The 2020 Election Thread

[husaberg]

It was reported on the news that 50 of the 54 cases of compassionate exemption weren't tested - and that 45 of those 50 are now refusing to be tested.

So do you have a link for what you posted as being reported in the media?
because i can find no such reports.....using your own words.
were they like Jasons reports where he claimed to have seen about reports about hillary clinton that he said was widely reported in the media that he cant back up.......

It would appear that the 45 people refusing tests aren't necessarily from the 54 exemptions but rather, part of the 119 that won't be tested that are mentioned in the paragraph headed '2,159 group'.

https://www.health.govt.nz/news-medi...ase-covid-19-2

really aren't necessarily? or are clearly not?.......
Because according to your own link
54 people left managed isolation on compassionate grounds, either to self-isolate in the community, or to make visits into the community.

39 have returned negative tests for COVID-19. Two of these had a test prior to leaving managed isolation and another two were tested the same day as leaving, meaning 35 were tested after leaving managed isolation, with most tested while still in self-isolation. 　
11 will not be tested, either on the basis of health, because they are a child or they have left the country. This is an increase of four from yesterday due to a family being unable to be tested at this time. 　
3 are awaiting results 　
1 person who we understood to have had a test is now not returning contact and has been referred to enforcement.　

[mashman]

It was reported on the news that 50 of the 54 cases of compassionate exemption weren't tested - and that 45 of those 50 are now refusing to be tested.

So they're not going to use those new laws they created. lolz.

[mashman]

Sadly we are seeing less & less people doing just that.
They are happy to complain about whoever is in power though. All of the adverts by the elewctoral commission ("the orange guy"*) seem to have little effect on voter numbers.

* I wonder if that will change this year due to the orange American guy??

I don't really see people not voting, when there's nothing to vote for, as an issue... moreover a sign of potential intelligent life, although most definitely not a guarantee. The ads have little effect, because there's nothing to vote for. To wheel out a broken record: If there was a "No Confidence" option, many non-voters would cast a vote, and I reckon a fair few current voters would also swing that way. This causes a bit of a problem, hence there's no option and silly maxims remain that blame those who didn't vote for not voting for the outcomes we see. If anything those who didn't vote have more to be pissed about given the lack of responsibility taken by voters to correct their mistake in the future.

Not sure if Boss Trump will make a blind bit of difference to the numbers unless he does something spectacular, like draining the swamp. After all, if change isn't happening then it's unlikely that those who don't vote are going to suddenly want to vote given that no party is representing anything like meaningful change. Anyway, the Russians and Chinese will MK everyone into doing their bidding.

[jasonu]

So do you have a link for what you posted as being reported in the media?
because i can find no such reports.....using your own words.
were they like Jasons reports where he claimed to have seen about reports about hillary clinton that he said was widely reported in the media that he cant back up.......

I don't see or feel the need to answer to a total dickhead like you.

[husaberg]

I don't see or feel the need to answer to a total dickhead like you.

oh so you just feel you don't feel the need to prove the accusations you make ......so i take it as normal with you, you just keep on making accusations without foundation and when asked for the evidence you consistently fail to be able to provide it. i wounder if there is a word for that. ..........Always a Trumper..........

[Ulsterkiwi]

Simply saying we fucked up but will fix it doesn't make it go away or let anyone off the hook for the fuck up. Since they were elected (by Winston Peters) Labour have had a so far never ending string of failures, blunders and fuck ups. The tooth monster has shown she is good at managing difficult situations but as far as running a country goes it has been a colossal failure. The way her luck has been running I wouldn't be surprised to see some other catastrophe just before voting time that will help all the dumb shits forget just how useless her and her party of muppets have been.

you are correct, admitting there was a fuck up does not negate the existence of the fuck up, is that not kind of how life works?
As I said, I am no Labour fanboy and things like the kiwibuild fiasco shows this current government has not been 100% successful. Is it possible for any government able to claim they did everything they set out to?
Your pejorative terminology for the PM aside, the NZ system requires cabinet government and I would be the first to say the existing Labour caucus is light on obvious talent. That leaves the PM to carry the can in a lot of matters, she is only human.
I remain fascinated that you are so passionate about sharing your thoughts on a country and people you seem to have so much vitriol for and seem to have chosen to leave behind. Do not get me wrong, if you moved to the states for a better life, good on ya and I wish you well but rest easy that little old NZ and its issues will have zero impact on you over there, take it easy.

[Ulsterkiwi]

"The System had failed"

vs

"We have failed" - bit of a difference and given various actions of this Government, I'm not granting them any benefit of doubt.



I'm going off my first-hand experience of getting tested, but I'll accept your statement as is - the MOH assured the Cabinet that it was doing something, when it wasn't - I don't see how there is any other conclusion in that statement except a massive failure of the Leadership.



Australia, Hong Kong, Taiwan. I'm looking at what other countries did and what we did and it seems to me that at Level 3, allowing most businesses to operate we would have mitigated most of the potential hazzards and most importantly of all, not crippling the Economy.



Sure, My dislike of the Prime Minister is certainly a factor here, however there is a long precedent of monumental screwups being grounds for a resignation.

Does the re-introduction of a Pathogen into the populace due to repeated incompetence meet the threshold for Monumental Screwup? You may not think so, but I put forward the case that objectively it doe




Then why did we need the Lockdown in the first place? As the RISK of community transmission was the basis under which this was undertaken?

Both scenarios cannot coexist - if one is true, then the other must also be true.



The Clear evidence here is that 50 or so people slipped through the cracks, Cracks which to even the most lay of lay-persons should not exist.



I've outlined my reasons as to why we are objectively in the territory, if you hold differently - then that's your prerogative.




Something about giving someone a licence who didn't meet the requirements and then using that failure as an excuse to strip people of their property.

Perhaps the more accurate statement is the implementation of the system failed. Human error. I am not a fan of witch hunts. Unfortunately through history we seem to have a penchant for finding someone or a group of someones to blame, this helps us to make us feel better about our own failures.
I would always prefer to see people who make mistakes learn and try to fix things. Perhaps that is my weakness.

Comparison to other countries is always fraught but I accept that is a natural thing to do and done well can be useful. Australia, or at least Victoria which had the least consistent approach to lockdown isn't looking too good is it?

With respect to COVID-19 being reintroduced into the populace, yes that would be a monumental screw up, as I said, there does not appear to be any evidence this has actually happened. Using your example of gunning for those you do not like, perhaps David Clark is the one who needs to go.
I think the PM and Ashley Bloomfield have provided a great deal of evidence they are competent (perfect? no), David Clark, not so much.
As an aside, I understood the PM not removing him as minister in the middle of the level 4 lockdown. In this instance I find it harder to understand.

we needed lock down as we had no idea how far COVID-19 had penetrated into the wider population. I think you are smart enough to realise that meaningful measurement begins with a point of reference. A baseline of no detectable community transmission was needed. The lockdown provided the most effective manner of achieving that. Some people forget that the MOH advice to cabinet was even tougher than what was put into policy. For sure the economy has taken a massive hit. Given our dependence on tourist dollars, a migrant workforce and exports, our economy was always going to take a massive hit, what is so difficult about acknowledging that?
I could start to make an argument that the previous National government pushed us towards that kind of economy and they have responsibility for what has happened and they should all commit politicial seppuku. That would be a tenuous argument, achieve no real benefit and leave us without a functioning opposition. Useless. Better to learn and fix. Think about how our economy might be made more resilient, we need thinking and policy from all sides of the spectrum for that to happen.

I think an overhaul of firearms legislation was in order. We discussed this in a previous thread I believe. It is clear there was human error leading to a systemic failure which noone in authority acknowledged or attempted to fix. That would fit what I would consider criteria to move someone on. What is the difference? Those in charge (the Police) did not and do not yet appear to have acknowledged there was a problem and have not attempted to fix things.
I accept legitimate firearms owners were let down by the system
I do not accept that civilians have any demonstrable need to possess working military grade weapons, that is why reform of the legislation was needed.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Temporarily? We are going to have cases arriving on a daily basis with people flying 'home' from wherever. Some of those will fall through cracks for whatever reason. I can't see why someone on Day 12 of hotel isolation can't catch it from an employee who has just been dealing with someone who is only two days in. They get the second test, return a negative and off they go. A week later when they fall sick they are in a different town and have spread it all over the place.

I'm stocking up on bog paper again, we'll be back at Level 3 or 4 sometime in July and the merry go round will start again. Only difference is there will be a new minister in charge and I will have a garage full of booze ready.

all those things you suggest are a risk, no question. Life is about risk management not risk removal. Isn't it ironic that on a motorcycle forum so many of us struggle with the idea that we cannot guarantee 100% removal of an identified risk.

[TheDemonLord]

Perhaps the more accurate statement is the implementation of the system failed. Human error. I am not a fan of witch hunts. Unfortunately through history we seem to have a penchant for finding someone or a group of someones to blame, this helps us to make us feel better about our own failures.
I would always prefer to see people who make mistakes learn and try to fix things. Perhaps that is my weakness.

Giving people the benefit of the doubt and a chance to rectify is noble and admirable, and I (like everyone else) complied with the Lockdown.

It seems to me there have been multiple chances and each one has had a serious failure. On top of that, given the ideological underpinnings of the current Labour/Green Coilition, I don't grant them any benefit of the Doubt.

Comparison to other countries is always fraught but I accept that is a natural thing to do and done well can be useful. Australia, or at least Victoria which had the least consistent approach to lockdown isn't looking too good is it?

Definitely fraught and yes I agree with Victoria, it seems there is a continuum of sorts - with Level 3 being about the sweet spot. Too much and there is a massive Economic Cost (which, based on the data from previous recessions, is likely to cost many lives), Too little and there is an immediate life cost.

If you want to accuse me of having perfect Hindsight, then that's a fair critique - but I've been pretty clear from the outset that I think there was a degree of over-reaction.

With respect to COVID-19 being reintroduced into the populace, yes that would be a monumental screw up, as I said, there does not appear to be any evidence this has actually happened. Using your example of gunning for those you do not like, perhaps David Clark is the one who needs to go.
I think the PM and Ashley Bloomfield have provided a great deal of evidence they are competent (perfect? no), David Clark, not so much.
As an aside, I understood the PM not removing him as minister in the middle of the level 4 lockdown. In this instance I find it harder to understand.

And that's fair - ultimately I think he should at least publicly acknowledge his multiple screw-ups. If his incompetence is what ends up sinking HMS Jacinda, then maybe we should keep him around for as long as possible....

we needed lock down as we had no idea how far COVID-19 had penetrated into the wider population. I think you are smart enough to realise that meaningful measurement begins with a point of reference. A baseline of no detectable community transmission was needed. The lockdown provided the most effective manner of achieving that. Some people forget that the MOH advice to cabinet was even tougher than what was put into policy. For sure the economy has taken a massive hit. Given our dependence on tourist dollars, a migrant workforce and exports, our economy was always going to take a massive hit, what is so difficult about acknowledging that?
I could start to make an argument that the previous National government pushed us towards that kind of economy and they have responsibility for what has happened and they should all commit politicial seppuku. That would be a tenuous argument, achieve no real benefit and leave us without a functioning opposition. Useless. Better to learn and fix. Think about how our economy might be made more resilient, we need thinking and policy from all sides of the spectrum for that to happen.

I think I'm going to answer this in a Tangential way:

The old adage - when the only tool you have is a Hammer, every problem is a Nail.

The MoH will only see things in terms of Health, An Economist will only see things in terms of the Economy etc. As with most things in life, there are trade-offs made for each side and we seek to find a balance whereby we get the best bang-for-buck.

So when the MoH want the strictest possible lockdown, full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes! I'm sitting here going 'Well, that's all fine, but what happens in 6 months and a year, such an action has severe consequences'.

Perhaps a better option would have been to put the Elderly and the Infirm and people with pre-existing medical conditions (Asthma sufferers as an example) into a strict lockdown and let everyone else get on with their lives, if it's found that that isn't restrictive enough, then ramp it up.

I think an overhaul of firearms legislation was in order. We discussed this in a previous thread I believe. It is clear there was human error leading to a systemic failure which noone in authority acknowledged or attempted to fix. That would fit what I would consider criteria to move someone on. What is the difference? Those in charge (the Police) did not and do not yet appear to have acknowledged there was a problem and have not attempted to fix things.
I accept legitimate firearms owners were let down by the system
I do not accept that civilians have any demonstrable need to possess working military grade weapons, that is why reform of the legislation was needed.

We have, although when discussed before it was only the opinion of Firearm owners that the Terrorist was not properly vetted, now we have confirmation from Police informants.

Without re-hashing that debate (since you've stated your position):

For me the justification of the law change was fundamentally 'the current laws were insufficient to prevent this attack'.

Which we now have explicit evidence that this is not true, the previous laws were more than sufficient to prevent it, if the Police did their job properly.

What's more, the failing of the Police in this instance, it wasn't a value judgement where an officer made the wrong call (which could be perhaps understood). He didn't have the required references for the Vetting process, which should have been an automatic rejection of his application.

[Katman]

really aren't necessarily? or are clearly not?.......

1 person who we understood to have had a test is now not returning contact and has been referred to enforcement.　

Well your sentence highlighted in bold suggests that 'aren't necessarily' is a more accurate description than 'clearly not'.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Definitely fraught and yes I agree with Victoria, it seems there is a continuum of sorts - with Level 3 being about the sweet spot. Too much and there is a massive Economic Cost (which, based on the data from previous recessions, is likely to cost many lives), Too little and there is an immediate life cost.

If you want to accuse me of having perfect Hindsight, then that's a fair critique - but I've been pretty clear from the outset that I think there was a degree of over-reaction.



I think I'm going to answer this in a Tangential way:

The old adage - when the only tool you have is a Hammer, every problem is a Nail.

The MoH will only see things in terms of Health, An Economist will only see things in terms of the Economy etc. As with most things in life, there are trade-offs made for each side and we seek to find a balance whereby we get the best bang-for-buck.

So when the MoH want the strictest possible lockdown, full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes! I'm sitting here going 'Well, that's all fine, but what happens in 6 months and a year, such an action has severe consequences'.

Perhaps a better option would have been to put the Elderly and the Infirm and people with pre-existing medical conditions (Asthma sufferers as an example) into a strict lockdown and let everyone else get on with their lives, if it's found that that isn't restrictive enough, then ramp it up.

I am going to focus on these parts of your answer, the rest is not going to be resolved in this discussion I would posit.

Accusation is a strong word but hindsight does seem to be at least part of the basis of your position. It is with the benefit of NZ effectively containing COVID-19 (thus far) that you are able to criticise the approach taken. I am genuinely not interested in attacking you personally, so please remember that when I make the following comments.
Those who say "see it was an over reaction" when the worst the country prepared for did not happen, precisely BECAUSE we prepared for the worst to happen, is more than a bit of a cop out.

You are not a Trumper, I know that but look at what happens when an administration clearly favours economics. If I am going to err, I want to err on the side of people and their health. Economies can be recovered, as yet, we can't bring people back from the dead.

Putting the elderly and infirm in isolation is what the UK did (I know, my parents are in their late 80s and my brother and niece are both immuno-compromised). The UK had to increase restrictions anyway and do not have anything like the level of control we have here. Restrictions were being eased when fewer people were dying, bit different to here eh?
The concern about managing economic impact reminds me of the UK Secretary of State William Whitelaw in the 1970s when he said Northern Ireland should be managed so there was "an acceptable level of violence". You see, that bothers me a whole lot more than removing semi-automatic weapons from civilian ownership. How many deaths, mutilations, beatings, bombings, riots, arrests and destruction exactly is an acceptable level of violence? Applying that to preserving economics over peoples lives, how many infections and deaths would have been acceptable to you before ramping up restrictions?

Look, I get you do not wish anyone ill, but money over people? Really?

[TheDemonLord]

Accusation is a strong word but hindsight does seem to be at least part of the basis of your position. It is with the benefit of NZ effectively containing COVID-19 (thus far) that you are able to criticise the approach taken. I am genuinely not interested in attacking you personally, so please remember that when I make the following comments.
Those who say "see it was an over reaction" when the worst the country prepared for did not happen, precisely BECAUSE we prepared for the worst to happen, is more than a bit of a cop out.

It's a fair rebuttal - but come back to the point that there were those of us who were critical from Day 1 of the Lockdown, now I'll admit my initial position (that it was a massive overreaction) wasn't correct - but the flipside of immediate nationwide shutdown was also too extreme.

At about the 2nd week of the Lockdown, that is really when we got to see what was happening in NZ and what was happening in other places and that we should have moved to allow business to run remotely or via Online.

I know you aren't attacking me personally, so no offence taken.

You are not a Trumper, I know that but look at what happens when an administration clearly favours economics. If I am going to err, I want to err on the side of people and their health. Economies can be recovered, as yet, we can't bring people back from the dead.

I'm quite fond of Trump actually, but I think the American system in general tends to place a lot more emphasis on the Individual managing themselves, without Governmental intervention.

There are things where I clearly agree with (2nd amendment) there are other things where I don't agree (Social Healthcare) - there's a further point below on where you err

Putting the elderly and infirm in isolation is what the UK did (I know, my parents are in their late 80s and my brother and niece are both immuno-compromised). The UK had to increase restrictions anyway and do not have anything like the level of control we have here. Restrictions were being eased when fewer people were dying, bit different to here eh?
The concern about managing economic impact reminds me of the UK Secretary of State William Whitelaw in the 1970s when he said Northern Ireland should be managed so there was "an acceptable level of violence". You see, that bothers me a whole lot more than removing semi-automatic weapons from civilian ownership. How many deaths, mutilations, beatings, bombings, riots, arrests and destruction exactly is an acceptable level of violence? Applying that to preserving economics over peoples lives, how many infections and deaths would have been acceptable to you before ramping up restrictions?

Look, I get you do not wish anyone ill, but money over people? Really?

First I'll raise Sadiq Kahn, who tells us that Terror attacks are apparently just part of living in a big city these days....

but point scoring aside - Money over People - There's a lot to discuss here:

Firstly some questions: What is the acceptable number of people that are killed by the Flu every year?
or the Acceptable number of people that are killed in Car Crashes?

Now, I'll forgo demanding an actual answer from you, in order to highlight the point:

With the freedom we enjoy in the West comes death, destruction etc. and collectively we say that this Freedom is so valuable to us, that the small cost in terms of Human life and suffering is more than worth it.

So whilst there is no specific answer to that question and whilst we both can agree with the statement 'anything more than 0 isn't acceptable' - the reality is that there is an acceptable number, whereby the balance between individual freedom and the need for protection is reached. And that this balance is dependent on Cultural, Social, Historic etc. Factors.

But when it comes to Money vs People - consider the flipside - how many Suicides, DV incidents etc. that will occur due to the Economy taking a hit and people loosing their Jobs? Especially poignant as to both our national history (or shame) given both of those topics, but also considering which demographic it affects.

There's a study from the last major Recession that suggests that as a direct result of the Economy in the US going downhill, that 250,000 Cancer sufferers (just Cancer, no other ailments mentioned) Died.

Linking back to that, and your point above as to where you tend to side - It is the Economy that provides us with a surplus of resources that enables us to have nice Hospitals, purchase expensive Drugs/Medical equipment, have social welfare schemes etc.

When I raise the point about the Economy, it's because I want to have the most hyper-productive economy possible so that we can have the best hospitals, with the best equipment so that the maximum people can be helped - as you say - I don't wish anyone ill - far from it. It's not Money over People but more the interplay between those two.

[Viking01]

Perhaps a better option would have been to put the Elderly and the Infirm and people with pre-existing medical conditions (Asthma sufferers as an example) into a strict lockdown and let everyone else get on with their lives, if it's found that that isn't restrictive enough, then ramp it up.

Don't disagree with the sentiment or concept, but think that the identification process might have been problematic (sounds easy; more difficult in practice).

Aged ?
What age were you planning to apply cut-off?

If I look at some past Covid infection data, I see infection grouped in 10 year bands (60-70; 70-80; 80-90; 90+ years old). And with increasing incidence (%) as we go up the age scale. Note that such data had no commentary on what proportions of each age band might have had a pre-exising medical condition.

Infirm ?
Those already relegated to DHB hospital wings or to hospital (and/or dementia) units within retirement villages ? Those with disabilities limiting their movement living in the community (but requiring care-givers) ?

Pre-Existing Medical Conditions ?
What pre-existing medical conditions ? And why ? Based on what already existing (and accepted) medical studies ?

How were you going to acquire such data (within limits of patient data confidentiality) ?

How were you going to assess severity of condition that would warrant individual lock-down? Who would perform such assessment (and in a timely manner)?

If such information had already been readily known and accessible, could the medical authorities not have simply advised citizens to self-assess and self-quarantine accordingly ? Expected level of compliance ?


Such a process might theoretically be more achievable now (in light of the experience and knowledge gained from Covid Round 1), but I suspect that a health system struggling with the current testing regime would struggle to achieve that goal.

[TheDemonLord]

Don't disagree with the sentiment or concept, but think that the identification process might have been problematic (sounds easy; more difficult in practice).

Aged ?
What age were you planning to apply cut-off?

If I look at some past Covid infection data, I see infection grouped in 10 year bands (60-70; 70-80; 80-90; 90+ years old). And with increasing incidence (%) as we go up the age scale. Note that such data had no commentary on what proportions of each age band might have had a pre-exising medical condition.

Infirm ?
Those already relegated to DHB hospital wings or to hospital (and/or dementia) units within retirement villages ? Those with disabilities limiting their movement living in the community (but requiring care-givers) ?

Pre-Existing Medical Conditions ?
What pre-existing medical conditions ? And why ? Based on what already existing (and accepted) medical studies ?

How were you going to acquire such data (within limits of patient data confidentiality) ?

How were you going to assess severity of condition that would warrant individual lock-down? Who would perform such assessment (and in a timely manner)?

If such information had already been readily known and accessible, could the medical authorities not have simply advised citizens to self-assess and self-quarantine accordingly ? Expected level of compliance ?


Such a process might theoretically be more achievable now (in light of the experience and knowledge gained from Covid Round 1), but I suspect that a health system struggling with the current testing regime would struggle to achieve that goal.

Good Critiques:

In terms of Age Ranges - we could have done some very quick statistical analysis in the early days (based on overseas data) and then come up with an approximate age range (which would likely have been if you are between X and Y, then you are highly recommended to self-isolate and above Y you are required to self-isolate)

Infirm - pretty much as you said, also include those who have are or have a history of being immuno-compromised.

Pre-Existing Medical conditions - that would pretty much mean anything respiratory, most things (I'll use Asthma as an example) has degrees of severity ranging from the 'it's a bit annoying occassionally' to the 'Oh shit, you'll most likely die' - so again you'd pull the data from within the DHB and then notify those people.

Depending on how the Data is stored and structured - it's most likely a SQL Database of some flavour, probably backed by some form of Blob storage - not exceedingly complex to pull a list based on a set of criteria.

But I do think your point that the ability for the Health sector to quickly identify, contact, isolate and if needed enforce measures against individuals will be streamlined in the future.

[FJRider]

The MoH will only see things in terms of Health, An Economist will only see things in terms of the Economy etc. As with most things in life, there are trade-offs made for each side and we seek to find a balance whereby we get the best bang-for-buck.

The BEST plan was for the work that needed to be done WAS getting done ... to feed and clothe the populace (and keep them WELL). The Primary industries were working to fulfill this basic need. The Wage subsidy helped as an incentive to employers to keep their workers working ... and even if they weren't working ... to (literally) afford them time (AND money) to prepare for restart.

The result was ... the working populace still had money ... and something positive to think of for their future. Remember ... $15 in every $100 that is/was spent ... goes directly (and immediately) back into the Government coffers ... so money was going both ways. The rest being still in circulation. Nothing much beats money in circulation to help any economy. Even if some businesses didn't need the handout (but took it anyway because they were entitled to it and qualified to get it [and who could blame them]) ... money in the bank is good insurance for a business's future prospects. They could be a lot wose off without it.

So when the MoH want the strictest possible lockdown, full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes! I'm sitting here going 'Well, that's all fine, but what happens in 6 months and a year, such an action has severe consequences'.

And when lockdown started ... the majority thought is was a big joke. Nothing to worry about ... I'm fine. So we "Stretch" a few of the rules ... what harm can it do. Those running the isolation centers knew the rules. They felt important enough to grant exemptions outside of their (KNOWN) rules (for various humanitarian reasons) yet no mention of ANY retribution for THEIR rule breaking going their way. And ... if resignation is asked of those at the top ... the hammer will (should ?? [ok ... it used too]) fall harder on those at the bottom (Has it/will it .. ???). And ... could/will there be more deaths because of this ??

Consequences ... perhaps. But ... it might not show in the death statistics to date. OR later. While we are alive ... there must also be hope for our own future. The Stock market crashes and devaluations in our dollar can/has caused issues in our economy in the past ... business will continue (OK ... some wont) but the ones with a sound business plan, practice and purpose will survive. How many of those that didn't survive ... wouldn't have for much longer anyway .. ?? More of them still to go under ... probably.

Perhaps a better option would have been to put the Elderly and the Infirm and people with pre-existing medical conditions (Asthma sufferers as an example) into a strict lockdown and let everyone else get on with their lives, if it's found that that isn't restrictive enough, then ramp it up.

THEY weren't the ones SPREADING the virus. Just the one's most likely to DIE. I suggest you research which group GAVE those that actually died from the virus in the first place. Even WITH all the rules in place ... Those are the very one's that you want to "get on with their lives" too.
Far to many thought Lockdown stage 4 was a joke. It impeded on their freedoms (apparently) ... As if ... that was not the actual basic purpose of the lockdown.

And initial Police response to rule breakers was in the wet infringement notice ... slapped in/on the hand ... didn't help (or change) public conception of what the pandemic controls were for.


The New Zealand Pandemic plan isn't new. Some interesting reading here.

https://www.health.govt.nz/system/fi...-edn-aug17.pdf