2019 Novel Coronavirus Covid-19 Discussion

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

1 | ... | 1628 | 1629 | 1630 | 1631 | 1632 | 1633 | 1634 | 1635 | 1636 | 1637 | 1638 | ... | 2399

6418 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2767751 27-Aug-2021 17:29

This has all been debated ad nauseum throughout this thread. But I guess it was my fault for adding it as an side comment.

So back to the question I posed. How many Aucklanders want all MIQ shut down in the city? Feel free to state whether you live in Auckland or not.

Edit: I reckon a mayoral candidate could run on this alone at the moment and romp in (by postal vote of course).

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

TrendMicro

Best TrendMicro deals for antivirus and malware protection(affiliate link).

mattwnz

19378 posts

Uber Geek

#2767753 27-Aug-2021 17:35

ajobbins:

mattwnz:

I disagree, and I understand not all MIQ were fully booked at this time because some had been put aside for this purpose in case travel bubble people needed to go into MIQ as shown at https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/03/trans-tasman-contingency-plan-the-reason-australia-travel-bubble-won-t-mean-more-space-in-managed-isolation.html

So the numbers needing to return would be less if there wasn't the bubble and those people then needed to go into MIQ. There isn't an unlimited number of people returning as there is only a finite number of people overseas needing to return. The bubble created a higher number, and also were coming from a high risk area at that time.

Still no.

MIQ is always 100% booked. Yes, rooms were reserved in case there was a need to close the bubble, but that meant while the bubble was operating, bookable MIQ capacity reduced. Had the bubble never happened, those same 'reserved for the bubble' rooms would have been bookable by other travellers, for which demand and massively outstripped supply since the beginning.

That isn't how I understand it. NZ reduced MIQ facilities when the bubble was put in place. So incoming people from other countries did not replace those numbers that needed MIQ previously, who were previously coming from Oz and needed to go into MIQ, when the bubble wasn't in place. They were low risk at that time. If it did, it potentially increased the risk to NZ, because many of those other countries were far higher risk of being infected than travelers from Oz at that time..

This statement from Micheal Baker in the previous article explains it. He said,

'filling vacant spots after a trans-Tasman bubble is in place with people from COVID-19 hotspots is dangerous and that it would almost double the risk of a community outbreak.'

Buster

297 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2767757 27-Aug-2021 17:40

ajobbins:

Still no.

MIQ is always 100% booked. Yes, rooms were reserved in case there was a need to close the bubble, but that meant while the bubble was operating, bookable MIQ capacity reduced. Had the bubble never happened, those same 'reserved for the bubble' rooms would have been bookable by other travellers, for which demand and massively outstripped supply since the beginning.

This is not correct. MIQ was always 100% booked initially and no doubt is again currently. There was a time last year pre bubble when there was a lot of MIQ capacity available to book and the word was put out. Returning travellers chose not to book it so planned maintenance was brought forward and at least two facilities were removed from the MIQ system to carry out the work.

Handle9

9640 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2767758 27-Aug-2021 17:41

Dingbatt:

shk292:

Another problem with MIQs in AKL is that most military people are based elsewhere, making staffing the MIQs difficult.

To me it makes no sense having our high-risk MIQs in the centre of our most important city. But finding enough people to operate them will always be tricky

The government has had 18 months to get off their elbows and come up with a solution that doesn’t involve the centre of our largest metropolitan areas.

Fly the Red flights into Ohakea, transport the ‘customers’ to Linton or Waiouru and accommodate them there, in tents if necessary (it’s Spring next week). As long as we are kind while we do it, it should be all good.

That sounds like a very efficient way to give everyone in MIQ COVID.

ajobbins

5050 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2767760 27-Aug-2021 17:42

mattwnz:

That isn't how I understand it. NZ reduced MIQ facilities when the bubble was put in place. So incoming people from other countries did not replace those numbers that needed MIQ previously, who were previously coming from Oz and needed to go into MIQ, when the bubble wasn't in place. They were low risk at that time. If it did, it potentially increased the risk to NZ, because many of those other countries were far higher risk of being infected than travelers from Oz at that time..

This statement from Micheal Baker in the previous article explains it. He said,

'filling vacant spots after a trans-Tasman bubble is in place with people from COVID-19 hotspots is dangerous and that it would almost double the risk of a community outbreak.'

You are confusing two different things. Yes, while the bubble was in place the overall risk to NZ increased because every return bubble traveller was coming in unscreened and without quarantine. Some of this risk was offset by reducing the number of bookable MIQ rooms available as you point out. And in the event of an outbreak, capacity was available to quarantine travellers from Australia without increasing the total capacity of MIQ.

I don't know what the real numbers are, so these are examples:

Pre-bubble: 4000 hotel rooms available for return travellers. Each one a risk.

During bubble: 2500 hotel rooms available. Each one a risk, PLUS the risk of every bubble traveller.

Post-bubble: 4000 hotel rooms now available again. Each one a risk.

If the bubble never happened, that total number would have been the same throughout, and it didn't INCREASE over the original total when the bubble burst.

The additional risk only existed while the bubble was in place. The total risk to NZ pre and post bubble was exactly the same. The fact this leak came from a NSW traveller is just chance. It could have just as easily been from any other MIQ guest.

Twitter: ajobbins

ajobbins

5050 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2767761 27-Aug-2021 17:44

Buster:

This is not correct. MIQ was always 100% booked initially and no doubt is again currently. There was a time last year pre bubble when there was a lot of MIQ capacity available to book and the word was put out. Returning travellers chose not to book it so planned maintenance was brought forward and at least two facilities were removed from the MIQ system to carry out the work.

Do you have a source for this? I have know several people in the US and UK who have been unable to secure a spot since the start of the pandemic and would have absolutely booked once had there been spare capacity.

Twitter: ajobbins

Handle9

9640 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2767769 27-Aug-2021 17:52

ajobbins:

Buster:

This is not correct. MIQ was always 100% booked initially and no doubt is again currently. There was a time last year pre bubble when there was a lot of MIQ capacity available to book and the word was put out. Returning travellers chose not to book it so planned maintenance was brought forward and at least two facilities were removed from the MIQ system to carry out the work.

Do you have a source for this? I have know several people in the US and UK who have been unable to secure a spot since the start of the pandemic and would have absolutely booked once had there been spare capacity.

It did lighten up after Christmas and bookings became possible again. I know people from here who were able to secure dates without huge problems in the earlier part of the year.

That doesn't mean the rooms weren't fully booked just that it wasn't a massive drama securing a room.

Buster

297 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2767780 27-Aug-2021 18:54

ajobbins:

Do you have a source for this? I have know several people in the US and UK who have been unable to secure a spot since the start of the pandemic and would have absolutely booked once had there been spare capacity.

It's been on the news several times (Both A Bloomfield and C Hipkins I think). Might have been earlier this year rather than last year.

People were probably trying to get back December 2020 January 2021 (what a surprise) when the pandemic was raging in the USA and UK.

Earlier this year when things settled down I suspect they lost interest. Now it's raging again and MIQ is busy.

Handle9

9640 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2767786 27-Aug-2021 19:33

Buster:
ajobbins:

Do you have a source for this? I have know several people in the US and UK who have been unable to secure a spot since the start of the pandemic and would have absolutely booked once had there been spare capacity.

It's been on the news several times (Both A Bloomfield and C Hipkins I think). Might have been earlier this year rather than last year.

People were probably trying to get back December 2020 January 2021 (what a surprise) when the pandemic was raging in the USA and UK.

Earlier this year when things settled down I suspect they lost interest. Now it's raging again and MIQ is busy.

I don't think you really understand the motivations of those of us overseas. Generally people aren't returning to NZ at this time of year because of the pandemic "raging." The end of the school year has a much bigger influence.

Buster

297 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2767789 27-Aug-2021 19:45

Handle9:
Buster:

People were probably trying to get back December 2020 January 2021 (what a surprise) when the pandemic was raging in the USA and UK.

I don't think you really understand the motivations of those of us overseas. Generally people aren't returning to NZ at this time of year because of the pandemic "raging." The end of the school year has a much bigger influence.

I think I do. It's Christmas. A heavy traffic period every year.

tdgeek

28600 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2767790 27-Aug-2021 19:45

mattwnz:

I disagree, and I understand not all MIQ were fully booked at this time because some had been put aside for this purpose in case travel bubble people needed to go into MIQ as shown at https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/03/trans-tasman-contingency-plan-the-reason-australia-travel-bubble-won-t-mean-more-space-in-managed-isolation.html

So the numbers needing to return would be less if there wasn't the bubble and those people then needed to go into MIQ. There isn't an unlimited number of people returning as there is only a finite number of people overseas needing to return. The bubble created a higher number, and also were coming from a high risk area at that time, and they apparently went into MIQ put aside for them, which I presume means higher MIQ numbers being housed in NZ at that time.

Too much blame. If I went to the gas station for bread as I have just done, and I hit a pedestrian, do I blame Molenberg?

tdgeek

28600 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2767792 27-Aug-2021 19:52

Dingbatt:

This has all been debated ad nauseum throughout this thread. But I guess it was my fault for adding it as an side comment.

So back to the question I posed. How many Aucklanders want all MIQ shut down in the city? Feel free to state whether you live in Auckland or not.

Edit: I reckon a mayoral candidate could run on this alone at the moment and romp in (by postal vote of course).

I get your point. Just over half MIQ locations are in AKL. I could also say that the rest of NZ shares a similar risk, but if we had an outbreak, AKL is statistically more likely to have it. The best I could suggest is that MIQ locations and numbers are based per capita, but that wont align with arrivals. A remote location has its own challenges. Staff will be remote also, who would work there?

ChCh here

tdgeek

28600 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2767838 27-Aug-2021 19:54

mattwnz:

That isn't how I understand it. NZ reduced MIQ facilities when the bubble was put in place. So incoming people from other countries did not replace those numbers that needed MIQ previously, who were previously coming from Oz and needed to go into MIQ, when the bubble wasn't in place. They were low risk at that time. If it did, it potentially increased the risk to NZ, because many of those other countries were far higher risk of being infected than travelers from Oz at that time..

This statement from Micheal Baker in the previous article explains it. He said,

'filling vacant spots after a trans-Tasman bubble is in place with people from COVID-19 hotspots is dangerous and that it would almost double the risk of a community outbreak.'

Given where Covid is right now, what he is saying is ban all arrivals? Everywhere seems to be a hotspot these days.

GV27

5422 posts

Uber Geek

#2767839 27-Aug-2021 20:03

tdgeek:

I get your point. Just over half MIQ locations are in AKL. I could also say that the rest of NZ shares a similar risk, but if we had an outbreak, AKL is statistically more likely to have it. The best I could suggest is that MIQ locations and numbers are based per capita, but that wont align with arrivals. A remote location has its own challenges. Staff will be remote also, who would work there?

ChCh here

Set it up in a small town that we can napalm if it gets out into the community.

ajobbins

5050 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2767840 27-Aug-2021 20:05

Buster:
It's been on the news several times (Both A Bloomfield and C Hipkins I think). Might have been earlier this year rather than last year.

Finding a source should be straightforward then

Twitter: ajobbins

1 | ... | 1628 | 1629 | 1630 | 1631 | 1632 | 1633 | 1634 | 1635 | 1636 | 1637 | 1638 | ... | 2399