sbiddle:
wellygary:
Agree, the fact they are not releasing the data behind the "vaccination curves" -( they are processing requests as OIAs) is frankly unhelpful...
Its all to do with not wanting to be held to account if they don't make their milestones...
I also note they have stopped reporting how much vaccine is in the country ... again pretty unhelpful...
It reminds me a lot of when they stopped reporting lots of data on the total number of available MIQ rooms when the media started asking questions..
When you combine this confusing data with the very significant change in the past few days over what determines a community transmission case it really does make me wonder about lots of the things we're being told. Why are all these changes occurring?
... theorising that there's a conspiracy and that the conspiracy has some nefarious political agenda.
Firstly, we're 2 1/2 years away from an election, but the target for vaccination program completion is the end of the year. If they're "lying" to you, they'd be caught, and if we know that, then they must know that too. Are they completely stupid? I think not, YMMV.
There's a global shortage of vaccine(s), there are already cases of "vaccine nationalism" next door in Australia (with AZ vaccine shipment delays ex Europe), and NZ's need for vaccine are far, far, less critical and urgent than almost anywhere else. I'd be very surprised if there's not some confidentiality agreement between NZ and Pfizer, even if not formal then "assumed". Having been involved in global trade in often critical materials (incl to pharma) and where supply shortages crop up, there's a pretty basic principle - you'd be dead in the water if you or your customer disclosed some agreement to obtain supplies of something that's in short supply globally to other customers who are also in deep strife. The end result will be you'll either have only one - or no customers at all if that's how you show you're operating. Nobody will trust you.
Pfizer NZ CEO has already been contacted, and will not comment on NZ delivery status. Choosing to believe that's "because everybody is lying" is nuts.
If someone bungs in an OIA request, I expect it'll be declined - that's why there is a "commercial sensitivity/prejudice" exception, and in this case if it's declined, then I very much doubt it's being abused.
As far as changing changing how CT is defined, I mean really? Who cares? If close (household) contact of an infected border worker inevitably gets infected - but it's ring-fenced - then it's not the same as "CT" when the need is trying to trace initially "unknown" and possibly numerous "at-risk" contacts. Anyway, it's openly disclosed - not some "secret squirrel" means to deceive, as in the recent "case A" and (so far only weak positive, then negative - now isolated and monitored) "Case B". It's a far far lower risk situation than "real CT".