2019 Novel Coronavirus Covid-19 Discussion

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

1 | ... | 584 | 585 | 586 | 587 | 588 | 589 | 590 | 591 | 592 | 593 | 594 | ... | 2399

19378 posts

Uber Geek

#2471785 27-Apr-2020 01:04

Bung:
mattwnz:

If anyone missed it, and I did miss it until I watched TVNZ news tonight, there have been new rules announced today under level 3 for people over 70. In level 2 and up, people over 70 and people at risk had to stay at home, and couldn't go to the supermarket etc. But under level 3, they will be able to go shopping to the supermarket or to work, and it doesn't appear there are now any restrictions, except to be especially careful.

I don't believe it was ever mandatory for over 70s etc to stay at home, it has always been on a strongly advised basis.

I think it was initially a requirement, but I don't think it was actually being policed. But I think they then changed the wording to 'encouraged to stay at home' at some stage more recently. I have noticed that things get tweaked on that website all the time and it all seems very fluid.

But I do know that before lockdown one supermarket did send an email out to customers saying that people over 70 need to stay at home as per the government directive, and would need to get someone to shop for them or use online shopping. This was their reasoning for not having a dedicated time for elderly shoppers to get their supplies, as it would be in conflict with the governments directive for people over 70 being directed to stay at home. But the other supermarket crowd did setup dedicated shopping times for the elderly. No wonder though people are confused by it all.

Pluralsight

Learn cloud, mobile, security, data and web technologies with Pluralsight (affiliate link).

Bung

5434 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2471786 27-Apr-2020 01:34

The supermarkets should have put their effort into delivery rather than special hours. There's always been confusion, maybe until L3 there wasn't much enthusiasm to clear it up.

From Stuff
"But Welch (Grey Power) said there was still "confusion" around what the elderly could and couldn't do.

"They are not prohibited from leaving their house or going to the supermarket, the recommendation is that they don't for their own wellbeing."

He recently spoke with a woman who hadn't gone outside for four weeks because she thought she wasn't allowed to".

DS248

1661 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2471809 27-Apr-2020 08:47

There never was any prohibition on over 70"s going to supermarkets etc under L4. There may have been some mention of it for L3?

itxtme

2050 posts

Uber Geek

#2471820 27-Apr-2020 09:09

mattwnz:

dejadeadnz:

IMO, they need to detain all confirmed cases in hospitals, as well as people with whom they live. You only need a few of these people to pull a stunt like the Auckland RSA did yesterday for the whole country to be screwed. We've already had one person who was confirmed as having COVID deciding to go out.

The brutal reality is that people can't be trusted. Anyone who's mindful of their own personal wellbeing should also continue to behave like it's level 4.

I think this is a good idea based on the fact that the number of cases is now down to a more manageable level that those who aren't already in resthomes and confined, could be moved to hotels to see out their infection under supervision. And then any new cases could also be moved as well. But I am wondering if doing this wouldn't mean that some people who are incubating it, and then start to show symptoms, then wouldn't get tested. I do fear that in two weeks time we may have numbers back in the double digits again, and it hasn't been eliminated after all. Hope I am wrong. I am surprised that none of the experts appear to have suggested putting existing cases in hotels, and until one of them does, I can't see them doing it.

Putting all people in hospitals is dumb idea. Hospitals serve purposes outside of Covid-19, and bringing infectious people in is madness for staff & for other patients. There seems to be some concern that people who have tested positive are actively going out and about. I do not believe that is true, and nobody can offer evidence to suggest so. The only example we have of this is the supermarket incident in ?CCH. That died off pretty quickly too suggesting there wasnt much of a story there. Could have been they deemed themselves recovered, or that government guidance was lacking, nobody here knows.

The single best thing to do is to keep people within their bubbles at their home to stop the chain of transmission exactly as is happening. The reproductive rate is below 1. We can expect in 2 weeks time case numbers to drop further. Lets follow an evidenced based approach rather than arm chair idea of locking people up in facilities @dejadeadnz

Dingbatt

6418 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2471821 27-Apr-2020 09:18

I just watched a thought provoking YouTube video by two LA based physicians talking about their experiences and human immune response. Using, as the poster frames it, “Stats, Logic, and Expertise”. Apart from all the other detail, it reminded me how our immune systems work. What I had forgotten was that it needs to be constantly bombarded by environmental bacteria and virus’ to maintain its effectiveness. So the effect of “sheltering in place” (their term) and constantly cleaning surfaces is to actually weaken our immune systems and that will likely lead to people getting sick more easily (from all causes) once community activities resume. So probably more colds, flus and general upper respiratory tract infections.

There is a lot more in the video (it’s over an hour long) including opinions on what should and shouldn’t be done in California. As always, things can be presented to back your own world view but they do provide the facts and science backing their argument. I will not comment on that side of things.

I am purposely not providing a link, as most people with an interest in the subject have probably already found it. Don’t bother reading the YT comments if you do go looking. Most are along the lines of those you will find on “Stuff”.

Mods feel free to delete this post if you believe it is inappropriate or providing disinformation.

Edited layout.

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

frednz

1452 posts

Uber Geek

#2471827 27-Apr-2020 09:52

DS248: There never was any prohibition on over 70"s going to supermarkets etc under L4. There may have been some mention of it for L3?

Rules, rules, rules ..... why on earth do we need rules that try to tell us what we can and can't do. Why not rely on people just being sensible and not going to supermarkets etc if they are very old or frail?

As soon as you make a rule, it's often ambiguous and needs "interpretations" as to what people think it "really" means. Then the way the Police interpret the rule is different from the way the PM interprets the rule etc etc.

Now that we are going into Level 3, even if you're over 70, you're allowed to drive to a beach and have a walk or even a swim. But people will argue over how far you're allowed to drive your car. If you live in Wellington, for example, can you drive to Paraparaumu Beach up the Kapiti Coast or can you only go to Wellington beaches? Can people who live in Petone only go to Petone Beach?

The chances of us actually banging into someone who we can catch the virus from must be extremely small (1 in how many thousand?), but sensible people know how to avoid risky activities, so let's not try and make rules that cover every possible thing we may want to do when we go into Level 3!

DS248

1661 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2471835 27-Apr-2020 10:28

Agree. I only mentioned it as recall hearing that suggested around the time the L3 rules were set out. Now thankfully ruled out (speaking as someone already in the 70+ bracket).

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
76355 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2471863 27-Apr-2020 11:08

For those who still think rules are good but need explanation, here are two good articles.

Please support Geekzone by subscribing, or using one of our referral links: Dosh referral: 00001283 | Sharesies | Goodsync | Mighty Ape | Backblaze

freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2471870 27-Apr-2020 11:33

itxtme:

The single best thing to do is to keep people within their bubbles at their home to stop the chain of transmission exactly as is happening. The reproductive rate is below 1. We can expect in 2 weeks time case numbers to drop further. Lets follow an evidenced based approach rather than arm chair idea of locking people up in facilities @dejadeadnz

Don't give me a lecture about evidence when you own post betrays your own fundamental lack of grasp of the evidence.

That died off pretty quickly too suggesting there wasnt much of a story there. Could have been they deemed themselves recovered, or that government guidance was lacking, nobody here knows.

The police confirmed that he was infected with COVID-19 as per all media reports. You on the one hand assert that our methods are broadly working (they are) -- yet we are somehow to believe that no one told that infected dick that he's supposed to self-isolate. The burden of proof for that extraordinary claim is on you. Do you think everyone is five years old?

My point about locking up all the infected people and close contacts do not depend on their having been plenty of cases of people with actual infection breaching rules. For a start, let's remember this:

We had customised accommodation sorted for people coming back from repatriation flight(s) from Wuhan sorted pretty quickly. "Hospital" in the context of my previous post doesn't mean, of course, mainstream hospitals per se. Set up some temporary facility elsewhere - it just needs to have a proportionate level of resources to support any needs of the people. Those who need traditional hospital treatment should of course continue to get it.
We have now spent billions to support the economy and to make the elimination strategy work. The relative cost of a "lock up"/compulsory quarantine is minimal. The failing of this strategy will result in billions of sunk costs.
The refusal to lock up confirmed cases of those with COVID-19 is bizarre when set against the fact that we are locking up those who have returned from overseas for two weeks (the latter is actually the right decision, as many have argued elsewhere). So effectively we are treating those on the threshold of suspicion who, on a group basis, is less dangerous than the confirmed cases more harshly. You tell me how that works to a logical person.

And for the umpteenth time: some of the clusters of infected people are objectively absolute idiots. An example of the levels of idiocy range from those holding/attending a pointless cattle conference that invited people to travel from all over the world and then disbursing them all over NZ in March to some being law breakers - e.g. the primary infection cases in the Matamtata St Patricks Day gathering who gathered at a bar despite advisories directly telling them not to. I for one have made a value judgement that, IMO, absolute idiots should not just be trusted and be given the benefit of the doubt. I don't think that's an unreasonable belief. And the police have dealt with thousands of cases of breaches of lockdown rules by people who are, of course, presumably not infected. But these people are geographically disbursed, presumably across a range of demographics, and the like. This tells you a bit about people at large: once again, people are idiots.

You want to go and sing kumbaya and go on trust, that's cool. Just don't act like there's a big body of evidence behind you. We are just giving primacy to the so called "rights" of a small minority at the potential of a disaster.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#2472002 27-Apr-2020 11:55

Meh, never realised that level 3 started today

MikeB4

18125 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2472003 27-Apr-2020 12:00

surfisup1000: Meh, never realised that level 3 started today

11:59pm tonight so effectively Tuesday 28/04

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
76355 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2472004 27-Apr-2020 12:01

@surfisup1000: Meh, never realised that level 3 started today

It didn't. It starts tonight at 23:59.

Please support Geekzone by subscribing, or using one of our referral links: Dosh referral: 00001283 | Sharesies | Goodsync | Mighty Ape | Backblaze

freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure

NumPy

132 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#2472005 27-Apr-2020 12:02

freitasm:

@surfisup1000: Meh, never realised that level 3 started today

It didn't. It starts tonight at 23:59.

What is the reasoning behind 23:59? Why not just make it midnight?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
76355 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2472006 27-Apr-2020 12:04

NumPy:

freitasm:

It didn't. It starts tonight at 23:59.

What is the reasoning behind 23:59? Why not just make it midnight?

This was discussed at length before. Some people see midnight as the start of the day, some as the end of the day (Midnight Monday is not clear if it's Sunday to Monday or Monday to Tuesday). To be clear it is best to use a specific time.

Please support Geekzone by subscribing, or using one of our referral links: Dosh referral: 00001283 | Sharesies | Goodsync | Mighty Ape | Backblaze

freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure

NumPy

132 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#2472007 27-Apr-2020 12:06

I see more confusion with it being a time like this as everybody seems to think it starts today. Including my kids who keep asking if they can go to MacDonalds today!

1 | ... | 584 | 585 | 586 | 587 | 588 | 589 | 590 | 591 | 592 | 593 | 594 | ... | 2399