Thank Christ, throw the book at her.

SJB:

At the current rate of progress in the UK, the entire population will have had C-19 in just over 5 years. 

In the same time span a population equivalent to double the population of Dunedin will have died from the virus.

That's what happens when you stop trying to control it.

quickymart:

Thank Christ, throw the book at her.

MileHighKiwi:

SJB:

 

At the current rate of progress in the UK, the entire population will have had C-19 in just over 5 years. 

 

In the same time span a population equivalent to double the population of Dunedin will have died from the virus.

 

That's what happens when you stop trying to control it.

 

Do you think 58 million people should be locked down for 5 years to prevent 260,000 deaths, with an average age of 84?

Doesn't seem like a very good trade off to me.

It's not that simple.

Medium term it's pretty reasonable to expect some restrictions to minimise deaths and hospitalisations.  Calling that "lockdown" - if it's similar to our L2 is being a bit sensational.

Anti-virals are on the way, as are probably more effective vaccines as boosters.

If you want to throw the old and vulnerable to the wolves now - when a good solution may be just around the corner, that's incredibly selfish and short-sighted.

And how many would have long Covid?

MileHighKiwi:

quickymart:

 

Thank Christ, throw the book at her.

 

Looking forward to people saying she should be banned from her 'profession' like the Wanaka escapee lawyer! Is there a professional body for hookers? Can they stop her 'practicing'?

Yes there's a prostitute's collective - optional membership.

It's probably an industry where vaccination should be mandatory.

Lack of cooperation / not wanting to disclose where she'd been might be to protect privacy of clients.  

@Batman:

 

ezbee:

 

Mandates,
Police deal with 'people' that often threaten to infect them, spit on them etc.
If you end up with too many Police on 14 day isolation or worse.
It also empties the threat somewhat, maybe usual 'customers' will not bother with antics.

 

I would have thought to enter the Police college much like the Military you had to show you had certain vaccinations ?
So vaccines would not be a surprise.

 

Well I can see it going wild on late night radio talkback.
Antivax are getting very nervous as more get vaccinated they are shown as a noisy minority.
83% eligible at least 1 vax or booked by yesterday. 

 

People who can't be vaccinated is absolutely small, not the same as 'thinking' you can't be vaccinated.
Consult a Doctor not Random person with Crystal Amulet, Facebook, TikTok or Google.

 

 

as mentioned the mandate is to protect the vulnerable not to protect self

 

it seems like we are maintaining a freedom to choose theme. we live in a free country we can choose whether to be vaccinated or not, so it seems, unless you are working with the vulnerable

 

You protect the vulnerable by protecting yourself. Anyone can get it, so "vulnerable" is just those with higher chances of a bad outcome. Protecting front line workers would reduce the chances of spread. In this context, the idea that police officers don't need mandated vaccination is at minimum not considering the whole picture.

mattwnz: Improving ventilation in classrooms will be very important according to experts

Yes, but it doesn't seem like there has been much communication about this. The same goes for offices and other workplaces - all those airtight buildings which increase energy efficiency are going to be germ incubators!

Fred99:

 

It's not that simple.

 

Medium term it's pretty reasonable to expect some restrictions to minimise deaths and hospitalisations.  Calling that "lockdown" - if it's similar to our L2 is being a bit sensational.

 

Anti-virals are on the way, as are probably more effective vaccines as boosters.

 

If you want to throw the old and vulnerable to the wolves now - when a good solution may be just around the corner, that's incredibly selfish and short-sighted.

 

Actually my figures are incorrect. I forgot to include those who have had it already or have died.

In that case it's 4.5 years and deaths are 3 times the population of Dunedin.

Not sure if this fits here or in the Covid Tracer App thread. My thinking it's more about contact tracing and managing the pandemic than specifically the app so I've posted it here.

This article focusses on the fact that this couple haven't been contacted despite the fact they were using the Covid tracer app.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/453355/couple-incredulous-they-haven-t-been-contacted-over-northland-case

Admittedly I've had to join a couple of dots as the article isn't specific but it seems to me this couple seem to think that because they have used the app they will be automatically contacted. Does anyone else get the same impression?

Perhaps they have shared their data, the article doesn't say that. The app only tells/asks you to share your data if you test positive.

Is there a misunderstanding on how the app data is used? Do people really understand that without them deliberately sharing their data the contact tracers have no idea where they have been. It really is an electronic diary that is stored solely on our device. I don't recall seeing any good publicity/advertising that clearly explains how the app works. Do we need better education on how the app works? I know everyone on Geekzone will be up with the play but I'm not so sure about the less technically interested in our population.

MileHighKiwi: Do you think 58 million people should be locked down for 5 years to prevent 260,000 deaths, with an average age of 84? Doesn't seem like a very good trade off to me.

Fred99:

 

If you want to throw the old and vulnerable to the wolves now - when a good solution may be just around the corner, that's incredibly selfish and short-sighted.

 

I'd find this argument more compelling if the consequences of locking down (huge govt debt, crippled services, massively higher taxation to pay it down and exploding house prices) weren't going to fall disproportionately on younger people with lower incomes and less job security, who are far more likely to also be suffering the immediate financial and social consequences of lockdowns as well. 

The key word here is 'may'. They will come, but it's insane to think people should just accept lockdowns of indefinite length. This is where the whole 'economy vs. lives' lockdown crap falls apart - you can't pretend there's no social and mental costs to living in lockdown week-by-week while the rest of the country can continue to trade and do what they want. 

GV27:

 

Fred99:

 

If you want to throw the old and vulnerable to the wolves now - when a good solution may be just around the corner, that's incredibly selfish and short-sighted.

 

 

I'd find this argument more compelling if the consequences of locking down (huge govt debt, crippled services, massively higher taxation to pay it down and exploding house prices) weren't going to fall disproportionately on younger people with lower incomes and less job security, who are far more likely to also be suffering the immediate financial and social consequences of lockdowns as well. 

 

The key word here is 'may'. They will come, but it's insane to think people should just accept lockdowns of indefinite length. This is where the whole 'economy vs. lives' lockdown crap falls apart - you can't pretend there's no social and mental costs to living in lockdown week-by-week while the rest of the country can continue to trade and do what they want. 

 

Thats not right, what I bolded, self explanatory

gzt:

MileHighKiwi: Do you think 58 million people should be locked down for 5 years to prevent 260,000 deaths, with an average age of 84? Doesn't seem like a very good trade off to me.

Maybe ask how the grandchildren feel about that.