Daily review 10/11/2020

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, November 10th, 2020 - 48 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

48 comments on “Daily review 10/11/2020 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Patricia Bremner 1
    10 November 2020 at 6:14 pm

    Wonderful news about the Pfizer vaccine so far.

    • observer 1.1
      10 November 2020 at 6:28 pm

      It's only fair that those who actively undermined the "team of 5 million" and the public health response, should now go to the back of the queue. They put lives at risk, while the majority made huge sacrifices.

      So no vaccine for Simon Thornley, Mike Hosking, Jami-Lee Ross, etc, etc. They can get themselves some Swedish herd immunity instead.

    • weka 1.2
      10 November 2020 at 7:23 pm

      Hmm, 750,000 initial vaccines for NZ in the first quarter next year. How does this work? Partial vaccination of a population with almost no exposure to the virus. Are they intending to open the borders on the basis of that? If not, what's the point of going early, rather than waiting for more robust results?

        • In Vino 1.2.1.1
          10 November 2020 at 7:50 pm

          Big ifs. I am 74, and would possibly qualify if this comes true.

          But I fear that some people are counting their chickens before the Covid hen has even laid all the eggs.

      • McFlock 1.2.2
        10 November 2020 at 7:59 pm

        I wouldn't be surprised if it were prioritised for healthcare, airport, and isolation centre workers (and maybe people travelling overseas) at that level of initial supply.

        But this is still an early step, however promising.

        If it even works, it could only be effective for three months, which would mean it would be a prophylactic in areas near a cluster rather than a panacea for everyone. Or it might not work at all (although pfizer isn't exactly a healthcare startup promising the world and delivering nothing).

        It does, however, suggest that the plan B jerks who worried that we might be as isolated as North Korea for the foreseeable future look a bit pessimistic. Research progress is well on its way, we most likely won't be closed to tourists for the next 50 years.

        Not that they're an horrendous loss, anyway.

      • Pat 1.2.3
        10 November 2020 at 8:11 pm

        Not sure why they think we will have access in the first quarter next year…the report I heard said they expect to produce 100 million vaccines over the next year and I doubt we will be at the front of the queue.

      • lprent 1.2.4
        10 November 2020 at 9:42 pm

        750,000 initial vaccines for NZ in the first quarter next year

        Halve it. All of the vaccines look like they will need two doses close together to be effective.

        The priority has to be on the people maintaining the medical services and the quarantine – because that is how we increase the border boundary and prepare for outbreaks.

        Then the people with problematic immune systems.

        • weka 1.2.4.1
          10 November 2020 at 10:42 pm

          they have 1.5m doses.

          • Tricledrown 1.2.4.1.1
            10 November 2020 at 10:50 pm

            Weka 2 doses per person required plus the vaccine needs to be stored at -80C also they say it will take 2 yrs of monitoring to make sure of the vaccines efficacy after roll out.

            • weka 1.2.4.1.1.1
              11 November 2020 at 12:24 am

              So guinea pigging the first doses?

              "If all goes well, the first doses of the vaccine could be delivered in NZ by the first quarter of 2021."

              Link above.

              • McFlock …
                11 November 2020 at 1:07 pm

                Not really "guinea pigging".

                Basically, if a vaccine has only been trialled for say a month the we can't know the two year efficacy. It would be unethical to have a safe and effective vaccine and not use it just because we don't know how long it will work for.

                Really, the 1.5mil doses will only happen if the vaccine doesn't get rejected for some reason. The reason NZ and others got in early was to both secure a portion of the initial supply before the rush boosts prices, and also it provided either revenue or secure revenue projections for developers to invest money on. A bit like crowdfunding, but where the sponsors are governments.

  2. RedBaronCV 2
    10 November 2020 at 6:16 pm

    I see ANZ have just announced an end date to cheques. My question is for personal accounts:

    If you don't want to use an online account what other decent options are there to transfer larger one off amounts to others whether it is to buy cars new or second hand, pay funeral expenses or tradesmans bills etc.

    Bearing in mind the following:

    • trust in not being hacked is low for online
    • the daily transfer amount for most personal accounts online is only around $600 to $700
    • using debit cards means that any charge queried is not reversed until after any investigation is complete leaving the account holder out of funds in the interim
    • credit cards attract extra charges on the account
    • direct debits are hard to get off your account and not suitable for one offs
    • using phone or ATMs to pay hits the daily limit quickly and does not provide any answer back to ensure you have paid the correct person. This has caused a lot of problems overseas with the banks doing pretty much nothing to resolve the issues. Emails are also being hacked to change account numbers.

    Even trade me on the website really didn't seem to have an answer for this paying of larger amounts for second hand goods.

    Perhaps banking licences should come with a service requirement – or maybe us customers could own our account numbers and then use transactional services of our choice rather than rely on the banks. Something like the eftpos net that runs separately between us all shutting the banks out.

    • Matiri 2.1
      10 November 2020 at 7:37 pm

      Daily transfer limits, or individual transaction limits are generally much higher than $700. We have accounts with four different banks and our transfer limits are in the tens of thousands for all of them – we have not requested high limits by the way, but are comfortable with the security in place for our online accounts. If we did reach the limit for a transaction, we would just make more than one payment.

      • RedBaronCV 2.1.1
        10 November 2020 at 9:26 pm

        Well lucky that you have lots to shift and don't care if you are hacked. Banks are not immune from hacking. Most people don't have lots and Trade me telling people to pay bit by bit over several days says this is quite a decent issue .

        But the point remains – why should people be forced into online banking so they can pay their bills. It's an investment of a $500 computer plus some $960 a year in internet feeds. That is a lot for a lot of people. I say again – do we need to ditch the banks for transactions or does a banking licence come with service conditions.

        • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1
          10 November 2020 at 9:44 pm

          I say again – do we need to ditch the banks for transactions or does a banking licence come with service conditions.

          Yes we do but some people get upset with the idea. This is probably due to decades of being told that government is bad.

          • greywarshark 2.1.1.1.1
            11 November 2020 at 1:17 pm

            The banks should retain bank cheques so that you can transfer the larger amounts in a formal and safe manner. And we used to have Post Office Savings Bank vouchers or something, that could be purchased and sent, and I think they could be cashed at a Post Office.

            Locally banks withdrew from having an office in a local suburb with older people. Withdrawing services and forcing people to go on-line with all the cost and problems that ensue. Now they have linked together to have a shared one. That seems a practical method to provide services efficiently in the burbs and regions.

            • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1.1.1
              11 November 2020 at 1:43 pm

              The banks should retain bank cheques so that you can transfer the larger amounts in a formal and safe manner.

              Whatever makes you think that cheques are safe?

              And there's pretty much no limit to how much you can transfer via other means that are safer.

              And we used to have Post Office Savings Bank vouchers or something, that could be purchased and sent, and I think they could be cashed at a Post Office.

              So?

              They no longer exist because they no longer serve a purpose.

              Withdrawing services and forcing people to go on-line with all the cost and problems that ensue.

              Yeah, decreasing costs is what businesses do to increase shareholder bludging.

              Now they have linked together to have a shared one. That seems a practical method to provide services efficiently in the burbs and regions.

              Cooperation has always been more efficient than competition but competition returns higher profits to the bludgers.

              • greywarshark …
                11 November 2020 at 1:44 pm

                Thanks for all your trouble to put me on the right track Draco.

              • RedBaronCV …
                11 November 2020 at 2:17 pm

                Cheques and other forms of banking were not error or fraud proof. But they were individual errors or frauds not the industrial scale frauds that you get from hacking. But they were a means of delivering money into the hands of the correct party.

                As to how to transfer larger amounts in a safe way- I'm all ears for a non online way- because even my bank seems to be dead out of ideas.
                And I’m glad to hear that there re some shared service centres out there. It was getting pretty grim in some parts of the country.

                • greywarshark …
                  11 November 2020 at 2:57 pm

                  Yes I was pleased. It may have been something that Nick Smith organised somehow. He did do things for the electorate that kept him popular with the majority for quite some time.

                  About transferring money. I suppose you read about that case where a chap got had during a real estate purchase. IIRR he got an on-line message to send money for a house, purchase to his solicitor, (had paid the deposit so this was the bulk of the price), he did, and found out that it was a hacker conperson. I think he got his money back but it was thousands and nail-biting time.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    11 November 2020 at 3:09 pm

                    IIRR he got an on-line message to send money for a house, purchase to his solicitor, (had paid the deposit so this was the bulk of the price), he did, and found out that it was a hacker conperson.

                    Sounds like he fucked up badly. He should have checked the email authenticity and where he was sending the money to.

                    Such cons only work because people don't check.

                    Still, would be interesting to know how he got his money back. Was it through:

                    • The bank had insurance for these things that paid out
                    • The conman was caught and the money was retrieved
                    • The bank just created the money and stuck it in his account (please note: This may also be how the insurance paid out if it was insurance)
                • Draco T Bastard …
                  11 November 2020 at 3:02 pm

                  But they were individual errors or frauds not the industrial scale frauds that you get from hacking.

                  Yeah, I think you may be being a little too optimistic there:

                  Check fraud is on the rise. A new survey by the American Bankers Association (ABA) reports that attempted check fraud ballooned to $15.8 Billion in 2018 as reported by banks.

                  But this number does not include fake check scams that impact consumers who deposit those checks into their bank accounts.

                  Since banks hold customers responsible for counterfeit checks that bounce, consumers are often the ones left holding the bag when they have been conned by fraudsters.

                  I'm pretty sure that cheque fraud was far worse when cheques were a major part of financial transactions.

                  But they were a means of delivering money into the hands of the correct party.

                  And so is doing it online.

                  As to how to transfer larger amounts in a safe way- I'm all ears for a non online way- because even my bank seems to be dead out of ideas.

                  Things done offline are actually more prone to fraud due to human error which is probably why we're seeing increased cheque fraud.

                  You're right about the costs of having an internet connection and even a computer but the problem isn't solved by staying in the past. The world has already moved on and its now essentially impossible to operate effectively in society without a computer or internet access.

                  Therefore the solution is free-internet access by right and even free, late model, phones.

                  • RedBaronCV …
                    11 November 2020 at 8:47 pm

                    American cheque fraud issues are not ours and are irrelevant. AFAIK every little bank there issues cheques and they are cleared with paper trails.

                    We have long had overnight clearing of transactions through the various banks and back to the Reserve Bank . Some of it is now actually real time on line. Overseas cheques only are different.

                    And no there was not widespread fraud here when cheques where more widely used.

                    Delivering correctly online is not foolproof or more secure. Issues abound overseas and even here, where emails have been changed (America's Cup) or numbers are punched incorrectly because the name doesn't verify as well. They have been pretty reluctant to fix this sort of stuff overseas too.

                    Why should the taxpayer make it free? Support the banks??? It still leaves other issues around ability confidence etc.

                    Just a couple of quick links – a search produces a mass of reputable stories.

                    https://www.which.co.uk/news/2020/03/bank-transfer-fraud-losses-soar-to-almost-500m-in-2019/

                    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/dec/07/i-lost-my-193000-inheritance-with-one-wrong-digit-on-my-sort-code

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      11 November 2020 at 9:26 pm

                      American cheque fraud issues are not ours and are irrelevant.

                      No, its not irrelevant. The point is that cheque fraud is a major problem.

                      And no there was not widespread fraud here when cheques where more widely used.

                      Is suspect that you have no more knowledge of that than I do and yet I recall that warnings about cheque fraud abounded just as warnings about cyber-crime abound now.

                      Delivering correctly online is not foolproof or more secure.

                      I didn't say it was fool proof. Online scams work because people are fools.

                      Issues abound overseas and even here, where emails have been changed (America's Cup) or numbers are punched incorrectly because the name doesn't verify as well.

                      Human error – no matter the system, its always going to be there. Fortunately, good software can guard against it if using electronic systems.

                      Why should the taxpayer make it free?

                      I'll assume you're talking about the internet of which I stated the answer:

                      The world has already moved on and its now essentially impossible to operate effectively in society without a computer or internet access.

                      Its not about supporting the banks but ensuring that everyone has the tools to operate in society. Such has been done before – its why we have compulsory education.

                      If people are stupid enough to transfer money via online system to people without checking it then they're probably stupid enough to write out cheques to do the same thing.

                    • RedBaronCV …
                      11 November 2020 at 10:58 pm

                      FWIW I have a considerable background in NZ in this area. The USA does operate differently we've had a minimum of overnight clear here for around 40 years so the US experience is not transferable to us. I'm sure I would have noticed if there had been wholesale fraud as would others.

                      The banks don't have good software to guard against human error hence the amount of fraud recorded overseas and banks like everyone else get hacked. They also make human errors – playing with the FX system and transfering $100million to an NZ corporate by mistake.A quick look at the Australian banking Inquiry is a horrible lesson in just how badly banks run their internal systems and how badly they treat their customers.

                      To call people fools because they get caught up in scams? – some are pretty basic but others aren't or to blame them for dysfunctional systems and suggest they are just morons in any system is not good or necessarily correct. Nor is any system better just because it is newer. One size doesn't necessarily fit all.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 November 2020 at 1:23 am

                      The othger thing about scams is that some of them are laughably obvious on purpose – it stops the equivalent of tyre-kickers, in this sense people who will take it at face value initially but then wise up quickly.

                      No, the obvious ones are targeting people who are easily taken advantage of – people without computer smarts or with poor education, maybe language issues, maybe a touch of dementia. The ones least able to defend themselves.

    • Anne 3.1
      10 November 2020 at 7:26 pm

      Excerpt:

      – and Cormack says the party is paying too much attention to focus groups and polls, and too little attention to formulating, and acting, according to its own ideology.

      Oh noes! Stupid, stupid, stupid. They have a couple of years to be truly progressive with the will of the people behind them, and one year to consolidate and let the scaredy-cats see the sky isn't going to fall in.

      If they waste this opportunity I will be resigning from the party.

      • Pat 3.1.1
        10 November 2020 at 7:41 pm

        if they waste this opportunity i suspect you may have quite a bit of company

      • mac1 3.1.2
        10 November 2020 at 7:47 pm

        "Cormack says" says it all. It's an opinion from a commentator who I have not heard of. The arguments in the piece are not well developed, and I'd need more persuading of the man's case than what I read here; note also that the piece is actually constructed as a commentary on what Cormack said in his interview. What Cormack said has been put through the filter of the reporter's own views and bias, whatever that may be. The piece is not written by Cormack. It is second hand.

        The other query I have is to the credibility of a person who has acted as a staffer for National, Labour and the Greens. In that continuum, where does he sit?

        • Pat 3.1.2.1
          10 November 2020 at 8:00 pm

          the piece is not written (though there is a summary)…it is an audio file

        • Anne 3.1.2.2
          10 November 2020 at 8:03 pm

          I'm assuming he was either a Public Service staffer or a press secretary – probably the latter. Press secretaries seem to swop around between parties and don't necessarily align with their own bias. That's my observation anyway.

    • Rosemary McDonald 3.2
      10 November 2020 at 7:53 pm

      This was worth a read… (from the sidebar) https://democracyproject.nz/2020/11/10/josiah-banbury-labour-won-the-election-battle-but-national-won-the-ideological-war/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=josiah-banbury-labour-won-the-election-battle-but-national-won-the-ideological-war

      …explores Ardern's history earning her political stripes under Blair and Clarke. As an adherent of the Third Way…

      During their apprenticeship in the Labour Party, the prevailing belief was that social issues could be addressed by market-based solutions – even when the problems they were trying to address is the result of the failure of the market. If Margaret Thatcher was alive today, she would be comfortable with Ardern’s leadership and happy to see her legacy continuing to shape a new generation of political leaders.

      Ouch. The truth hurts.

      There will be weeping and wailing and gnashing…

      • Pat 3.2.1
        10 November 2020 at 8:01 pm

        they are all 'third way'….and have been since the formation (and subsequent demise) of New Labour.

        • RedBaronCV 3.2.1.1
          10 November 2020 at 9:32 pm

          Yeah IMHO they had better hurry up and find a fifth way because the fourth way will look a lot like Trumpism. For a lot of people we are back to the 1930's for their general quality of life and that didn't end well..

      • Ad 3.2.2
        10 November 2020 at 8:37 pm

        It is worth the read so far as it goes.

        But it should have put Robertson in context not only with English, but also with Cullen, and the true state architect of our state's financial framework, Bill Birch under Shipley.

        Birch steadied the excesses of the Douglas-Caygill-Richardson era, and from Birch Cullen gave that some very strong institutional foundations which last to this day.

        • Stuart Munro 3.2.2.1
          10 November 2020 at 10:14 pm

          Foundations based on propping up a failed economic model with offshore land sales.

          Beneath the green and shady hill

          lies Mrs Birch, mother of Bill

          Her soul of course has fled this vale

          of tears, and so this plot's For Sale.

  4. joe90 4
    10 November 2020 at 8:33 pm

    The tools to maintain regional hegemony are payoff for selling out the Palestinians.

    https://twitter.com/John_Hudson/status/1325951585042771968

  5. RedLogix 5
    10 November 2020 at 10:38 pm

    What happens when everything becomes political:

    “The country is largely unified around the idea that politics has grown too divisive, the politics is too adversarial, and that politicians need to be more civil, So Biden’s message about healing is well-placed, everyone in the States wants a healed polity.

    “However, when you ask Americans what steps can be taken to make politics more civil and cooperative the strong inclination is to blame the infidelity and hostility strictly on one’s partisan opponents.”

    For a large number of Americans, reconciliation is really getting the other side to resign, he told Jesse Mulligan.

    “They want reconciliation but in reality they just want the political opposition to go away.”

    The notion of principled compromise has dissolved, he says.

    “The idea that compromise always involves an abandoning of principle seems to have taken hold, the idea of compromise is always see as capitulation to the other side.

    “This strikes me as a fundamentally anti-democratic idea.”

    • Ad 5.1
      11 November 2020 at 5:40 am

      The United States was formed with too much political process and too little institutional stability.

      I can imagine for example a United States where each state unifies its Police force (eradicating county by county differences), and then proposes to appoint judges solely through the office of the Attorney General, would start to take some of the futile political heat out of the country.

      • RedLogix 5.1.1
        11 November 2020 at 9:04 am

        Yes. An observed feature of the triplet political model is a cycle in which mode has a period of ascendancy, and the order in which this seems to happen is conservative, liberal, socialist and then repeat.

        Right now we are at the point where liberalism has dominated for some decades while the socialist instinct is now ascending. Conservatism in the meantime is at it's weakest nadir, which means the political dialog is placing far too little weight on stability as a virtue.

        The predictable result is a great deal of entropy.

        At a less cerebral level, a FPP electoral system locks you into a two party system, that tribalises everyone. A great deal of futile heat results from this too.