New Zealand...fvcked

All things Rugby
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 10613
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by booji boy »

Monkey Magic wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:36 am Well this thread has really improved...
Makes for great reading doesn't it.

These kiwi posters have really done themselves proud. The way the discussion is going around and around in circles back and forth makes me think it's Eldanielfire and Anonymous.

But it's not. It's our very own kiwi regulars! ;)
User avatar
Fat Old Git
Posts: 22968
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by Fat Old Git »

Brabus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:54 am
RuggaBugga wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:30 am
Brabus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 1:41 am What we are talking about is how we view the person sitting next to us. I'm not talking patches, fire arms or any such thing, I'm talking about the likes of my or your mother.
If my Mother was an anti-vaxxer I'd view her as a f**king idiot and a selfish cow.
Good f**king God but I don't know how many times that I need to say that I am not anti vax! This above however, the willingness to throw your own mother under the bus in order to comply with the zeitgeist, this is what scares me.
No one is being thrown under a bus. Essential serives will still be available to all who need it.

Some non-essential recreational activities, and some employment opportunities my be denied to those who feel entitled to throw the rest of their community under the bus. And there is a simple solution if they are unhappy with that.
User avatar
Harveys
Posts: 2567
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 12:39 pm

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by Harveys »

Brabus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:11 am
Ted. wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am
Brabus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 2:26 am Yes and I know that being vaccinated or not is not immutable. What I was trying to convey is how we each view one another. Vaccination status is not apparent without proof.
It's easy enough to ask.

If, perchance, they say it is their own business and will not tell me, I will take a precautionary approach and treat them as a filthy anti-vaxxer. If they are happy to share their vaccine status, I will treat them according to their answer.

That is my right!
And good luck with that. Now should we require a governmental certificate to treat our neighbors as we once did or should we require a stamp of approval to go about our own lives?


I’m struggling to follow your argument.

Do you agree or disagree that we are in a global pandemic?

Because if we weren’t in this situation and these measures were being forced upon us then you might have a point, but that’s not the case.

In times of war we cede a large amount of rights and freedom to the government then when the wars over we get them back. How is this different?

The informed right to choose not to get vaccinated comes with the consequence of ceding more rights and freedoms to the government for the time being.

This is a risk management strategy for the greater good of society, it’s not a nefarious plot to divide the nation.

You’re acting all like people are going to be branded for life then marched off the Gulag when it’s a pretty safe bet that’s not going to happen.

It’s fanciful at best, though deluded fear mongering is closer to the truth.
User avatar
Tehui
Posts: 17099
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by Tehui »

I used to work in the area of forensic mental health, where people came under the Mental Health Act due to offences that were charged and / or convicted of. i.e. the mad & the bad. Now, on one side of society, you had angry villagers with pitchforks, who stood firm in their belief that these people should be detained until the natural end of their days. On the other hand, you had civil rights lawyers, who filed all sorts of legal challenges suggesting that people were being detained unlawfully, i.e. the silencing of the lambs. Somewhere in the middle, you had a balance between managing risk and protecting basic human rights. The decision-making for those who worked in the sector was often value laden, and there were checks and balances everywhere.

When I heard the announcement today, I thought to myself, we're going to see the human rights people start making a lot of noise shortly.

Although I am naturally a pro-choice person, I recognise that we're living in a global pandemic, akin to wartime, where everybody's lives are at risk. If a person chooses not to be vaccinated - so be it. However, I support public places being for people who are vaccinated only. My stance has got little to do with business, economics or politics, but is a position based on wanting to keep as many people alive and well as possible.
User avatar
deadduck
Posts: 6381
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Vandean Coast

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by deadduck »

Unvaccinated people and vaccinated people three months post-vaccine (about half of NZers right now and eventually the vast majority of people) have an indistinguishable risk of passing on the virus. That is the latest science.

An unvaccinated gym worker who gets covid and goes to work where everyone in there is vaccinated because they have entered using a vaccine passport, is not putting anyone at significant risk. Also, any one of those vaccinated gym goers could have an asymptomatic case of covid. In that case, the unvaccinated gym worker is the one most at risk. If the prevalence in NZ rises, this scenario will not be uncommon. If the prevalence does not rise, the chances of there being an unvaccinated gym worker with covid is also very small. This is why this new mandate is quite useless.


The best protection people can do to look after themselves is to get vaccinated. The risk of a breakthrough infection for a double-vaccinated person is about 0.2%. And if you're unfortunate enough to get it, you've got about 1 in 100,000 chance of being hospitalised.

Vaccinated people need not get worked up about being put at risk of catching covid-19 by unvaccinated people. You are at risk, regardless. But it's a very small risk, so chill out.

If our neighbours and family want to make poor choices and not get vaccinated, so be it.
Sonny Blount
Posts: 4950
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by Sonny Blount »

Fat Old Git wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:01 am
Brabus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:54 am
RuggaBugga wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:30 am
Brabus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 1:41 am What we are talking about is how we view the person sitting next to us. I'm not talking patches, fire arms or any such thing, I'm talking about the likes of my or your mother.
If my Mother was an anti-vaxxer I'd view her as a f**king idiot and a selfish cow.
Good f**king God but I don't know how many times that I need to say that I am not anti vax! This above however, the willingness to throw your own mother under the bus in order to comply with the zeitgeist, this is what scares me.
No one is being thrown under a bus. Essential serives will still be available to all who need it.

Some non-essential recreational activities, and some employment opportunities my be denied to those who feel entitled to throw the rest of their community under the bus. And there is a simple solution if they are unhappy with that.

They can't get a haircut. That is basic service.
Sonny Blount
Posts: 4950
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by Sonny Blount »

Harveys wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:32 am

This is a risk management strategy for the greater good of society, it’s not a nefarious plot to divide the nation.

You’re acting all like people are going to be branded for life then marched off the Gulag when it’s a pretty safe bet that’s not going to happen.

It’s fanciful at best, though deluded fear mongering is closer to the truth.

This is going to end peoples careers. Sometimes a lifetime of work.
User avatar
Duff Paddy
Posts: 42620
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by Duff Paddy »

Tehui wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:50 am I used to work in the area of forensic mental health, where people came under the Mental Health Act due to offences that were charged and / or convicted of. i.e. the mad & the bad. Now, on one side of society, you had angry villagers with pitchforks, who stood firm in their belief that these people should be detained until the natural end of their days. On the other hand, you had civil rights lawyers, who filed all sorts of legal challenges suggesting that people were being detained unlawfully, i.e. the silencing of the lambs. Somewhere in the middle, you had a balance between managing risk and protecting basic human rights. The decision-making for those who worked in the sector was often value laden, and there were checks and balances everywhere.

When I heard the announcement today, I thought to myself, we're going to see the human rights people start making a lot of noise shortly.

Although I am naturally a pro-choice person, I recognise that we're living in a global pandemic, akin to wartime, where everybody's lives are at risk. If a person chooses not to be vaccinated - so be it. However, I support public places being for people who are vaccinated only. My stance has got little to do with business, economics or politics, but is a position based on wanting to keep as many people alive and well as possible.
Okay it’s a dangerous virus but it’s not that dangerous
User avatar
Auckman
Posts: 10668
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Sydney Town

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by Auckman »

Sonny Blount wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 7:44 am
Harveys wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:32 am

This is a risk management strategy for the greater good of society, it’s not a nefarious plot to divide the nation.

You’re acting all like people are going to be branded for life then marched off the Gulag when it’s a pretty safe bet that’s not going to happen.

It’s fanciful at best, though deluded fear mongering is closer to the truth.

This is going to end peoples careers. Sometimes a lifetime of work.
A small minority and those people have put anti-vax ideology above their own common sense.
User avatar
Harveys
Posts: 2567
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 12:39 pm

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by Harveys »

Sonny Blount wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 7:44 am
Harveys wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:32 am

This is a risk management strategy for the greater good of society, it’s not a nefarious plot to divide the nation.

You’re acting all like people are going to be branded for life then marched off the Gulag when it’s a pretty safe bet that’s not going to happen.

It’s fanciful at best, though deluded fear mongering is closer to the truth.

This is going to end peoples careers. Sometimes a lifetime of work.
Some people are going to die, that will really end your career, a lifetime of work gone.
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 20190
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by Ted. »

Fat Old Git wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:01 am
Brabus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:54 am
RuggaBugga wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:30 am
Brabus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 1:41 am What we are talking about is how we view the person sitting next to us. I'm not talking patches, fire arms or any such thing, I'm talking about the likes of my or your mother.
If my Mother was an anti-vaxxer I'd view her as a f**king idiot and a selfish cow.
Good f**king God but I don't know how many times that I need to say that I am not anti vax! This above however, the willingness to throw your own mother under the bus in order to comply with the zeitgeist, this is what scares me.
No one is being thrown under a bus. Essential serives will still be available to all who need it.

Some non-essential recreational activities, and some employment opportunities my be denied to those who feel entitled to throw the rest of their community under the bus. And there is a simple solution if they are unhappy with that.
:nod:

It's quite simple, isn't it.
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 20190
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by Ted. »

deadduck wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 7:15 am Unvaccinated people and vaccinated people three months post-vaccine (about half of NZers right now and eventually the vast majority of people) have an indistinguishable risk of passing on the virus. That is the latest science.

An unvaccinated gym worker who gets covid and goes to work where everyone in there is vaccinated because they have entered using a vaccine passport, is not putting anyone at significant risk. Also, any one of those vaccinated gym goers could have an asymptomatic case of covid. In that case, the unvaccinated gym worker is the one most at risk. If the prevalence in NZ rises, this scenario will not be uncommon. If the prevalence does not rise, the chances of there being an unvaccinated gym worker with covid is also very small. This is why this new mandate is quite useless.


The best protection people can do to look after themselves is to get vaccinated. The risk of a breakthrough infection for a double-vaccinated person is about 0.2%. And if you're unfortunate enough to get it, you've got about 1 in 100,000 chance of being hospitalised.

Vaccinated people need not get worked up about being put at risk of catching covid-19 by unvaccinated people. You are at risk, regardless. But it's a very small risk, so chill out.

If our neighbours and family want to make poor choices and not get vaccinated, so be it.
Do you have a link to the science you mention in your first paragraph, DD?
User avatar
Grandpa
Posts: 2824
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Yorkshire

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by Grandpa »

Sonny Blount wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 7:42 am
Fat Old Git wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:01 am
Brabus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:54 am
RuggaBugga wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:30 am
Brabus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 1:41 am What we are talking about is how we view the person sitting next to us. I'm not talking patches, fire arms or any such thing, I'm talking about the likes of my or your mother.
If my Mother was an anti-vaxxer I'd view her as a f**king idiot and a selfish cow.
Good f**king God but I don't know how many times that I need to say that I am not anti vax! This above however, the willingness to throw your own mother under the bus in order to comply with the zeitgeist, this is what scares me.
No one is being thrown under a bus. Essential serives will still be available to all who need it.

Some non-essential recreational activities, and some employment opportunities my be denied to those who feel entitled to throw the rest of their community under the bus. And there is a simple solution if they are unhappy with that.

They can't get a haircut. That is basic service.
Basic... but not essential... bit of a difference...
User avatar
AD345
Posts: 1491
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by AD345 »

deadduck wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 7:15 am
Vaccinated people need not get worked up about being put at risk of catching covid-19 by unvaccinated people. You are at risk, regardless. But it's a very small risk, so chill out.
.
Thats not the risk

That hasn't been the risk for quite a period of time

The risk is that significant numbers of people remain un-vaccinated

and get sick

and go to hospital

and soak up capacity so that others cannot access essential medical services.

I'm not worried about me or my family getting COVID and then getting seriously ill

Im worried about them getting injured or ill and have serious complications (or worse) due to an overwhelmed health system clogged with COVID patients. Patients who could easily avoid going to hospital by getting vaccinated.

There is no need to change a lifestyle, undergo any surgical procedures or do anything beyond getting a vaccine shot. It is not an unreasonable requirement to reduce societal risk in the short to medium term
bimboman
Posts: 76804
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by bimboman »

The risk is that significant numbers of people remain un-vaccinated

and get sick

and go to hospital

and soak up capacity so that others cannot access essential medical services.

State mandated BMI next then if this argument is popular.
User avatar
Monkey Magic
Posts: 1508
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by Monkey Magic »

bimboman wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:04 am
The risk is that significant numbers of people remain un-vaccinated

and get sick

and go to hospital

and soak up capacity so that others cannot access essential medical services.

State mandated BMI next then if this argument is popular.
Is there a simple jab that will lower people's bmi?
bimboman
Posts: 76804
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by bimboman »

Monkey Magic wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:06 am
bimboman wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:04 am
The risk is that significant numbers of people remain un-vaccinated

and get sick

and go to hospital

and soak up capacity so that others cannot access essential medical services.

State mandated BMI next then if this argument is popular.
Is there a simple jab that will lower people's bmi?
There’s an incredibly simple intervention that doesn’t even need a nurse.


The argument isn’t about difficulty of treatment, someone’s BMI sis totally their responsibility.
User avatar
Monkey Magic
Posts: 1508
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by Monkey Magic »

bimboman wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:09 am
Monkey Magic wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:06 am
bimboman wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:04 am
The risk is that significant numbers of people remain un-vaccinated

and get sick

and go to hospital

and soak up capacity so that others cannot access essential medical services.

State mandated BMI next then if this argument is popular.
Is there a simple jab that will lower people's bmi?
There’s an incredibly simple intervention that doesn’t even need a nurse.


The argument isn’t about difficulty of treatment, someone’s BMI sis totally their responsibility.
A simple intervention that will take two 20min car trips in my lunch break 6 weeks apart and that's it?
Sonny Blount
Posts: 4950
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by Sonny Blount »

AD345 wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:52 am

Im worried about them getting injured or ill and have serious complications (or worse) due to an overwhelmed health system clogged with COVID patients. Patients who could easily avoid going to hospital by getting vaccinated.

There is no need to change a lifestyle, undergo any surgical procedures or do anything beyond getting a vaccine shot. It is not an unreasonable requirement to reduce societal risk in the short to medium term

That is an unserious and irresponsible response.

Covid is a serious disease, and co-morbidities massively increase the danger.

Manage your diet, get as much exercise, and as much sunlight as you can to have the healthiest achievable weight and vitamin D levels for when you are inevitably exposed to Covid.

Everybody has 18 months to work on it.
Last edited by Sonny Blount on Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:54 am, edited 2 times in total.
Sonny Blount
Posts: 4950
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by Sonny Blount »

Grandpa wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:20 am
Sonny Blount wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 7:42 am
Fat Old Git wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:01 am
Brabus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:54 am
RuggaBugga wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:30 am

If my Mother was an anti-vaxxer I'd view her as a f**king idiot and a selfish cow.
Good f**king God but I don't know how many times that I need to say that I am not anti vax! This above however, the willingness to throw your own mother under the bus in order to comply with the zeitgeist, this is what scares me.
No one is being thrown under a bus. Essential serives will still be available to all who need it.

Some non-essential recreational activities, and some employment opportunities my be denied to those who feel entitled to throw the rest of their community under the bus. And there is a simple solution if they are unhappy with that.

They can't get a haircut. That is basic service.
Basic... but not essential... bit of a difference...
I guess get a turban or go skinhead and you don't need to go to the hairdresser to be presentable.
Last edited by Sonny Blount on Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
deadduck
Posts: 6381
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Vandean Coast

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by deadduck »

AD345 wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:52 am
deadduck wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 7:15 am
Vaccinated people need not get worked up about being put at risk of catching covid-19 by unvaccinated people. You are at risk, regardless. But it's a very small risk, so chill out.
.
Thats not the risk

That hasn't been the risk for quite a period of time

The risk is that significant numbers of people remain un-vaccinated

and get sick

and go to hospital

and soak up capacity so that others cannot access essential medical services.

I'm not worried about me or my family getting COVID and then getting seriously ill

Im worried about them getting injured or ill and have serious complications (or worse) due to an overwhelmed health system clogged with COVID patients. Patients who could easily avoid going to hospital by getting vaccinated.

There is no need to change a lifestyle, undergo any surgical procedures or do anything beyond getting a vaccine shot. It is not an unreasonable requirement to reduce societal risk in the short to medium term
See now you're shifting the goal posts.

The vaccine mandates announced today for workers in venues that will operate using a vaccine passport system (such as gyms, hairdressers and restaurants) are clearly not targeted at the risk you are describing.

If the announcements today were aimed at getting the maximum amount of people vaccinated, they would not only apply to ~25% of workers. Why have they specifically excluded retail workers?

As the ultimate employer of the public service, why not mandate that all public sector workers must be vaccinated? For example, why aren't the police mandated to be vaccinated?
Last edited by deadduck on Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 38460
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by guy smiley »

deadduck wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:34 am If the announcements today were aimed at getting the maximum amount of people vaccinated, they would not only apply to ~25% of workers. Why have they specifically excluded retail workers?
Vaccines will be mandated for staff at any businesses where vaccine passports are required for customers - this will include hospitality, hair dressers and gyms.



Wood says when the mandates will come into effect will depend on what "traffic light" we are at.
The Government intends to change the law to make it clear when employers in other industries can introduce vaccination mandates for their businesses.
User avatar
AD345
Posts: 1491
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by AD345 »

deadduck wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:34 am
AD345 wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:52 am
deadduck wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 7:15 am
Vaccinated people need not get worked up about being put at risk of catching covid-19 by unvaccinated people. You are at risk, regardless. But it's a very small risk, so chill out.
.
Thats not the risk

That hasn't been the risk for quite a period of time

The risk is that significant numbers of people remain un-vaccinated

and get sick

and go to hospital

and soak up capacity so that others cannot access essential medical services.

I'm not worried about me or my family getting COVID and then getting seriously ill

Im worried about them getting injured or ill and have serious complications (or worse) due to an overwhelmed health system clogged with COVID patients. Patients who could easily avoid going to hospital by getting vaccinated.

There is no need to change a lifestyle, undergo any surgical procedures or do anything beyond getting a vaccine shot. It is not an unreasonable requirement to reduce societal risk in the short to medium term
See now you're shifting the goal posts.

The vaccine mandates announced today for workers in venues that will operate using a vaccine passport system (such as gyms, hairdressers and restaurants) are clearly not targeted at the risk you are describing.

If the announcements today were aimed at getting the maximum amount of people vaccinated, they would not only apply to ~25% of workers. Why have they specifically excluded retail workers?
I haven't shifted any goal posts, this is my first statement about this.

I have not made any claims as to what the motivation behind todays announcements might have been.

If I was to hazard a guess, I would say that this move announced today is what can be accomplished given the current legal environment and can make the most difference in the shortest amount of time with the tools available.
User avatar
deadduck
Posts: 6381
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Vandean Coast

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by deadduck »

Right so the government is ok to dictate to gyms and hairdressers how they are required to operate their business, but when it comes to a shop it requires a law change?


Makes sense
User avatar
Sandstorm
Posts: 29332
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Chickenrunning...

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by Sandstorm »

deadduck wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 7:15 am Unvaccinated people and vaccinated people three months post-vaccine (about half of NZers right now and eventually the vast majority of people) have an indistinguishable risk of passing on the virus. That is the latest science.

An unvaccinated gym worker who gets covid and goes to work where everyone in there is vaccinated because they have entered using a vaccine passport, is not putting anyone at significant risk. Also, any one of those vaccinated gym goers could have an asymptomatic case of covid. In that case, the unvaccinated gym worker is the one most at risk. If the prevalence in NZ rises, this scenario will not be uncommon. If the prevalence does not rise, the chances of there being an unvaccinated gym worker with covid is also very small. This is why this new mandate is quite useless.


The best protection people can do to look after themselves is to get vaccinated. The risk of a breakthrough infection for a double-vaccinated person is about 0.2%. And if you're unfortunate enough to get it, you've got about 1 in 100,000 chance of being hospitalised.

Vaccinated people need not get worked up about being put at risk of catching covid-19 by unvaccinated people. You are at risk, regardless. But it's a very small risk, so chill out.

If our neighbours and family want to make poor choices and not get vaccinated, so be it.
I look forward to the time when you Kiwis get around to discussing new variants of Covid that develop as a result of lower than hoped vaccination numbers.
User avatar
deadduck
Posts: 6381
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Vandean Coast

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by deadduck »

AD345 wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:41 am
If I was to hazard a guess, I would say that this move announced today is what can be accomplished given the current legal environment and can make the most difference in the shortest amount of time with the tools available.

The risk to people operating in an environment that requires a vaccine passport to enter i.e. all the patrons are vaccinated, is incredibly small. The greatest risk is to the person themself.

The downside of this policy is that small business such as hairdressers might lose what turns out to be a large chunk of their staff for no good reason. And if the employee does relent and get vaccinated in order to not get fired, it will be under duress and their relationship with their workplace will never be the same.
Sonny Blount
Posts: 4950
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by Sonny Blount »

Sandstorm wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:50 am
deadduck wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 7:15 am Unvaccinated people and vaccinated people three months post-vaccine (about half of NZers right now and eventually the vast majority of people) have an indistinguishable risk of passing on the virus. That is the latest science.

An unvaccinated gym worker who gets covid and goes to work where everyone in there is vaccinated because they have entered using a vaccine passport, is not putting anyone at significant risk. Also, any one of those vaccinated gym goers could have an asymptomatic case of covid. In that case, the unvaccinated gym worker is the one most at risk. If the prevalence in NZ rises, this scenario will not be uncommon. If the prevalence does not rise, the chances of there being an unvaccinated gym worker with covid is also very small. This is why this new mandate is quite useless.


The best protection people can do to look after themselves is to get vaccinated. The risk of a breakthrough infection for a double-vaccinated person is about 0.2%. And if you're unfortunate enough to get it, you've got about 1 in 100,000 chance of being hospitalised.

Vaccinated people need not get worked up about being put at risk of catching covid-19 by unvaccinated people. You are at risk, regardless. But it's a very small risk, so chill out.

If our neighbours and family want to make poor choices and not get vaccinated, so be it.
I look forward to the time when you Kiwis get around to discussing new variants of Covid that develop as a result of lower than hoped vaccination numbers.
We're doing pretty good on the number vaccinated after our late start, we're ahead of the States and less than 10% behind the UK.

Due to our more recent jabs and the fact that Pfizer loses up to 50% effectiveness after 6 months, we may even have more vaccine effectiveness than most countries.
User avatar
AD345
Posts: 1491
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by AD345 »

deadduck wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:48 am Right so the government is ok to dictate to gyms and hairdressers how they are required to operate their business, but when it comes to a shop it requires a law change?


Makes sense
Agreed

It does make sense.
User avatar
AD345
Posts: 1491
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by AD345 »

deadduck wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:56 am
AD345 wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:41 am
If I was to hazard a guess, I would say that this move announced today is what can be accomplished given the current legal environment and can make the most difference in the shortest amount of time with the tools available.

The risk to people operating in an environment that requires a vaccine passport to enter i.e. all the patrons are vaccinated, is incredibly small. The greatest risk is to the person themself.

I believe this is where we started at...
The downside of this policy is that small business such as hairdressers might lose what turns out to be a large chunk of their staff for no good reason. And if the employee does relent and get vaccinated in order to not get fired, it will be under duress and their relationship with their workplace will never be the same.
Or

small businesses might be able to operate much sooner and get back on their feet much more quickly and stay operating with much lower risk of lockdowns smashing their business - again

and again

And those staff who "relent" (how very bloody gracious of them) might have enough nous to recognise that the employer is merely following the law of the land

There's a reasonable chance they may not though - I grant you. Those employees who need to 'relent" to get vaccinated will probably already have strong opinions about who is running their lives and who is to blame

very strong
Sonny Blount
Posts: 4950
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by Sonny Blount »

AD345 wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:08 am
deadduck wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:56 am
AD345 wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:41 am
If I was to hazard a guess, I would say that this move announced today is what can be accomplished given the current legal environment and can make the most difference in the shortest amount of time with the tools available.

The risk to people operating in an environment that requires a vaccine passport to enter i.e. all the patrons are vaccinated, is incredibly small. The greatest risk is to the person themself.

I believe this is where we started at...
The downside of this policy is that small business such as hairdressers might lose what turns out to be a large chunk of their staff for no good reason. And if the employee does relent and get vaccinated in order to not get fired, it will be under duress and their relationship with their workplace will never be the same.
Or

small businesses might be able to operate much sooner and get back on their feet much more quickly and stay operating with much lower risk of lockdowns smashing their business - again

and again

And those staff who "relent" (how very bloody gracious of them) might have enough nous to recognise that the employer is merely following the law of the land

There's a reasonable chance they may not though - I grant you. Those employees who need to 'relent" to get vaccinated will probably already have strong opinions about who is running their lives and who is to blame

very strong
There is a lot of bigotry floating around about how people imagine vaccine hesitant people think.
User avatar
RuggaBugga
Posts: 13346
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by RuggaBugga »

Sonny Blount wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:28 am
AD345 wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:52 am

Im worried about them getting injured or ill and have serious complications (or worse) due to an overwhelmed health system clogged with COVID patients. Patients who could easily avoid going to hospital by getting vaccinated.

There is no need to change a lifestyle, undergo any surgical procedures or do anything beyond getting a vaccine shot. It is not an unreasonable requirement to reduce societal risk in the short to medium term

That is an unserious and irresponsible response.

Covid is a serious disease, and co-morbidities massively increase the danger.

Manage your diet, get as much exercise, and as much sunlight as you can to have the healthiest achievable weight and vitamin D levels for when you are inevitably exposed to Covid.

Everybody has 18 months to work on it.
Ok Joe Rogan. Or you could just shut the fudge up and get vaccinated.

Gotta love the "but fat people" stupid plum :roll:
User avatar
RuggaBugga
Posts: 13346
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by RuggaBugga »

Sonny Blount wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:20 am
AD345 wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:08 am
deadduck wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:56 am
AD345 wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:41 am
If I was to hazard a guess, I would say that this move announced today is what can be accomplished given the current legal environment and can make the most difference in the shortest amount of time with the tools available.

The risk to people operating in an environment that requires a vaccine passport to enter i.e. all the patrons are vaccinated, is incredibly small. The greatest risk is to the person themself.

I believe this is where we started at...
The downside of this policy is that small business such as hairdressers might lose what turns out to be a large chunk of their staff for no good reason. And if the employee does relent and get vaccinated in order to not get fired, it will be under duress and their relationship with their workplace will never be the same.
Or

small businesses might be able to operate much sooner and get back on their feet much more quickly and stay operating with much lower risk of lockdowns smashing their business - again

and again

And those staff who "relent" (how very bloody gracious of them) might have enough nous to recognise that the employer is merely following the law of the land

There's a reasonable chance they may not though - I grant you. Those employees who need to 'relent" to get vaccinated will probably already have strong opinions about who is running their lives and who is to blame

very strong
There is a lot of bigotry floating around about how people imagine vaccine hesitant people think.
Go on then enlighten us as to how stupid people think?
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 38460
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by guy smiley »

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19- ... 44HP6FXR4/
Police have condemned a planned hīkoi (march) from Rotorua to Northland which is believed to be making its way towards Auckland this evening.

It's understood a group have already left Rotorua and are making their way towards Auckland's southern boundary where police have an increased presence waiting for them.

"We are strongly advising those who intend to take part in this that any travel across the Auckland boundary that is not specifically permitted by the health order requires an exemption," police said in a statement.

The self-proclaimed Sovereign Hīkoi of Truth (SHOT) movement was formed to "bring to light the truth".

In a statement released on Monday, SHOT said the hīkoi is to be a "starting point".

"This hīkoi is to be a starting point and a declaration that we choose to assert our rights and to herald a new way of being, we do not have to live under authoritarian government law, we maintain what has already been gifted to us under divine natural law to live as free people on the land."

Earlier today, Tai Tokerau Border Control founder Hone Harawira described the hīkoi as ''a scam'' organised by Pakehā anti-vaxxers.

''There is no invitation from Waitangi Marae, no invitation from the Waitangi Treaty Grounds, no invitation from Ngāti Kawa or Ngāti Rahiri, and no invitation from Ngāpuhi,'' the former Tai Tokerau MP said.

Police have said those who are found to be deliberately breaching alert level restrictions can expect to face enforcement action.

"Anyone found to have unlawfully crossed the Auckland boundary may also face difficulties in returning to their place of residence given the restrictions in place."

It's understood the group left Rotorua about 6pm and are hoping to be at Te Tii o Waitangi for a powhiri at midday tomorrow.

Ngāti Whātua leader Dame Naida Glavish said the iwi was not against the hīkoi, only the timing of it.

"There is enough pressure on what Ngāti Whātua are doing at the checkpoints. This hīkoi is unhelpful, supported by people who are anti-vaccination. Have your hoo-ha when this is done and dusted, right now the hoo-ha is hōhā,'' she said.

In a post online, organisers say: "All documents to ensure the safe passage of all will be at hand.

"Through the security of He Wakaputanga and the use of common law, this will be the form of security to move through the land based on tikanga [cultural traditions].

"All who are wanting to move through safely to the north need to join in on this hikoi with protection in numbers. The time has been chosen to ensure the least amount of disruption for the day lives of Aucklanders. However, we would like as many Aucklanders to join in on the hikoi as well."

Police said the boundaries are in place to help stop the spread of Covid-19, given the increased risk the Delta variant poses to New Zealand's communities.


It's understood SHOT consists of 12,000 "like-hearted souls", who intend to gather "in the name of freedom" in Waitangi, a locality in Northland, on Wednesday, October 27.

Police said they are working with its iwi partners in Tāmaki Makaurau and Northland on the matter.

As part of their planning against the hīkoi, police are advising members of the public not involved who may be undertaking permitted travel across the Auckland boundary to delay their travel if possible.

"There are likely to be road closures put in place in the event that those involved in this hīkoi attempt to unlawfully cross the Auckland boundary," police said.
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 20190
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by Ted. »

Ted. wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:06 am
deadduck wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 7:15 am Unvaccinated people and vaccinated people three months post-vaccine (about half of NZers right now and eventually the vast majority of people) have an indistinguishable risk of passing on the virus. That is the latest science.

An unvaccinated gym worker who gets covid and goes to work where everyone in there is vaccinated because they have entered using a vaccine passport, is not putting anyone at significant risk. Also, any one of those vaccinated gym goers could have an asymptomatic case of covid. In that case, the unvaccinated gym worker is the one most at risk. If the prevalence in NZ rises, this scenario will not be uncommon. If the prevalence does not rise, the chances of there being an unvaccinated gym worker with covid is also very small. This is why this new mandate is quite useless.


The best protection people can do to look after themselves is to get vaccinated. The risk of a breakthrough infection for a double-vaccinated person is about 0.2%. And if you're unfortunate enough to get it, you've got about 1 in 100,000 chance of being hospitalised.

Vaccinated people need not get worked up about being put at risk of catching covid-19 by unvaccinated people. You are at risk, regardless. But it's a very small risk, so chill out.

If our neighbours and family want to make poor choices and not get vaccinated, so be it.
Do you have a link to the science you mention in your first paragraph, DD?
DD, is that an unreasonable request?
Sonny Blount
Posts: 4950
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by Sonny Blount »

RuggaBugga wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:33 am
Sonny Blount wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:28 am
AD345 wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:52 am

Im worried about them getting injured or ill and have serious complications (or worse) due to an overwhelmed health system clogged with COVID patients. Patients who could easily avoid going to hospital by getting vaccinated.

There is no need to change a lifestyle, undergo any surgical procedures or do anything beyond getting a vaccine shot. It is not an unreasonable requirement to reduce societal risk in the short to medium term

That is an unserious and irresponsible response.

Covid is a serious disease, and co-morbidities massively increase the danger.

Manage your diet, get as much exercise, and as much sunlight as you can to have the healthiest achievable weight and vitamin D levels for when you are inevitably exposed to Covid.

Everybody has 18 months to work on it.
Ok Joe Rogan. Or you could just shut the fudge up and get vaccinated.

Gotta love the "but fat people" stupid plum :roll:
Its not either or, it's all of the above.

It's not 'There is no need to change a lifestyle', it's 'theres never been a better time to focus on improving your risk factors'.
User avatar
UncleFB
Posts: 15325
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by UncleFB »

Brabus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:31 am
UncleFB wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:59 am
Brabus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:32 am
UncleFB wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:22 am
Brabus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 2:56 am
My point solely resides in the fact that you brought politics into your post prior to any argument you made.
You seem to moving the goalposts a bit. Who are the opposition I'm labelling? That should be a simple answer yet you haven't answered it now over multiple posts.
I'm not moving goal posts at all you positioned your post with first framing the opposing view. Knowingly or not this is a tactic to discredit opposition prior to debate, it is a dog whistle.
Ok, so let's see if I can make sense of what you're saying because it's not obvious.

Let's start with the "opposition" which you've again neglected answer who exactly they are. So I'm assuming they are people who think that having a fully vaxxed rule will 'turn horribly wrong'. How did I label them? What did I label them?
My gripe is purely with how you positioned your argument. I have done nothing but point this out.
FFS dude, you honestly have made a mountain out of a molehill, and I assume that's why you're reluctant to point out who you think the opposition you claim I'm labelling are or what I labelled them.
Sonny Blount
Posts: 4950
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by Sonny Blount »

RuggaBugga wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:38 am
Sonny Blount wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:20 am
AD345 wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:08 am

There's a reasonable chance they may not though - I grant you. Those employees who need to 'relent" to get vaccinated will probably already have strong opinions about who is running their lives and who is to blame

very strong
There is a lot of bigotry floating around about how people imagine vaccine hesitant people think.
Go on then enlighten us as to how stupid people think?
You're all bloody quacks.
User avatar
Grandpa
Posts: 2824
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Yorkshire

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by Grandpa »

UncleFB wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 11:20 am
Brabus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:31 am
UncleFB wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:59 am
Brabus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:32 am
UncleFB wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:22 am
You seem to moving the goalposts a bit. Who are the opposition I'm labelling? That should be a simple answer yet you haven't answered it now over multiple posts.
I'm not moving goal posts at all you positioned your post with first framing the opposing view. Knowingly or not this is a tactic to discredit opposition prior to debate, it is a dog whistle.
Ok, so let's see if I can make sense of what you're saying because it's not obvious.

Let's start with the "opposition" which you've again neglected answer who exactly they are. So I'm assuming they are people who think that having a fully vaxxed rule will 'turn horribly wrong'. How did I label them? What did I label them?
My gripe is purely with how you positioned your argument. I have done nothing but point this out.
FFS dude, you honestly have made a mountain out of a molehill, and I assume that's why you're reluctant to point out who you think the opposition you claim I'm labelling are or what I labelled them.
I think Brabus misunderstood your post... he took it that you were pre-labelling them for political reasons.. missing the idea that you were actually labelling them to highlight that no matter what side of the political divide govts are on... they behave the same way around this...
User avatar
UncleFB
Posts: 15325
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by UncleFB »

Grandpa wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 11:30 am
UncleFB wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 11:20 am
Brabus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:31 am
UncleFB wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:59 am
Brabus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:32 am
I'm not moving goal posts at all you positioned your post with first framing the opposing view. Knowingly or not this is a tactic to discredit opposition prior to debate, it is a dog whistle.
Ok, so let's see if I can make sense of what you're saying because it's not obvious.

Let's start with the "opposition" which you've again neglected answer who exactly they are. So I'm assuming they are people who think that having a fully vaxxed rule will 'turn horribly wrong'. How did I label them? What did I label them?
My gripe is purely with how you positioned your argument. I have done nothing but point this out.
FFS dude, you honestly have made a mountain out of a molehill, and I assume that's why you're reluctant to point out who you think the opposition you claim I'm labelling are or what I labelled them.
I think Brabus misunderstood your post... he took it that you were pre-labelling them for political reasons.. missing the idea that you were actually labelling them to highlight that no matter what side of the political divide govts are on... they behave the same way around this...
I thought that originally too, but then I explained it in a later post and he's kept going down this "opposition labelling line" line, so I've been asking him to explain because I'm confused.
User avatar
Grandpa
Posts: 2824
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Yorkshire

Re: New Zealand...fvcked

Post by Grandpa »

UncleFB wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 11:33 am
Grandpa wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 11:30 am
UncleFB wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 11:20 am
Brabus wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:31 am
UncleFB wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:59 am
Ok, so let's see if I can make sense of what you're saying because it's not obvious.

Let's start with the "opposition" which you've again neglected answer who exactly they are. So I'm assuming they are people who think that having a fully vaxxed rule will 'turn horribly wrong'. How did I label them? What did I label them?
My gripe is purely with how you positioned your argument. I have done nothing but point this out.
FFS dude, you honestly have made a mountain out of a molehill, and I assume that's why you're reluctant to point out who you think the opposition you claim I'm labelling are or what I labelled them.
I think Brabus misunderstood your post... he took it that you were pre-labelling them for political reasons.. missing the idea that you were actually labelling them to highlight that no matter what side of the political divide govts are on... they behave the same way around this...
I thought that originally too, but then I explained it in a later post and he's kept going down this "opposition labelling line" line, so I've been asking him to explain because I'm confused.
I don't think he understood even after you explained it...

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here.. if he did understand and continued with his argument then he is irrational...
Post Reply