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

[patham]

The science is based on  a painstaking century long analysis of another great pandemic. Also epidemiology is literally the study of the spread of disease. Everything they're saying and suggesting has been tried and tested before. Scientists have been saying we're going to have a pandemic for decades. Come ON. You can do better. Apply some critical thinking.

 

If you extrapolate what I think the gist of your argument, it is that all diseases and hence epidemics  / pandemics are equal in nature, and thus all the science is known in advance. The principles might be, but not all the details.

 

My original point is that for a new virus, not all of that is known. In the early days in Wuhan no-one even knew how this was transmitted, so how can you model that what you don't know? By assumptions. Over time, as you get a clearer picture and the data condenses, you can start to refine the science, but it needs to represent the evidence at hand, not that of 1918.

 

And the reality is, sometimes it is not what scientists know, its what governments and society prioritise that makes the difference. And it seems like only Taiwan and some of the other Asian countries had kept in mind the priority of an epidemic and were well prepared to deal with it. For the rest of the world it was way down the list of things to worry about. 

[Slowbee]

How much is a big Mac in NZ ?

 

Using the Big Mac as a guide for standard of living.

[Wayne Potgieter]

How much is a big Mac in NZ ?

 

Using the Big Mac as a guide for standard of living.

I am embarrassed to admit I actually don’t know. [emoji4]

[Slowbee]

I am embarrassed to admit I actually don’t know. [emoji4]

In your case a rephrase is required ...

 

who much is a vegetarian burger from MacDonalds ?

[DawieO]

How much is a big Mac in NZ ?

 

Using the Big Mac as a guide for standard of living.

I’m told $8NZ gets you a Big Mac.

[hayleyearth]

So what does everyone have planned for the first weekend of Level 2?

 

On my end it's tradie time again. Dropping out ceilings. Installing new lighting and insulation.

 

Then I'm looking forward to an actual visit to Bunnings. None of this click n' collect nonsense! How am I supposed to make impulse purchases when I cant aimlessly wander the aisles. I'm a simple man.

 

Some small social events on the cards. Probably a braai with some friends that live in Long Bay (aka Whangarei South).

 

But yeah, not rushing to go out to restaurants, cafes, bars or malls.

 

How about you good folk?

Our little one just wants to go to the "parkie". Shame, she's found it hard to understand why she coudn't go swing, slide or climb. She loooooves the worm type slides, ones I would never have gone down at her age.

[arabsandals]

The trouble, Arabsandals, 

I'm starting to think you're just baiting all of us for the lulz...

[arabsandals]

If you extrapolate what I think the gist of your argument, it is that all diseases and hence epidemics  / pandemics are equal in nature, and thus all the science is known in advance. The principles might be, but not all the details.

 

My original point is that for a new virus, not all of that is known. In the early days in Wuhan no-one even knew how this was transmitted, so how can you model that what you don't know? By assumptions. Over time, as you get a clearer picture and the data condenses, you can start to refine the science, but it needs to represent the evidence at hand, not that of 1918.

 

And the reality is, sometimes it is not what scientists know, its what governments and society prioritise that makes the difference. And it seems like only Taiwan and some of the other Asian countries had kept in mind the priority of an epidemic and were well prepared to deal with it. For the rest of the world it was way down the list of things to worry about. 

No. That's not what I was getting at. We have robust models of infectious disease spread which rely on statistical methods. We can also make predictions about both the number of people a given disease will kill and also how much capacity health systems have. If you combine all of that with guesstimates about the number of people that are going to require some sot of clinical intervention you can work out whether or not a healthcare system is going to be overwhelmed. By overwhelmed, I mean hospitals so full they can't function and then everyone in there starts to die, not just the people that would have died anyway when they caught the disease. It's literally that simple. That's why pretty much every country is taking drastic measures instead of doing nothing. In other words, from any perspective, economic/social/health it's worse to do nothing. It's not an argument about some technical point about the nature of the disease. It's simple hard mathematical facts, not guesswork or hypotheses. They look at the numbers and then determine a cause of action at the time of measurement. It's the most rational behaviour one can imagine. Not doing so is political

[patham]

No. That's not what I was getting at. We have robust models of infectious disease spread which rely on statistical methods. We can also make predictions about both the number of people a given disease will kill and also how much capacity health systems have. If you combine all of that with guesstimates about the number of people that are going to require some sot of clinical intervention you can work out whether or not a healthcare system is going to be overwhelmed. By overwhelmed, I mean hospitals so full they can't function and then everyone in there starts to die, not just the people that would have died anyway when they caught the disease. It's literally that simple. That's why pretty much every country is taking drastic measures instead of doing nothing. In other words, from any perspective, economic/social/health it's worse to do nothing. It's not an argument about some technical point about the nature of the disease. It's simple hard mathematical facts, not guesswork or hypotheses. They look at the numbers and then determine a cause of action at the time of measurement. It's the most rational behaviour one can imagine. Not doing so is political

 

Well, we have some points in common and some less so. I suggest we just see the humour in this, although it may have done the rounds before:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7_YdqWsWRU  

[intern]

I'm starting to think you're just baiting all of us for the lulz...

 

Ah, you know, just a friendly difference of viewpoint. Nothing to get too excited about  .

 

BTW I got 15 in the Stuff quiz this morning. Told yas I was a kleva.

 

Happy Friday, people.

[arabsandals]

Well, we have some points in common and some less so. I suggest we just see the humour in this, although it may have done the rounds before:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7_YdqWsWRU  

yeah but...

[rad006]

yeah but...

 

I don't want this message to come out wrong....

 

But if from 1994 the Government built on what we had then, and only went upwards, didn't promise free everything but created opportunities for all. Apprenticeships, More Jobs, Easier access to finance, Free Schooling, Free Trade School not Varsity. Upgraded medical teachings to allow as many students that wanted to study it, providing they qualified (Marks Wise or Financially as to not be a burden on the state).

 

Would we be in a totally different position now?

 

In a way I want to think yes, but then reality tells me it doesn't matter what was provided, people would still want to live in remote areas where financially it makes no sense to offer services as the cost out-ways the Pro's. That and the fact that every country has Slum areas.

 

Ideal solutions just don't work in reality, never mind the virtual world, Sim City is proof that no matter how much planning or "Money" you have its impossible to have an always thriving economy. So we can learn from that.

 

On a side note, I was reading an article about now is the time to provide a "Universal Income" whilst the idea sounds great, it could lead to a society of non-providers. But then it got me thinking. Isn't the real solution to have one global currency. As lets be honest, why does production costs have to be different from country to country if the value of human labour is now the same everywhere? Surely that will bring every country into the same play ground and cause all nations to automatically upgrade the lifestyle of their citizens? I mean why the hell should I have to work 20x more to be able to visit the UK? I understand their salaries are lower, but how nice would it be if we were all on the same playing field.

 

If we could get there, there would be a lot less people making tons of money and it would distribute wealth everywhere... Well that's my theory....

 

Let the abuse begin ;-) oh and Happy Friday everyone!!!

[davetapson]

The missus was on a call with a colleague from Queenstown - he said that he reckons 30% of the patients he's come into contact with have lost their jobs - given loss of tourism.

 

That cannot have no effect on that region.

It's when the mortgage holiday comes to an end that things will start to become apparent.

 

Be interesting to see how the govt are going to handle that one.

[Wayne Potgieter]

The missus was on a call with a colleague from Queenstown - he said that he reckons 30% of the patients he's come into contact with have lost their jobs - given loss of tourism.

 

That cannot have no effect on that region.

 

It's when the mortgage holiday comes to an end that things will start to become apparent.

 

Be interesting to see how the govt are going to handle that one.

I reckon that is going to be one of the hardest hit regions.

[arabsandals]

Well, we have some points in common and some less so. I suggest we just see the humour in this, although it may have done the rounds before:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7_YdqWsWRU  

Yeah...nah. I'm not an armchari epidemiologist. I just understand addition, multiplication and basic statistics. Here's a guy who is an actual epidemiologist who crisply outlines why every country in the world reacted the way they did. The CFR in his article is from early on so it's like just over three percent and I think it's now assumed to be around 2, but that doesn't significantly affect things.

http://blog.deonandan.com/wordpress/2020/03/covid19-whats-the-end-game.html?fbclid=IwAR0NElofcQbtAsgv_TPhb6tlB5N7zwncI3zpWiqhVugQShTnbdtE9atf_Uk

[Delgado]

I am embarrassed to admit I actually don’t know. [emoji4]

I'd say proud to admit rather!