After the Covid-19 Delta outbreak emerged in Auckland on August 17, the most heartening thing was watching our vaccination rate take off like a rocket ship.
However, over the past couple of weeks it has slowed dramatically. It seems that here in Auckland at least, we've picked all the low hanging fruit and getting the tens of thousands more people vaccinated to reach the 90% goal could be akin to getting blood out of a stone. (As of Monday 84% of those aged 12 and over have had the first dose and 52% both doses).
So what to do?
It was heartening to hear Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on Sunday say that parts of the country reaching a vaccination rate of 90% or higher would be very unlikely to be placed in a level 3 or 4 lockdown. That's an incentive for people in areas aside from Auckland, and the Waikato, to push hard for 90%.
We've also heard more and more about how travel, big events and some jobs are going to be restricted, or off limits, for people who haven't been vaccinated.
Hearing Director General of Health Ashley Bloomfield last week note there were cases in the current Auckland outbreak who were living in transitional, or temporary, housing, my heart sank and my optimism about winning the current battle with Delta dimmed.
I'm sure I wasn't the only one who realised this meant Covid had done what it had previously done in many countries overseas; found our weakest link. In New Zealand's case this is our well publicised and long standing inequality and housing woes.
The health authorities are clearly dealing with people who are doing it tough, possibly living hand to mouth, and worrying about keeping a roof over their head. Getting tested for Covid-19, let alone vaccinated, may not be the top priority.
Yet all the medical experts are agreed that our best way of dealing with Delta is vaccinating as much of the population as possible. Bloomfield wants 90%+, others agree this is a good target for New Zealand's circumstances, and Ardern's on board too.
So how do we get there as fast as possible?
How about cash for vaccinations?
This isn't a novel idea. But I reckon it's worth a crack. And it can't be a derisory sum.
How about say, $150 for the first jab followed by $350 for the second jab?
That's $500 all up for doing a civic duty and helping keep yourself, your family, your community and your health system safe. Or at least contribute to reducing the risk from Delta that we're all facing.
In the interests of fairness, this could be paid retrospectively to people who've already been vaccinated. Those of us who don't need the money could be given the option of donating it to charity or our local District Health Board.
Of course, there are those who will never, ever get vaccinated. But for some people a financial incentive might just be the final piece of the jigsaw to get them over the line and get vaccinated.
Surely money spent speeding up the vaccination push is just about the best thing we could spend public funds on right now. And much of the money paid to the vaccinated would be spent in the economy, hopefully helping many hard hit small businesses.
In the meantime the Government is continuing to spend big on the wage subsidy with the hospitality and tourism industries, in particular, continuing to get battered.
Since the onset of Covid-19 the Reserve Bank has created new money to buy $55 billion worth of government and local government bonds from banks and fund managers in the interest of suppressing interest rates. Additionally our highly profitable banks are able to borrow billions from the Reserve Bank at the 0.25% Official Cash Rate.
So surely we could find a bit more money down the back of the couch to help kick the vaccination push along.
193 Comments
Chebbo, while the above statement is correct factually - you need to look at the whole picture and think of the percentage of people that aren't vaccinated, and what effect the percentage of them that end up in hospital will have on our healthcare system.
Lets say 1M (20%) people aren't vaccinated.
As of right now according to MOH website there are approx. 300 active Covid cases (that we know of). 30 in hospital. Lets say 3 in ICU (from memory there is/was more). So say 10% end up in hospital, 1% of all cases end up in ICU.
NZ has 4.6 ICU beds per 100k pop. Call it 5M = 230 ICU beds.
1% of 1M = 10000 ICU beds.
If spending $2B avoids the above fustercluck, then its well worth it.
I agree, if 4 million people get both vaccine shots (>90% of eligible), $500 each is $2 billion. A week of nationwide level 4 lockdown is about $800 million in wage subsidy and resurgence payments alone, Auckland is maybe 1/4 of that. It doesn't need to shave many weeks off the lockdown to be worth it on just those costs, let alone the larger impacts.
Best comment of the day goes to Amber Dryden on Radio NZ this morning ... who needed ICU care for 5 days after a car accident : Covid-19 vaccinations are alike wearing a seat belt in a car , they wont necessarily save your life , but they do greatly stack the odds in your favour ...
... wheres me $ 500 , Gareth ... second jab on Thursday !
Dining in. You could only sit in cafe/food court if you vaccinated. The digital vaccination passport that has been announced today was working in SG at March from my memory - you can see you vaccination status at TraceTogether (mobile app) and you must show it to enter cafes and some other public places.
The ministry of health data suggests Asians in anz have an over 95% vaccination rate. Perhaps it is time for ethnicity specific rules (sort of like Maori vaccination clinics), if your ethnicity has an over 95% vaccination rate you are exempt from the lockdown rules. Make it something of a competition to get people to encourage their peers to vaccinate.
These is racial segregation in this country already. Maori people where I live has had a option to get vaccinated earlier than everyone else unlike other minorities such as Asians.
We have Maori Wards which I assume are made to enhance diversity and cultural cohesiveness but for some reason other ethnic groups don’t have an access to such instruments.
Just heard on the radio, some basket baller or the likes in the USA has refused to vaccinate and he has just potentially lost $20million so I guess some people cannot be bought. Personally I will wait for it to get to about $2000 or so or how about being exempt from paying tax on my bank interest for life ? Sounds pretty good.
To me it should be the opposite pay people not to get vaccinated, It maybe they think the government does not have their best interest at heart. If you pay them not to get vaccinated they may think twice. I think the government is trying too hard, if you think someone is lying to you, the more they protest the less you believe them. It could be coupled with they have to pay for their hospitalization if they need it, you know put your money where your mouth is.
Think of it this way, if say to you: "try this chocolate" you might think it was doggy, or not but if I say "try this chocolate, and I will give $500" you would almost certainly think something is wrong with the chocolate.
Given the cost of lockdowns or hospital treatment that's actually a good deal although I'd just offer all the money at the end to incentivise full vaccination.
Just one stipulation - cut-off date in mid-December to make clear this is a one time deal and you need to book this week to take advantage. To my way of thinking I'd rather have internal border reopening heading into summer, when cases are more easily managed and people are outdoors, than in the second half of the year where climactic conditions might propagate the spread of the disease as people head indoors. If we can get done by mid-December then it leaves a couple of weeks to peak antibodies before Christmas/New Year holidays which could also be a spreader scenario with people travelling between regions. Ditto international border reopening, it would be foolhardy to wait until March and reopen into a seasonal scenario.
The ones that claim racism and incredibly say they haven't been targeted enough, when every piece on advertising on any media has targeted only them, and no one else. Yet we have Kiwis of Asian descent, not targeted in any way at all, that are the most vaccinated out of any races.
It just shows it comes down to personal responsibility, claiming yourself a victim every time doesn't really help you much.
The problem is you can’t take personal responsibility when everyone involved in your upbringing has told you as far back as you can remember that all of life’s many shortcomings are all because of other people.
That reasoning then becomes your default for everything in life no matter how absurd.
Exactly what I was thinking, it might have the opposite effect of making people wait for more bribes.
I don't mind the aussie idea of like going into a lotto type of draw, but again you need to just do it, and do it quickly, talking about it will make people hold off for more.
'I'm sure I wasn't the only one who realised this meant Covid had done what it had previously done in many countries overseas; found our weakest link. In New Zealand's case this is our well publicised and long standing inequality and housing woes.'
We pay the price of 30 years of Ruthanasia, the arrogant neoliberal adventure, and deserve our discomfit.
Perhaps, instead of $150 for the first jab, the prize of a cheap smartphone with the vaccine passport app loaded and personalised. It would actively prompt its owner to get the second jab, and become No Entry if the appointment were not kept.
With free smartphones must come free minimal internet access for everyone, which New Zealand ought to have anyway.
What's the end game here? Are people going to be held down and vaccinated?
Drop the Mask:
Sound like marching orders from the UN and WHO - are we going the way of a One World ID/Covid-Passport? Those with the passport get extra 'human rights' [whatever the abstract term 'human rights' means]
Drop the Mask:
Are Labour going to ban unvaccinated people from:
- Employment
- Entertainment Venues
- Supermarkets
- Doctors
- Chemists
- Owning property
How far are Labour willing to go?
Drop the Mask:
- How many Jabs are people expected to get to keep their One World ID current 2, 3, yearly?
- Will people be required to share their medical info with strangers?
- What vaccination rate unlocks the hidden levels/prizes?
- Can we vote to go fully fascist now and just skip the drawn-out propaganda exercise?
Question:
We kool now as a society, out of fear turning on a minority of people and ascribing motives and ignorance to them to justify public malice??.. to avoid expressing publicly, nay, to the government the lockdowns need to end?
We ALL wear a mask, real and imagined.
The above is just something to think about. I'm not advocating anything.. I just thought it might be thought provoking. Please don't take it as anti-lockdown or anti-vax.. ..it's more a dystopian possibility many are advocating for?
I understand you are being provocative. The reality is we have a choice. Respect the right of those to not vaccinate, at the expense of the whole of New Zealand when C19 infects and hospitalises 1000's of people (statistically mostly unvaccinated) with the consequence for all NZ'ers that health provision becomes suspended for months while the surges of admissions pass. Indirect deaths due to health shortages will affect all of us, vaccinated or unvaccinated. This is happening overseas and is not modelling - it will come to pass. While I do not support mandatory vaccination, I support every measure up to it. You see, I also have rights, importantly I have a right to access health care as do my children. Why should the right not to be vaccinated be more important than our rights to continued health care?
I ask you this. Do the rights of the few outweigh the rights of the many?
"I ask you this. Do the rights of the few outweigh the rights of the many?"
That is a philosophical question so I'll give you a philosophical response/answer:
Good and Bad, kind of like "rights" are a moral question. Some people like to have their neighbours over to dinner, some like to have their neighbours FOR dinner. If somebody believes in the Judeo-Christian God, murdering for cannibalistic-satiation is evil and against God's law. Under secular (NZ law) it's not considered evil, rather murder.
What "rights" are you taking about, where do these "rights" come from? Secular 'legal rights' can be changed for sure.
Please note, I'm just illustrating how abstract the term "rights" is. But yes, forced vaccinations and too many restrictions open a whole can of worms; on MANY levels. Labour might be smart to tie alert-levels/lock-downs to ICU capacity when opening up.
"Labour might be smart to tie alert-levels/lock-downs to ICU capacity when opening up."
Unfortunately, in the absence of COVID it is very common for ICUs to be at full capacity on any given day of the week. It would be an absolute mess of an idea. And I'm speaking as somebody whose job is often directly tied to ICU capacity.
To me it might be good in the long run (although definitely cost lives in the short term) to let ICU exceed capacity, hospitals have been neglected for to long. I now expect a wait time of at least 8 hours at the hospital, forcing a crisis may mean something will happen to fix this degradation of the hospital system.
"Why should the right not to be vaccinated be more important than our rights to continued health care?"
Bingo. You can't object to a vaccination on the grounds of preserving your health when that will likely lead to hugely diminished access to healthcare for many others when you get sick. Much in the same way I can't fire a gun in a crowded movie theatre even if I have a firearms license.
What about the rights of people who've already recovered from covid and have superior antibodies compared to anything the vaccine could provide. Should they be forcibly injected with a "return-free risk" experimental vaccine to satisfy the political goals of the Labour party?
When does it stop being experimental?
In five, ten, or twenty years time when the long term effects are better understood.
Pfizer isn’t making it easy though. After 6 months they unblinded their 42-thousand-person trial with 15 deaths in the vaccine arm and 14 deaths in the control arm. After encouraging the control arm to become vaccinated (whitewashing the trial) there have been five additional deaths in the vaccine group (3 in the vaccine group proper, and 2 in the control arm who became vaccinated).
Here are some reasons why time is required:
1. Some people will likely have undiagnosed myocarditis. This may have downstream effects of heart arrhythmia, heart failure, transplant etc. which will take time to manifest.
2. The healthy 12 year to 30 year old’s that we're vaccinating may be worse off in years to come because the vaccine provides inferior immunity compared to natural immunity (See here).
3. There's a non zero probability of vaccine enhanced disease. Because spike protein mutations increase with time, so too does the probability of vaccine enhanced disease (see here and here). We could've mitigated this risk by not vaccinating young people whose covid risk is almost zero. This is what most of the world has done, but NZ has put all its eggs in one basket.
4. Those are known unknowns. There are unknown unknowns too. Only time will tell.
A vaccine in 5,10,20 years is a fat lot of use 😃
We have to make a decision based on the information we have on hand, and on balance the risks of the vaccine are so far outweighed by the risks from the virus it's not even a contest.
Every one of your objections applies just as much or more to the virus itself.
Nice try but no cigar
Yes, certain rights are sacrosanct.
No, rights need to be balanced, there are very few if any absolutes in this world.
What happens if the next vaccine is something you (or your kids) don't agree with?
I will argue, hope my voice will be heard, expect to get a fair say, but in the end if society deems it best the I will get that vaccination.
One of the things I think they media are doing is making out people who are not getting a vaccination are idiots, or if they just knew the facts they would come round to their way right way of thinking. Take for example this article, it suggesting that pay them some money and they will get the vaccine like they are just being greedy and don't have valid reasons not to take the vaccine. What I would like to see is some research into the reasons why people are not getting the vaccine.
You have the absolute right not to get vaccinated. No one, certainly not the government, is advocating forced vaccinations of people. All that will happen is the unvaccinated won’t be able to travel on international flights, or go to concerts and other big events, and won’t be able to get into hospitality venues or enter certain workplaces. Etc.
People who decide to remain unvaccinated don’t have the right to put me or others at risk of infection.
People can choose not to vaccinate all they want. The reality is Covid will be here (Thanks, mainland China) and there's no way to get rid of it. And it will hit all of us sooner or later, there's no 'if' but 'when' we'll each catch it.
The proof is that the unvaccinated make up more than half of those hospitalised. That's 20-25% of the population, which means there are more unvaccinated people getting sick than there are vaccinated. So the more vaccinated, the less they be in hospital and the shorter the duration of their stay and illness. That means less beds tied up, less resources used up and less burnt out medical staff.
If people don't want to be vaccinated because of chemtrails, gay frogs and lizard people, so be it. It's on them, no worries. Just know that they're more likely to die from Covid when they get it if they aren't in the best of health when it gets serious, and they are more likely to stay hospitalised longer, and they are more likely to develop serious symptoms. but if they're OK with that, fine - their choice.
What we should focus on is that the higher the vaccination level, the less we'll need to be in lockdown. Simple as that - More virus resistant people equals less need to lockdown to prevent the spread.
Guess what, if you endanger the lives of others there are already plenty of examples where governments have a responsibility to intervene. If you drive drunk you risk going to jail. If you speed you might lose your licence. If you operate a business and fail to provide a safe environment you might get fined etc etc etc.
What are people acting like putting in place sensible public health mandates is somehow fascism? The majority of the country understand and support these sorts of precautions as we have seen what happens when other countries have let the virus run rampant.
You may think you are some sort of free thinking intellectual but you just come across as tinfoil hat wearing idiot.
Agreed Hamish. The problem with the idea in this article is that it could be counter productive.
Much better to deny the holdouts things they want, access they want, etc. Carrot and stick will get to more people than carrots alone. Human nature will always be human nature.
It may not fit the mantra of 'being kind' but, particularly when there's health emergency, lets live in the real world, not in the world people wish it to be. We might just get things done!
So the population at large should be locked down because a few malcontents are convinced their Facebook medical degrees are better than peer-reviewed research from the quantum of human academia across the world?
Individual rights must triumph, so long as they're yours over everyone else's?
US case law has absolutely no relevance to NZ, they operate a user pays healthcare system. Which whether you know it or not, is exactly what you are advocating for. The thing is do you actually understand what that means.
Why should I pay for the choices you make. Pay for your own rugby/netball/sports injury. Pay for your own smoking related illnesses, pay for your drunken escapades, pay for your car crash due to choosing to drive, pay for your own dialysis because you choose coke over water...
I ask this question in another stream; "But the question arises does anyone's individual right to 'freedom' exist when that choice or the consequences of it impact negatively on another's right to be safe, and healthy, and free?" I will fight tooth an nail for people's right to choose, but i will also fight tooth and nail to ensure they accept responsibility for the consequences of those choices.
While we are all guilty of this, no one should make a choice without fully understanding the consequences of that choice on others as well as themselves. And no choices should have a negative impact on another. So if someone chooses not to be vaccinated, then if they individually need to be locked down to protect others or even just restricted in what they can do, then that is on them, not everyone else.
Cowpat the cultural view of Flu is that it is a 'minor' illness, so society are not at that point, but as I have indicated in other posts that view needs to change, as it is the spread of these virus's that provides the opportunity for them to mutate into more harmful versions of themselves. Thus these 'minor' illness's still kill, and occasionally leave a lasting impact. all grounds to change our perspective. These viral illness's are no longer 'just a cold' or 'just the flu' to be minimised at will, and spread to all your mates and family. That cultural attitude has the potential to allow a species destroying organism loose amongst us. The warning is clear for all to see.
But try not to be an extremist. this discussion is more around finding an acceptable middle path, which means there are always view for and against that have legitimacy, and so often the weight of either view comes down to personal perspectives.
The flaw in your argument that is crucial is this. Almost 80% of the population are vaccinated. Take that as a surrogate vote for or against vaccination. You see where this is going. Not only do the rights of the few not outweigh the rights of the many, but in a democracy the will of the majority over turns the will of the few.
So to answer your question, If I disagree with the next vaccination and I am in a minority view, just like appointing a Government I didn't vote for, because I live in a democracy I have to live with the democratic outcome.
As I have said on here before, I don't support mandatory vaccination, but the choice not to vaccinate comes with consequences because that choice has serious implications for the whole population, it is not limited to your own destiny.
Well put, but it is not limited to just this vaccine. Advocates for Actions = consequences need to understand they are fundamentally changing our healthcare system to a user pays. I am actually all for that.
I suspect many others think they are, at least until they need some healthcare that relates to a personal choice they make and it is not available.
I could ask the same question back? that is the thing with individual rights. We all have them.
What rights do we have? Seriously where are they written in stone that cannot be changed? The rights that we have are just made up by people, and can be changed on a whim by the people in power.
In New Zealand we have the bill of rights, which I think needs a 2/3 majority in parliament to change, but the law that enshrines that only needs a 50% majority to overturn so the government can change it with a 50% majority. We do not even have a constitution because its too hard have things like "everybody is equal under the law" when the treaty of Waitangi grants Maori special rights.
Uttah Pradesh - india - had high death rates - Ivermectin issued death rates plummeted - population 230 Million. Perhaps the local tooth fairy provided an early christmas present whilst our Tooth Fairy shuts down debate on Ivermectin, but wait Pfizer has a new drug in the wings Pfizermectin with similar ingredients and pathways, its more expensive of course and Ivermectin is so dangerous since it creation in 1970s it wont even kill a child taking a dose 500 times recommended - similar in Tropical Africa were its used for River Blindness and low rates of covid deaths, all circumstantial of course as not in accordance with WHO woke agenda.
In this case what isn't right is a group of people putting at risk the lives of other people. By not getting vaccinated you are at far greater risk of infecting others and needing hospitalisation. If that is required, you are taking up a bed that could have been used by someone in unavoidable need. This is a health issue not a human rights issue.
My daughter is pregnant, the incessant vaccine propaganda is distressing her. Early on there was a tv advertisement of the pacifica mama and baby who was taken ill with covid, she says she wished the vaccine had been available for her, and extolls the virtues of the proven safe vaccine. Which is then emphasized by MOH as proven and safe for pregnant women.
I went to the medsafe website, looked up the Pfizer application. In which it said the trials had involved no pregnant women.
The NZ Govt clearly lied to us. There is no if but or maybe.
I was gobsmacked. I looked everywhere on official websites to prove myself wrong.
Nope, there it was everywhere. Pfizer not only didnt do safety trials for the pregnant, there was not a single trial for anyone that was immunocompromised, or taking any form of drugs.
You lost me there and then Ministry of Health. Our pregnant women have always been our most precious. What happened? There may be some positive news now perhaps for the vaccine. But who cares. Who could believe if that was true or false. Back in June my Ministry of Health and Govt told me a lie so big I will never forgive nor forget.
Take your money and your bribes and stick it where the sun dont shine.
The application was made before there was data for pregnant women. When we had our baby, the advice was to wait for better data.
Now there is data available to support it as being safe for pregnant women.
Not everything is a lizard people deep state conspiracy ffs.
What did you not understand. While you got advice to wait for better data. The MoH was advertising on TV for pregnant women to go get your shot. It was 'safe and effective' for pregnant women. Pfizer had nothing to back that claim in its information to Medsafe. I followed that info all over the net to other countries. On all other MoH websites allover the world Pfizer said the same thing. Not tested in pregnant, immunocompromised and in those taking any sort of drug.
No conspiracy.
The Pfizer application would have been filed with Medsafe age ago, it was only approved in February, so likely application data was from late last year.
At that point that data probably wasn't available. Later on, it became available as more research was done around the world in places that were further ahead in their rollout.
If you're looking at an application that pre-dates that data, then no shit, it's not going to have that data in it.
Belle this is on the MoH website; "Millions of pregnant people have been vaccinated around the world.
Data shows no evidence that the vaccine is associated with an increased risk of miscarriage during pregnancy, and no additional safety concerns have been raised.
The Pfizer vaccine does not contain a live virus or any ingredients that are harmful to pregnant people or their babies."
What don't you understand about this?
While it does appear to be safe, given many commenters are always refuting anything that is not scientifically peer reviewed. It stands to reason that this claim should be held to the same standards. More so given the Govt and MoH are meant to act on Scientific Fact.
If they are promoting something in advance of it being medically proven, they are no worse than any of the other conspiracy theorists out there.
I don't believe Belle's point is to dengrate the vaccination. Rather they are simply pointing out the contradiction in how things are dealt with.
Murray I have no idea where you got that quote from. You dont say. When was the last time you were in charge of the health of your child in your belly? That growing foetus needs to get all the bits right. So when is it ok to jab a pregnant woman. In the first 6 weeks? When arms and limbs are developing? The brain? Because we lose so many to miscarriage anyway, at this stage how can it be proven so early in the game its ok. Will that foetus who is growing all the eggs she will ever have, continue to grow those eggs. Who knows? Nobody.
Belle, it has been a while since i was paranoid about the health of my children, but I was there once, and I know where you are coming from.
the link to the statement is here;
https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-no…
But I would suggest that unvaccinated, pregnant women are not the problem. It is all the others who would bring the virus to them who are.
Doctors studied 1,515 pregnant women with COVID-19 who received care from a large public health system in Dallas from May 2020 through Sept. 4, 2021. Overall, 82 women - 81 of whom were unvaccinated - developed severe illness, including 10 who needed ventilators and two who died. The proportion of severe or critical cases among pregnant women was around 5% until early 2021, and were "largely nonexistent" in February and most of March 2021, the researchers said in a statement. In late summer, during the peak of the surge of the Delta variant, the proportion of pregnant COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization jumped to 10% to 15%, they reported in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Pregnant women face greater risks for complications with any type of severe respiratory infection, so these findings of the higher risk from the Delta variant further emphasize the need for them to get vaccinated for COVID-19, study leader Dr. Emily Adhikari of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center said in a statement. On Wednesday, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention called for "urgent action" to increase COVID-19 vaccination among people who are pregnant, recently pregnant, including those who are breastfeeding, or who might become pregnant in the future, saying "the benefits of vaccination outweigh known or potential risks."
Are you seriously suggesting that we don't give people vaccinations against anything until we have performed longitudinal studies across an entire human life span? And which pregnant women signs up for their children to be guinea pigs (as they would view it)?
There are thousands of chemicals and food ingredients that we are exposed to everyday that have never had such examinations. Yet we blindly eat and use those, whilst complaining about a shot that has been built by medical professionals, had significant tests, passed stringent medical standards and shown to be very similar to other vaccines which we don't question when we get them as children.
A lack of perfect data does NOT suggest we don't act. If you are waiting for perfect data to do anything, it will never happen and oppourtunities will pass you by. In this case, the long term effect is that they may be born instead of not being born, if the mother were to come down with COVID:
From the CDC website: "Pregnant and recently pregnant women are at a higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19 than nonpregnant women. Additionally, pregnant women with COVID-19 are at a higher risk for preterm birth and might have a higher risk for other adverse pregnancy outcomes."
Nope, not suggesting that at all. Just pointing out that of course, the data doesn't show any evidence YET (as stated in the comment I was replying to) because not all the data is in, which it won't be since only time will tell.
And the data only mentions the mother, without mentioning the Child.
There is a good reason why the normal time to market is 7 to 10 years. This is not like you can give an accelerated aging test as you can do on materials.
There is also a big difference between receiving something that might have a negative effect over time at the start of your life, than in your retirement years.
You make decisions with as much information as possible, in the time you have before your must act. What this also means is it is almost impossible to have all the data you need before you need to make a decision, and with that comes the realization that there is data that is missing that might have been useful to have, and maybe even changed your decision if you had had it. To think you have all the data you need just because you don't have any more at that time, is not how it works.
This is where parents have to understand how risk profiling works and in this case you are working with a more incomplete data set than ideally you should. Note this is different than if some of the data is wilfully withheld from you by the authorities.
And of course, it's one thing about making a decision about your own health and maybe getting it wrong, than making a decision about your child's health and getting that wrong. It's not easy being a parent.
Statistically on a population basis getting the jab NOW is safer than not getting it, but there is still a risk NOW and all the general stats don't matter to you personally if you are the one that ends up taking the hit for the team. And what the future holds, we will just have to wait and see.
Belle these are the relevant data/papers which MOH refers to or relies upon as of 21 September https://www.cmaj.ca/content/193/16/E540
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2784193
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33620113/ and https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983
What do you not understand. Back around late may and June what they were relying on was that their was NO trial work for pregnant immunosuppressant or those taking any form of drug. Nothing. Zip. Anywhere. Yet MOH said it was safe, the trial work said so. They told us to look on their website at the Pfizer application. Which I did.
It does not matter what they say now. Lied to is being lied to. You do not lie to pregnant women and cross your fingers and hope to god you are right. The chief of our vaccination team a week or two later said on national television. 'We are all in ou big experiment now' imagine how I felt. The mother of a woman who has tried for 5 years to get pregnant. Finally gets a bubby in her belly and she is now in a big experiment.
Perhaps some of you dont understand motherhood. The preciousness of pregnancy. The delicacy of that foetus. In every other thing they may give to a pregnant woman it is trialled for years and years. The lie was blatant and unrelenting. Advert after advert. It does not matter what they say now. They lost me then.
As one of the above papers states and it should be printed in bold "Preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. However, more longitudinal follow-up, including follow-up of large numbers of women vaccinated earlier in pregnancy, is necessary to inform maternal, pregnancy, and infant outcomes."
Cowpat. The word obvious. I am not coming forward in time to litigate what was not done by Pfizer and lied about by the MOH just a few months ago. But now they use the word obvious?
What is obvious? Apparently 1 in 3 pregnancies end in miscarraige. How will an uptick in that become obvious. Time.
And a willingness to acknowledge such. Most early pregnancies that are lost dont even make it to a gp visit to acknowledge the pregnancy in the first place.
Obvious is an interesting word.
It's a tricky situation for the MOH because pregnant woman are also at high risk from Covid.
My wife is pregnant and like you I investigated it thoroughly, but came to the conclusion the benefits outweighed the risks.
https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/coronavirus-cov…
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vsafepregnanc…
GV 27 provide the better reputable data/ studies/papers for Belle and her daughter "to support it as being safe for pregnant women." Belle and her daughter cannot and should not be in a position where they cannot make an informed choice if they do not have the information.
Yes, and it goes beyond that, they ignore the science, even when its rationally counter to best action. There has been scientific evidence going back decades showing the viruses of the Covid type are spread by aerosol transmission. They chose to ignore that.
If you ever wondered why the sayings like:
'In a war, truth is the first casualty
'How to do tell when a politician is lying?' and
'The ends justify the means.'
then wonder no more.
Hi Belle - it is a difficult decision for your daughter who needs to consider not just herself but also her unborn child. And medicine has not always got it right in the past.
Here is an article (written by a pregnant woman) that does acknowledge there are issues and uncertainties when it comes to vaccination of pregnant women: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/oct/05/pregnant-women-not…
I wish your daughter and family all the best in making this decision.
What an utter crock of shit. I bet 'Anonymous' thought they were very clever with that one. Feel free to offer an original thought.
If the vaccine were literally water and a few electrolytes, the same people refusing to take it now would still be mistrusting. There would be all kinds of disinformation warning people from taking it (micro-chips, anyone?).
And, while statistically I would be fine if I got COVID, that doesn't change the fact that under various conditions of lockdown, millions around the globe have still been killed by it. I am so tired of explaining to people why the effect of COVID on the OVERALL health system is the main reason this is problematic. We have cancelled literally thousands of elective surgeries at my DHB alone over the course of these lockdowns. New research (and there's a lot of it) also shows that COVID infection significantly increases mortality in patients undergoing (any) surgery for up to 7 weeks from the time of infection - even in those who are asymptomatic with infection.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2778455
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33074900/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ans.16500
Get vaccinated, get a f****g grip.
If you're at all interested, here's the link to the '7 weeks' claim.
https://associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com…
Fact: 94% of my DHB (all staff, and it's a big DHB) had received their first vaccine dose as at September 7th, so it's probably safe to assume that number is edging closer to 100%. Every single doctor I know, and I know hundreds, is fully vaccinated. The department that I work in is 100% fully vaccinated.
Please, feel free to share with me the information that suggests a quarter of my fellow health workers don't want the vaccine.
And in answer to your question, I would think that by and large those people are morons.
"What do you make of the quarter of your fellow health workers that don't want the vaccine?"
As I suspected... The article you've posted:
1. Doesn't say anything about "workers that don't want the vaccine."
2. Is specific to nurses, who do not represent an enormous number of other healthcare workers.
3. 75% are FULLY vaccinated, and there is no mention of how many more have had a single dose.
So you're either misrepresenting fact to suit your own purposes, or you have reading and comprehension problems, and I'm happy to help.
1 & 3) Healthcare workers have been eligible for many months so the double jab is the appropriate figure to use. It is the double jab that offers proper protection. The article didn't state the single jab figures so we can't comment on that. It's not rocket science to make the connection that not being jabbed equals you don't want it.
2) Chris Hipkins said health care workers, not nurses. But go ahead, say they are morons for not getting double jabbed.
There is a disconnect between what Chris Hipkins said and what you see in your DHB. The couple of weeks timing difference may explain some but not all of it. Either way we have Chris Hipkins and RNZ saying there is a problem, and an anonymous poster saying there isn't.
You are implying, quite dishonestly, that a quarter of healthcare workers don't want the vaccine. I agree that being fully vaccinated is what confers protection, but I can also understand that getting a single dose is an indication that one intends to get the second dose.
As of two days ago, 48% of eligible NZers were fully vaccinated, while 79% had received at least one dose. It is reasonable to assume that a large proportion of nurses who aren't fully vaccinated have received at least a single dose, based on these population figures.
You really hate to admit being wrong, huh?
You sound like you have some insights into how DHB’s work. However, do you think that there is a possibility that some, doctors particularly, after seeing what happens those few who stood up to raise some valid questions, have been saying to themselves in private that it will be better fro them and their families to shut up and run with the pack? Simply because the reactions from the medical bodies to their questions would be equally brutal and swift?
It's really quite frustrating (a little bit insulting, really) when people throw the 'asking questions' or 'raise some valid questions' line out. As if an enormous group of medical professionals/specialists (who've spent their entire training and careers [actually*] researching and studying) haven't thought to ask questions. There's a reason that it's a VERY small minority of doctors who are against vaccination.
Here's an open letter from doctors of NZ: https://www.doctors-stand-up-for-vaccination.com/
*most people wouldn't have a clue what research actually entails. Even when presented with a clinical study, one must be qualified to critically appraise it, reading deeper than the abstract.
It is frightening isn't it? That someone would take such a stupendously ignorant/false statement said by someone who knew it was so poorly thought out that they wouldn't put their name to it (hence labelled "anonymous") and value it over known health professionals... people have truly removed critical thought from their thought processes. Irrational, delusional, ignorant... and the frightening thing is they believe they are more intelligent than others AND they clearly have a lot of supporters jumping on the same bandwagon by looking at the number of likes they receive.
I have 100% sympathy for you. CrispyKahawai. It must be so frustrating to deal with anti-vaxx nutters all the time, who ignore the scientific consensus for their own conspiracy theories. It is the same sad background of ignorance that generates flat-Earthers, climate change deniers and similar.
I have given up on this kind of people: I know that you would disagree with me on this, but if it was my choice, I would fully open the country now, introduce a law that removes, from willingly un-vaccinated Kiwis, any right to public healthcare for any Covid-related illnesses, and let Darwin work his magic. With personal freedom comes personal accountability - so if somebody elects not to get vaccinated, then they should live with the consequences and not come whinging and overcome the public health system with the result of their choices.
Somebody might reply: how about drunk drivers or smokers? Well, I think that drunk drivers should pay for the costs due to accidents caused by them while under the influence, and smokers already pay a lot of tax whenever they buy cigarettes. An alternative option would be to keep public Covid-related healthcare to them, but introduce a heavy personal tax on whoever decides not to get vaccinated, so to cover for the potential medical costs caused by their choice.
Many of these so called "individual freedom-figthers" are always ready to shout for individual freedom, but funnily they are also always the first to whinge for public help when the consequences of their choices do eventually happen.
If you try to imagine for just one minute… to go through a thought experiment.
What if, in say 12 months we find out that the injection of mRNA has started to show undeniable, real, measurable medium to long term negative consequences. And we as a society as a whole, are forced to admit that something has gone wrong in a significant way.
What would you think if…
that minority you are now telling does not deserve healthcare for anything related to Covid, were found for some reason in a position to make suggestions for how to deal with woefully short funded health services?
And again, I should remind and everyone else, this is simply a thought experiment. So no need to reply because I wont debate this particular thought anymore anyway. Because if this does not make you think seriously enough to change your thinking, nothin will anyway. Wish you all a pleasant day!
If anything, it reads like fear of the death of innocents as our health system is overwhelmed by preventable illness. Is that not a rational fear? It's happened in other countries and I don't think we're particularly special.
I'm in healthcare working with cancer patients - they often don't have a functioning immune system. Many would be killed by widespread covid and if I wasn't vaccinated I'd be more likely to pass it on to them. I don't fear for myself as a healthy young(ish) person, but fearing for others seems quite rational given the situation.
So you don't know either. That information should be shouted from the rooftops by the government. Why don't they?
Now the 1 in a million chance of a bad outcome from the vax is misinformation. We don't know for sure because to use Medsafes words pfizer uses a novel technology not used in vaccines before... and we don't know the long term effects.
A study published in the British Medical Journal expects 143 strokes per 10 million as a direct result of the pfizer vax, so about 70 people in NZ.
I said I believe because I don't have time to do a literature search for you right now - feel free to report back if I was inaccurate on the ~50-75% reduction in spread. This is my recollection from articles I've read in the past.
Please link the BMJ article, but for context we have ~10,000 strokes per year in NZ so 100% vaccination would, using these stats, increase that risk by 0.7%. You'll also be aware that having a stroke is not a death sentence - most will recover, some back to a fully normal life. This risk really is a drop in the ocean of risks posed by Covid.
You have proved the point that it is hard to find hard data on transmission risk reduction. If our government doesn't publish it, then people start looking down rabbit holes. Eg there is a website called bmj.com that looks like antivaxxers imitating the British Medical Journal.
I'm sure you'd be able to search the literature if you're interested. Try Pubmed rather than google - or at the very least graduate to google scholar. Otherwise try reputable organisations like the CDC, WHO etc. Cochrane are generally fantastic for impartial advice but I think they might be a bit too slow moving for this situation.
While vaccination will help its not going to solve the entire COVID problem.
If 100% of NZers were double vaccinated right now there may still be level 3 restrictions on Auckland, booster shots needed for the April/May vaccinated, and like Israel etc people are likely to be still hospitalised & dying.
If NZ could become a state of Australia then we could get moving again and open up to the world.
FFS NO! Offering cash like that would be a slap in the face of the majority people who did their part because they cared about their family, their community and their country!
Just tell them vaccination = no more lockdowns! Norway, Singapore, Israel and the UK have all acknowledged that you can't eliminate, just vaccinate as amny as possible to minimise the effects of the virus if and when it hits, and ride out each outbreak.
I was talking about the 20% Dale, not an ethnic minority. Stoopid is as stoopid does. I used to think you could do away with 5 to 10% of the population that are such deadbeats that no-one would notice. Now I can see that number is verifiably more like 20%. Doesnt matter what the ethnic makeup of the 20% is.
Let's offer those Novavax shots as an alternative. There seems to be many who have an issue with the genetic vaccines so that should help close the gap. If we are serious about 90pc then this should be in the table. I need those borders open and can't wait much longer.
The mRNA vaccines were not safety tested on ONE woman for a full nine month term of pregnancy before emergency use authorisation. That is partly why Robert Malone, who invented the technology, does not recommend it's use for mass vaccinations.
In my opinion, any Government who trues to coerce women by threatening their jobs, or banning them from certain venues if they do not take them, is evil.
sunchap
What an ironic joke.
But you will push Ivermectin and the sites that do so with absolutely no reputable clinical trials and the manufacturer (and FDA and CDC) strongly advise that it is not only ineffective but dangerous to do so.
Your comments are a joke . . your "opinion" has no credibility.
As for Robert Malone inventing mRNA technology, that's just further misinformation.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-malone-vacci…
Maybe it should only be the obese or old that should have to carry a vax passport as they are the ones who will put out health system under most pressure, and are easily identified at entry to restricted events.
I am not happy about the wholesale jabbing of under 30s at this stage.
I'll accept a home as payment. Somewhere with indoor/outdoor flow. Space to grow healthy organic food, plenty of Vitamin D, room to self isolate from the masses.
Have we ordered our booster shots yet?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/covid-19-coronavirus-nearly-2-million-…
'I'll accept a home as payment.'
That is probably more profound than you intended, because if they truly understood what it took to have affordable housing, not only would we have that, but we would also have healthy homes, that would have helped alleviate the chances of catching Covid since indoor environments with poor air quality and ventilation are where you catch Covid most easily.
This is in the Medsafe report for the Pfizer mRNA vaccine -Duration of protection - The duration of protection afforded by COMIRNATY is unknown as it is still being determined by ongoing clinical trials.
We all know it is the fastest waning vaccine and will require ongoing boosters. Where is the trial data for continuous mRNA vaccines? Besides getting an arm full of polyethylene glycol with every shot, you are relying on Pfizer being upfront and honest. If you do a search of Pfizer, you will see horrendous fines for fraud.
So, you have Pfizer pushing their safe vaccine at the same time accepting zero liability for vaccine harm. They are printing risk free money all the way to the bank.
If you want to take a mRNA vaccine every year for the rest of your life, go for it. Some people will say, not so fast for me. The new Merck drug has tanked the share price of the vaccine companies. There will be no need for widespread vaccination when this is available, unless it is for introducing a new variant of the old passport system.
Completely agree.
I wouldn't have the slightest idea how my cellphone works but I'm still comfortable using it.
The people who worry about 'what is in the vaccine', as if they've ever known what is in any of even the most basic medications or illicit drugs they've ever taken. Even the food they eat.
Offer incentives via additional freedom to people who have been vaccinated. For example, allow jabbed people to eat and drink at restaurants and pubs outside, thereby creating 2 benefits 1) upping the vaccination rate 2) allowing some restaurants and pubs with outdoor areas to reopen. Win-win
Here is how one company is handling it, and the problem it highlights.
Highlands Motorsport Park is offering to free entry to Covid vaccinated people during the school holidays.
The offer was a way of encouraging New Zealanders to get the jab.
The company’s intention was not to exclude anybody.
“You can choose to show your card at reception and receive free entry or choose not to show it or not to be vaccinated and pay $30.
Offer would also extend to people who were unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons and children.
They are clear that they were doing this on the basis of helping the Govt achieve a high vaccination rate so restrictions can be lifted. IE they are not stopping the vaccinated and non-vaccinated from being in proximity with each other.
Tourism Industry Aotearoa chief executive Chris Roberts says operators had a legal responsibility to keep their staff safe.
“If you determine the best way to do that is to keep away unvaccinated customers then you’re entitled to deny service to anyone who’s not vaccinated.”
But Highland Park has decided that they don’t need to separate vaccinated from non-vaccinated to fulfill their legal obligations to keep their staff safe or any customer safety issues in keeping these two groups apart.
So since it’s not a safety issue, why are they creating a price differential between these groups?
Wow. Continuity and protection of good health and avoiding extended hospital stay is not motivation enough...I demand money as well. The selectively unvaccinated are holding the rest of the economy hostage. Clearly they think the people paying all the tax will pick up this tab as well ...oh wait they cant, their business just folded...or they just lost their job etc etc. Get a grip please.
Once its at 85% let it all go. Those that spend to much time to read Facebook believing everything they read will then become the subject of a "Darwinian event".
I never really understood what Adern's criteria were for lockdown level changes (no cases in South Island but they still had level 4 and 3 restrictions for three weeks and still living at level 2 versus persistent cases still arising in Auckland yet the alert level has been dropped). That aside, whatever those unknown drivers were for the government re. lockdown levels, the goalposts seem to have been shifted now that the 'elimination' strategy has gone. Now, judging from Adern's statements, any given region will have their lockdown level determined by whether they have reached a certain vaccination uptake threshhold. In some areas there are a lot of 'alternative thinking people' who will never ever get vaccinated. So in these areas Adern's new approach is really tough on the responsibile citizens that have been vaccinated but who will be penalised because of those that will never get the jabs. Hey, just get the vaccinations out there and fully available then open up our internal way of life and let the unvaccinated run their own risk re. getting Covid. However, please make sure that if they do get Covid when unvaccinated that they have to pay for any treatment they require; their choice, their cost!
Society is already well down that line. If someone's actions/choices are deemed to adversely affect others then the perpetrator is usually held accountable. If someone chooses to commit an action prejudicial to society (e.g. a crime) they are required to pay for the consequences of that choice. I'm not saying that refusing vaccinations is illegal (far from it) but the risks to the rest of the population of that choice to refuse to be vaccinated is a real one. Just as smoking hasn't been completely outlawed despite it's passive risks to others and it's cost to our health system, there have been financial disincentives put on it and those that choose to smoke pay for that choice. Obviously, we will see things differently on this particular matter Beanie but in the face of a pandemic situation where vaccinations do not convey 100% immunity then the anti-vax choice is a dangerous freedom that the rest of society must also pay the price for.
Wow I didn't know we had so many medical experts on interest.co.nz. There seems to be a lot of people getting really wound up about vaccination and I'm not really sure why. If you double jabbed and the vaccine is that great then why are you so worried about the unvaccinated ?
The PM has had over 18 months now to beef up the hospital system so how about blaming Labour instead of the unvaccinated ? FYI we have one of the lowest number of ICU beds per 100,000 people in the western world. I saw the numbers flash past on the screen the other day, we have 3 or 4 and Germany has like 38.
How do you go about acquiring the staff to beef up the hospital system in 18 months? Takes years to train new staff and we've had essentially closed borders - and the rest of the world will be wanting those same staff anyway for the same reason.
I guess the 1% (if that) pay offers going around the health system at the moment are a bit of an own goal.
Because if I need cancer treatment or other such medical attention at short notice, or I find myself undergoing chemo which impairs my immune response, I'm going to be severely compromised by the self-proclaimed medical experts who find their Facebook degrees don't count for much on their deathbeds.
Why not just exclude people from society based on their risk of hospitalisation or death from or with covid. It would be very simple based on existing documents, we could start with something like 65+ and adjust age based on local evidence. Or go a step further and look at pre-existing health conditions too. Recent vaccination could also be a mitigating factor weighted appropriately by risk reduction compared to the other factors. For those who seem so quick to compel others whist not making things "mandatory" we could give them the choice to carry on with their lives based on their own risk assessment or lose their superannuation or sickness benefit, lose the "privilege" of ongoing health care etc.
It could be a lot less than this. $70 first jab, $50 second with provision of a community services card. This will motivate the majority of those yet to be vaccinated if you look at the demographics of the same. These are also the same demographics disproportionally exposed to higher risk due to living conditions and poverty etc.
I said this weeks ago. $1000 to everyone who is fully vaccinated. I also said no wage subsidy for those who aren’t vaccinated. $4b is a lot of money but it is less than the cost of ongoing lockdowns. I we need to have targets and a plan for each target. We can’t be held hostage by those who refuse to get vaccinated. We are going to hit 80% vaccination rate in the next couple of months but the rate of first doses is falling off the cliff. We can’t just stay in level 4 with kfc and picnics
We can’t be held hostage by those who refuse to get vaccinated.
Some call me anti-vax, I prefer anti-mRNA experimentation. I have no problem opening up, it is not me that is locking you in your home, go and speak to Jacinda Ardern about that. The whole Covid response is about locking down the fit and healthy, destroying business to protect the nearly dead. Over reporting Covid deaths and under reporting vaccine harm is criminal.
Simple solution. If you chose not to get vaccinated you can give up you right visit public venues and give up the right to medical care if you contract covid.
Your right to chose to be vaccinated does not supersede everyone else's right to reduce exposure to the virus, and ensure there is sufficient ICU beds available if you do get sick.
If you don't believe in medical science, then you can shoulder that risk.
Medical science tells us that drinking alcohol increases your cancer risk. Medical science tells us eating too much and the associated obesity causes significant health problems. Medical science tells us smoking causes lung cancer etc etc.
If we ban all these people from the hospital, then the odd unvaccinated Covid sufferer should be fine!
Something to think about:
The Delta Surge May Collapse Faster Than You Think | A Doctor Explains
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdRZJKG7rhw
Those that don't get a jab can work from home on 80% salary (for our office anyway).
Once you get a jab and are back in being a productive member of the office then your workload and responsibility can go back up. Along with your compensation.
I'm not pretending people working at the kitchen table with kids are as effective as people at the office (speaking from personal experience 80% is too much).
Absolutely opposed to making payments for vaccination. Instead Government should:
- link benefits to vaccination (no vaccine, no benefit);
- impose a surcharge for the unvaccinated (to compensate society for the extra costs imposed by the minority who refuse to get innoculated).
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.