Daily review 11/06/2021

17 comments on “Daily review 11/06/2021 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Incognito 1

   11 June 2021 at 9:30 pm

   Evidence-based medicine? Yeah, right!

   https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2021/06/third-member-of-us-fda-advisory-panel-resigns-over-alzheimer-s-drug-approval.html

   Chief executive Hilary Evans said: "People with dementia and their families have been waiting far too long for life-changing new treatments.

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/444234/us-approves-first-new-alzheimer-s-drug-in-20-years

   Desperately wanting something to work doesn’t make it work. It is very expensive and obviously there’s a large, growing, and, above all, a willing not to say wanting market.

   How long before they demand PHARMAC fund it? Not long, I’d say.
   • Ad 1.1

     11 June 2021 at 11:21 pm

     Nah.

     They'll forget.
     • Incognito 1.1.1

       11 June 2021 at 11:41 pm

       
       • greywarshark 1.1.1.1

         12 June 2021 at 12:36 pm

         How long can older people who are ill or failing expect to receive life prolonging treatment? People don't want to face their own death. Yet if we had managed demise (euthanasia sounds so clinical) we could plan such lovely parting rituals, while we could still enjoy them, and without drawn-out pain and suffering. This person has had cancer treatment, then a heart attack, now kidney failure. And is in line for Covid19 vaccine and on it will go, propping up someone who is failing and medical treatment should now be palliative.

         https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/444549/covid-19-vaccine-no-booking-for-cancer-survivor-with-kidney-failure

         The numbers of elderly are growing, and the longer they live, the more treatments they will demand. Meanwhile the poor and the young can go jump, and some do. I wanted to see euthanasia available for ill patients, with controls, but I want this option available for the elderly in particular. But no-one cares about what anybody else wants or needs, it's all for dying naturally. But the point is the elderly don't want to die naturally, they want remedial patch-ups so they can get to their 90s.

         Most need to retire at 65 because there aren't enough jobs for all that need them, and the 65s would often be doing jobs that young ones ought to have. And it is awful having WINZ whining in your ears like mosquitoes about finding work when you are over 55 even. Older people would often be taking jobs the young could do, piling them with unemployment problems on those they already have. At 65 if they die at 90, and are on the old age pension all the time at a livable rate, they will be receiving benefits for almost one-third of their life. Many won't lift a finger to volunteer, and few work at mentoring or helping struggling young adults. So no payback to society, it is all self-satisfied entitlement. Two things lacking in our society, are gratitude and courtesy, at all ages.
         • Pat 1.1.1.1.1

           12 June 2021 at 12:44 pm

           There is nothing new under the sun

           https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senicide
           • greywarshark 1.1.1.1.1.1

             12 June 2021 at 1:47 pm

             What is new under the sun is a welfare society, and chemical and other interventions and extremely old ages compared to the past norm.

             Interestingly, we found Neanderthals and Denisovans, which are extinct species closely related to modern humans, had a maximum lifespan of 37.8 years. Based on DNA, we also estimated a “natural” lifespan modern humans of 38 years. This matches some anthropological estimates for early modern humans.12/12/2019

             https://theconversation.com/a-new-study-shows-an-animals-lifespan-is-written-in-the-dna-for-humans-its-38-years-128623
             .

             Life expectancy – Wikipedia
             1300–1400: to age 45 (because of the bubonic plague) 1400–1500: to age 69.

             Until the middle of the 20th century, infant mortality was approximately 40–60% of the total mortality of the population.

             If we do not take into account child mortality in total mortality, then the average life expectancy in the 12–19 centuries was approximately 55 years.

             If a medieval person was able to survive childhood, then he had about a 50% chance of living up to 50–55 years….

             Everything you wanted to know but didn't know you might want to know. https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts

             https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/what-happens-when-we-all-live-to-100/379338/
             • Pat …

               12 June 2021 at 2:35 pm

               Are they new though?….social welfare has existed in various forms as long as there has been societies…and chemical health interventions have been around as long as people have used plants. I'd suggest that while the technology may change human wants and needs have not and nor have the ideas about how to address them.
               • greywarshark …

                 12 June 2021 at 4:39 pm

                 I'm talking about actual ages. And the vast array of Bit Pharma chemical and operational interventions can NOT be found in past centuries – herbs and wisewomen's medicines cannot match. And if wisewomen turned out concoctions like Thalidomide they would have been drowned or burnt, not like Big Pharma which makes zillions and then when something can be pinned on them, they pay out millions of it in compensation, but no retributive killings take place. They can get away with murder, or harm, and then produce another medication to help cope with the condition in the harmed person. They win either way, and would be for keeping old people alive. Why kill off the golden goose they would snigger behind their hands. They have done much good but the medicines they produce keep us living, and also kill off animals in the sea as the ingredients which don't get broken down by sewage treatment leach out.
                 • Pat …

                   12 June 2021 at 5:10 pm

                   12 June 2021 at 12:36 pm

                   Seems to have morphed into an anti big pharma rant, which is a different beast altogether….three score and 10 was the nominal life in biblical times, and 'average life expectancy' suffers from the same deception as all averages…. self demise has always been and remains an option for any regardless of law, most dont choose it.
2. Incognito 2

   12 June 2021 at 12:40 am

   Jacinda Ardern put it on the table but now her Government is sweeping it under the carpet. The checks and balances on power are not a necessary evil, they are fundamental part and underpinning of authority and mandate, a core pillar of the social contract. The current crop of politicians, just as the previous one, seems to think that once they have got their votes, once every three years, they can get away with Monday press meetings after Cabinet meetings and polished press releases. It makes my blood boil.

   https://democracyproject.nz/2021/06/11/bryce-edwards-political-roundup-reforming-the-official-information-act-is-a-democratic-test-for-labour
   • Muttonbird 2.1

     12 June 2021 at 11:55 am

     Dr Bryce is making a solid effort at whipping up hysteria on this. This is his third or forth crack and the second in a week.

     Reading back to Vance's original column, it seems what set her off was not being given an interview with Nanaia Mahuta about water reform?

     This all seems to me to be an extraordinary over-reaction to legislation which is working better now (certainly not worse) than when the Nats deliberately delayed information, and even admitted to it.

     Reckon if you asked most people if OIA reform should be at the top of the list of things to do in NZ right now they’d strongly disagree.
     • Incognito 2.1.1

       12 June 2021 at 3:14 pm

       Vance seems to act like a red flag on some (?) here.

       Sure, there may have been a trigger and there may be an underlying cause; I would not dare to assume being able to read the mind of Andrea Vance.

       Political Roundup is an in-depth column providing analysis on one topic of the day, especially through the aggregation of different perspectives. This is published regularly and emailed out freely to subscribers.

       https://democracyproject.nz/about/

       It may have escaped you, but it wasn’t even about Vance; maybe Nikki Macdonald isn’t as big a red flag for you?

       For me, the OIA is high up the list, very high. Of course, Lorde’s new single and a movie that hasn’t been made yet occupy most of most small minds, so not many would care about the OIA. How would you or “most people” rank “the top of the list of things to do in NZ right now” for the Ministry of Justice policy team that’s tasked with this? You cannot answer this in a meaningful way anyway because you (and I) don’t know what’s keeping this team so busy, as they don’t want to divulge this information
       • Muttonbird 2.1.1.1

         12 June 2021 at 4:52 pm

         You, like the good doctor, are asking why OIA reform hasn't been fast-tracked.

         Taking a step back, I think the still raging global pandemic, vaccine roll out, and border management occupy at lot of government resources.

         Also, major reforms underway in climate, housing, immigration, transport, water, and health just seem more important to me, as I suspect they are to most people.

         This government does have a big mandate and I don't think it was expected they use it to keep journalists from throwing their toys out of the cot.
         • Incognito 2.1.1.1.1

           12 June 2021 at 10:49 pm

           Government is not a one-trick pony; it is much more than walking and chewing gum at the same time. We have a huge and costly resource system for and around Parliament and the PS and until hear any different, Covid is not a valid excuse. In fact, I don’t recall it being used as a reason for deferring the OIA review.

           All the things you mention are equally important and the OIA fits in well, IMHO; everything is linked and singling out one issue at the time and then ranking it in terms of perceived importance is a recipe for inefficient government and poor policy and decision-making. In the first instance, it is the responsibility of one team, not of the whole of Government, including all Minsters and even the PM. The OIA is about transparency and accountability; are you excusing this Government from being too busy to be accountable and transparent? We need better. Obviously.

           The OIA doesn’t exist for journalists only. In fact, it is least of all for journalists and first and foremost for all (!) citizens of Aotearoa-New Zealand. Where do you get your quaint journalist-centric view from? You may want to have a look here: https://fyi.org.nz/
       • Muttonbird 2.1.1.2

         12 June 2021 at 5:23 pm

         Also, I think with the Vance question; she trained in, and has built her reputation on tabloid journalism, stake-outs and coercion, and the like.

         This sensationalist and deceptive style of journalism, while popular and traditional in UK is not trusted by most Kiwis. We did not like it when Rachael Clucina deceived the victim of John Key's cafe harassment. We didn't like it when Vance herself pumped a smitten Peter Dunne for information when more professional action was required. It's even weird that Tova O'Brien has a clear line of communication with disruptors in the National Party.

         It is these things, and not Ministers' communication style about official work, which bring politics in this country into disrepute.
         • Patricia Bremner 2.1.1.2.1

           12 June 2021 at 8:41 pm

           Well said Muttonbird.
         • Incognito 2.1.1.2.2

           12 June 2021 at 11:04 pm

           While you might be right, it wasn’t about Vance, NZ journalism in the gutters or the “communication style” of Ministers. In fact, a well-functioning OIA that is fit for purpose can circumvent many of the issues you mention. At least, in principle. Everybody and anybody can participate in the political and democratic process by making requests to local and/or central government. If more of us would engage intelligently and diligently through the available processes and systems, we would see a lift in quality of public debate, a lift in decision-making, and a lift in politics overall. At least, that is my belief and my hope.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS