2019 Novel Coronavirus Covid-19 Discussion

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

1 | ... | 913 | 914 | 915 | 916 | 917 | 918 | 919 | 920 | 921 | 922 | 923 | ... | 2423

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2544670 19-Aug-2020 18:29

mattwnz:

tdgeek:

Just watching the news, the breaches appear to have been ok to have been charged. Going back to earlier in this Govt, they were criticised for the Working Groups. Time, time, time. Legally now, process wasn't exact, did we want the L4 lockdown to be delayed? I think not.

I am wondering if a state of disaster had been declared (rather than just a state of emergency), like they did in Victoria, whether it would have changed anything. I sympathize with the government on this because there was no blueprint for this event, so they were doing what was right for everyone. The appointment of these two new people was apparently Winstons idea, and IMO it isn't similar to previous working groups, and IMO it is a good idea.

My working groups comment is to reflect the impact of delays. There is no time to sit down forever to get the i's and t's done. As you say no blueprint.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2544675 19-Aug-2020 18:38

MikeB4:

Dingbatt:

I would suggest that unless you are particularly exercised about the legal aspects that you view it as history and hope the i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed in similar circumstances in the future.

A thought that crossed my mind was could this decision lead to more court cases especially around financial loss that individuals and organisations have suffered. I have no idea if this kind of decision can lead to this and how big is the possible Hornets nest is.

I would say that if anyone was charged and convicted of an offence under the rules that everyone said applied, during the period that they are now found not to have applied, those convictions would have to be overturned as unsafe. Likewise any fines levied etc would probably have to be returned.

No idea if there were any such though.

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#2544677 19-Aug-2020 18:45

Geektastic:

I would say that if anyone was charged and convicted of an offence under the rules that everyone said applied, during the period that they are now found not to have applied, those convictions would have to be overturned as unsafe. Likewise any fines levied etc would probably have to be returned.

No idea if there were any such though.

I think Minister Parker addresses this in the press conference this afternoon. I am not sure anyone was charged in that period, as it was more about education from the police at that stage. I did wonder why the took such an off hands approach initially in the lockdown.

PolicyGuy

1727 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2544681 19-Aug-2020 18:49

Geektastic:

MikeB4:

A thought that crossed my mind was could this decision lead to more court cases especially around financial loss that individuals and organisations have suffered. I have no idea if this kind of decision can lead to this and how big is the possible Hornets nest is.

I would say that if anyone was charged and convicted of an offence under the rules that everyone said applied, during the period that they are now found not to have applied, those convictions would have to be overturned as unsafe. Likewise any fines levied etc would probably have to be returned.

No idea if there were any such though.

I would think that anyone convicted under those conditions - and IIRC the Police seemed strangely reluctant* to actually charge anyone at the time - would be well advised to keep their head down rather than appealing. The reputational damage from having the whole thing re-run in court could be enormous.

* Did NZPol have doubts about the legal situation? 🤔

Batman

Mad Scientist
29766 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2544683 19-Aug-2020 18:51

Geektastic:

I would say that if anyone was charged and convicted of an offence under the rules that everyone said applied, during the period that they are now found not to have applied, those convictions would have to be overturned as unsafe. Likewise any fines levied etc would probably have to be returned.

No idea if there were any such though.

A lot of people were 'fired' in that period ...

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2544709 19-Aug-2020 20:22

mattwnz:

Please can you provide a source for this information, eg WHOs numbers. Also who was the expert?

Right here https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018760144/could-antibody-testing-hold-clues-for-covid-19-mystery

Quotes from the item.

University of Auckland's Public health lecturer Simon Thornley told Kathryn Ryan an antibody blood test may indicate whether a third party at the hotel could have been an intermediary passing on the virus somehow.......

......“It’s also been important overseas for dialling back how lethal the virus has been. Initially the World Health Organisation came out with figures that three in a 100 of us were going to die. Once the antibody tests were coming back it became more like two-in-a-thousand deaths.

“It’s still greater than seasonal influenza, which is around one-in-a-thousand deaths, but the figure was certainly dialled back the lethality of the virus by a big margin.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79289 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2544725 19-Aug-2020 20:30

@wellygary:

OK, the PM Jacinda Ardern has had enough, and is now wanting to draw a line under the border issues,

[Mod edit (MF): full name]

Edited your post - please use full name, or title. No first name basis unless you have this right.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#2544726 19-Aug-2020 20:39

Technofreak:

Right here https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018760144/could-antibody-testing-hold-clues-for-covid-19-mystery

Quotes from the item.

University of Auckland's Public health lecturer Simon Thornley told Kathryn Ryan an antibody blood test may indicate whether a third party at the hotel could have been an intermediary passing on the virus somehow.......

......“It’s also been important overseas for dialling back how lethal the virus has been. Initially the World Health Organisation came out with figures that three in a 100 of us were going to die. Once the antibody tests were coming back it became more like two-in-a-thousand deaths.

“It’s still greater than seasonal influenza, which is around one-in-a-thousand deaths, but the figure was certainly dialled back the lethality of the virus by a big margin.

Thanks. Looks like it is part of this 'Plan B' movement. Manifesto at https://www.covidplanb.co.nz/manifesto/ . I don't think some of those ideas will be very popular now based on what has happened in Melbourne. Doesn't appear to specifically discuss mask use either, which has proven to keep numbers down..

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79289 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2544730 19-Aug-2020 20:48

Technofreak:

Right here https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018760144/could-antibody-testing-hold-clues-for-covid-19-mystery

Quotes from the item.

University of Auckland's Public health lecturer Simon Thornley told Kathryn Ryan an antibody blood test may indicate whether a third party at the hotel could have been an intermediary passing on the virus somehow.......

......“It’s also been important overseas for dialling back how lethal the virus has been. Initially the World Health Organisation came out with figures that three in a 100 of us were going to die. Once the antibody tests were coming back it became more like two-in-a-thousand deaths.

“It’s still greater than seasonal influenza, which is around one-in-a-thousand deaths, but the figure was certainly dialled back the lethality of the virus by a big margin.

It depends on where he's got this number from... The WHO says "Case fatality ratio (CFR) is the proportion of individuals diagnosed with a disease who die from that disease and is therefore a measure of severity among detected cases" (Estimating mortality from COVID-19, 4 August 2020). Looking at WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard, we could say as of today the CFR is 3.54 % (771,635 deaths on 21,756,357 cases) - or 5.66% in Europe and 3.59% in all the Americas.

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2544734 19-Aug-2020 21:09

freitasm:

It depends on where he's got this number from... The WHO says "Case fatality ratio (CFR) is the proportion of individuals diagnosed with a disease who die from that disease and is therefore a measure of severity among detected cases" (Estimating mortality from COVID-19, 4 August 2020). Looking at WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard, we could say as of today the CFR is 3.54 % (771,635 deaths on 21,756,357 cases) - or 5.66% in Europe and 3.59% in all the Americas.

Which shows you can make the figures say what ever you wish to convey. Those figures completely ignore the undiagnosed or asymptomatic cases which need to be counted to show a true fatality rate.

The cynic in me would say the WHO have a interest in publishing data to back up their original claims otherwise they run the risk of being seen as an organisation that published unreliable data, thus losing the confidence of their benefactors. Then again perhaps the WHO never said 3 in 100 would die and all along they were using the CFR as their basis, though the CFR does seem to be an odd way of measuring the fatality rate.

I think one point being made is the fatality rate is far less than was initially being predicted by various "expert" sources.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79289 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2544735 19-Aug-2020 21:13

Technofreak:

freitasm:

It depends on where he's got this number from... The WHO says "Case fatality ratio (CFR) is the proportion of individuals diagnosed with a disease who die from that disease and is therefore a measure of severity among detected cases" (Estimating mortality from COVID-19, 4 August 2020). Looking at WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard, we could say as of today the CFR is 3.54 % (771,635 deaths on 21,756,357 cases) - or 5.66% in Europe and 3.59% in all the Americas.

Which shows you can make the figures say what ever you wish to convey. Those figures completely ignore the undiagnosed or asymptomatic cases which need to be counted to show a true fatality rate.

The cynic in me would say the WHO have a interest in publishing data to back up their original claims otherwise they run the risk of being seen as an organisation that published unreliable data, thus losing the confidence of their benefactors. Then again perhaps the WHO never said 3 in 100 would die and all along they were using the CFR as their basis, though the CFR does seem to be an odd way of measuring the fatality rate.

I think one point being made is the fatality rate is far less than was initially being predicted by various "expert" sources.

The cynic in me says whoever talked to RNZ had an ulterior agenda when talking about those low rates.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79289 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2544738 19-Aug-2020 21:19

"Auckland apartment resident tests positive"

The apartment complex, made up of two buildings, houses 220 apartments.

Scott3

3970 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2544744 19-Aug-2020 21:39

MikeB4:

Batman:

"first 9 days of lockdown was illegal but justified"

https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/lockdown-unlawful-first-9-days-high-court-rules

I really don't know how to process this.

Basically that the government messed up or was tardy with the paperwork. This was resolved on April 3.

Sounds like the government / director general of health was aware of the above at the time, but with the outbreak at the now or never stage to contain covid-19, the decision was made to proceed anyway.

This resulted in the government overstating it's power of enforcement. Given the "education" approach taken by the police in those early days there weren't significant consequences.

In the event there were significant consequences, parliament is supreme, and could pass a retroactive piece of legislation to give the enforcement powers that were announced orally.

I remember an TV interview with Jacinda Ardern around the start of lockdown. A journalist asked about a partially government power. She responded that if they don't already have that power, they will get it.