New Zealand - The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.

[patches]

Don't bring logic onto my studio ! (obscure saffa reference).

 

Its like over here in Queensland. You can only exercise with one other person. However, you can have two people visit your house. Hence, if your two visitors parked down the road, you could not walk back to the car with them, lest be accused of breaking the exercise rule.

 

Say whaaaat?

 

[intern]

Here is Ian Harrison's examination of the Treasury modelling.

http://www.tailrisk.co.nz/documents/Corona.pdf

Smart folk like Patches and Patham and Hayley and WP are likely to recognise, too, that modeling is just that: it is not the real world, it is a model, made by people, and therefore no more than an educated guess. How well educated rests on the soundness of the premises in the model, and it appears the premises in Treasury modelling weren't terrifically sound in the first instance.

Once we've 'eliminated' coronavirus, when do we start adding up the bodies of those who will suicide as their life savings evaporate? When their businesses close? Their livelihoods ripped away from them? Because like night follows day, that is coming.

[patches]

Elimination is a pipe dream and Saint Jacinda has even gone as far now to redefine the word 'elimination' for political purposes, so elimination no longer means what you thought it did but now has a classic Orwellian twist on it. How we gonna eliminate a virus? One in which up to 80 percent of carriers are asymptomatic and probably won't ever be tested (but will infect others).

The wave of devastation never was coming in the first place. Rean Ian Harrison's expose of the modeling used by treasury. We're committing economic suicide and sleepwalking into a totalitarian society where people are encouraged to nark on their neighbours for - get this- exercising their fundamental freedoms.

While the health minister is absent mountain biking and the cops are the only ones with a cafe open.

Mark my words, the cure is going to well outweigh a disease that upwards of 99 percent of us will recover from should we get it.

 

Just yesterday I was saying to a colleague that the number of suicides resulting from failed businesses, insurmountable debt, bankruptcy and other financial stresses will surpass the number of deaths caused by the disease.

 

And as callous as putting values on life may sound, those suicides will likely be people 25 - 45, possibly with young children, not 80yr+ people in aged care with underlying conditions.

[intern]

I think the effectiveness of the NZ lockdown has caught everyone by surprise.

 

That we are likely to eliminate it rather than 'flatten the curve' has caught everyone by surprise - and probably caused some consternaton and confusion.

 

The ideal is we're all exposed, but at very low viral loads so that most of us live - and then we can face the rest of the world.

 

But now we're like Kiwis and just about all the other NZ other native fauna - at risk of anything coming across the border as we don't have the tools to resist it!

 

They had to pivot to 'elimination' because there was no curve to flatten. See here

https://thebfd.co.nz/2020/04/21/elimination-strategy-a-bullet-to-the-stomach-for-nz/

And remember the piece from an EPIDEMIOLOGIST, someone who studies infectious diseases and not that pink haired princess who is a MICROBIOLOGIST, who dared suggest 'are we squashing a mosquito with a sledgehammer' (and faced massive opprobrium as a result). That was on Stuff a while ago; Siouxsie Wiles subsequently went at him with all kinds of ad hominems.

[patches]

Here is Ian Harrison's examination of the Treasury modelling.

http://www.tailrisk.co.nz/documents/Corona.pdf

Smart folk like Patches and Patham and Hayley and WP are likely to recognise, too, that modeling is just that: it is not the real world, it is a model, made by people, and therefore no more than an educated guess. How well educated rests on the soundness of the premises in the model, and it appears the premises in Treasury modelling weren't terrifically sound in the first instance.

Once we've 'eliminated' coronavirus, when do we start adding up the bodies of those who will suicide as their life savings evaporate? When their businesses close? Their livelihoods ripped away from them? Because like night follows day, that is coming.

 

Yup, you beat me to it.

[intern]

Just yesterday I was saying to a colleague that the number of suicides resulting from failed businesses, insurmountable debt, bankruptcy and other financial stresses will surpass the number of deaths caused by the disease.

 

And as callous as putting values on life may sound, those suicides will likely be people 25 - 45, possibly with young children, not 80yr+ people in aged care with underlying conditions.

 

Lives have value, but not all have the same value. From Harrison's paper:

 

Focus of deaths needs to be supplemented with an adjustment for life years lost Not all deaths have the same social cost. The death of a 90 year old can be sad, but the death of a child or young adult is almost always a tragedy. Burden of disease estimates often adjust for the number of life years lost and this adjustment should be made in assessments of the benefits of intervention options. All of New Zealands nine deaths have been over 70 years old and had underlying health issues. This in line with international experience, which suggests that 85-90 percent of deaths have been in the 70+ age group. The true burden of the epidemic can be calculated by applying an factor of around 0.15 to the number of account for life years lost. 500 deaths becomes, 75 on an adjusted basis, and can be compared with the 350 lives lost on the roads each year.

[Wayne Potgieter]

Today I learned a new word.

 

opprobrium - harsh criticism or censure.

"the critical opprobrium generated by his films"

[intern]

Just yesterday I was saying to a colleague that the number of suicides resulting from failed businesses, insurmountable debt, bankruptcy and other financial stresses will surpass the number of deaths caused by the disease.

 

And as callous as putting values on life may sound, those suicides will likely be people 25 - 45, possibly with young children, not 80yr+ people in aged care with underlying conditions.

 

Tell you what, those who do not own a home are in a fortunate position right now, because the coming wave of negative equity is going to hurt big time. There's nothing quite like being trapped in your own home both physically and financially. It could be 10 percent, it could be 20, it could be more.

We're all going to find out the hard way just exactly what a stuffed economy really means - and believe me, an economy is directly linked to health and wellness. It isn't something abstract, it feeds clothes and houses us.

[patches]

Tell you what, those who do not own a home are in a fortunate position right now, because the coming wave of negative equity is going to hurt big time. There's nothing quite like being trapped in your own home both physically and financially. It could be 10 percent, it could be 20, it could be more.

We're all going to find out the hard way just exactly what a stuffed economy really means - and believe me, an economy is directly linked to health and wellness. It isn't something abstract, it feeds clothes and houses us.

 

Yup! I hear you on that. I jumped into the housing market just under 1yr ago.     

 

Inflated Auckland prices, premium paid. The Saffer in me cringed knowing what that same money would get in JHB or CT. But I have tried to beat conversion-comparisons out of me, so I went ahead.

 

Negative equity on my little home will indeed hurt big time.

 

Then on the other end of the stick there are those (often termed as "millennials") who are hoping on a housing market crash. They claim that the boomers have had their time and messed up the market so that they can't afford to buy houses.

 

Yes, some of that may be true, but a housing market crash won't crush the boomer who bought a house for pennies-on-the-dollar back in the 80's, has probably paid their house off, and has made a killing in capital gains. It'll sting but it won't devastate them.

 

A housing market crash will devastate people like me. Mid-thirties (so technically a "millennial"), who has worked my butt off to buy my first house in one of the most over-inflated markets around.

 

Luckily my long term plan is to ditch Dorkland, sell the house here and buy something just-as-nice but half the price, down in a little South Island town.

 

 

Edited April 20, 2020 by patches

[intern]

https://asianinvasion2019.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-cracks-in-coronavirus-coalition.html

 

Read this for amusement, if nothing else. Author is a professional director and a not so quiescent woman.

[intern]

Yup! I hear you on that. I jumped into the housing market just under 1yr ago.     

 

Inflated Auckland prices, premium paid. The Saffer in me cringed knowing what that same money would get in JHB or CT. But I have tried to beat conversion-comparisons out of me, so I went ahead.

 

Negative equity on my little home will indeed hurt big time.

 

Then on the other end of the stick there are those (often termed as "millennials") who are hoping on a housing market crash. They claim that the boomers have had their time and messed up the market so that they can't afford to buy houses.

 

Yes, some of that may be true, but a housing market crash won't crush the boomer who bought a house for pennies-on-the-dollar back in the 80's and has probably paid their house off, and has made a killing in capital gains. It'll sting but it won't devastate them.

 

A housing market crash will devastate people like me. Mid-thirties (so technically a "millennial"), who has worked my butt off to afford buy my first house in one of the most over-inflated markets around.

 

Luckily my long term plan is to ditch Dorkland, sell the house here and buy something just-as-nice but half the price, down in a little South Island town.

 

 

 

These millennials thinking a price crash will get them into a house are horribly deluded. When you're staring down the barrel of 26 percent unemployment, economic depression and prices going down, well, there are structural issues. Including buying in only to see another 10% drop and suddenly you're saddled with your own negative equity rather than having a few tens of grand in the bank...

[intern]

Highly relevant comment from National MP Simon O'Connor:

 

We also have calls for people to not be political. This is just an excuse to silence people. In these times where government has enormous power, people should absolutely be political. People should question and challenge every decision made. We must remember the enormity of decisions that are literally being made by just a few people. Parliament is suspended; people are locked in their homes; police are stopping people doing what used to be the most simplest of activities; businesses are by in large closed; travel is restricted; certain media have been banned; press conferences are highly choreographed with journalists already protesting their inability to ask questions … the list goes on. If there was a time for people to be political, it is now. So beware anyone saying ‘don’t be political’. What they are saying is that they do not want any critique of their actions.

[patham]

https://asianinvasion2019.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-cracks-in-coronavirus-coalition.html

 

Read this for amusement, if nothing else. Author is a professional director and a not so quiescent woman.

 

Unfortunately, in the realm of twitter judging and public opinion, speaking out against the consensus herd can be damaging. This economist (story below) brought up the concept of the "cost of a statistical life", only to be mobbed. Luckily, the same did not happen to me when I brought that up a few weeks back on the Hub. I don't think she even made the point that it was the only way to look at things, but it is just a tool to help provide some insight.

 

 

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/current-affairs/coronavirus-australia-economist-gigi-foster-shares-blunt-lockdown-view-on-qa/news-story/e8fafd0e4c268c45cbb5133b767f0863

[intern]

Unfortunately, in the realm of twitter judging and public opinion, speaking out against the consensus herd can be damaging. This economist (story below) brought up the concept of the "cost of a statistical life", only to be mobbed. Luckily, the same did not happen to me when I brought that up a few weeks back on the Hub. I don't think she even made the point that it was the only way to look at things, but it is just a tool to help provide some insight.

 

 

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/current-affairs/coronavirus-australia-economist-gigi-foster-shares-blunt-lockdown-view-on-qa/news-story/e8fafd0e4c268c45cbb5133b767f0863

 

Yep, correct. Having a different opinion is more than frowned upon and if you provide evidence for your views, the evidence tends to be dismissed out of hand because it doesn't fit the narrative.

[davetapson]

because there was no curve to flatten.

 

Yeah, that's the sum of it.

 

But then again, hindsight is 20/20.

Edited April 21, 2020 by davetapson

[intern]

Here's some sober reading for us new New Zealanders:

 

Is virus elimination the worst policy decision ever?

New Zealand is embarked on a world-leading effort to “totally eradicate the virus”, while other countries have settled for containment or suppression or “flattening the curve”.

It is sobering that no other country has yet chosen to follow our lead. While the Prime Minister’s brave endeavour has attracted much international admiration, it may well prove to be the worst policy decision made by any Government in our history.

Eradication requires mind-boggling expenditure of both Government and private sector funds. It will precipitate a devastating economic recession and dole queues not seen since the Great Depression. It requires our borders to remain closed to the world indefinitely and thereby mandates the decimation of our tourism industry.

On a net basis, eradication will cost the lives of many New Zealanders:

 “When economies contract, life expectancy declines, due to, among other things, a rise in poverty, violent crime and suicide. During the global financial crisis of 2007– 09, the suicide rate in the United States increased by 4.8% according to the Center for Disease Control and in Europe by 6.5% according to the World Health Organisation. Philip Thomas, professor of risk management at Bristol University, has calculated that if the UK’s GDP falls by more than 6.4% per person as a result of the lockdown, more years of life will be lost than saved, using [the Imperial College] estimates.”

This quote is from the UK, where Covid deaths are running at 237 per million – a world away from Southern Hemisphere countries where average deaths to date are less than 5 per million. In the Eastern Hemisphere (New Zealand, Australia, Indonesia, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan) the average is only 2 per million. 

What is a QALY?

Most Government expenditure is directed to enlarging the quantity or quality of its citizens’ lives.

Although demand for healthcare may be almost infinite, no Government can spend all its resources in one sector. There are also strong and reasonable demands for welfare, policing, education, defence, housing, transport, justice, etc.

So how can all the necessary trade-offs be planned and allocated on a rational basis, rather than by impulse or by powerful people choosing ‘favourites’?

When a choice must be made between spending marginal dollars on either  (say) a life-saving traffic barrier or an additional Pharmac medicine, that decision-making process must be both objective and consistent. Similar choices arise in allocating limited healthcare funding as between physical health and mental health.  

Throughout most of the world, the solution to these dilemmas is to construct an artifice called a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and to assign it a dollar value. This orthodox framework has guided the allocations in Government Budgets for many years.

For New Zealand, the best available QALY proxy is one year’s official estimate of national disposable income per capita – which was $52,500 for the 2019 calendar year. So, if a pending coronavirus epidemic would cost us (say) 100,000 QALYs, it would be defensible for the Government to spend up to $5.25 billion to stop that from happening.

If a Government was not prepared to spend that much on quarantines, it could be criticised for undervaluing human life. And if it spent more than that figure it would be just as bad – because we would be losing even more lives (ie quality-adjusted lives) in other areas than were being saved by the universal quarantine (Lockdown).

Unlimited spend

But has our Government been observing these important disciplines in the Corvid epidemic? Has its unprecedented splurge been proportionate or reckless?  Is it pursuing an expensive cure that will prove worse than the disease?

These are crucial questions that are being asked throughout the developed world. They are especially crucial in this country where the Government has debilitated the economy more than in any other country in the world. But they have not so far occupied much of the attention of the legacy media (or the Epidemic Response Committee) in New Zealand. 

It has been left to a think tank, the New Zealand Initiative, to enquire whether the Lockdown has been a provable over-reaction. Veteran economist Bryce Wilkinson inputs Covid morbidity and mortality data to the 2017 spreadsheet model constructed by five of New Zealand’s leading epidemiologists. His research note is brief and well worth reading in full.

As might be expected, the model’s assumptions have many caveats – and Dr Wilkinson clearly has reservations about the model itself. His purpose is “to begin an exploration of trade-offs, not to provide an authoritative valuation”. The key finding from his modelling:

“spending 6.1% of annual GDP might be justified if it saved the 33,600 Covid-19 deaths epidemiologists advised the Ministry of Health could result were the pandemic left “substantially uncontrolled.” Under the lower projection of 12,600 deaths, spending more than 3.7% of annual GDP could be excessive, even if success was assured. “

So, even if the Government was quite sure it could prevent as many as 12,600 deaths from an uncontrolled epidemic, it would not be able to justify spending $11.47 billion (3.7% of $310 billion) to achieve that.

This finding is a bit of a shock. The Government’s wage subsidy alone might exceed $12 billion  and that is just one of a string of expensive initiatives that have been announced. And there are more to come. Clearly, the Government has already way overspent on its efforts to save 12,600 lives.

Impressing the world

In March, the Minister of Health was advised by the model’s authors that 6 modelled scenarios showed an uncontrolled Covid could claim between 7 and 14,400 lives.

The Government did not recognise that the most vulnerable lives (over 70s) have few QALYs left. It did not check the absurd assumptions behind the figures. It apparently preferred the worst case scenario over the most likely scenario – which was close to the 12,600 lives considered by Dr Wilkinson.

Whether the modelling was right or wrong, that formal advice provided Ministers with a clear benchmark of about $12 millionas the upper bound of the range of spending that could be justified. But then the Cabinet took a political decision to zoom right through that benchmark and spend far more.  Suddenly, money was no object. Nor was the Bill of Rights.

How did this happen? If the level and duration of coerced restrictions was not based on a careful balancing of QALYs, then what was its basis? Was it perhaps to extend the crisis out towards the September election?  We simply don’t know.

There was clearly a certain glamour in New Zealand “going where no country had gone before” and being the very first country to totally eliminate a coronavirus. The Prime Minister is well skilled in the politics of drama and the lure of global affirmation.

Did the recurring opportunity for world leadership have a certain ring to it?  Was it the draw of political theatre and the opportunity to stride the world stage?  Perhaps the Prime Minister glimpsed “her nuclear-free moment” yet again?