They are now talking Singapore Airport

tdgeek:

 

Again. You are making it sound like the Govt thought to itself, hey its against the law, but its a good reason, so bugger it, lets break the law. Do you really think that was the case? Its not like that and you know it. There have been occasions where clarification was asked on various legal matters. NZ is not a dictatorship that flout the law as and when required

 

Im fully in favour of the review. The politics thread is the other ones. And before you reply, yes it is, #thinlyveiled

 

I don't think that's the case at all, the 'it may be against the law but it's for a good reason' seems to be the attitude of some posters here. 

We really haven't experienced anything like this level of government intervention in daily life (nor do I expect we will again unless we have another flare-up like Aus) so I feel it's important we establish what the actual legal basis was. 

If we get a more robust process around the legal side of things for the next iteration of the legislation then it seems like time well spent.

wellygary:

 

Fred99:

 

It's also possible that the test was a false positive.

 

We'll have to wait and see.  The odds of the case being contracted from CT in NZ is very small.  

 

 

 

 

Agreed the odds are low, but the hideously low testing levels are not giving any degree of confidence

 

19-July 681   20-July 1007   21-July 2191   22-July 2419   23-July 2830   24-July 2307   25-July 1754   26-July 550  

 

Those numbers are appallingly low.The health minister said weeks ago that he wanted the numbers up to 4000. What is the excuse for not getting the numbers up there? Surely they can find enough people presenting to doctors with symptoms?

These number also give NZers a false sense of security. I would like to see the numbers in isolation removed from the numbers, or separated out clearly. Those in isolation are still at the 'border;' so not yet inside NZs community, so not really relevant when it comes to what is happening inside NZ. They do separate the numbers out  with new cases, so it should be the same with testing IMO.  I am guessing a significant proportion of the tests are those who are withheld at the border.

tdgeek:

 

They are now talking Singapore Airport

 

Yeah, and a month ago when transiting through Changi began I would have been suspicious of such a claim, as the departure countries were limited to China, Japan, Korea, HK ,Oz and NZ,

But now when I look its been expanded so travellers can also now come from a number of European cities, including Barcelona and London.....

Also Singapore is still reporting 4-500 new cases per day, (although most are restricted to the migrant dorm)

So infection at Changi is certainly a possibility, 

I think its about 250-300 a day in MIQ facilities. Of the 550 tests yesterday, 270 were in MIQ facilities. Weekend days are (and have always been) lower testing numbers.

GV27:

 

I don't think that's the case at all, the 'it may be against the law but it's for a good reason' seems to be the attitude of some posters here. 

 

We really haven't experienced anything like this level of government intervention in daily life (nor do I expect we will again unless we have another flare-up like Aus) so I feel it's important we establish what the actual legal basis was. 

 

If we get a more robust process around the legal side of things for the next iteration of the legislation then it seems like time well spent.

 

NZ isnt run by Fidel Castro, we do in fact want to live under the Rule of Law

I'm saying they thought it was legal, they probably got the ok it was legal, so the worst case is they thought it was legal and it wasnt. It wasnt a dictatorship decision. The Health Act rules had wide ranging powers, exceeding the Police, so they may have got it wrong. Cant use the word No Tolerance is wrong. If this happened in flight, there would have been a rule change to cater for the pandemic, as if it was illegal, the law did not cater for this circumstance. But no, its not ruling over the plebs with an iron fist.

Or while we get infected, we go off and have an enquiry for a couple of months. Which is it?

mattwnz:

 

Those numbers are appallingly low.The health minister said weeks ago that he wanted the numbers up to 4000. What is the excuse for not getting the numbers up there? Surely they can find enough people presenting to doctors with symptoms?

 

These number also give NZers a false sense of security. I would like to see the numbers in isolation removed from the numbers, or separated out clearly. Those in isolation are still at the 'border;' so not yet inside NZs community, so not really relevant when it comes to what is happening inside NZ. They do separate the numbers out  with new cases, so it should be the same with testing IMO.  I am guessing a significant proportion of the tests are those who are withheld at the border.

 

The Govt is to blame, a month ago they said only people who have come into contact with someone from overseas need to get a test and they keep telling us we are CT free and now we are urged to get a test , what has changed and why would the average person go out of their way to get a test .

Fred99:

532 more cases and 6 more deaths in Victoria.

Looks like they're losing the battle - and are going to pay the human and financial cost for not locking down to ~ level 4 for a few weeks.

 

vexxxboy:

 

The Govt is to blame, a month ago they said only people who have come into contact with someone from overseas need to get a test and they keep telling us we are CT free and now we are urged to get a test , what has changed and why would the average person go out of their way to get a test .

 

They don't want random well people going for testing, they basically want people with colds and flu to get tested,

BUT, Due to the lockdown and border restrictions (+ more immunisation) this year is a really, really low flu year

https://www.esr.cri.nz/our-services/consultancy/flu-surveillance-and-research/

Pretty much all the calls to Healthline and test requests are being triggered by COVID , first during to lockdown, and 2nd during and immediately after the "roadie from Auckland to Wellington for the Funeral"

tdgeek:

They are now talking Singapore Airport

wellygary:

 

If the review determines that the way the decisions were made was not legal, they will be made in a different way next time....

 

Or the law will be changed to make that process legal. Think Kim.com.

tdgeek:

 

GV27:

 

Like I saw, 'the ends justify the means' is not a great platform for legal decision making! But we will see what the Court says - this has a lot more credibility than the guys who claimed a violation of habeas corpus - the person who has made the review request is a respected draftsperson who has acknowledged the work Bloomfield did in containing the pandemic.

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/122209707/coronavirus-high-court-to-hear-lockdown-legal-ins-and-outs 

 

 

Again. You are making it sound like the Govt thought to itself, hey its against the law, but its a good reason, so bugger it, lets break the law. Do you really think that was the case? Its not like that and you know it. There have been occasions where clarification was asked on various legal matters. NZ is not a dictatorship that flout the law as and when required

 

Im fully in favour of the review. The politics thread is the other ones. And before you reply, yes it is, #thinlyveiled

 

I am not convinced that is not what happened.

Without seeing the legal advice that was relied on, it is not possible to say. It is very sensible that it should be determined in court regardless of whether it turned out to be a good thing or not. I imagine you'd be less happy if it turned out that they had acted ultra vires AND lockdown had not actually worked? The ends do not typically justify the means in arguments over the legality of something.

Laws exist for a reason and when governments exercise draconian powers over the entire population, they should really only be doing so under laws passed by elected representatives.

I see no value in attempting, for want of a better expression, to prosecute the government in the event it were to be found that they had no power to legally do what they did. I do see value in (a) determining if they did have the power and (b) if they did not, in amending the relevant legislation so that if it happens again, it is clear that they do have the powers they need.

tdgeek:

 

NZ isnt run by Fidel Castro, we do in fact want to live under the Rule of Law

 

I'm saying they thought it was legal, they probably got the ok it was legal, so the worst case is they thought it was legal and it wasnt.

 

That's....effectively what I think happened too? I'm not for a second saying the Government failed to get or got Crown Law advice that they chose to reject, but more the idea that the legitimacy of orders (especially ones that result in severe financial pain and curtailment of movement) should be above scrutiny because they got the job done isn't something I can swallow.

If there was any suggestion at all the Govt had knowingly disregarded concerns about the legality of the lockdown (instead of just changing legislation under urgency) then you'd be hearing overwhelming demands for resignations and they'd be somewhat justified. 

Worst case scenario, the legislation wasn't fit for purpose and the initial orders and breaches of it are no longer valid. This is the bit I'm actually interested in, not the blame game. What does it mean in practice if we can't actually do the thing we already did, and so on. 

Batman:

tdgeek:

 

They are now talking Singapore Airport

 

What about?

Where the NZer who tested COVID positive in Korea might have become infected...

vexxxboy:

 

The Govt is to blame, a month ago they said only people who have come into contact with someone from overseas need to get a test and they keep telling us we are CT free and now we are urged to get a test , what has changed and why would the average person go out of their way to get a test .

 

I don't know if the Govt is to blame for the current low testing - yes the initial messaging around who should get tested and who shouldn't was all over the show, but as others have noted, fewer people are presenting at their GPs with flu and cold symptoms because we having a hugely subdued flu season this year for obvious reasons. 

Anecdotally I'm seeing a lot of other people I know no longer going out for drinks or dinner purely to save money due to financial security concerns and that is probably limiting their exposure to something else that might trigger a Covid19 test.