Daily review 03/03/2020

31 comments on “Daily review 03/03/2020 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Martin C 1

   3 March 2020 at 5:53 pm

   Shane Jones with a piece.

   [Please put a space between your name and the “C”, thanks]
2. Andre 2

   3 March 2020 at 6:27 pm

   Fivethirtyeight have flipped their frontrunners and now forecast Biden to arrive at the convention with more pledged delegates than Bernie, though still most likely just a weak plurality of almost 1600 of the 1991 pledged delegates needed for a first round majority.

   By far the frontrunner to arrive at the convention with a majority is Nobody, at 65% odds.

   https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
   • Ad 2.1

     3 March 2020 at 7:19 pm

     O shit that's a naaaasty convention.
     • Andre 2.1.1

       3 March 2020 at 7:23 pm

       What Bloomberg does now might be the biggest factor. If he bails and throws his weight behind Biden that might push Biden up into a first round majority.

       Or maybe, just maybe, if that fivethirtyeight scenario comes true, Bernie will be true to his recently stated position that whoever has the most delegates going in to the convention should automatically become the nominee (even without a majority) and graciously concede and enthusiastically endorse Biden.
       • millsy 2.1.1.1

         3 March 2020 at 8:16 pm

         Biden, so far, has only won one primary, don't forget. It's like picking the All Blacks to win the RWC because they beat Namibia in a group match. This might change though this time tomorrow.

         That said, I think Sanders has more than enough leverage to get a cabinet post in a Biden administration in return for his early withdrawal from the race. Housing and Urban Development would be a fitting swangsong to a 40 year political career.
   • mauī 2.2

     3 March 2020 at 8:34 pm

     Sleepy Joe is primed and ready to take america by storm.

     https://twitter.com/LizRNC/status/1234588902721302528
3. joe90 3

   3 March 2020 at 6:27 pm

   Infographic showing how all Singapore's Covid19 cases are related to each other.
   • Andre 3.1

     3 March 2020 at 6:34 pm

     Illustrates well how nebulous the idea of an R0 for a disease really is. The majority of victims don't appear to have infected anyone else, but there's a few superspreaders that go on to infect a large number of others.
     • McFlock 3.1.1

       3 March 2020 at 7:25 pm

       I wonder if there's another number for that?

       Like "R₀=7, R_median=0.35"
       • Andre 3.1.1.1

         3 March 2020 at 7:40 pm

         I'll take a guess actual epidemiologists will get it down to a very fine level of detail for different groups accounting for living arrangements, social structures, frequency of attending large gatherings, access to healthcare and support etc etc.

         Once they have enough data, that is.
         • McFlock 3.1.1.1.1

           3 March 2020 at 7:55 pm

           Provided the relevant population denominators are available for that area.

           I was just thinking from a population intervention perspective that if you had the R0 as well as some description of frequencies of subsequent infection, that might change strategies. If everyone infects 5-9 people for an R0 of 7, generic "wash your damned hands" might be all you can do. If you can isolate or describe the sort of patient who is a "superspreader" (love how news fearmongering increases the common vocabulary lol), then pre-emptive efforts on those groups might be disproportionately effective (e.g. forcing ice cream vendors to ditch their penny-licks).
4. Muttonbird 4

   3 March 2020 at 6:28 pm

   Revolting man. The end can't come soon enough.
5. Muttonbird 5

   3 March 2020 at 6:55 pm

   There's been a few articles recently about the rise of the extreme right wing in Europe. "Could it happen here?" they ask. Is it already here?

   Of course it’s here. March last year proved that extreme right wing violence is in New Zealand.

   Ironic that the right wing government in Australia deports Australian Kiwis on character grounds but I bet all 2000 sent back here in the last 7 years haven't been responsible for the deaths of a tenth of the people one Australian was responsible for this time a year ago.

   I see there is an increased Police and security presence building up in Christchurch ahead of the commemoration because of further right wing threats.

   Why can't we root out and imprison this right-wing white supremacist cancer which pretends to be the last bastion of free speech?
   • Ad 5.1

     3 March 2020 at 7:36 pm

     That's not a good bet.

     Our citizens – though taught violent crime in Au – are the ones who have formed and expanded the gangs that are driving all the New Zealand shootings and killings and bashing we've seen in the last year. And they have been doing it for decades and it is getting worse.

     I'd like to see Minister Nash making actual inroads into shrinking the gangs, just as much as putting one lone gunman into lifelong Supermax.
     • Muttonbird 5.1.1

       3 March 2020 at 7:41 pm

       Of course they are making hay back here. What about when they were at home in Australia?

       Also, their victims here are not innocents like the victims of the Australian right-wing white supremacist mass murderer.

       The common theme is Australia is the source of increased violence in this country…
       • Ad 5.1.1.1

         3 March 2020 at 8:11 pm

         I don't think people should be killed because they are more or less innocent. That's a pretty dark path to go down.

         I think New Zealand should fully own up to the criminality of its own citizens – especially when they are living in another country. Most of those who are sent back here are a national embarrassment. Ardern should actually have given an apology to Morrison, not a lecture.
         • Muttonbird 5.1.1.1.1

           3 March 2020 at 8:12 pm

           Yawn. Did you even listen to her speech?
           • Ad 5.1.1.1.1.1

             3 March 2020 at 8:29 pm

             Yes.

             It would have meant more if on behalf of all other New Zealand citizens she had apologized. But she – like the left – can't do that because the crims coming back are mostly Maori.

             It's like she has a a moral disability.

             Ardern would be more credible with Morrison if she told all Kiwis living in Australia not to hang out with criminals, not to form criminal gangs, not to deal drugs, and not to smash and kill people – in short how to take some actual responsibility.
             • Muttonbird …

               3 March 2020 at 8:36 pm

               Hilarious. You've gone full ACT on us.

               If you did listen to the Prime Minister's speech without the aforementioned filter in place you would have heard her own her own people.

               She said, 'send back Kiwis', but not those nurtured as children by the criminal culture of Australia.
               • Ad …

                 3 March 2020 at 9:09 pm

                 We nurture them even worse, right from birth.

                 Any stat you can think of.

                 We won't change it unless we own it.
             • aom …

               3 March 2020 at 10:28 pm

               from your comments Ad, it is obvious you have the 'moral disability'!
             • RedLogix …

               3 March 2020 at 10:54 pm

               What your comment assumes is that all these deportees are serious criminals. This is not necessarily the case at all, Section 501 does not require this at all:

               Differences between sections 201 and 501 of the Migration Act

               9.41 The committee notes the important differences between section 201 and section 501; and the human rights and legal concerns raised by the Commonwealth's preferred use of section 501. Some of these concerns are:

               • section 201 assumes that a person, 'integrated' into the Australian community after a period of 10 years, with extensive ties in Australia should be removed. This includes permanent residents who have spent the majority of their lives in Australia, have children and other dependents who are Australian citizens, or have already served their time in prison. In contrast there is no time limit in section 501.[941]
               • section 201 is confined to persons sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than one year but no more than 10 years. In this way, section 201 reflected a certain level of seriousness about the crime. By contrast, the 'character test' in section 501 captures a far wider range of behaviour. Mere association with someone else reasonably suspected of criminal activity by the Minister is sufficient to establish that a person is not of good character; and cumulative periods of periodic detention count toward the calculation of a term of imprisonment which constitute a 'substantial criminal record';[942]
               • section 501 is intended to facilitate refusing visa applications from people seeking to enter Australia or cancel a visa where the person present a significant risk. It was not intended to be relied on for the purpose of deporting Australian residents convicted of minor or even serious criminal offences if they lived in Australia more than ten years;[943]
               • decisions under sections 201 and 501 are reviewable by the AAT. However, the section 501 is subject to personal intervention by the Minister (which is unreviewable, and not subject to independent scrutiny or the rules of procedural fairness);[944]
               • the policy directions which govern the exercise of powers under sections 201 and 501 are significantly different. For example, the power to deport under section 201 requires a range of personal considerations relating to family unity to be taken into account. By contrast, section 501 emphasises the 'expectations of the Australian community';[945]

               https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/2004-07/migration/report/c09

               Another interesting read from an Australian perspective.
6. joe90 6

   3 March 2020 at 7:10 pm

   Capitalism meets narcissism.

   https://www.cnet.com/news/protect-yourself-from-coronavirus-with-a-mask-that-looks-like-your-actual-face/
7. Sacha 7

   3 March 2020 at 7:26 pm

   Shooting his mouth off again.
8. Muttonbird 8

   3 March 2020 at 8:10 pm

   Yeah, I thought those comments were racist.

   James Shaw calling it like he sees it. How will our commenters who think the Greens are weak respond?

   FWIW, I think Jones is an odious human being.

   But I also think the architects (for want of a better word in the absence of any responsible design) of the NZ international education sector have dragged down our reputation, and paved the way for the abuse of foreign students and the NZ public alike.

   It really is a low quality sector populated by chancers and crooks regardless of nationality.

   Thanks, National.
   • Sabine 8.1

     3 March 2020 at 9:05 pm

     And what did Labour and the Coalition do to sort that issue with the visa for money and 'schooling' aka the low quality sector populated by chancers and crooks regardless of nationality'? Nothing. Diddly squat. But yeah, lets not talk about that. Right?

     So yeah, nice polite words from J.A and 'strong' words from J.S. followed by no action. And that is why this punter looks at this current coaliton as 'weak' as with so many other issues the words are sadly not followed by any deeds. As the old saying goes, no guts no glory.
     • observer 8.1.1

       3 March 2020 at 10:50 pm

       Do you really not have Google?

       Your first para is disproved in a simple search. Try "visa rules", "Hipkins", "student", "tertiary" etc. This takes less time than typing your uninformed comment.

       Umpteen reports by Stuff, Herald, RNZ, etc. Or go to the primary source, government statements.

       Just one example
   • Jimmy 8.2

     4 March 2020 at 9:11 am

     I admit I have been a critic of James Shaw in the past but good on him for speaking up. Jacinda is the one that needs to deal with it as she is supposedly in charge.
     • Sacha 8.2.1

       4 March 2020 at 9:25 am

       We already had this conversation yesterday. What do you get out of repeating the same talking point today?
9. observer 9

   3 March 2020 at 11:13 pm

   He'll be hoping this gets lost in the noise (it's a busy news day), but for the record:

   Simon Bridges voted AGAINST the Abortion Reform Bill. It passed 2nd reading 81-39.

   Thanks to Ardern's leadership (yep) and the votes of National MPs like Amy Adams and Nikki Kaye there will be no need for NZF, and so no referendum.

   A good day.
   • I Feel Love 9.1

     4 March 2020 at 6:54 am

     indeed.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS