All things Covid and Political discussion .........Be Kind

[Maximus]

1 hour ago, Hesi said:

Leave it out Maxi, personal issues here that are better handled in private by Pete and I

if they are personal issues, best handled in private, why did you post that comment (in public)? And why did pete post his? We are entitled to get some clarification from Rees about what he meant in his most recent post.

[pete]

10 hours ago, Maximus said:

if they are personal issues, best handled in private, why did you post that comment (in public)? And why did pete post his? We are entitled to get some clarification from Rees about what he meant in his most recent post.

Just leave it Max. You really don't want to know the answer.

[Hesi]

The temptation is to close down this thread, but then that stifles discussion.

My advice being, if you can't handle a potentially robust reply to a robust post you might be making, then probably better not to post it in the first place.

I'm not sure how you deal with the lunatic fringe posters that seems to exist on other sites(Pete and I have discussed this), have noted on RC they have 3, who seem to feel their views are paramount, and also end up infesting racing threads

The trouble is, they put a lot more effort into posting than anyone else, and while they would claim they have the right to do that, all it does, is alienate the 'normal' people on the site.

The plan was always with this site, to try and achieve the good aura that apparently existed when Ange and Dave first started Racecafe, many talk about it.  That can't happen if the lunatic fringe are allowed to dominate and the site also descends into a place where personal denigration is accepted 

That is also the reason why, when there are issues, they are better handled in private.

You've done nothing wrong Maxi, but to discuss matters in public forum will be counter productive

 

[pete]

Just adding to this. It's perfectly OK for you to express an opinion but when you start playing the man and not the ball you can expect a rebuke.

We're not trying to be overbearing here, just trying to keep things civilized. I'm well aware that the subjects being discussed here are very polarizing and everyone thinks they're on the right side of the argument.

 

[Turny]

It is social media Hesi, comes with huge potential downside it really is as simple as that.

Hence the HCA which to date is untested 

 

 

[Hesi]

4 minutes ago, Turny said:

It is social media Hesi, comes with huge potential downside it really is as simple as that.

Hence the HCA which to date is untested 

 

 

I hate social media, if this site becomes dominated by the lunatic fringe and personal denigration, then I'm off, will simply close the site down

We of course are in a position to prevent that, but you never now

There is a difference between respecting the right of people to put forward an opinion, and respecting that opinion.  Did you know, there are a significant number of people around the world, that think the Earth is flat.  When I meet them, I look forward to pushing them off the edge lol

[PWJ]

On 10/18/2021 at 7:59 AM, mardigras said:

I think it works both ways.

The non vaccinated are also being held to ransom, irrespective of the view of whether a person should get vaccinated or not. I've not got a lot of issues with being held to ransom, which is why I tend to prefer a user pays system. 

A user pays system largely fixes it. We are too much focused on social welfare and it wouldn't happen here.

If a person gets sick, they pay to get treatment. You want/need an ICU bed, pay for it. That would trickle down to health care plans - just like travel insurance. 

You get asked various health questions, it changes your premium. If you are not vaccinated, your premium goes up.

if you don't have health cover, you pay the full price. If you don't have the money, bad luck. Puts less strain on available health services, and if you need more, you are receiving funding due to the user pays aspect.

That brings the accountability of people's actions out. You make the choices, you pay for the outcomes of those choices. 

Just like other forms of insurance - you can self insure if you don't believe the chance of requiring health care is high in relation to the cost. And therefore on the basis you need the care, you know you will have to pay for it.

Might sound harsh, but the world is changing. 

Mardy, this is the best opinion I have heard yet on this subject. Like you, I believe that people should have a choice but burdening the health system because of your choice is not fair on those who have taken the option to vaccinate and most likely not be a burden to the health system.

I would compare it to smoking. There is a heavy tax smokers pay on cigarettes/tobacco which in theory gives the government extra $$$ to pay for the effects of it on the health system (whether it does get spent there is another matter).

If you have more accidents on the road, you pay a higher insurance premium - same thinking.

I would give it 6-12 months and most governments will realise the
'user pays" system will need to be invoked. Medical insurers will also be looking very closely at your vaccinated status by then.

[Hesi]

Break through infections

Latest data in from the CDC in USA, states 7178 deaths from Covid in vaccinated people, out of 187 million people vaccinated.  85% of those over 65 yers

Sounds like a lot, but it is 0.0038% of the total vaccinated, and would equate to 190 deaths in NZ(in a 100% vaccinated scenario- hypothetical only).  But of course, we are more highly vaccinated here, and Covid is a lot less prevalent

[Maximus]

2 hours ago, Hesi said:

Break through infections

Latest data in from the CDC in USA, states 7178 deaths from Covid in vaccinated people, out of 187 million people vaccinated.  85% of those over 65 yers

Sounds like a lot, but it is 0.0038% of the total vaccinated, and would equate to 190 deaths in NZ(in a 100% vaccinated scenario- hypothetical only).  But of course, we are more highly vaccinated here, and Covid is a lot less prevalent

indeed ... and a crucial difference between there and here is population density. I wonder how many of those 'Covid deaths' occurred in cities? New Zealand has a handful of centres with 'high' population density, and even in Auckland it's nothing compared to (say) NYC. Another reason for optimism here is the season. We are exiting the colder months when people spend much more time indoors. I doubt that we need anywhere near 90-95% vax rates to mitigate the impact of Covid.

MM

[Hesi]

Here is an article, if you can be bothered reading it, that hits the nail on the head, about the pitfalls of doing your own research, and why

A few social media 'reckons' or 'likes' aren't research
Ellie Kivinen
13:58, Oct 21 2021

 

OPINION: I worked as a researcher for almost ten years, so I can claim to know a thing or two about research – and that's exactly why I chose to do zero research into Covid vaccines before getting my jab.

It would be easy to hop online and do a quick search for some relevant information.

But let’s imagine we ran a survey with 100 respondents.

When compiling the results, how many of those 100 respondents would you want to include?

The three who said the most interesting things?

The five who gave the most detailed answers?

The 20 who were the first to respond?

None of those seem near enough.

Would you be happy seeing 90 of the responses or would you still want to include the remaining ten?

Let's keep asking more questions about this imaginary survey.

What if some of the respondents hadn’t given truthful answers?

Would you want to exclude their answers?

How would you figure out who they were?

This is why an unsystematic search is not research.

If we want our research to help us make an informed decision – one that’s grounded in solid evidence – we can’t get away with cherry-picking a selection of information.

We want to see the full picture, assess the reliability of the data and then consider the balance of evidence.

But do we really need to look at all the information?

The answer is, ideally, "yes".

It’s called a "full evidence review" – the gold standard in research.

But it takes a long time, so let’s be practical and set some parameters.

We could choose just one vaccine to research – let’s say Pfizer, since that’s the one in use in New Zealand.

We could set ourselves a timeframe, though all the evidence is so recent I’d be reluctant to go shorter than 18 months.

Even with a clear focus, we’ll have a huge amount of evidence to work through.

From experience, I’m estimating we’ll find around 200-300 sources.

Note that we’re not excluding anything on the basis of who produced it.

If we're doing research, we can't fling out evidence just because we don’t like where it came from.

We need to be a lot more rigorous than that.

We are going to systematically evaluate each of our sources for reliability – the key word being "systematically".

To do this, we need to understand the research methods used in each study so we can check them for any flaws:

How was the data collected?
Are the samples representative?
What methods were used to analyse the data?
Are those methods appropriate for these types of data?
What confidence levels are we talking about?
(And do we have the statistical analysis skills to answer these questions? If not, we need to find a research colleague who does.)

If we're doing research, we can't fling out evidence just because we don’t like where it came from.
If you only take one thing from this article, it should be this: If we’re not prepared to dig in to the data and make sure we’ve fully understood it and its context before making a judgement about it, we can’t actually claim to be doing research.

We also want to be aware of who commissioned or funded each study and consider any biases they may have.

This is not because we're expecting that to necessarily invalidate the results: A great deal of robust research is carried out by organisations hoping to benefit from the findings.

We might instinctively question their findings, but that’s not a reason to discount them.

It’s just a reason to review their data and check that it stacks up.

The tricky thing here is that we are all going to make different assessments about how reliable any particular source is (and that’s without asking conspiracy theorists for their opinion.)

But researchers have a way of getting around this.

It’s called triangulation: We agree on a common approach and reliability criteria, and then everyone on the research team cross-checks each other’s assessments.

If I’m doing this alone, my research will only be as objective as I manage to be and subject to my own biases.

That was just the first phase of our hypothetical research project – it’s called "scoping" and its purpose is to understand the landscape of evidence that exists.

Next, we’re going to rank our sources (a complex process) so we can select those that help answer our research questions (which we haven’t even talked about) while meeting our reliability criteria (which are a bit shaky because we couldn’t triangulate).

Now we are going to review those sources in detail (which takes a lot of time), pulling out the key insights and recording them (spreadsheets will be your best friend), and examining the research method and data more closely (we’ll need those stats skills again).

The exact number will depend on the outcomes of the scoping phase, but I would expect to review around 30-45 sources in detail in order to draw sound conclusions.

This is what I would have to do to be confident that my research is robust and not just an unsystematic search for a random selection of more-or-less reliable evidence.

Yes, I could do it, but I’ve been a researcher long enough to know that my own research could never be more thorough than the work already done by the global research community.

That’s why I took their collective advice to get vaccinated.
 

[mardigras]

You'd love this then Hesi (I haven't checked any accuracy on this). And it doesn't break it down by aspects that may be important. Supposedly as at a week ago. (I understand Vic was at 64% fully vaxed a week ago! which differs - so is this just more problematic 'information'

Edited October 22, 2021 by mardigras

[Hesi]

47 minutes ago, mardigras said:

You'd love this then Hesi (I haven't checked any accuracy on this). And it doesn't break it down by aspects that may be important. Supposedly as at a week ago. (I understand Vic was at 64% fully vaxed a week ago! which differs - so is this just more problematic 'information'

That is a very Jacinda like format

You are going to see more and more data like that from around the world

 

[mardigras]

2 minutes ago, Hesi said:

That is a very Jacinda like format

You are going to see more and more data like that from around the world

 

yes, but it doesn't change the minds of those that don't wish to be vaccinated.

[Hesi]

The hardcore, no, especially when you hear statements that they would much rather die than get vaccinated, maybe they will get their wish

The teeterers, one would hope common sense prevails

[mardigras]

3 minutes ago, Hesi said:

The teeterers, one would hope common sense prevails

They've had ample opportunity. The 90% target is a bad joke. I expect I'll see the results of that bad joke at the next election.

[Hesi]

2 minutes ago, barryb said:

Unlikely, thickos like Hesi and a few other brain dead’s on here just line up and tick a box every 3 yrs.

Now that's what I call a rapier style rebuttal

[ngakonui grass]

A Hamilton physio clinic has announced that from next week they intend to see clients face to face as all the staff are 

vaccinated..Brien Cree the  managing director of Radius has also announced that from Tuesday his resthomes etc will be accepting visitors for their clients as the mental health of some clients is suffering..

I say good on them both.

[Maximus]

I heard Brian Cree on ZB last week with his plan for Radiuscare. Heaps of commonsense and compassion (no doubt some 'Brownie points' to be scored in the PR/Brand Image Dept too for the initiative they are taking. Well done indeed.

We need to understand that if enough privately owned businesses make similar calls, this useless brain-dead government will have to sit up and take notice.

Can someone explain to me why we do not already have Rapid Antigen Testing at airports/ferry terminals etc with negative tests required prior to hopping from one island to the other?

MM

[Hesi]

https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/simon-barnett-and-james-daniels-afternoons/audio/brien-cree-radius-care-founder-on-why-hes-reopening-rest-homes-to-visitors/

[Rusty]

[Maximus]

our Deputy PM speaketh in riddles. One minute he's saying that by the end of November vax certificates will be all go, and the next ... ? (Max's italics)

"We think people have worked really hard to get to this level and that gives us sufficient confidence to move forward when we get to the 90 percent double-dose," said Robertson. "We're looking towards that period around the end of November where we should be in a really strong position to be able to say, 'Yep, we're almost there.'"

So "around" the end of November we "should be" able to say ... "we're almost there"
In other words, he doesnt know. We might be; we might not be.

So why not just say: "I don't know. I can't give you a firm date when we will be relaxing Covid restrictions."

Politicians are a pain in the backside.

[Hesi]

Politician speak, they all do it

[Hesi]

There is a vaccine passport of sorts already in place.  You can go to this website, register with your email and drivers license or passport, and it shows what your vaccination status is

Easy to show on your phone, with your drivers license as proof of identity

https://app.covid19.health.nz/

[ngakonui grass]

Had a covid test this morning (required as i am havibg a procedure Friday) beside me was a guy who hadn't had any jabs but wanted a test.

Translation i'm not going to get a jab but i'm worried about getting covid..(imo)

Appears to be a simple solution there.

[Maximus]

and if you think our PM and friends dont have a wider ambition to impose communist-style socialism on Kiwis, read this:

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/the-case-for-change-is-too-compelling-government-to-force-three-waters-on-councils/ar-AAPZ3Wc?li=BBqdg4K