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

[intern]

You are generalising a lot here.

Some manufacturing and supply companies in NZ are some of the only in the world that are better off now than before Covid-19 (go look at share prices).

 

I've seen very negative (basically only negative) comments from you about NZ lately, as if it bit you in the as.

 

Like Wayne said, I'd rather be here than anywhere else in the world right now.

 

Generalising a lot, eh, of course, but then, so are you and that's quite OK.

You're dreaming if you think we're going to walk away unscathed or somehow better off for the massive overreaction to a disease 99.8 percent of us will recover from. Sure, some industries may see a short term boost as their products and services are in demand - but an economy is an immensely complex thing; we'll have a reduced tax take, a dramatically increased number of people on benefits, and massively reduced demand for especially luxury goods. These are generalisations but I think you'll find the facts will show we are going into a depression for the first time in modern history. Depressions aren't fun and our very prosperity has left us ill prepared to cope with one.

Time will pass and we will see what happens.

That said, I am very happy I am indeed in NZ rather than anywhere else. Doesn't mean I'm happy about what's been done to us all, particularly as it has been done illegally, and especially since I believe there is ample evidence to show that the effects of the action taken will be and are catastrophic. I mean, yay us, we're not stuck in South Africa, but that's cold comfort for the coming pain and does nothing to lessen the woe for our families etc back in the old country.

2008 wasn't that long ago and this is far, far worse...

[Monark]

SA is coping just fine ????????

[patham]

You are generalising a lot here.

Some manufacturing and supply companies in NZ are some of the only in the world that are better off now than before Covid-19 (go look at share prices).

 

I've seen very negative (basically only negative) comments from you about NZ lately, as if it bit you in the as.

 

Like Wayne said, I'd rather be here than anywhere else in the world right now.

 

 

I don't want to nitpick what is your perfectly valid opinion, but using a share price as a proxy for the prognosis of a company, industry or economy is not appropriate.

 

It assumes the market is rational and all-knowing, and I don't think anyone can claim to have those skills in these times. It discounts aspects such as prescribed assets for pension type funds who have little choice in what to invest, and given interest rates are pretty low in this corner of the world, holding cash provides little return. In the hyper-inflation days in Zim, the stock exchange there had awesome returns in paper, if only because there was nothing else to buy. 

 

Having said that, looking at how the simple indices have reacted over the last few months, the US and NZ markets have not had such a high % fall from peak as compared to Aus.

[patches]

hayleyearth is now famous, saw her on the news lastnight

[intern]

SA is coping just fine

Good to hear!

[Wayne Potgieter]

hayleyearth is now famous, saw her on the news lastnight

For real?

 

Tell us more!

[patches]

For real?

 

Tell us more!

 

Yup!

 

It was for a segment on mothers day and how celebrations are different this year. They had a bunch of 3-10 second clips interviewing moms all over the show. hayleyearth and her little one featured in one of the clips.

 

TVNZ 1, 6pm news last night. About 10min in. Listen for the Saffer accent

Edited May 10, 2020 by patches

[arabsandals]

Generalising a lot, eh, of course, but then, so are you and that's quite OK.

...

2008 wasn't that long ago and this is far, far worse...

If everyone carried on as if nothing was happening we'd be seeing tens of millions of deaths (if not more) and huge numbers of people with serious health complications; some permanent, some temporary. It's a very simple numbers game.The US alone has had almost 80000 deaths. There are currently 282000 deaths worldwide, in the space of about two or three months! And most countries have had a lockdown in place. I really cannot understand your attitude, it's really baffling.

 

You keep on banging on about some mythical 2% mortality rate. To put that into context, that's close to the mortality rate of WWII relative to the 1940 global population (approx 3%)... The reality is that nobody knows. Even if you assume a really low mortality rate of like .1% (assuming figures have been skewed and there're way more infected people than are being tested etc.), using the current global population, that's still 7.8 million people. If you just use the 2% figure that's 156 MILLION people dead!  If you don't think that is the basis for caution, then there's really no point discussing it with you.

 

Also, if you think the economic damage of taking precautions is bad, it pales in comparison to what would happen if the world had just let COVID-19 run its course. Assuming that being infected confers lasting protection, then it would probably be over in a year or two, but the huge numbers of deaths and impacts on health and social systems would last for generations.

Edited May 11, 2020 by arabsandals

[intern]

Check your maths Arabsandals. 0.2%, or lower, which antibody testing is starting to show. The reality is that everyone dies including from flu, at some stage. All our 20 or so casualties in NZ have been the aged and infirm. Nobody is suggesting throwing them into the Bring Out Your Dead cart; put precautions in for them. But now we'll have a big ol wave of suicides etc because we killed the economy instead.

This flu season will see around 800 New Zealanders die from the flu. More than the COVID, I think we'll have to agree, if we can settle the mathematical challenges.

Anyway -alea iacta est, eh. We have what we have.

[intern]

Also, bear in mind, 60 million or so of us shuffle off the mortal coil every year. Be interesting to see if that's gonna spike thanks to WuFlu.

[intern]

Oh hey Arabsandals, I thought you'd enjoy this cartoon re: my intransigent attitude ;-)

 

 

[RossW]

Check your maths Arabsandals. 0.2%, or lower, which antibody testing is starting to show. The reality is that everyone dies including from flu, at some stage. All our 20 or so casualties in NZ have been the aged and infirm. Nobody is suggesting throwing them into the Bring Out Your Dead cart; put precautions in for them. But now we'll have a big ol wave of suicides etc because we killed the economy instead.

This flu season will see around 800 New Zealanders die from the flu. More than the COVID, I think we'll have to agree, if we can settle the mathematical challenges.

Anyway -alea iacta est, eh. We have what we have.

I can't find where the CFR is 0.2%.

Australia is ~1.5% while Italy is 14%. At this point the global CFR may well work out to be low, around the 0.2% but until tests start showing that, it's reaching to claim it as the case. With influenza having been studied and tested over a long period, we know the probable CFR of 0.1%. 

If only we had the ability to run political policies in parallel universes and then jump back to the start to take the best path.

[patham]

Also, bear in mind, 60 million or so of us shuffle off the mortal coil every year. Be interesting to see if that's gonna spike thanks to WuFlu.

 

All I know for sure is that actuaries are going to be in great demand trying to work out how insurance premiums need to change.

 

Most science only happens in hindsight, once data is known and can be analysed. Science on the fly is never going to be that reliable, but it is still better than random guessing on the fly (typical Trump style).

 

And as I have mentioned before on this thread, there are going to be plenty of academic papers to be written in this field in the long term, and looking at actuarial death rates over a statistically meaningful time period will be one of them.   

[patham]

 

If only we had the ability to run political policies in parallel universes and then jump back to the start to take the best path.

 

 

Definitely.

 

In some ways (from a cold-hearted scientific basis) it is good there are a few countries that have not gone full lockdown mode, as maybe years down the line that provides real data from different scenarios that can then be compared & evaluated for when the next big new one hits.

 

Assuming this one does not mutate into the next new big one on Friday the 13th !

[patches]

There's a joke that says no matter the situation or topic of conversation, one can always chime in with "what it really comes down to is balance". That simple line is so generic and applicable in nearly every situation.

 

COVID-19 strategies are no exception.

I think the lockdown was good from the point that it made us take stock of our healthcare system and practices. Assess where we may be constrained during a pandemic scenario, and identify ways in which we can mitigate that risk.

 

I think for the general public the lockdown was good in that it showed the people that the government takes the threat seriously, and will take action.

 

More importantly I think it was good for the public because it served as a reset for the way we conduct our day-to-day lives. Putting hygiene practices and physical distancing in the forefront of our minds, giving us time to turn those practices into habits and ultimately equipping us for a life outside our bubbles. That mental reset was I think the single most beneficial aspect of the lockdown.

 

But as the saying goes... it's about balance.

 

We have see-sawed too far to one side. Ultimately economic and financial crisis will have a significant impact on public health and suicide rates. I'd wager that domestic violence rates in NZ will go up too (they already have). The long term effects on the economy, people's personal finances and lives, and society as a whole, will far outweigh what may have been with a moderate calculated approach.

An approach such as, protecting the vulnerable. Taking time to evaluate ones resources, reset mindsets and develop good habits. Then letting people carry on with life, now equipped with the knowledge that will help them avoid catching and spreading the virus. (Remember almost no-one wants to catch the virus).

 

Yes, there are still some stupid people out there whose cavalier approach could easily end up harming themselves, or worse... others. But how is that different from drink driving? The majority know it's wrong. The majority don't do it. Alcohol is still freely available. There are laws in place to hold violators accountable.

 

So yeah, do I think we needed a lockdown. I would say yes! Did we need 6-7 weeks of it... I would say no.

 

The coach's quest for the perfect score has come at great sacrifice for the team. One doesn't need a perfect score to win.

....it's all about balance 

Edited May 11, 2020 by patches

[Wayne Potgieter]

There's a joke that says no matter the situation or topic of conversation, one can always chime in with "what it really comes down to is balance". That simple line is so generic and applicable in nearly every situation.

 

COVID-19 strategies are no exception.

 

I think the lockdown was good from the point that it made us take stock of our healthcare system and practices. Assess where we may be constrained during a pandemic scenario, and identify ways in which we can mitigate that risk.

 

I think for the general public the lockdown was good in that it showed the people that the government takes the threat seriously, and will take action.

 

More importantly I think it was good for the public because it served as a reset for the way we conduct our day-to-day lives. Putting hygiene practices and physical distancing in the forefront of our minds, giving us time to turn those practices into habits and ultimately equipping us for a life outside our bubbles. That mental reset was I think the single most beneficial aspect of the lockdown.

 

But as the saying goes... it's about balance.

 

We have see-sawed too far to one side. Ultimately economic and financial crisis will have a significant impact on public health and suicide rates. I'd wager that domestic violence rates in NZ will go up too (they already have). The long term effects on the economy, people's personal finances and lives, and society as a whole, will far outweigh what may have been with a moderate calculated approach.

 

An approach such as, protecting the vulnerable. Taking time to evaluate ones resources, reset mindsets and develop good habits. Then letting people carry on with life, now equipped with the knowledge that will help them avoid catching and spreading the virus. (Remember almost no-one wants to catch the virus).

 

Yes, there are still some stupid people out there who's cavalier approach could easily end up harming themselves, or worse... others), but how is that different from drink driving? The majority know it's wrong. The majority don't do it. Alcohol is still freely available. There are laws in place to hold violators accountable.

 

So yeah, do I think we needed a lockdown. I would say yes! Did we need 6-7 weeks of it... I would say no.

 

The coach's quest for the perfect score has come at great sacrifice for the team. One doesn't need a perfect score to win.

 

....it's all about balance 

Well said Dude.

 

Also, hindsight is 20/20. 

 

Easy for me to sit back at the end of this and argue what was right and wrong, but much harder to make those calls in the beginning.

 

Anyway, back to the original point of this thread...where are you going on holiday when this is all stable?