Daily review 30/12/2021

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, December 30th, 2021 - 56 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 …

56 comments on “Daily review 30/12/2021 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Patricia Bremner 1
    30 December 2021 at 6:27 pm

    May 2022 be a better year for all of us. Good health and may you have good company too.

  2. The Chairman 2
    30 December 2021 at 6:30 pm

    How well is your news media severing you?

    Has anybody here viewed The Joe Rogan – Dr Peter Mccullough interview (which has gone viral online) or seen any news coverage of it?

    It's one hell of an interview. Dr Peter Mccullough really is a totally amazing source of knowledge.

    I highly recommend viewing the full interview and can provide a link if anyone requires assistance locating it online. Moreover, happy to further discuss this if anybody here has any questions or interest in learning more

    Has anybody here heard of The World Council for Health?

    It's a recently formed global umbrella organization made up of a rather impressive group of globally renowned medical experts, health-focused organizations and civil society groups. An organization free from pharmaceutical industry ties.

    These are rather large news worthy stories and if your usual media source is not covering them you've got to wonder why. Moreover, one has to start to wonder what else one is missing out on.

    • millsy 2.1
      30 December 2021 at 6:37 pm

      I wouldn't listen to the conspiracy theory industrial complex if you paid me.

    • observer 2.2
      30 December 2021 at 6:49 pm

      Fact-check: wrong about pretty much everything.

      https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/joe-rogan-interview-with-peter-mccullough-contains-multiple-false-and-unsubstantiated-claims-about-the-covid-19-pandemic-and-vaccines/

      To give just one example: the claim that you cannot get Covid twice. Disproved by cases every day.

      https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-reinfection-idUSL1N2TC0PH

      So to answer your "wonder" question, they are not covered for the same reason that astronomers claiming lunar cheese content are ignored.

      • The Chairman 2.2.1
        30 December 2021 at 7:16 pm

        An interesting reply you've put forward, observer.

        I'll look into your factcheckers assertions and share my opinion on them a bit later on.

        Thanks for your interest.

        One quick question for you. Have you seen the interview or do you merely rely on the opinions of the factcheckers to form your opinion?

        I like to look at both and form my own. So thanks for sharing.

      • Bill 2.2.2
        30 December 2021 at 7:20 pm

        Are those cases verified by way of follow up testing? Or is one +ve PCR test enough to designate the person as being a covid 'case'? Because given the huge number of false positives, it's not beyond the realms of belief that some people who believe they've been infected with a particular strain twice, in fact have only had it once.

        There's possibly a similar thing happening with the so-called asymptomatic 'cases'. My garden variety common sense suggests if I have a respiratory infection, then I'll have some measure of symptoms. The idea (for example) that I can not have a cold but nevertheless actually have a cold just strikes me as a bit weird.

        • The Chairman 2.2.2.1
          30 December 2021 at 7:48 pm

          Because given the huge number of false positives, that some people who believe they've been infected with a particular strain twice, in fact have only had it once.

          That's right, Bill. Moreover, I don't think it is also beyond the realms of belief that some may also be suffering from long Covid and have mistaken that as possibly
          being infected again. Especially in the early days, when little was known about long Covid.

          • observer 2.2.2.1.1
            30 December 2021 at 8:35 pm

            The mental gymnastics to live in denial are quite incredible. Not based on evidence, but purely on the need to change facts to fit. For example …

            You would have to believe that this famous case in March 2020 continued for the next 21 months undetected, despite the fact that the coach at a major professional sporting institution has been regularly tested, countless times over those 21 months. Then suddenly it is detected again?

            https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/59818457

            In the end it's your choice, of course. If promoting a falsehood means reality must be explained away, in order to keep the faith, then that must outweigh any evidence to the contrary. A thousand Covid tests would not persuade you. It no longer matters what is verifiable or falsifiable. Nothing matters beyond the need to believe.

            • The Chairman 2.2.2.1.1.1
              30 December 2021 at 9:26 pm

              Dr Rob Shorten, Chair of Microbiology Committee, Association for Clinical Biochemistry & Laboratory Medicine says:

              “The specific nature of these sequences means that someone with flu or a common cold virus is highly unlikely to test positive for COVID-19,” he told Reuters.

              https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-swab-idUSKBN26R3DH

              Highly unlikely does not equate to it being totally impossible.

              Therefore, it seems it is possible (albeit in rare occurrences) that the common flu can be mistaken for Covid.

              This would help explain the small number of so called reinfection cases to date and seems to also stack up well with Dr Peter McCullough reasoning on this.

              Therefore, after all this time of continuing testing it could be the coach could have fallen into one of these rare occurrences.

          • Bill 2.2.2.1.2
            30 December 2021 at 9:05 pm

            Regardless, it's one small, possibly contentious detail from a comprehensive hour and a half long interview (or however long it was).

            Covid isn't the only issue that's been/is surrounded by disturbing dynamics revolving around crude tribalism. Given that, all I can do is wish you luck with this endeavour of yours to introduce people to some broader or deeper perspectives beyond the bounds of "their tribe"

            • The Chairman 2.2.2.1.2.1
              30 December 2021 at 9:41 pm

              Regardless, it's one small, possibly contentious detail from a comprehensive hour and a half long interview (or however long it was).

              Indeed, Bill. Though I'm sure you are aware of the tactic at play. Find the weakest argument and use that to discredit all else that was said.

              Thanks for wishing me luck, Bill. I'd also like to thank you for your efforts of late.

        • KJT 2.2.2.2
          30 December 2021 at 8:39 pm

          W've already established why there isn't a "huge number of false positives".

          And. "Confirmed cases" are "confirmed" on more than the basis of just one test.

          Repeating your misunderstandings, i’m trying to be charitable here, doesn’t make it true.

          Open mike 23/12/2021 « The Standard

          • Bill 2.2.2.2.1
            30 December 2021 at 9:15 pm

            W've already established why there isn't a "huge number of false positives".

            You convinced yourself against the pretty clear cut and simple to follow evidence laid out by Norman Fenton (and expanded on somewhat by Red) by ignoring some bog standard basics in Fenton's presentation and going on to spout some nonsense about who gets tested in NZ.

            People being told to isolate for a period of time after a +ve test aren't subject to a confirmatory test. My family who tested positive and who had to isolate weren't – though I guess it's possible they were an exception and everyone else undergoes a confirmatory test.

            • KJT 2.2.2.2.1.1
              30 December 2021 at 9:16 pm

              I gave clear cut and easy to follow reasons why you were repeating a load of bullshit.
              Along with RL’s similar assertion that “80% of people who test positive for covid in New Zealand don’t have covid”.
              Both bollocks.
              I showed why it was bollocks, but you obviously don’t have the capability to understand.

            • KJT 2.2.2.2.1.2
              31 December 2021 at 3:04 pm

              People who go to hospital are.

              • RedLogix …
                31 December 2021 at 3:15 pm

                At the point someone is hospitalised we can be reasonably sure they have COVID because:

                • They will be presenting with active symptoms
                • They will have at least one confirming PCR test
                • And at some point they will probably get a confirming antigen test.

                This is the group that you know have COVID almost for certain and are being seriously impacted by it. But it's way smaller in number than the 'positive tests' metric that keeps getting touted in the media.

                • KJT …
                  1 January 2022 at 6:46 am

                  Already explained why your statement that of a number tested for covid 80% "do not have covid" is bollocks.

                  Like Bill, It seems you were unable to follow the discussion

                  • RedLogix …
                    1 January 2022 at 10:15 am

                    How about you go and collect your Fields Medal in Mathematics for disproving Bayes Theorem and get back to us on that.

                    On the other hand I should thank you for prompting my curiosity to dig into an area I've not encountered before called Causal Inference. What I'm beginning to see is a very different picture.

                    • KJT …
                      1 January 2022 at 11:41 am

                      I applied it. You didn't understand it.

                      What you didn't understand, that your comments, would apply if we were testing a random selection of New Zealand's entire population.

                      But. We are not!

                      A prime example of something that outwardly seems plausible, on first glance, is not.

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 January 2022 at 11:51 am

                      What you didn't understand, that your comments, would apply if we were testing a random selection of New Zealand's entire population.

                      The apriori estimate of prevalence that we calculated for NZ of about 1 in 218 was derived from these same tests.

                      I agree that if we we sampled the whole population of NZ at random this estimated prevalence would be lower – but that would only increase the overall rate of false positives due to the Bayes effect.

                    • KJT …
                      1 January 2022 at 1:10 pm

                      What I said.

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 January 2022 at 1:14 pm

                      What I said. (Yes I can play idiot too.)

                      On the other hand – scan this – and get a sense of how hard this topic really is.

                      In an attempt to wrap this up – I would strongly suggest that the only metrics of any real comparative value are ‘number of confirmed cases in hospital‘ and ‘number of deaths from covid‘. These are reliable, well defined numbers and if everyone had stuck to using them, there would not be this level of contention going on.

                      As an interesting tangent the ‘dimensionless recovery rate’ is going to be (Recoveries/(1+ Deaths). This number is dimensionless because its a ratio between two numbers from exactly the same ‘hospitalised’ population – which rather magically eliminates almost all confounding factors across countries, populations, demographics, geography – almost everything.

                      Reveals all sorts of interesting information a lot of people will not want to understand.

                    • KJT …
                      1 January 2022 at 2:51 pm

                      Still don't get it. Eh?

                      Persisting with the fiction that. “The MOH doesn’t know how many people actually have covid”. As if no one in the MOH knows how to do statistical analysis.

                      “Yes I can play idiot too”. Yes you can. Especially when you try to cover it up with big words.

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 January 2022 at 3:05 pm

                      “The MOH doesn’t know how many people actually have covid”

                      What makes you so certain they do? As we've shown quite conclusively – that unless they tested everyone in NZ and retested all the positive cases at least once – then they cannot know. Not because they cannot do statistics, but due to the fundamental limitations of what testing tells us.

                      And as others have shown typically the positive tests that get re-tested are the relatively small fraction that get sick enough to be admitted to hospital. At which point they become a 'confirmed case' – which is a useful metric.

                      Worse still this process of getting from a 'positive test' to a 'confirmed case' will vary from country to country and over time – which makes comparisons even more meaningless.

                    • KJT …
                      1 January 2022 at 3:11 pm

                      Already explained why your statement is incorrect.

                      We already know the range of false postives and negatives for each individual test.
                      And the range of results a sampling of populations with different rates of covid give.

                      The maths is not difficult.

                      “We cannot know” suits the narrative of those who think that covid is one big Government and scientific conspiracy. But it is not, true!

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 January 2022 at 3:22 pm

                      Already explained why your statement is incorrect.

                      You may want to try again.

                    • KJT …
                      1 January 2022 at 3:28 pm

                      That requires a degree of ability, or wish to comprehend, on the part of the person I am talking to.

                      Try re-reading.

                      It is what analytical statistics is for.

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 January 2022 at 3:32 pm

                      You have implied at least three times now that I am too stupid to understand your superior logic.

                      Alternatively you may want to consider that you have not explained yourself very well.

                      Which do you think is more likely?

                    • KJT …
                      1 January 2022 at 3:33 pm

                      I'll leave it there.

                      Because I don't think you want to understand.

                      The answers are in your own explanation of the statistics. There is a low occurance in the whole NZ population. There is a much higher occurance rate in the population we are actually testing.

                      You actually explained it, yourself.

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 January 2022 at 3:56 pm

                      And my response to this was made here.

                      Maybe I was too brief. The point is that Bayes Theorem requires that to interpret the data correctly we need to estimate the actual prevalence of COVID in the population we are testing. This is necessary to correctly understand the impact of false positives.

                      Your claim is that we're testing a subset of NZ that is more likely to have COVID – in other words they have a higher prevalence than the general population. And from our actual testing of this group, we have estimated an apriori prevalence of about 1 in 218. Which we then applied to the 'positive tests' data from this group, tells us that about 80% of these will not actually have COVID.

                      Following your logic, which I think is reasonable, if we tested all of NZ at random, we would be testing a much larger population with a much lower prevalence, maybe 1 in 1000. And this would mean the Bayesian false positives would be an even higher percentage.

                      What you cannot do however is use the apriori estimate from one group and apply it to the test data from another. Which I suggest is what you're effectively doing here.

                  • KJT …
                    2 January 2022 at 11:19 am

                    Have another look at your calculation.

      • The Chairman 2.2.3
        30 December 2021 at 8:42 pm

        In addition to Bill's reply and mine to his, Dr Peter Mccullough also alludes to people having Covid then later getting sick again but this time from the common cold which is then mistaken as Covid due to pervious traces still being detected in their system

    • Blazer 2.3
      30 December 2021 at 8:24 pm

      Joe Rogan is a comedian and his YT videos on boxing …reinforce..that.

  3. Dennis Frank 3
    30 December 2021 at 7:01 pm

    It started like this:

    In 1879 the government pushed through a survey of lands on the Waimate Plains which had been nominally subject to confiscation four­teen years earlier but in practice occupied and used by Māori.

    That May, the people of Parihaka began ploughing up surveyed lands in the area in an act of non-violent resistance led by prophets Te Whiti-o-Rongomai and Tohu Kakahi. The pair had founded the settlement of Parihaka in the 1860s as a place of refuge for all those affected by war and confiscation… in June the arrests began. By August around 200 men had been arrested. That same month the Maori Prisoners’ Trials Act, suspending the right of the accused to a speedy trial, was passed by Parliament. The first group of prisoners was sent to Dunedin that same month… A West Coast Commission was established to investigate any unful­filled promises to Taranaki Māori. Native Minister John Bryce declared there were none. His uncompromising approach was too much for his fellow Cabinet ministers, and in January 1881 Bryce resigned.

    The settler govt was unable to resolve the situation – so they recalled the bugger later the same year!

    On 19 October 1881 a proclamation was issued, giving the Parihaka community two weeks to submit to the law or lose any lands they still held. Bryce was immediately sworn in as Native Minister to make preparations for the forthcoming confrontation.

    All of this took place as the Governor, Sir Arthur Gordon – a known critic of the gov­ernment’s actions in Taranaki – returned to Wellington after visiting Fiji, landing just two-and-a-quarter hours after the signing of the proclamation. He was furious that the government, knowing he would never sign such a document, had rushed it through in his absence.

    https://www.newsroom.co.nz/voices-from-the-new-zealand-wars-the-invasion-of-parihaka

    So how the hell could it possibly be legal without his signature??? Newsroom deserves our thanks for illuminating our history. Yet these investigative journos don't seem to feel any need to focus on the key point. Govt legislation isn't legal until the legal representative of the head of state signs it!!

    • Gezza 3.1
      30 December 2021 at 8:35 pm

      So how the hell could it possibly be legal without his signature??? Newsroom deserves our thanks for illuminating our history. Yet these investigative journos don’t seem to feel any need to focus on the key point. Govt legislation isn’t legal until the legal representative of the head of state signs it!!

      Never underestimate Wikipedia re Kiwiland’s history, Dennis. It’s a superb resource on both Māori hapu iwi AND Pākehā histories of New Zealand. And it just keeps getting better, imo.
      ….. …. …… ….

      “In mid-September 1881 Gordon sailed for Fiji, leaving Chief Justice Sir James Prendergast as acting Governor. In his absence, and with an election looming, Hall’s ministry completed its plans to invade Parihaka. Bryce’s replacement as Native Minister, Canterbury farmer William Rolleston, secured two votes worth a total of £184,000 for contingency defence against Taranaki Māori and the government significantly boosted the number of Armed Constabulary on the west coast.

      On 8 October Rolleston visited Parihaka to urge Te Whiti to submit to the Government’s wishes. If he refused and war ensued, Rolleston explained, “the blame will not rest with me and the government. It will rest with you.”

      When news of the Hall government’s plans reached Gordon, he terminated his Fiji visit and hurried back to New Zealand. At 8pm on 19 October, two hours before the Governor returned to Wellington, however, Hall convened an emergency meeting of his Executive Council and Prendergast issued a proclamation berating Te Whiti and his people for their “threatening attitude”, their rebellious speech and their resistance of the armed constabulary.

      It urged the people of Parihaka to leave Te Whiti and for the visitors to return home. It gave them 14 days to accept the “large and ample” reserves on the conditions attached to them by the government and willingly submit to the law of the Queen or the lands would forever pass away from them and they alone would be responsible for this and “for the great evil which must fall on them.”

      “As usual,” observed historian Hazel Riseborough, “it was a question of mana.” The proclamation was signed by Rolleston late on 19 October—his last act as minister before Bryce was returned to Cabinet and just two hours before Gordon arrived back in New Zealand. The Governor, though angry at the issuing of the Proclamation, acknowledged it would be supported “by nine-tenths of the white population of the colony” and allowed it to stand.”

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parihaka#Invasion

      You might want to mention it to newsroom?

      • Blazer 3.1.1
        30 December 2021 at 8:43 pm

        So who..cares?

        • Gezza 3.1.1.1
          30 December 2021 at 8:57 pm

          Dennis. And I. At least.

          If you don’t care, why TF did you even bother to post that waste of space & time?

          • Blazer 3.1.1.1.1
            30 December 2021 at 9:00 pm

            Because now I know you and Dennis..care.

            • Gezza 3.1.1.1.1.1
              30 December 2021 at 9:04 pm

              Explain to me, if you can, how you are not now simply trolling?

              • Blazer …
                30 December 2021 at 9:21 pm

                Never complain,never explain..as for trolling…'physician..heal thyself'..hat tip to ..Trav.

                • Gezza …
                  30 December 2021 at 9:44 pm

                  So who..cares?

                  I’ve never wasted anyone’s time trolling with that sort of pointless crap.
                  Wrongly accusing me of trolling as your typical counterpunch doesn’t wash.
                  I’m leaving it at that. To do otherwise means you’ve been successful.

      • Dennis Frank 3.1.2
        30 December 2021 at 9:14 pm

        Cool, thanks for that Gezza. Yeah the notion of a wiki on Parihaka never crossed my mind. So the devious bastards outwitted the governor, huh?

        Dunno if I can go along with the gov wimping out on the basis of a 90% settler consensus though. The monarch wasn't really served by settler disregard of Te Tiriti, and her rep ought to have been able to figure that out.

        And on the technicality of law, I wonder if other instances of chief justices acting to represent the head of state when he went on holiday have also happened. Must've been a clause in the royal appointment charter enabling that, I guess.

        • Gezza 3.1.2.1
          30 December 2021 at 9:35 pm

          Wikipedia’s nowadays my first source to check on anything related to NZ’s land wars, or NZ places/towns/cities/history/significant historical events or incidents, or anything to do with Māori. It’s extensively cross-referenced. One can spend hours just following various cross references & reading the linked articles.

          A typical example is Battle Hill Forest Park, where I once hiked to the top for lunch & read the history of the place.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Hill_Farm_Forest_Park

          If you follow all the links in that & the cross links in those to iwi & nga Rangatira you get a really good overview of the history of the early settlement of North Wellington & the Māori resistance to it.

  4. The Chairman 4
    30 December 2021 at 8:15 pm

    Back in June the FLCCC announced a Treatment Protocol for Long Covid.

    If anyone is interested I'll be happy to point you towards it

  5. Jester 5
    30 December 2021 at 8:47 pm

    It seems pretty unfair to me that this bloke has been able to get in to NZ three times since the pandemic started, and yet NZers that actually live here have not been able to.

    Covid-19: DJ Dimension on third border exemption to NZ since December 2020 | Stuff.co.nz