, in the typical manner of this Government, just show you're spending $ and many people will believe that means they're doing something effective.
Lanthanide
I've been struggling with the idea that the govt is willing to shut down the economy because of a dangerous but 99 percent survivalist virus.
Yet continues to allow banks to "create" money out of thin air for financial transactions ie asset inflation. Causes mass inequality and social harm on a level probably worse than covid. No debate ever takes place on this from the media nor our political elites. Yet our PM "cares" about social justice.
Ignoring the debt money system makes me think covid is a convenient occurance to enrich the elites even more.
Heard of the 50 Cent Party ?
I've been struggling with the idea that the govt is willing to shut down the economy because of a dangerous but 99 percent survivalist virus.
Then you need to learn more about COVID if you believe that being a "99 percent survivalist virus" means it's the same as other common respiratory illnesses, which it patently isn't, and why it isn't being treated the same as other common respiratory viruses, as your comments alludes we should be treating it as.
The RBNZ stopped creating money quite a few months ago.
Also their approach at the time COVID first arrived in April last year was broadly appropriate, given we had no idea how the economy was going to react and how bad all the predictions were - just look at the 11% quarterly GDP drop to see that.
The RBNZ underestimated how successful the government would be at controlling COVID. That's not a bad thing.
What I never understood was why they removed LVR restrictions. Apparently it was so the banks didn't stop lending because of the proportion of their loan book suddenly going backwards if prices dropped meant they couldn't stay within the rules, but I think the better approach to this would have simply been to 'look through' those existing loans on the books and continue to apply the LVR only to new lending.
LANTHANIDE
I'm actually referring to the system we have rather than the rbnz QE program.
However you are incorrect and need to read more. The rbnz created no currency whatsoever and hasn't. QE is a bond swap and only private banks create currency. All of our money is created by the private banking system not the rbnz.
Current outbreak 1071 cases. One death. That would be 99.9% survivable. But we were too politically invested in scaring the shit out of people to realise that vaccinating at least some of the elderly and vulnerable prior to the outbreak together with some of the effective treatments that have been developed would lower the death rate.
Define 'survivable' - and then assess 'survivability' with and without the current public health measures.
Myself I would define 'survivable' more widely to include not getting long covid, and in a way that accounts for the flow-on adverse effects (unvaccinated) covid cases taking up hospital beds.
So what number of cases would move the needle on hospitalisation and survivability. 10000, 100,000. What number will cause the health system to start to fail and the death rate to rise. I am sure that is what they were frantically modelling over the last week. To find out if level 3 and then level 2 will be politically survivable. Lucky they have the gang members to blame now if it all goes pear shaped. Nobody likes them. Not even the Greens.
Politics,Politics, Politics.
Especially for those with generous employee sick leave entitlements or gold plated medical/disability insurance policies. How could they know what someones IQ was directly before the caught covid. Or do they just assume there is no way you could be as dumb as you are now without covid being to blame.
Long covid is probably caused by reactivated EBV (kissing disease) https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/10/6/763/htm
The loss in IQ is probably caused by all the propaganda. Fear and anger inhibit deductive reasoning, and induce a detachment from reality.
The survival rate for covid during the first and second waves (over a 1.5 year period) is actually >99.92%. We know this from the European data where the death rate was ~750 per million https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps . Most who died were on theri last legs with all sorts of comorbidities. We Have Nothing to Fear Except Fear Itself
To assert that, as you are wont to do, you must have specific inside information from not only Pfizer but any of the other options. Otherwise it is no more than conjecture tailored to suit your argument(s.) In reality the facts researched and recounted by Kate MacNamara a week or so ago in her column, not only detail an entirely different story but confirm any hard evidence of any particular distribution policy by Pfizer is, for clearly understandable reasons, kept confidential to them.
To assert that, as you are wont to do, you must have specific inside information from not only Pfizer but any of the other options.
I'm saying what the government has said. No one has produced evidence to say that are lying or wrong. Not even National, with their ability to question ministers and apply for OIA requests.
The best evidence National has is that Canada, in the grips of a severe COVID outbreak, were able to pay $50M to get 1% of their vaccine allocation about a month earlier than they were scheduled to. That's the only evidence they have.
In reality the facts researched and recounted by Kate MacNamara a week or so ago in her column, not only detail an entirely different story but confirm any hard evidence of any particular distribution policy by Pfizer is, for clearly understandable reasons, kept confidential to them.
Please provide a link to this column as I have not seen it.
ah for heavens sake there you are again and your assertion was much more bald than that. You now admit you were only saying what the government has said, a good little parrot indeed. Well that really verifies your veracity, not. You say no one has proven the government is wrong knowing full well the government can say anything they like with the complete knowledge and assurance that facts, communications, prices and timelines are quite rightly kept confidential. Previously you resorted to the OIA knowing confidentiality of such government contracts would never be revealed from any enquiry there p, just as it would be on the same grounds in parliament. As for the column, go find it yourself,
Health response doesn't have to be political, it could be done based on medical science.
Look at what happens across the Tasman when ScoMo placed all his bets on his mates at CSL to pump AstraZeneca. When the Aussie realised the side effects are worse and its potency aren't as effective as Pfizer, they rejected it outright.
Being a flu, the joke initially was you don't need a mask. It easily takes a high school kid to tell you colds and flu can be transmitted airborne- how many other media are there for transmission? But to avoid the embarrassment of an under cooked national health emergency planning for years; masks aren't needed- and that applies to other countries pretending the same. Has SARS in Hong Kong taught us nothing?
I think the approach to health response with a political consideration is a disaster. If we're truly in the 'front of the vaccine' queue, perhaps the global vaccination statistics are wrong.
Prolonged lock down potentially create a higher risk for domestic violence, custody obligation strifes, personal financial and income destruction, mental breakdowns and inactivity related health issues- and we haven't got on to delayed cancer and tumour appointments.
People had enough. You can only lock us behind our own doors because of our unadulterated goodwill.
Sooner or later, something is going to give.
Being a flu, the joke initially was you don't need a mask.
But to avoid the embarrassment of an under cooked national health emergency planning for years; masks aren't needed- and that applies to other countries pretending the same. Has SARS in Hong Kong taught us nothing?
it could be done based on medical science.
The reason I've quoted these parts in particular is that science didn't believe masks were necessary due to an incorrect theory of how viruses were transmitted via aerosols that had literally persisted for decades.
Here's an article about the history of the situation and how the screwup was found. The CDC only updated their website about this in May 2021.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwup-that-help…
TLDR: there was an incorrect belief that viruses could only be transmitted in large particles, the type that fall to the ground within 2 metres, and hence the 2 metre social distancing rules. It was (incorrectly) believed that they could not be transmitted by smaller, lighter particles, that could stay suspended in air for hours, which is what masks are primarily protective against.
Yes, and that's why saying "Just trust the science" is also not totally the right approach either, because scientific advice is also subject to bias and is sometimes just wrong.
Bloomfield's initial advice to the government was to prohibit anyone from overseas returning to NZ, for example.
Thank you for this link Lanthanide. I had wondered! Does beg the question as to the degree of protection conferred by the various masks we see folk "breathing past" in the supermarkets / busses etc. That said this bit from Yuguo Li in your article sort of answers my question...... "The lesson he thinks people are finally starting to learn is that airborne transmission is both more complicated and less scary than once believed. SARS-CoV-2, like many respiratory diseases, is airborne, but not wildly so. It isn’t like measles, which is so contagious it infects 90 percent of susceptible people exposed to someone with the virus. And the evidence hasn’t shown that the coronavirus often infects people over long distances. Or in well-ventilated spaces."
1pm press conference - labour approved/wage subsidy paid journalists. The 'experts' hired to push the narrative and do the dirty work. PR team & spin doctors, in the background working 24hrs a day writing new slogans & scripts.
Credit to who ever came up with the above. You can see cracks at times when Jacinda & Bloomfield's not on stage or other ministers are interviewed but they've had a good run with it.
Are people waking up?
Enjoy the the news today on backtracking.
New strategy announced softly.
I hope they are waking up...suspect many in AKL are as they struggle to pay their bills and put food on the table. Wish the media would talk about the hundreds and thousands of necessary surgery's have been postponed or cancelled and the deaths that would lead from that. These are actual deaths, not charted ones.
Formost let me congratulate Kiwis on their esprit de corps. Most countries didn't have enough social buy-in to implement an effective lockdown strategy at any point. For all of our faults as a country we should be proud of our response, as flawed as it was at times and as unsure as we where, we managed to cobble together something that worked.
Like others I lament the inability to complete the vaccine rollout earlier and avoid the scenario of community cases without everyone who wanted a vaccine having had the opportunity to be fully vaccinated. However it has always been true that we where going to have to find a convergent path with the rest of the world, we may well be on that path now. Eventually all things come to an end, even global pandemics.
We still have a long way to go but I'm confident that when the chips are counted we will come out ahead by any meaningful measure. We should leave a blueprint for future generations such that this is not lost and commit to answering lingering questions about the effectiveness of controls like masks.
And get on to building more facilities and redundancy into our healthcare system, which is pathetically overrun.
We will have more of these crisis in the future. There will be more pandemics, and we should remember how earthquake prone we are. Is Wellington's hospital system more than ready for the consequences of 'The Big One'?
1) Masks barely work and 2) there hasn't been a solitary case of confirmed transmission of C19 in an outdoor scenario anywhere, ever.
All masks do is highlight those in the community who are gullible, do no research outside Labour party communication channels, and can't think for themselves.
"there hasn't been a solitary case of confirmed transmission of C19 in an outdoor scenario anywhere, ever."
Except of course here.
And here.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-06/nsw-covid-delta-outdoor-transmission-risk/100353394
And here.
And here.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/31/us/covid-outbreak-provincetown-cape-cod.html
And here.
Please don't comment again.
you are so right instead of throwing money at MIQ hotels we need to invest in hospitals and staff and move to a system of super fast testing and vaccinated population, we can not get ahead of delta or the new strains coming so we need to learn to live with it in our mist the same as we do for other viruses.
it is a shame that life as we know it will be gone and things like masks will become normal attire in certain places
The public service is sited on being independent from political influence. A difficult line not to blur admittedly when on the other hand their role is to implement government policy. However a visitor from outer space observing the antics and attitude of the Director of Health would think that he was actually of the government, and a deeply entrenched member indeed. Certainly there is value in joint statements and clarification of each responsibility as it might apply, but the director’s first duty is to protect the health system and thus the people. He is there to work with the government not protect it. By allowing himself to have become politicised, his credibility is compromised. Too often it is abundantly clear that the presentations have been thoroughly rehearsed and edited for mutual convenience.
At the end of the day our death toll will be 2,000 instead of 10,000. This is a victory IMHO. Further although far from adequate our healthcare system is now somewhat prepared for the inevitable assult by Covid. The problem is that too many of us are too idealistic with our expectations regarding the virus. Too many people have bought into the cult of "zero covid", too many people believe the war on Covid is winnable when it is not. There is only so much you can do against a highly contagious, mutating virus.
Granted we will have a lower death due to vaccinating as we bought some time.
The health system is not prepared. We have had a rock star economy (we were told) but the health system has declined right through this boom.
We have been living in a fantasyland of pretend good times.
My recent experience with the health system is that it is woefully under resourced.
A family member had a major incident and EVERY aspect of the public care they received was lacking.
It got laughable at some points. We are not 3rd world but we are somewhere between that and the developed countries.
Yes narrative has to alter
Vaccination does NOT prevent all infection nor all deaths. It does of course greatly reduce serious infections and deaths. But continuing to state that vaccination above 90% means we can all go back to 2019 existence is not true as people will shortly discover.
By the way, what does it mean when we are told by officials that vaccine gives 81% protection against hospitalisation? Does that not rather depend on what you are exposed to in terms of public with the virus breathing on you? How can you give a generic stat for that when it varies?
These questions are not asked. The officials reassurances are simply repeated as expert facts
Where did you see it? the calculation used is context dependant.
It is used to imply that the vaccine prevented the hospitalisation of about 4.3 people for every 1 vaccinated person in the hospital.
How they get is either comparing the numbers vaccinated to unvaccinated in hospital (this is a very unhelpful stat) or they normalise the number hospitalised vaxed and unvaxed in the hospital against their respective populations first and then compare them (way more informative but still requires assumptions of randomness that will not occur in the real world).
This is probably the most manipulatable of all covid vaccination stats. I would just ignore it as past values have a habit of not predicting the future.
Yes, this is what is done - they normalise the number hospitalised vaxed and unvaxed in the hospital against their respective populations first and then compare them.
And also do this by age cohort.
And that has established significantly lower hospitalisation rates for vaccinated people.
There is also a strong case for the Government to publish a bullet-pointed facts sheet at the same time as the press conference, outlining the decisions announced.
Ssssh Jenee, stop making sense!
And besides, what would those producers, techs and graphic artists in the news production rooms do if the government started doing their jobs for them?
Not quite. The pep talk from Jacinda is coming about how the team of 5 million have done so well in keeping Covid to a minimum while the vaccination rates have now gone up high enough for us to begin to open up. Congratulations NZ you have done it and we all get that big smile. Basically however we wasted 18 months and billions of dollars and have come out the other side with nothing that will help future proof us against another Pandemic or even this one that will carry on for years yet. What we need is a leader that has critical thinking and has the ability to forward plan and is proactive and not reactive. Labour has been 100% useless on every count and I'm just thankful this clown show has had minimal impact on my life so far.
Well put.
I don't really understand how so many people are satisfied with this government's response. Much of it has been reactive and stopping things, rather than being proactive,as you say, and building and setting up things.
It doesn't take much skill, and certainly no vision, to shut things down.
And the vaccination roll out was far too slow.
I don't think I would even give them a pass grade. I am erring between a D+ and a C-.
It doesn't take much skill or vision HM but it does take some balls.
My take on it is if the Minister for Oravida was the PM or say Simon Bridges of the CCP party then our borders wouldn't have been closed until it we were another America or UK with rampant deaths and minus the ICU beds to cope.
But some people are happy to forget that.
I am not at all suggesting the opposition would have been better. They might well have been worse.
The reality is both parties have bought into the same neoliberal, do minimal, 'just in time' bullshit agenda.
Things like proper planning, building redundancy in to systems, and thinking and acting well ahead are beyond both of them.
And it's a cultural mindset ingrained in this country. Both political mobs are simply mirroring 'us'.
100% spot on.
To paraphase H L Mencken:https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/27042-as-democracy-is-perfected-the-of…
“As democracy is perfected, the office of Govt. represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the Beehive will be adorned by downright incompetent MPs.”
A worrying trend is the amount of club members infected.
Obviously mongrel mob club last week and this week a black power club member. Then I read that a member of hells angels motorcycle club tested positive for covid. This will be difficult to trace as club members generally don't reveal their activity.
On a more troubling note there was a massive line of cars at midnight at Lincoln Rd mcdonald's Henderson.
Jenee, you may recall I said before this week's decision that they would move to level 3 for political reasons. Most people didn't agree with me.
But not only is it a *political* call. Public health is obviously the dominant consideration, but there are plenty of others- economic, social, mental health etc. The lockdown is really stretching people's mental wellbeing, and it's really starting to whack a lot of small businesses.
It may be political, but things have changed.
We've got an effective vaccine and adequate supply, and most people have had at least one dose, so the population is far more protected.
Also, with other countries including Australia having given up on elimination if we continue down that road we'll be stuck with fortress NZ forever. At some stage you have to concede Covid will get here and everyone will be exposed.
it is not the deaths that are the problem but the hospitalizations which in NSW was running at 10%, our hospitals in the auckland region can not handle the population we have now what hope have people got if we get to that level getting the care needed for other sickness if full of covid patients
Current Cases Admitted to Hospital in Australia - COVID Live
STATE HOSP ICU VENT
NSW 1,268 242 118
Victoria 241 60 39
Yes, the decision was clearly political and I believe lawyer Sue Grey's High Court case in Wellington yesterday has uncovered criminal conduct from bureaucrats. An affidavit was filed from a doctor who claimed that his reports of possible vaccine deaths was not placed in the CARM register - as legally required (as per Rumble interview with Ms Grey). This mirrors the CDC cover up where they have not conducted any autopsies despite 6,000 reports of possible vaccine deaths in VAERS.
If Iceland can't eliminate it I doubt we can either.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/iceland/
67 cases on Sept. 20. However they have had only a three deaths or so this year. It's all getting a bit hysterical really. The idea of a few extra people dying during a pandemic probably shouldn't have such an adverse reaction. We shouldn't develop a society that can't handle the outcome of the odd pandemic.
I wrote that it was getting a bit hysterical. I probably should have written that we should be careful about hysterical reactions at this point. Now we are this far down the track, we have learned a thing or two, done a thing or two, and can now have a calculated way forward.
A massive new study by Canadian researchers during July 2021 reveals one in 1,000 people develop myocarditis from mRNA jabs. Of these about 50 % will die within 5 years ;New Study Shows 1 in 1000 Develop Heart Inflammation After Covid Vaccination; Myocarditis and Other Related Heart Conditions Have Increased Death Rate Within 5 Years (thegatewaypundit.com).
This is why the FDA expert committee declined to endorse boosters for those under 65 last week . Based on this research Cindy and Ash's poison "vaccine" will kill about 1,000 kiwi's (ie 50% of one in one thousand times two million vaccinated) approximately.
Printer8, I believe nothing I hear and only half of what I see, and sure we should pour scorn on dodgy or biased "research" but that seems a reasonable link that he posted.
Being still early days of a vaccine that was fast tracked through trials and has new technology not used in vaccines before (those are Medsafe's words) we should keep a calm but open mind to research findings by a credible organization.
Hopefully their findings are just a statistical anomaly.
Beanie
Gateway Pundit is not a reputable site.
Refer: "How ‘Gateway Pundit’ Used Vaccine And Election Misinformation To Earn $1.1 Million In Google Ad Revenue"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2021/07/29/gateway-pundit-elect…
His earlier post on Sue Grey in court is also bollocks.
What has that got to do with the study itself?
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.13.21262182v1.full
That is exactly the problem we are facing these days, where people can't disconnect the information itself from the conveyor of it. Unless you scan a broad, sometimes uncomfortable to read spectrum, you really have no chance of working out what is truth and what isn't.
You have hit the nail squarely on the head Jake. Thank you.
Where do you find good information?...I spent a while looking at our government websites last night and it is woefully lacking. The main covid19.govt website had a silly cartoon aimed at preschoolers. No wonder there are a lot of Hesitants. Eventually I found what I was looking for in the Medsafe website, but that hardly supports some of the statements we get and hasn't been kept up to date. It should be.
We only get vague assurances that sound like any other government spin, and warnings to "report misinformation".
Of course a diehard antivaxxer would see that as "proof the government is keeping us in the dark".
Jakenz
When a person - or in this case a website - is a habitual liar then they lose integrity and are not credible.
Read the Forbes article - constructing misinformation is their intent and no matter how seemingly believable the misinformation, it is what they rely on for their clickbait. Despite numerous very persuasive claims regarding US vote counts and Dominion machines not one of the many court actions upheld those views.
Sure, you can say this about pretty much EVERY mainstream publication, every single one of them. Truth, honesty, objectivity are no longer part of the business model, if they ever were. Forbes is not immune from this.
Your instant dismissals of information presented here and before says more about you than the subject of the article.
jake
You believe that . . . but a warning you run the risk of being a sucker for a Nigerian scam.
In the meantime, Sunchap keeps posing links - no matter how seemingly sound - which are misinformation and are commonly linked to those being supportive of Ivamectim as an alternative. His post today regarding Sue Grey is one example and the facts of the court case - as with other cases she has been involved with - will have been horribly twisted.
maybe if you read the study and not the scare monger newspaper article, you would see even those that had the condition from the vaccine resolved itself in short order, and they are watching them for long term to see if it has any more effects on their health
No major adverse cardiac events and no significant arrythmias were noted during inpatient stay. Further follow up will be required to ascertain the longer-term outcomes of this patient group.
Hi solve_it,
Interesting comment. I have noticed that there have been a number of studies that were never published due to failing peer review (this is only since the start of the pandemic mind you). I understand that peer review is sort of a final check before publication but I find it interesting that a paper from the University of Ottawa would be so bad that it will be ripped to shreds. Is the state of our educational institutions so bad that they can't check to ensure that their papers won't be ripped apart in peer review, prior to pre-print?
Thoughts would be appreciated.
Hi OLT, I just don't have the time to do this, I have given various snippets on previous posts. I suggest you read the study yourself and ask yourself the following questions:
- is the data collection for both groups on a level playing field. For the vaccinated group they used an existing database then followed up. They dug so deep as to use the nebulous term "chest pains" and assumed that was myocarditis. With the covid affected group they did no follow up. So they relied on people who had had the flu to self report (to who??) that they had "a chest pain"? If you have had the flu, which sucks, you are unlikely to dwell on a passing chest, muscle, etc pain, when you may have had major respiratory symptoms. And then who do they tell? The hospital? Their GP? The study did not comprehensively follow up this group at all seemingly.
In my mind the only way to try and do this equitably would be to issue multiple surveys to a huge population of people BEFORE they either get the vax or get ill. As a result of them not doing this, and trying to use existing systems that are naturally completely incomparable, I think their resulting data is junk.
- because of the deep dive they have done into looking at the self reported symptoms following vaccination, the vast majority completely recovered in a really short period of time. So with all due respect, who gives a f?. They weren't at risk of injury or death. Again, the covid affected group were naturally much less likely to even bother to report this, because they WERE at risk of injury or death from the illness, they have more important things to worry about and be grateful for. So their numbers for the vaccinated group are completely incomparable to the covid affected group, but what do they do? Compare them. It's terribly inappropriate.
It is still a pre-print article so there is that to consider, however the research was conducted by the University of Ottawa so it shouldn't necessarily be disregarded. We already know that there are issues with mRNA and myocarditis, particularly in young men. What we don't really know is the extent of the problem and it is pleasing to see that research is being done on the matter. It would be irresponsible to ignore the problem just because it doesn't fit with the narrative you like or the fact that it was posted by somebody who you disagree with.
One of the advantages we have in living in New Zealand and getting the vaccine so late is that we have been able to wait and see if issues such as this arise and manage them effectively - on this issue I can't see it being managed by the government but people who do their own research may. mRNA vacccines are not the only vaccine that is/will be available for Covid and it might be prudent to ensure we have the safest vaccines for different populations, not just a one size fits all approach.
Why would you be so fast to write of the warnings ? basically nobody knows how this is going to pan out for another 5 years. If there is an uptick in the death rate in NZ do you seriously think its ever going to be publicly acknowledged it was linked to the vaccine ? it will be the second biggest cover up since the moon landings. Unless the death rate increases off the scale and its impossible to ignore, it will all be swept under the carpet.
Once Covid becomes endemic, the question becomes "Is the risk of the vaccine less than the risk of natural Covid infection?" And it's quite clear that for any side effect or adverse outcome, whether it be blood clots or myocarditis, that having the vaccine is far less dangerous than catching Covid.
As for myocarditis, the study referenced concludes:
Myocarditis appears to be an unpredictable and relatively infrequent side effect following vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, is most common in younger males and appears to be self-limiting with supportive therapy.
Quite frankly, it is about giving people the chance to be vaccinated, not about making sure every subgroup are at 90%+. By Labour Weekend we will have had 6 months of constant messaging on vaccine, and unprecedented massive community outreach. Why should the whole of society shut down until Christmas or beyond because some groups won't vaccinate?
At some point you need to shrug your shoulders and say "people have made their choice" and stop trying to save them from themselves.
Otherwise, your only choice is to roll out the idea of ethnic group based lockdowns that align with the government's ethnic vaccination strategy. The PM has already gone down the demographic risk segregation route by telling unvaccinated over 65s they need to stay at home. If it's good enough to do that, it's also appropriate to tell unvaccinated Maori and Pasifika to stay home.
Agree 99%, the only thing that doesn't sit right are those with valid medical conditions preventing them from being vaccinated, by their nature usually health vulnerable people. Whereas they may have felt confident participating in life up to a certain point previously, they will now be forced to isolate indefinitely as a result of the self righteous f*wits who think vaccination is a freedom issue, rather than a public health response to protect the vulnerable.
So following that reasoning can you explain why Jaffas that wanted out of Level 4 aren't also self righteous f*wits who see getting someone else to prepare their coffees and food a freedom issue, rather than staying the course in L4 as a public health response to protect the vulnerable?
I guess some of us wanted out of level 4 because we're desperate to see our families or keep our jobs, and the prospect of week on week of 'it's going to be another week, owned' is essentially soul destroying in a way that the rest of the country, might fail to appreciate because they aren't pulling their weight in terms of MIQ facilities.
Fair enough reply and I agree elimination is doomed to fail. A population of 5 million has too many moving parts.
But I am against compulsory vax even though I have had it myself. If it is as infectious as they say then everyone will get exposed to it sooner or later. You just have to take your own precautions.
If hospitals get swamped then anyone who is the author of their own misfortune just gets pushed down the queue.
Newborns the author of their own misfortune?...you gonna have to explain that one to me.
I mean like the unvaxxed over 50 maybe, or the morbidly obese old person with the heart trouble or diabetes who have been told for years to lose weight or they will get those conditions, or the lifetime smoker with cancer, you get the idea. An unpleasant task for sure, but when you can't admit everyone then you have to start choosing. We have always had rationing of healthcare.The young should never be turned away.
that already happens in our hospital system, how many people are fighting for pharmac to fund drugs to prolong life or even save it , how many are fighting with DHB's to fund early scanning, i feel for the doctors and nurses that have to tell someone that there is nothing more they can do knowing there is some surgery or drug that is not funded
yes its always been political - but a huge disappointment that Dr Bloomfield may as well be a Labour Party member - THere is no way that the Health - and only the Health consideration and advice would have been to drop to L3 at any point in the last 18 months with 150 cases in a week -- many from initial tests at hospitals or routine testing showing continued undetected transmissions -- His advice as MOH and Director General should have been to stay at L4 -- and if cabinet decided taht they wanted L3 because of the other issues such as public finance and social control - well thats ok - its their job to consider those issues -- its not the DG of Healths role to include budget and financial considerations in his decision -
And the long-term effectiveness of lockdowns. Experts all around the world have said lockdown fatigue is a thing and means that adherence will slip once they stop being novel and start becoming a drag.
Our level 4 lockdown is one of the strictest in the world, I believe the strictest amongst western countries, so it's not surprising that fatigue affects us just as it does everyone else. If anything we've shown more adherence to our lockdowns than other countries have.
You are so blind-sided by Arden and labour, you truly can't see through the spin. The impacts of lockdowns will have far greater reach and effect than COVID will have by the time it's all done and dusted.
Just tell all those that had their scans and surgeries pushed aside how lucky they are.. oh wait.. they won't be around to hear it.
If you try and quote modellers, i'll ask to quote one modeler who actually got anything right.. yet the buffoons in government still preach away and the sheep follow
New Zealand would have been fine if we'd kept the border open, and had no quarantine hotels. Europe is proof of that. They guys at covidplanb and the scientists who signed the Great Barrington Declaration were right all along. We could have relied on natural immunity, naturally acquired antibodies, ivermectin, vitamin D3, and zinc just like India did to dramatically reduce infections and hospitalisations. That would have made up for our lack of ICU capacity.
The propaganda will really shift into high gear now. The government has to justify what will probably amount to over 100 billion dollars of wasted money. They will never admit to that. The narrative has to be that vaccines and the government saved the day. The opposite is true.
How much is this alleged Auckland/Tamaki Makaurau is fed up with level 4 based on the reckons of "opinion writers" and click bait seeking mom v an actual factual statement supported by polling?
Because (IIRC) polling showed considerable support for staying in level 4.
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.