2019 Novel Coronavirus Covid-19 Discussion

Forums › Health and fitness › 2019 Novel Coronavirus Covid-19 Discussion

1 | ... | 1842 | 1843 | 1844 | 1845 | 1846 | 1847 | 1848 | 1849 | 1850 | 1851 | 1852 | ... | 2429

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2789650 5-Oct-2021 09:59

I'm a bit perplexed - if there's not going to be mandatory vaccinations, then leaving the city locked up for ???? weeks until we hit arbitrary threshold is a bit hard to morally justify.

I would have thought you balance out the tension between individual rights to refuse medical treatment and the rights of those who have done all they can to help contain Covid by offering the latter group the ability to transition out of lockdown far quicker through a lockdown-lite set of rules, and still don't get why this wasn't part of yesterday's announcement.

At 84% vaccinated in Auckland it's absurd that 84% of people have to be treated the same because of the few % of who actually refuse to engage (as opposed to legitimately hesitant or would take advantage of an opportunity if it was in front of them e.g. the vaccine buses, workplaces, etc).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2789658 5-Oct-2021 10:17

GV27:

At 84% vaccinated in Auckland it's absurd that 84% of people have to be treated the same because of the few % of who actually refuse to engage (as opposed to legitimately hesitant or would take advantage of an opportunity if it was in front of them e.g. the vaccine buses, workplaces, etc).

84% "first dose" minus 47% "fully vaxxed" = 37% with only 30% immunity, plus 16% with no immunity at all.

Full (94%) immunity is only achieved a couple of weeks after the second dose.

It's far to early to ease restrictions for the "vaxxed".

The government is doing the right thing in less than ideal circumstances. If the messaging of the reasons is unclear so that many even in a "geek" forum can't see it, then I guess they need to address that issue.

Buster

297 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 164

#2789659 5-Oct-2021 10:18

ajobbins:

If 100% of the population was vaccinated, you would have 100% of cases, hospitalisations and deaths among the vaccinated. Without context, people will wrongly see, or try and use that rising number to say vaccines don't work.

Thanks for you post. Still I can't help smiling. Regardless of the data, are some of the 100% vaccinated going to un-vaccinate themselves. Is there an antidote? Is the vaccine even a poison?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2789661 5-Oct-2021 10:19

GV27:

I'm a bit perplexed - if there's not going to be mandatory vaccinations, then leaving the city locked up for ???? weeks until we hit arbitrary threshold is a bit hard to morally justify.

I would have thought you balance out the tension between individual rights to refuse medical treatment and the rights of those who have done all they can to help contain Covid by offering the latter group the ability to transition out of lockdown far quicker through a lockdown-lite set of rules, and still don't get why this wasn't part of yesterday's announcement.

At 84% vaccinated in Auckland it's absurd that 84% of people have to be treated the same because of the few % of who actually refuse to engage (as opposed to legitimately hesitant or would take advantage of an opportunity if it was in front of them e.g. the vaccine buses, workplaces, etc).

Im not sure of the legality, and IIRC there is a right to refuse medical attention. But the vaccine ID/passport is the means to achieve what you want, allowing you to go places with a decreasing or no restriction, plus the benefit knowing that you are watching/eating/playing with similarly vaccinated others

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2789664 5-Oct-2021 10:23

Fred99:

84% "first dose" minus 47% "fully vaxxed" = 37% with only 30% immunity, plus 16% with no immunity at all.

Full (94%) immunity is only achieved a couple of weeks after the second dose.

It's far to early to ease restrictions for the "vaxxed".

The government is doing the right thing under the less than ideal circumstances. If the messaging of the reasons is unclear so that many even in a "geek" forum can't see that, then I guess they need to address that issue.

So booking today + six week rebooking window + 2 weeks = early December.

If the plan is to get 90%+ to this point then the government needs to be clearer that we are stuck in L3 until then, instead of step-changes downwards with no carrot for those who have already taken a jab or even had both of them.

JPNZ

1717 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 842

#2789670 5-Oct-2021 10:39

GV27:

So booking today + six week rebooking window + 2 weeks = early December.

If the plan is to get 90%+ to this point then the government needs to be clearer that we are stuck in L3 until then, instead of step-changes downwards with no carrot for those who have already taken a jab or even had both of them.

Bloomfield has already said in a round about way that Auckland will be in level 3 to the end of November as they work through the 3 new steps.

"Bloomfield said restrictions would ease in the region over four to eight weeks - meaning Aucklanders could be at level 3, albeit with some more freedoms, until late November."

https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/bloomfield-signals-4-8-weeks-restrictions-auckland

Panasonic 65GZ1000, Onkyo RZ730, Atmos 5.1.2, AppleTV 4K, Nest Mini's, PS5, PS3, MacbookPro, iPad Pro, Apple watch SE2, iPhone 15+

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

Oblivian

7345 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2117

ID Verified

#2789684 5-Oct-2021 10:55

The herald sure isn't being shy on the catchy OMG I MUST REPEAT THAT! headlines today.

Changed a number of times through the morning. The current edition:

Live: Get used to living with Covid - expert 'gutted' by new 3-step plan

Is naturally also the heart string version.

No, you can't hug Grandma: New rules for Auckland explained

Among other catchy opinion pieces that joe public will run with as gospel.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2789699 5-Oct-2021 11:23

I don’t know more about the pandemic response than others here, and I certainly know less than many do. But one thing strikes me and I wonder if that hasn’t been somewhat overlooked.

Virtually every decision that has been made is met with criticism. Many posters offer ‘better’ solutions that sometimes do seem to be better. Why oh why can’t the health authorities see these simple and obvious things?

What rarely seems to get touched on, here or in the media, is the dilemma of going further than your followers are prepared to follow. I think this is a major issue that tends to be overlooked. I suspect (don’t know) that a major consideration for the Prime Minister and her advisers, is how far they can go with Covid protection measures without losing a significant portion of the population. I think they must be trying to maintain a delicate tightrope balance between the perfect and the good. Why loosen restrictions at a time when Delta is slipping past? Maybe because anything else would provoke civil disobedience on a massive scale. Why go easy on gangs and religious nuts who defy bubble limits? Again, the whole effort might collapse if the hand of the law is seen to be too heavy.

I don’t know if this is in fact the case, but you can’t lead people further than they are prepared to go. There is increasing frustration with restrictions. Maybe harder solutions would work better, but only if they can be enforced. If not then something less may just be the best compromise achievable. I think this balance is something our leaders have to weigh every day. Their decisions may not be the best ones, but they may be the best ones in the circumstances. It is something at least worth considering.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2789708 5-Oct-2021 11:31

That's because having wrong opinions on the internet is free, no matter how loud you are about them.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2789715 5-Oct-2021 11:41

Rikkitic:

I don’t know more about the pandemic response than others here, and I certainly know less than many do. But one thing strikes me and I wonder if that hasn’t been somewhat overlooked.

Virtually every decision that has been made is met with criticism. Many posters offer ‘better’ solutions that sometimes do seem to be better. Why oh why can’t the health authorities see these simple and obvious things?

What rarely seems to get touched on, here or in the media, is the dilemma of going further than your followers are prepared to follow. I think this is a major issue that tends to be overlooked. I suspect (don’t know) that a major consideration for the Prime Minister and her advisers, is how far they can go with Covid protection measures without losing a significant portion of the population. I think they must be trying to maintain a delicate tightrope balance between the perfect and the good. Why loosen restrictions at a time when Delta is slipping past? Maybe because anything else would provoke civil disobedience on a massive scale. Why go easy on gangs and religious nuts who defy bubble limits? Again, the whole effort might collapse if the hand of the law is seen to be too heavy.

I don’t know if this is in fact the case, but you can’t lead people further than they are prepared to go. There is increasing frustration with restrictions. Maybe harder solutions would work better, but only if they can be enforced. If not then something less may just be the best compromise achievable. I think this balance is something our leaders have to weigh every day. Their decisions may not be the best ones, but they may be the best ones in the circumstances. It is something at least worth considering.

It seems that reducing restrictions is a shocking thing to do

It seems that keeping restrictions is a shocking thing to do

All I know is we havent had masses cases, nor mass deaths, we want to contain it as much as we can until vaccines get to a high level. The public want freedom, they also want no cases, so anything that doesn't achieve all those goals is a fail.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2789717 5-Oct-2021 11:42

Rikkitic:

I don’t know if this is in fact the case, but you can’t lead people further than they are prepared to go. There is increasing frustration with restrictions. Maybe harder solutions would work better, but only if they can be enforced. If not then something less may just be the best compromise achievable. I think this balance is something our leaders have to weigh every day. Their decisions may not be the best ones, but they may be the best ones in the circumstances. It is something at least worth considering.

If you want it summed up, maybe this first paragraph from the Wiki page on bounded rationality helps clarify things. Well I think it does anyway.

Bounded rationality is the idea that rationality is limited when individuals make decisions. In other words, humans' "preferences are determined by changes in outcomes relative to a certain reference level". Limitations include the difficulty of the problem requiring a decision, the cognitive capability of the mind, and the time available to make the decision. Decision-makers, in this view, act as satisficers, seeking a satisfactory solution, rather than an optimal solution. Therefore, humans do not undertake a full cost-benefit analysis to determine the optimal decision, but rather, choose an option that fulfils their adequacy criteria.

Different decision makers or "leaders" (not necessarily incumbent) are presenting different options, none of which are ideal or optimal, so you end up with a compromise (hopefully) acceptable to the majority.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2789719 5-Oct-2021 11:46

It's been asked before, but did we ever establish if the three week or six week period for jab was optimal?

wellygary

8816 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5299

#2789722 5-Oct-2021 11:53

GV27:

If the plan is to get 90%+ to this point then the government needs to be clearer that we are stuck in L3 until then, instead of step-changes downwards with no carrot for those who have already taken a jab or even had both of them.

But that is the kicker, its not 90%+ .... its 90%+ of minorities, ..

The govt clearly said previously that a blanket number will not work because there will be groups with lower protection and that would be unacceptable....

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2789724 5-Oct-2021 11:55

GV27:

It's been asked before, but did we ever establish if the three week or six week period for jab was optimal?

Many pages in this thread back, but the answer is almost unequivocal "yes". 6 weeks (or longer) between doses provides a statistically significant greater medium-term immune response, probably too soon to claim that long term immune response is significantly better, but I expect that data will come in time.

That poses NZ with a problem, in that known decline in immune response after 20 weeks is real (IIRC drops from ~95% to 70% effective with Pfizer - worse with other vaccines), yet many of our most vulnerable were vaccinated with a 3 week dose gap ~ 20 weeks ago.

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#2789727 5-Oct-2021 12:03

tdgeek:

The public want freedom, they also want no cases, so anything that doesn't achieve all those goals is a fail.

Without making it political - this is what the NZ public have been sold. That was the prize for holding to an elimination strategy.

The last 24 hours have been a shock to many. I don't think I've seen so much emotion from the NZ population at any other point in the pandemic.

Letting go of elimination is a big deal, and something many clearly weren't ready for.

Twitter: ajobbins

1 | ... | 1842 | 1843 | 1844 | 1845 | 1846 | 1847 | 1848 | 1849 | 1850 | 1851 | 1852 | ... | 2429