2019 Novel Coronavirus Covid-19 Discussion

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

1 | ... | 757 | 758 | 759 | 760 | 761 | 762 | 763 | 764 | 765 | 766 | 767 | ... | 2429

34 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 19

#2514863 30-Jun-2020 03:08

User pays could be quite problematic.

Firstly, if they don't have the money, they go bankrupt, so the taxpayer would only get the funds they have in New Zealand or on hand. So I'd guess none after airfares and living costs.

Secondly, let's assume they have the money, how will it be paid? Payment plan would end up like the user pays student loan mess, and private loans could again lead to bankruptcy. I am one of the few expats that even pays back their student loan, as most tend to ignore it or just declare bankruptcy.

Only time the taxpayer wins is if the returnees have the money, or if they intend to stay in New Zealand permanently and thus can have wages garnished, and that's a rather big if, as the welfare costs kick in to taxpayers too.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2514881 30-Jun-2020 08:35

Batman:

mattwnz:

WHO have already said that there is no evidence of any long term immunity to the virus if you get it, and whether herd immunity will even work, or people could just keep catching it annually like a cold.

list of things WHO said (just off the top of my head)

1. there is no human to human transmission

2. there is no need for border/travel control

3. there is no need to worry about transmission between asymptomatic people

4. there is no need to wear masks

5. Taiwan is sending bad messages to the Sec Gen

6. probably a few more out there ...

They were 100% correct when they said there was no evidence of human to human transmission. Words matter.

You've collated a cherry-picked list of Chinese Whispers - political talking points from leaders of failed responses - used to try to deflect blame.

"there is no evidence of any long term immunity to the virus if you get it"

That's true. At best there's evidence suggesting how quickly antibody levels may decline, but even that doesn't tell you anything definitive about "immunity".

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2514885 30-Jun-2020 08:43

Wander4821: User pays could be quite problematic.

Firstly, if they don't have the money, they go bankrupt, so the taxpayer would only get the funds they have in New Zealand or on hand. So I'd guess none after airfares and living costs.

Secondly, let's assume they have the money, how will it be paid? Payment plan would end up like the user pays student loan mess, and private loans could again lead to bankruptcy. I am one of the few expats that even pays back their student loan, as most tend to ignore it or just declare bankruptcy.

Only time the taxpayer wins is if the returnees have the money, or if they intend to stay in New Zealand permanently and thus can have wages garnished, and that's a rather big if, as the welfare costs kick in to taxpayers too.

1) If you're coming back from long term absence, you pay in advance or are classed as Do Not Board

2) If you're leaving then coming back, you pay before you are allowed to leave

Just because things are tricky does not mean we should not do them.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41088

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2514892 30-Jun-2020 08:59

I would say definitely charge if going out for a holiday and coming back. It's a personal choice.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

vexxxboy

4339 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2077

#2514895 30-Jun-2020 09:14

Geektastic:

Wander4821: User pays could be quite problematic.

Firstly, if they don't have the money, they go bankrupt, so the taxpayer would only get the funds they have in New Zealand or on hand. So I'd guess none after airfares and living costs.

Secondly, let's assume they have the money, how will it be paid? Payment plan would end up like the user pays student loan mess, and private loans could again lead to bankruptcy. I am one of the few expats that even pays back their student loan, as most tend to ignore it or just declare bankruptcy.

Only time the taxpayer wins is if the returnees have the money, or if they intend to stay in New Zealand permanently and thus can have wages garnished, and that's a rather big if, as the welfare costs kick in to taxpayers too.

1) If you're coming back from long term absence, you pay in advance or are classed as Do Not Board

2) If you're leaving then coming back, you pay before you are allowed to leave

Just because things are tricky does not mean we should not do them.

it's not tricky it just maybe illegal. you cant stop NZ citizens coming back to their country and im pretty sure charging them to do it is also a no go.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2514897 30-Jun-2020 09:17

freitasm:

I would say definitely charge if going out for a holiday and coming back. It's a personal choice.

This was (if I heard correctly) what the PM was suggesting on the news t his morning - that for "essential" travel then quarantine should be free, for non-essential travel, then you may be expected to pay.

It still possibly doesn't solve the problem of "fairness", I expect some "essential" travel may be business related by people well able to afford to pay, and "non-essential" maybe by individuals who would have difficulty paying - wanting to travel to see a dying relative or whatever. So you could set up firm rules (which are inevitably going to be slammed as being unfair due to individual circumstances) or have "exemptions on compassionate grounds" which are going to be slammed for being unfair when exemptions are denied.

Perhaps it would be better to either suck up the cost and make it free for everybody, or charge everybody. Keep it simple - not subject to bureaucratic decision-making and "appeals" as to what's essential and what's not.

Whichever way we go about it, it's still going to be seen to be unfair to some people.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

wellygary

8816 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5300

#2514908 30-Jun-2020 09:30

vexxxboy:

it's not tricky it just maybe illegal. you cant stop NZ citizens coming back to their country and im pretty sure charging them to do it is also a no go.

Nute Gunray: Ah, my lord, is that... legal?
Darth Sidious: I will make it legal

There is plenty of parliamentary will to charge people, what was illegal one day can quite quickly become legal the next....

trig42

5889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2094

ID Verified

#2514910 30-Jun-2020 09:37

wellygary:

vexxxboy:

it's not tricky it just maybe illegal. you cant stop NZ citizens coming back to their country and im pretty sure charging them to do it is also a no go.

Nute Gunray: Ah, my lord, is that... legal?
Darth Sidious: I will make it legal

There is plenty of parliamentary will to charge people, what was illegal one day can quite quickly become legal the next....

I think it is a bill of rights issue. Can't see political will to change the bill of rights act. /MyOpinion

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2514917 30-Jun-2020 09:52

Fred99:

It still possibly doesn't solve the problem of "fairness", I expect some "essential" travel may be business related by people well able to afford to pay, and "non-essential" maybe by individuals who would have difficulty paying - wanting to travel to see a dying relative or whatever.

Yeah. Some companies organise Conventions and such-like overseas, so that shareholders can visit somewhere exotic and write it off their taxes. Dunno how 2 weeks lockdown on return would affect the uptake of these junkets, but I expect that they would be classed as "business" travel, and therefore "essential".

I suspect that, given a choice, many people would volunteer for enforced self-isolation at home, rather than at an Auckland hotel, however salubrious, and even if it was free. I know I would. The issue is how to enforce the self-isolation... you could e.g. use ankle bracelets to prevent them leaving home, but you couldn't prevent others from visiting. Maybe the $300 a night the Govt would save on hotel bills could be used to fund enforcing home self-isolation. For $300, you could get minimum-wage guards for about 16 hours. A couple or family could be guarded 24x7 for less than $300/day.

wellygary

8816 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5300

#2514919 30-Jun-2020 09:54

trig42:

wellygary:

There is plenty of parliamentary will to charge people, what was illegal one day can quite quickly become legal the next....

I think it is a bill of rights issue. Can't see political will to change the bill of rights act. /MyOpinion

You don't have to change the Bill of Rights Act (BORA)

In NZ the BORA is not supreme law, it ranks just like any other Act, and can be inconstant with other legislation...

Recent legislation such as the Child Sex Offender Register was deemed inconsistent with the BORA, it still passed

ezbee

2659 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3104

#2514950 30-Jun-2020 11:08

WHO has at very least lacked clarity itself through this. Even Helen Clark suggested they needed further oversight.
Below two opposing statements on same day, guess which one won.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/18/caught-in-a-superpower-struggle-the-inside-story-of-the-whos-response-to-coronavirus

""
The WHO also provided ammunition to its detractors when, on 14 January, it put out a tweet citing preliminary Chinese studies finding “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission”.

It was issued on the same day the WHO’s technical lead on Covid-19, Maria Van Kerkhove (a US immunologist) gave a press briefing in Geneva warning of precisely the opposite – the potential for rapid spread. Concerned that her briefing conflicted with the initial Chinese findings, a middle-ranking official told the social media team to put out a tweet to balance the Van Kerkhove briefing. In so doing, the WHO exposed itself to the charge of contributing to an air of complacency. But the tweet was factually true and does not appear to have been part of a deliberate strategy.
""

In the modern world its the Tweet that wins.

So yes 'Politically' you can set a very high bar , and say there is no evidence.
SARS like condition related to a market which traded in wild animals, market was closed on 1st Jan.
Never mind the constant threat bird flu becoming human transmissible, and past experience with swine flu.

Taiwan had already activated health screening of travelers from Wuhan on Dec31. So information was there to support caution.

But then much later when China was isolating and locking down Wuhan we get the Tedros statement , Jan 24th.
Apparently this was a magical virus where transmission is dependent on geography.
Is that a call to action , or a nothing to see here move on ?
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-why-the-who-hasn-t-declared-the-wuhan-virus-as-a-global-health-emergency""
The WHO has confirmed that the new virus can be passed between people, at least those in close contact. Chinese health officials warned it could mutate and spread further.

But Tedros stressed Thursday there was so far "no evidence of human-to-human transmission outside China."
""

Then we have this statement, from another WHO official, a great example of clarity at the same time.
Um did he just say the lockdown and travel restrictions had nothing to do with the virus ? Yummy word salad.
""
WHO emergency committee chairman Didier Houssin meanwhile told reporters that after receiving "precise information" from Chinese authorities, the health experts had determined that the travel restrictions were "not directly related to a specific evolution of the epidemiology in the city."
""

Maybe I have it all wrong, blinded by hindsight but I am getting a feel there was a pattern.

So now we wonder why so many ignore the science and spread CT , Bill Gates , Sorus and such is easier to understand.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

DS248

1702 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 771

Lifetime subscriber

#2514952 30-Jun-2020 11:18

Now appears most AU states will open state borders mid-late July (even to NSW and Victoria). Exceptions at this point are QLD (to be announced today?) and WA (not till sometime later).

Many social distance restrictions being lifted from tomorrow. https://7news.com.au/travel/coronavirus/key-virus-restrictions-to-be-lifted-july-1-c-1133411

Trans-Tasman bubble looking more remote unless there is a dramatic turnaround in Victoria (unlikely in sort-term).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2514966 30-Jun-2020 11:44

ezbee:

The WHO also provided ammunition to its detractors when, on 14 January, it put out a tweet citing preliminary Chinese studies finding “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission”.

It was issued on the same day the WHO’s technical lead on Covid-19, Maria Van Kerkhove (a US immunologist) gave a press briefing in Geneva warning of precisely the opposite – the potential for rapid spread. Concerned that her briefing conflicted with the initial Chinese findings, a middle-ranking official told the social media team to put out a tweet to balance the Van Kerkhove briefing. In so doing, the WHO exposed itself to the charge of contributing to an air of complacency. But the tweet was factually true and does not appear to have been part of a deliberate strategy.
""

In the modern world its the Tweet that wins.

So yes 'Politically' you can set a very high bar , and say there is no evidence.

No. It was "technically" the truth - not "politically".

Maria Van Kerkhove is now in the sh*t herself - for stating that evidence shows asymptomatic transmission is probably very rare. Again technically the truth.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2515018 30-Jun-2020 12:42

WHO have a responsibility to get things absolutely right. Instead they make statements that while technically not untrue, are misleading. And it did mislead the world. Blind leading the blind.

robjg63

4161 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1427

Subscriber

#2515026 30-Jun-2020 13:04

vexxxboy:

Geektastic:

1) If you're coming back from long term absence, you pay in advance or are classed as Do Not Board

2) If you're leaving then coming back, you pay before you are allowed to leave

Just because things are tricky does not mean we should not do them.

it's not tricky it just maybe illegal. you cant stop NZ citizens coming back to their country and im pretty sure charging them to do it is also a no go.

If you can charge an Airport tax why not a 'Covid-19 processing tax'?

Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself - A. H. Weiler

1 | ... | 757 | 758 | 759 | 760 | 761 | 762 | 763 | 764 | 765 | 766 | 767 | ... | 2429