Fred99:

Story on Stuff:

gzt:

Fred99:

 

Story on Stuff:

 

This is impractical for many reasons, and to some extent actually raises the risk for that population.

For sure. It doesn't seem long ago that it was more about saving money than saving lives, now someone suggests a massive costly upheaval. 

If it did get bad, we in NZ are well placed.Unlike many countries, we are not compressed in high intensity living spaces, sharing ventilation systems, sharing staircases, etc. Self isolation would be effective here, and instead of housing masses of vulnerable people, friends and family and volunteers to support the health system, and good comms and support, can probably manage a form of Nurse Maude type of management if it came to that. 

tdgeek: China are working towards getting production back into effect, and that may mean nothing more than just major inconvenience for a while.

Fred99:

 

Story on Stuff:

 

 

A mass mobilisation of 'vulnerable' people to an isolated region or island to restrict the spread of Covid-19 coronavirus was among the options being considered by the Government, a leading epidemiologist says.

 

University of Otago professor Michael Baker said now was the time to consider "innovative approaches" after the first Covid-19 case was detected in New Zealand.

 

Moving large numbers of older New Zealanders, or those susceptible to respiratory illness, to an isolated region or island to see out the winter could save thousands of lives, Baker said.

 

Known as protective sequestration, the move would require an enormous logistical effort to commandeer housing stock, and identify and uproot vulnerable people from their homes and move them into isolated areas.

 

 

I would be considered one of the vulnerable ones but I would strongly resist a forced move. As a rural dweller, I am already relatively 'isolated', though there are a few neighbours not too far distant. I don't leave the house often, though I do need to do shopping and other things in town from time to time. I would absolutely hate being forced out of the environment I feel familiar and comfortable with. I would accept it to protect others, if that could be justified with factual arguments, but not to protect myself. If it comes to that, I would rather take my chances and stay where I am. I can imagine there are others who feel the same.

gzt:

tdgeek: China are working towards getting production back into effect, and that may mean nothing more than just major inconvenience for a while.

Three weeks ago part of Foxconn's iPhone manufacturing in Shenzhen was converted to produce facemasks instead. The main aim is providing masks to their own facilities to restart production. They expect to supply to the market also.

Wearing a properly fitted mask all day would not be a pleasant experience..

No, not ideal at all, I agree. Sometimes we all need to bear down and suck it up. The more we can suck it up, the less hosts the virus can go after. Easy words, but if we all had to, we would. 

Rikkitic:

 

Fred99:

 

Story on Stuff:

 

 

 

A mass mobilisation of 'vulnerable' people to an isolated region or island to restrict the spread of Covid-19 coronavirus was among the options being considered by the Government, a leading epidemiologist says.

 

University of Otago professor Michael Baker said now was the time to consider "innovative approaches" after the first Covid-19 case was detected in New Zealand.

 

Moving large numbers of older New Zealanders, or those susceptible to respiratory illness, to an isolated region or island to see out the winter could save thousands of lives, Baker said.

 

Known as protective sequestration, the move would require an enormous logistical effort to commandeer housing stock, and identify and uproot vulnerable people from their homes and move them into isolated areas.

 

 

 

 

I would be considered one of the vulnerable ones but I would strongly resist a forced move. As a rural dweller, I am already relatively 'isolated', though there are a few neighbours not too far distant. I don't leave the house often, though I do need to do shopping and other things in town from time to time. I would absolutely hate being forced out of the environment I feel familiar and comfortable with. I would accept it to protect others, if that could be justified with factual arguments, but not to protect myself. If it comes to that, I would rather take my chances and stay where I am. I can imagine there are others who feel the same.

 

 

 

Yep. We can all be resourceful and we can all help others. Those available for supplies, might be children, siblings, cousins, friends. People do help each other when it really matters. The EQ's here showed that.

gzt:

Fred99:

 

Story on Stuff:

 

This is impractical for many reasons, and to some extent actually raises the risk for that population.

I agree, but note that the suggestions were from a leading NZ expert in public health.

"Thinking outside the box" is good when you're dealing with unique problems which may need unique solutions.  

This face mask thing is a bit of a furphy.

Most non-medical persons are: 

1 - buying the incorrect mask type and size. It should be Type N95 or P2 or P3 or better and be adult or child size - one size does not fit all
2 - not fitting any mask properly to begin with - there must be no leaks in or out
3 - not washing hands prior to fitting
4 - tying their masks on incorrectly - tie bottom ties first, then top ties last and do the reverse when removing mask
5 - do not cross over the ties or loops. This squeezes the masks sides open around the cheek
6 - not washing hands after removal and sensible disposal of mask
7 - fiddling/touching the mask once fitted correctly - keep your hands away from your entire face 

Any other type of mask or any mask not fitted correctly will not protect you from the COVID-19 virus as they are not designed to keep out viral partials. They may however have a psychological effect. But even if you are wearing a correctly fitted and approved type you are not fully  protected because the virus loves wet/moist areas. Your eyes are moist and are a portal for the virus. 

What masks, any mask or handkerchief or sleeve, do do however, and this is why surgeons wear them, is to stop your own baddies (pathogens) from infecting others. 

The biggest thing you can do to stop becoming infected or infecting others: 

1 - WASH YOUR HANDS FREQUENTLY or use hand steriliser gel and yes do use those disinfectant wipes at the supermarket trolley area.
2 - Cover your mouth when you cough and sneeze.
3 - Stay away from gatherings if it is not necessary for you to be there. It does not take the whole family to go grocery shopping.
4 - WASH YOUR HANDS FREQUENTLY

Regarding mass movement of the most at risk.

Hopefully it was just considered in the scene of considering every plausible solution. (which is a great thing to do)

I personally don't think it would be a good idea for the following reasons:

• Moving people around risks spreading the pathogen.
• Forced movement & commending of houses would be politically damaging.
• It would be an epic failure if the pathogen got into the isolated high risk community (a very real risk given the long asymptotic period, and that the decision to do it would need to be made once public concern was extreme in order to get public buy in).

I think isolating healthy people at home looks to be the best bet, especially those in stand alone houses. (Appears to be antidotes about pathogen spreading vertically in apartment building in wuhan).

What to do with those with symptoms is more of a concern (assuming hospital isolation / ICU rooms are full). - either leave them at home to potentially infect the rest of the household, of do like in wuhan, and drag them kicking and screaming to a make-shift hospital in the local sports arena. The latter means that those with non covid-19 related fervor are very likley to catch it in the the arena.

Ideally we could take over a few hotel's / motels that meet the ventilation requirements, and isolate suspected cases in indivdual rooms until better or proven to have covid 19.

On the AM Show last Friday morning (28 February 2020), when discussing whether the Olympics should be cancelled, postponed or moved to London because of the corona virus, Mark Richardson said:

 
… just get on with it, they’re all fit so what if a few of them get it. The mortality rate of this thing is probably less than the common flu, we are beating ourselves up, we are destroying our sharemarket, and we are causing ourselves more headaches and more harm than we need to be. This won’t go away but eventually over time it will just be classed when you die of COVID-19 as oh there’s just another flu death in the world, which there are already millions of. We don’t have a vaccine for the common cold either, let’s not worry about this thing, the mortality rate is tiny, in a way this is Darwinism, let’s all get it, get on with it and get over it, that’s the best way to deal with it.

When Duncan Garner told Mark that 5,000 New Zealanders could die from this thing, Mark said:

How many New Zealanders already die from all sorts of illnesses?

So, there you have it, let’s treat COVID-19 as an ordinary flu and catch it, get over it and get on with it without destroying tourism, students’ studies, the sharemarket and the economy! After all, only 5,000 of us are going to die from this corona virus, and if we didn't die from this, something else is sure to get us!

Now who let Mark Richardson loose on this topic, it's certainly not a very sensitive approach to the whole problem now is it?

Scott3: Could be way worse than 5,000.

5m population
x60% infection rate
x2.3% mortality

69,000 dead....


And that is on top of our normal death rate from seasonal flu etc.

And it dosn't include the people that die from other stuff which we could have saved them from if our hospitals and icu's weren't overloaded.

No

China  1,700,000,000 population   340 times NZ

Its been there since November, not Dec 31, the official announcement date

80,000+ infections

2700 fatalities. 

Thats in the country where it started and had a head start. You could divide China's stats by 340 to get an equivalent number. Plus we dont live with thousands of people per hectare of city land.

tdgeek:

 

No

 

Can you imagine New Zealanders accepting this?