kiwikurt: I don't see the Christiansen decision being a massive gotcha.

I'm also perplexed at your condescending tone. Not exactly the way to encourage people to see the merit in your arguments, valid or otherwise.

Well that settles it. Who can argue with your wonderful one-liner? Do you have a law degree or have some kind of demonstrable background that suggests you have a reasonable grasp of the constitutional norms of this country? Have you actually read the full court decision? I can answer in the affirmative in respect of all those questions and have provided a reasonably succinct summary in a previous post along with pointers to the most significant passages in the judge's decision. See here. What reason can you provide to support your view that this isn't an issue that reasonable people of intelligence should be concerned about?

 

PolicyGuy:

 

Sending someone into quarantine is one thing, making them take a Covid test is completely different:

 

NZ Bill Of Rights Act 1990, Section 11

 

"Right to refuse to undergo medical treatment

 

Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment."

 

http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM225509.html?search=sw_096be8ed80b62589_medical_25_se&p=1&sr=2

 

With all due respect, there's been enough discussions/debates on the NZBORA on this forum for people to know this. And if you weren't exposed to those debates, at least read the whole legislation before commenting. The classic trap for non-lawyers commenting on the law is to just seize on one provision that looks good for your argument whilst ignoring other contrary provisions, background, and the like. Section 5 provides that the rights protected under the NZBORA can be subject to reasonable limitations that are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Section 4 is abundantly clear that if the courts cannot "read down" subsequent legal provisions passed after the NZBORA to make it compatible with the latter (see s 5), they cannot on the basis of a breach of any NZBORA protection render the subsequent legislation repealed/refuse to give effect to the subsequent legislation. This is the kind of thing that a C- law student picks up during year 2 of law school.

DS248: Some sensible recommendations here (Prof Skegg)

1News: Covid-19: How NZ can avoid future lockdowns.
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/covid-19-nz-can-avoid-future-lockdowns 

People are not going to do  constant physical distancing. Bars, Restaurants not good for them.  The longer it's asked for compliance will drop.

Need to up use of masks, and better records of where people been. Though going by use of Covid applic that's not easy either. 

Also need to tighten up boarder controls so less frequent event. They say they may never know source, but think it's important they do find it so can cover up that leak, if an unknown one.

DS248: Entry into Auckland from south.

About to return home (northern outskirts of Auckland) after 5 days in Rotorua (arrived there just before announcement of the new cases).

Does anyone know what the time delay is getting through the road block at Bombay?

Would it be quicker to come into Auckland via Clevedon? Shorter queues that way? Or do they reroute people through Bombay anyway?

Tempting to extend our stay down south until the fortnight is up though 😊.

If I was you, I would aim to come thru at about 3 in the morning. Have a printout of a rates demand or power bill handy and you should be sweet.

dejadeadnz:

 

kiwikurt: I don't see the Christiansen decision being a massive gotcha.

I'm also perplexed at your condescending tone. Not exactly the way to encourage people to see the merit in your arguments, valid or otherwise.

 

Well that settles it. Who can argue with your wonderful one-liner? Do you have a law degree or have some kind of demonstrable background that suggests you have a reasonable grasp of the constitutional norms of this country? Have you actually read the full court decision? I can answer in the affirmative in respect of all those questions and have provided a reasonably succinct summary in a previous post along with pointers to the most significant passages in the judge's decision. See here. What reason can you provide to support your view that this isn't an issue that reasonable people of intelligence should be concerned about?

 

Apologies I think my statement, reflecting your attitude may have gone over your head.

I did not seek to shutdown argument as you seem to be accusing me of. Merely trying point out that having a valid legal argument isn't always winning if one is an a**hole about it.

My understanding was that Geekzone wasn't an academic legal forum and while I hold the highest level of professional qualification under the legislation that governs my industry I am not a lawyer. I am though a citizen of this country that gives legitimacy to the constitutional norms of this country.

In my simple statement I was merely making the point that I don't think the decision gives rise to firing the chief official who is ably leading us through the wider crisis. And if that was to be the way we were to approach things it would be incredibly concerning and have a chilling effect on ever revealing anything, or worse yet actively seeking to prevent the scrutiny of the courts.

Should this case have had to me made? Ideally no. Is it good that the case was made? Yes. Have MoH had to change? I believe so. Will there have been valuable learnings? Almost certainly.

We're not here on this forum to litigate, but discuss, and your antisocial attitude doesn't make it worthwhile so good luck to you.

dejadeadnz:

 

Well that settles it. Who can argue with your wonderful one-liner?

 

What's wrong with one-liners if they contain wisdom or common sense? I have been greatly enjoying some quotes of Mark Twain recently.

Your tone is condescending. Few here would disagree with that. And it probably doesn't incline those it is aimed at to devote a lot of effort to exploring the merit in your arguments. It is possible to make a case without disparaging the person you are making it to.

Being a lawyer entitles you to wear better clothes than lesser beings. It does not entitle you to sneer at them. It also doesn't give you better judgement, higher morals, greater intelligence, or a more discerning character. In fact, quite a few lawyers in this country have turned out to be greedy, dishonest, unscrupulous, mendacious and just plain nasty. If I were a lawyer, I would look to something else to elevate myself above the masses.

rugrat:

 

Need to up use of masks, and better records of where people been. Though going by use of Covid applic that's not easy either. 

 

Again I must state that I'm relatively new to this thread and have not read the previous 902 pages, but is there a possibility that all businesses could turn away customers if they fail to register their presence in said business premises? Whether by QR code or otherwise. 

I just went to a TAB here in Hamilton, and they had two options (unsure if I had to do both if I had a phone on me). (1) Scan the QR code &/or (2) Write date/time/name/address (or phone number) on a piece of paper and take it to the person behind the counter. Failure to do so meant that you are not welcome inside that TAB. 

Rikkitic:

 

PolicyGuy:

 

Sending someone into quarantine is one thing, making them take a Covid test is completely different:

 

NZ Bill Of Rights Act 1990, Section 11

 

"Right to refuse to undergo medical treatment

 

Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment."

 

http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM225509.html?search=sw_096be8ed80b62589_medical_25_se&p=1&sr=2

 

 

 

 

I agree people should have the right to refuse to be tested. I also strongly feel anyone who does refuse should be forcibly (if necessary) placed in quarantine at their own expense for the required period of time.

 

 

 

Genuine question - can you refuse to be food searched, bomb or drug tested at the airport? Or refuse to be breath tested by the police when driving you car?

How is the covid test different?

Dingbatt:

 

Fred99:

 

"Unbounded adulation?"  ROFL.

 

 

Well you may laugh, but the ‘warm and fuzzy’ media coverage of a civil servant who is doing the job he is paid for, reached ridiculous levels. Ashley Tee-shirts, posters, tattoos and even coverage of a club rugby game all support the “unbounded adulation” by the media at least.

 

The only time the Director General seemed to be ask any ‘hard’ questions was a weekly interview on breakfast radio. The “relax, we’ve got this” message was broadcast far and wide, parroted by a largely unquestioning media. So it came as a shock when the virus reappeared.

 

You will always get those extremes, doesn't mean its the public norm. The social media norm will off course be fun and centre. The general norm as I see it, is that the response, is working. Sweden is another option as is Victoria, but NZ is ok

Rikkitic:

 

 

 

That isn't correct. Both Ashley Bloemfield and the PM repeatedly warned that the virus would re-emerge.

 

 

 

For as long I can remember. Its really old news. 

nyquist:

 

 

 

+1 I'm not sure if people are getting mixed up with the media's portrayal of the NZ success story but both PM and Ashley Bloomfield have been on record as saying the virus will re-emerge and we shouldn't be complacent. The "when not if" from Ashley Bloomfield was the most recent if I'm recalling currently. He also publically completed the covid test to try and encourage people to do the test because of the falling rates.

 

I'm also wondering how many people are actually watching the media conferences because I definitely wouldn't classify them as "easy" questions and given Ashley Bloomfield had been asked whether he should resign, I don't think there's any bias here as well.

 

To be honest, I'm also a bit surprised at the blaming and shaming - to go by some posts in these forums, everyone in the govt or MOH are incompetent and doesn't know how to do their jobs...forgetting there are some actual human beings on the frontline or fronting up to the media trying to do their best under pressure and through complex systems. I keep thinking of the poor analysts working throughout the night to reconcile and breakdown these numbers because I know how difficult it is through my own work experience or the lab techs processing through 1000s of tests. None of this happens by magic.

 

A lot of people seem to be under the assumption that we can have perfect processes with 0 errors - that is not the case. Humans manage these processes and therefore there will always been risk of error. It's actually the support / back up processes and checkpoints and the continuous improvement / adaptability to mitigate risk that is the true test. So far, I think we have done a pretty good job.

 

Because some here use their lifelong political bias to discuss Covid-19, but there is another thread for that 

Rikkitic:

 

Fred99:

 

I'm okay with the overall response by the MoH and Government to handling of the C-19 pandemic.

 

"Screeching Karens" demanding "the manager is fired" aren't going to fix the issues - and are stirring up some sh*t that's not going to help anything or anybody - but destroy public confidence when public confidence is needed more than ever (since WW2).

 

Lack of confidence (thus compliance with what we as individuals need to do) will kill people. That's a simple fact.

 

 

I agree with this 100%. Whatever his failings, Dr Bloomfield inspires confidence and reassurance and his presentations are an important part of keeping people motivated to do what is needed. Removing him, especially at this time, would be about the dumbest and most counter-productive move I could imagine. 

 

 

 

Yes, he works with science not vitriol. But obviously Covid -19 is an easy fix for some and the continually angry.

BarTender: I think this calling for folks to be fired such as AB seems to think that changing to another leader wouldn’t be hugely destabilising on the whole department.

If it was gross incompetence like what we are seeing overseas sure, but it is certainly not the case in NZ so... seriously people why are you so angry at someone who has performed admirably and delivered for all New Zealander.

Election year and bias, its not about health or Covid-19. The Election 2020 thread is there to vent, not here