Open mike 03/08/2015

132 comments on “Open mike 03/08/2015 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Incognito 1

   3 August 2015 at 7:23 am

   TPPA? NoNZense!
2. dv 2

   3 August 2015 at 8:23 am

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/70752347/majority-of-people-in-combat-situations-with-cops-have-been-drinking-taser-report-shows

   Young, drunk and violent people account for more than half of all suspects dealt with by police force, including Tasers, police figures show.

   So maybe the alcohol industry should pay for the 50% of the extra tasers.
   • les 2.1

     3 August 2015 at 8:28 am

     very stupid suggestion.
     • greywarshark 2.1.1

       3 August 2015 at 9:54 am

       @Les
       The comment does look at alcohol providers being made to take notice and accept some cost of their externalities. Alcohol dependence which gets called ‘hospitality’ fuels the bars profitability – they are more alcohol peddlers than anything else, and mainly useful when they are live music venue for our musicians. Alcohol sellers are so immersed in their own addiction to squeezing out maximum money from the live bodies they are hosting that ordering them to shut before 4 a.m. is greeted angrily

       Police have been active in pointing out the rise in incidents in the late night/early morning fuelled by alcohol. From their point of view they are being used as street cleaners, trying to keep order and prevent self-harm or harm to others by people under drug influence who are not open to reason. So tazers seem a reasonable option to them in the circumstances. In a table of control methods I looked at on google, tazers cause far less injuries than dogs for instance. What would be better than suggesting liquor sellers pay half of the tazer cost, is to suggest government show some guts, backbone and integrity and enact laws to nationally close bars earlier, and require application to local councils for special licences to hold Oktoberfest type events, despite all the moans and groans of the hosps.

       Add to that a closing module requiring bars etc. to shut their doors to new customers an hour before closing (with exceptions to allow individuals or couples to join friends in the first 20 minutes) plus to announce the closing hour to their patrons, stop serving alcoholic liquor then and advise them real hospitality will be offered for the next hour, at half normal price. They would then only serve coffee or tea – not fruit juice or water which could be the cover for vodka and other mixes, and sandwiches or savouries. And further, have some live music or play NZ music cds, including classical and concert music. (This is very effective in helping people decide to leave. I have seen it used, it works to clear people in a less excited, more rational way.) In that hour they would disperse in dribs and drabs and in better more relaxed mood. This should be a model imposed on all liquor sellers, who would have to put up and shut up.
       • infused 2.1.1.1

         3 August 2015 at 10:22 am

         And I bet hardly any of it is caused by bars…

         They are too expensive. It’s young guys (and gals) drinking before they go out. I know, as I did it as a teen. We drunk at a bar once in a blue moon.

         The biggest issue is supermarkets.
         • vto 2.1.1.1.1

           3 August 2015 at 10:29 am

           I know.

           Put the price up.

           At least that will stop the poor from drinking.
           • dv 2.1.1.1.1.1

             3 August 2015 at 12:05 pm

             The alcohol industry should be charged of the cost of all alcohol related admissions to hospital.
             • infused …

               3 August 2015 at 12:16 pm

               Why? Because some idiot has no self control?
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 3 August 2015 at 3:56 pm

                 The entire alcohol system that we have in NZ is, IMO, built around the fact that most people don’t have the requisite self-control. Just look at the noise the alcohol industry makes when limiting opening hours is mentioned.

                 People with self-control simply plan around the opening hours and enjoy themselves anyway. The rest just go out and get trashed because they can keep buying and buying.

                 So, should the alcohol industry pay for the damage caused by alcohol? Damn right they should because they’re the ones profiting from it.
               • Tricledrown …

                 3 August 2015 at 4:37 pm

                 Your an example confused.
                 User pays why should non drinkers subsidize an industry that kills 600 people a year and does $6 billion worth of damage to the economy every year wastes up to 75% of police time 1/2 our prison population is estimàted to be their because of Alcohol related crime.
                 Infused.
             • Switts …

               3 August 2015 at 1:18 pm

               We could just direct income from the alcohol excise tax to the health sector.
               • dv …

                 3 August 2015 at 1:50 pm

                 There needs to be a price signal to the alcohol industry, that there is a cost.
                 • Switts …

                   3 August 2015 at 2:01 pm

                   Can you elaborate. I don’t understand your point.
                   • dv …

                     3 August 2015 at 2:19 pm

                     10 people are admitted to hospital as a result of alcohol issues –
                     Cost 100k.
                     Say happens 50 times year. Thus cost is 5million

                     Bill sent to alcohol industry.
                     The say look that is costing too much we need to do something to reduce it.

                     (Note numbers made up)
                   • Switts …

                     3 August 2015 at 2:30 pm

                     That is an interesting idea. I guess the main advantage of that vs excise tax is the financial incentive to reduce harm of alcohol. However, reducing alcohol harm does mean reducing consumption, so they may figure they are better off paying the hospital bill and decide to do nothing.
                   • dv …

                     3 August 2015 at 2:35 pm

                     figure they are better off paying the hospital bill and decide to do nothing.

                     Not if the cost was 50m, or 500 mil

                     PS thanks for the positive comment.
           • infused 2.1.1.1.1.2

             3 August 2015 at 12:16 pm

             What a stupid fucking comment

             [lprent: Why? You have no point to your abuse. You know what the rules are. Pointless abuse is unwelcome. If it is a persistent behaviour we assume you don’t want to comment here. Read the policy again. ]
   • infused 2.2

     3 August 2015 at 8:58 am

     Why not the drunks arrested?
     • McFlock 2.2.1

       3 August 2015 at 12:31 pm

       They usually are. But it’s an electrified ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.
     • greywarshark 2.2.2

       3 August 2015 at 10:09 pm

       Why not you arrested? For not being in reasonable control of your comments. Do you ever have anything of a positive and individual nature to suggest?
   • DH 2.3

     3 August 2015 at 2:00 pm

     “Young, drunk and violent people account for more than half of all suspects dealt with by police force, including Tasers, police figures show.”

     What they don’t say there is it’s often the same people that the Police are dealing with. Alcohol itself isn’t the problem IMO, it’s more that some people shouldn’t drink.

     I’d wager that if they started recording the names of those causing aggravation when they’re pissed they’ll find it’s a small percentage of assholes who can’t handle the drink that ruin it for the rest of us. We’re not all violent drunks.

     Rather than ban or restrict booze I think they’d be better off starting to ban certain people from drinking. That wouldn’t completely stop alcohol-fueled offences but I’m sure it would drastically reduce them.
3. Skinny 3

   3 August 2015 at 10:35 am

   Listening to Tim Grosser this morning and the snake oil flowing off his slippery silver tongue. Trying to credit the falling over of the TPPA signing down to his hard line stance
   on dairy access. I call bulshit to that, he is milking it for all it’s worth. None of the automotive big players could agree, and our position was relatively insignificant. It is astounding the media can’t smell a rat and call him out.
4. Morrissey 4

   3 August 2015 at 10:37 am

   Kathryn Ryan’s fawning fan-girl interview with Jerome Kaino:
   Yet another opportunity wasted
   Radio NZ National, Monday 3 August 2015, 10:10 a.m.

   Today’s “feature interview” was a rather dismal showcase of Kathryn Ryan at her worst. Interviews with sports people are rarely very deep or enlightening, but this one was particularly bad, with the nadir being reached as she chuckled indulgently about the way Kaino had described Graham Henry as “a man who communicates with his eyebrows”. Of course she resolutely avoided anything controversial. We have already had a look at Jerome Kaino’s ability to talk bullshit…
   http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-16072015/#comment-1045606

   I flicked the following email to Kathryn Ryan. Keep listening, fellas—she might read it out!…..

   Why did you not ask Jerome Kaino the hard question?

   Dear Kathryn,

   I am disappointed you chose not to confront Jerome Kaino with the evidence that he and his colleagues in the All Black forward pack cynically cheated throughout that farcical 2011 RWC final.

   You could also have asked him what he thought of the performance, or non-performance, of South African Craig Joubert, the referee of that match.

   Yours in disappointment,

   Morrissey Breen
   Northcote Point

   More on Jerome Kaino….
   http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-22052013/#comment-636506
   http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-15122011/#comment-417760

   RWC Final – 23rd Oct 2011 – Refereeing discussion from The Breakdown
5. travellerev 5

   3 August 2015 at 11:35 am

   Let’s Call The TPPA “Negotiations” What They Really Are: A Conspiracy To Commit Treason!
   • Ovid 5.1

     3 August 2015 at 11:53 am

     They really aren’t. Nobody owing allegiance to NZ is killing, wounding or doing GBH to the Queen. Nobody is levying war against NZ or assisting an armed force to invade the country or is using force to overthow the government of New Zealand.

     I agree with you, the TPP is a bad idea – particularly ISDS – and secret negotiations are not in the best interests of NZ. I much more favour a network of bilateral agreements, but hyperbole doesn’t help the cause.
     • infused 5.1.1

       3 August 2015 at 12:18 pm

       wow… someone with some sense here.
     • Draco T Bastard 5.1.2

       3 August 2015 at 12:18 pm

       http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/traitor
     • travellerev 5.1.3

       3 August 2015 at 2:23 pm

       “A conspiracy usually involves a group entering into a secret agreement to achieve some illicit or harmful objective.”

       Actually they are levying war against the 11 countries involved in the conspiracy.

       The 0.01% is a waging which is commonly known as a currency war against every country on this planet. They are doing so by using fraudulent financial instruments and printing money out of thin air repayable with interest. They did so with Greece, They are doing so with the Ukraine and they are doing it with us. John Key loaded us up with $ 100 billion in debt and more than $112 Billion (2012 and counting) in Derivatives. It may not kill people with weapons but it kills people never the less.

       The TPPA is just the icing on the cake. It is a conspiracy to commit treason no matter how you look at it!
6. Jim in Tokyo 6

   3 August 2015 at 1:20 pm

   Over @ Interest.co.nz there’s an interview with Victoria University academic Professor Siah Hwee Ang on Property investment through a Chinese lens

   A few snippets:

   He explains land is scarce in China, with a lot of it being owned by the government, so people are looking for alternative ways to invest their savings.

   He says Chinese people have opted to buy property abroad, rather than invest in the stock market, as it seems like a safer option with a greater guaranteed return.

   “When you have one of them here, 10 of them will come; when you have 10 of them here, 100 will come, and then the price [of property] will keep going up, and it’ll almost never come down.

   “They come in bunches… and it’s almost impossible to argue they’ll stop coming unless there’s some restriction in terms of how many Chinese can buy in this country, otherwise there’s no stopping them.”
   • Chooky 6.1

     3 August 2015 at 1:26 pm

     +100 Jim in Tokyo…agreed!…. this will be a major Election issue…and this is how they do it….and this is where Labour and NZF should look to put the restrictions on:

     http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/wall-of-chinese-capital-buying-up-australian-properties-20150628-ghztdf.html
   • Charles 6.2

     3 August 2015 at 2:20 pm

     “They come in bunches… When you have one of them here, 10 of them will come; when you have 10 of them here, 100 will come…”

     hahaha that’s the funniest thing I’ve heard today. One is just a person, but don’t be fooled, they is sneaky. Two of them? That’s “Chinese”. But ten, that’s a bunch. I can totally believe that guy’s a professor.

     I saw two of “them” at the bus stop this morning. They’ve probably attracted or “subdivided” into several thousand units, by now. We are doomed. DOOOOMED!
     • Colonial Viper 6.2.1

       3 August 2015 at 3:12 pm

       The kind of growth described is a reflection of how Chinese tend to associate and do business via extended networks of “guan xi.” Once a few Chinese business people find a deal, their networks will start to become active and much more interest will come.
       • Visubversa 6.2.1.1

         3 August 2015 at 3:44 pm

         There are new housing developments in Albany where almost all the property owners are Chinese. Whole streets where every site is owned or being built on by a Chinese owner. No integration at all.
         • Colonial Viper 6.2.1.1.1

           3 August 2015 at 3:48 pm

           That’s very bad for all concerned. I just read on Zero Hedge…what happens when super keen ‘buyers at any price’ transform into desperate ‘sellers at any price.’

           That kind of financial volatility is what we are opening NZ up to.
7. Chooky 7

   3 August 2015 at 1:21 pm

   Mass Migrant flows into countries ( or buy ups by foreigners) are not the wishes of the countries concerned or their peoples…but caused and manipulated by capitalist corporate political oligarchies…. and particularly their wars

   ‘Migrant flow to Europe is result of US, EU military ops in Middle East – Czech president’

   http://www.rt.com/news/311407-migrant-crisis-eu-policy/

   “The flow of immigrants to Europe stems from the Western states’ military interventions in Iraq, Libya and Syria, which have contributed to the emergence of terrorist groups in the Middle East, Czech President Milosh Zeman told local media.

   “The current wave of migration [to Europe] is rooted in the crazy [US] idea to launch an intervention in Iraq, which allegedly had weapons of mass destruction, but nothing was found,” Zeman said in a video interview with the Czech Repubic’s Blesk newspaper published on Sunday….
8. adam 8

   3 August 2015 at 2:03 pm

   On the good news front.

   Players, fans, the AFL, and the media stand up to the racial B.S. in Australia. Great video – people showing their support to Adam Goodes.

   http://www.afl.com.au/video/2015-08-02/were-with-adam-players-fans-back-goodes
9. Ergo Robertina 9

   3 August 2015 at 2:07 pm

   I’m starting to see why the senior docs’ union vociferously opposed Nigel Murray’s appointment at Waikato DHB: http://www.asms.org.nz/news/asms-news/2014/06/12/waikato-dhb-should-keep-looking-for-chief-executive/

   A non-clinical staff member has been sacked over refusing to have a flu jab, and other staff members have been bullied into having the vaccine against their will. This is contrary to the patient-centred healthcare that DHBs should be modelling, and is a breach of human rights. What’s more, this bullying is likely to increase absences through stress-induced illness.

   ”The worker had seen unvaccinated staff being made to wear masks, even though they were sitting in a back office writing up notes, at least 20m from the nearest patient room. Signs had also been put up around Waikato Hospital stating workers wearing masks were not vaccinated, they said.”
   http://m.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11490970
   • Skinny 9.1

     3 August 2015 at 2:42 pm

     A good Union would knock that over for it’s members that refuse.
   • Colonial Viper 9.2

     3 August 2015 at 3:14 pm

     Accepting the flu vaccination is the new mark of corporate conformity. Maybe the unsanctified – I mean unvaccinated – should wear arm bands as well.
     • Ergo Robertina 9.2.1

       3 August 2015 at 3:34 pm

       Some workplaces that encourage staff to get the jab use the down time (when patients have to linger in the clinic for a while in case of an adverse reaction) for a team meeting. That’s potentially a neat way of marginalising colleagues who dare to exercise their right to make independent healthcare decisions – they miss out on the meeting/collegiality.
       • Colonial Viper 9.2.1.1

         3 August 2015 at 3:42 pm

         Yep. And this is a new way for employers to bully and control staff.
         • weka 9.2.1.1.1

           3 August 2015 at 3:52 pm

           This is what I suspected when we were talking about this the other day. It’s about bullying.

           The head dude quoted the Health and Disability Act, so let me say this, if I were in that hospital, I would invoke my rights to good care and effective communication and insist that the person attending me removed their mask 😉
           • northshoredoc 9.2.1.1.1.1

             3 August 2015 at 3:57 pm

             Yes the reason they want staff who interact with patients to be immunised or wear masks is all about bullying not about anything else……. give me strength.
             • weka …

               3 August 2015 at 4:03 pm

               I didn’t say that and it’s disingenuous of you to suggest I did. What I see you doing just now is deliberately misrepresenting one person’s argument because you have no other way to address the issues I have been raising.

               Basically you appear to have argued that the DHB is right in what it is doing (coercion etc) because seasonal flu vaccination takes precedent over all other considerations. I think you are wrong, and that coercion and bullying will create an unhealthy workplace and that this will undermine patient care. FFS, we know this stuff already, it’s not new. It is sad to see these considerations being lost.

               btw, here’s the list of professional organisations objecting to how the DHB is handling this,

               This is being challenged by unions – APEX, the Resident Doctors Association and the New Zealand Medical Laboratory Workers have served the DHB with claims, while a fourth is expected from the New Zealand Nurses Organisation.

               Hardly a bunch of rapid anti-science/anti-vaxxers.
     • Skinny 9.2.2

       3 August 2015 at 3:36 pm

       I have a doctor friend who refuses to have her children vaccinated and advised m.y partner at the time not to allow her daughter to aswell. We were horrified to hear that the percentage of deaths was quite high for a vaccine.
       • Colonial Viper 9.2.2.1

         3 August 2015 at 3:41 pm

         I know someone who does neuroscience research at Otago University. A number of the chemicals used to affect various brain tissue qualities in the lab animals are identical or at least very similar to the ones used in a number of NZ vaccinations.
         • northshoredoc 9.2.2.1.1

           3 August 2015 at 3:47 pm

           Really ? which ones are those ?
           • Skinny 9.2.2.1.1.1

             3 August 2015 at 4:04 pm

             Righto Doc what is the skinny on flu vaccines and deaths in mainly children I presume?
             • northshoredoc …

               3 August 2015 at 4:10 pm

               C’mon buddy you’re telling the story, you tell me.
           • Colonial Viper 9.2.2.1.1.2

             3 August 2015 at 4:05 pm

             Not sure. I’ll ask them and see if I can find out.
             • northshoredoc …

               3 August 2015 at 4:09 pm

               While you’re at it get them to tell you which of them are still used in vaccines at at what concentrations compared to their use in neuroscience.

               Oh and if they can name one or two then ask them whether one would likely to be exposed to many hundreds of times higher quantities of the same chemical on a yearly basis through foodstuffs and the like than several hundred lifetimes of vaccinations.
         • McFlock 9.2.2.1.2

           3 August 2015 at 3:48 pm

           🙄
           I even heard that some vaccines contain dihydrogen monoxide, which kills around a hundred NZers a year.
           • weka 9.2.2.1.2.1

             3 August 2015 at 3:57 pm

             The irony there is that that hoax was supposed to encourage critical thinking. But apparently that only works one way.
             • McFlock …

               3 August 2015 at 4:04 pm

               Well, I was thinking critically about the complete lack of information on which chemicals are used at which concentrations for which desired effect (preservatives, maybe?).

               But no, let’s all go “oooo, that means some chemicals in vaccines will affect my braaiiin” like good little reflexive paranoiacs.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 3 August 2015 at 4:06 pm

                 as I’ve mentioned before McFlock, get jabbed with whatever to your hearts content, I ain’t stopping you.
                 • McFlock …

                   3 August 2015 at 4:09 pm

                   Not with that bullshit, you’re not.
                 • Chooky …

                   3 August 2015 at 4:30 pm

                   maybe McFlock jabs himself all the time?…i guess some people could like getting injections and/or giving others injections …lol..never thought of that before
                   • McFlock …

                     3 August 2015 at 4:44 pm

                     🙄
                   • northshoredoc …

                     3 August 2015 at 4:51 pm

                     Perhaps mcFlock does… probably preferable to your own peccadillo of clubbing yourself in the head and then typing drivel on the internet while stupefied.
               • weka …

                 3 August 2015 at 4:08 pm

                 yeah, but you know I don’t fall into either camp and from where I stand you each look as bad as the other in terms of prejudicial thinking and lack of critique.

                 The main problem I have with the scienceheads is the arrogance that they are always right (when patently they’re not), and that the concerns of lay people should be dismissed on the basis that they don’t have a science degree.
                 • McFlock …

                   3 August 2015 at 4:20 pm

                   I have no idea where you actually stand.

                   It’s all very well to play Mercutio, but he only existed as a foil to advance the plot twice with some undetermined motivations and characterisation.
                   • weka …

                     3 August 2015 at 5:01 pm

                     “I have no idea where you actually stand.”

                     That would be because I can’t be bothered putting my own position out there when the debate is so mired in going nowhere. It’s there for people to read between the lines if they really want to get to it.

                     I don’t know who Mercutio is, but did you just insult me?
                   • McFlock …

                     3 August 2015 at 5:08 pm

                     Romeo & Juliet. The guy who said “a plague on both your houses” or similar.

                     Not an insult as such, more a description of your position from my perspective.
         • Blue Horseshoe 9.2.2.1.3

           3 August 2015 at 3:59 pm

           http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4546421/rep-bill-posey-calling-investigation-cdcs-mmr-reasearch-fraud

           Don’t imagine this got widespread recognition by the MSM

           The flu vaccine is a fraud and a health risk, and those who endorse it should be struck off for negligence
           • McFlock 9.2.2.1.3.1

             3 August 2015 at 4:21 pm

             you do realise that the mmr vaccine has nothing to do with the flu, right?
             • Chooky …

               3 August 2015 at 4:33 pm

               of course he/she does ….there are side effects to them all….some relatively harmless but for some… deadly
               • northshoredoc …

                 3 August 2015 at 4:37 pm

                 dah dah ….DAH !
                 • Chooky …

                   3 August 2015 at 4:50 pm

                   derrrh
                   • northshoredoc …

                     3 August 2015 at 4:52 pm

                     Undoubtedly.
         • Chooky 9.2.2.1.4

           3 August 2015 at 4:12 pm

           last time I was scared into having a flu vaccination I felt awful and vomited throughout the night…my partner kindly suggested this was because I had low immunity and needed the vaccine and the flu would have been a lot worse…he takes the flu vaccine and doesnt have a reaction..however he also gets flus that I dont get …. and generally a lot worse than me when I do get them…I also have a nephew who doesn’t take vaccinations because once as a child he had a serious adverse reaction

           imo the flu vaccines are worse than the flu …but each to their own…people should certainly not be forced to be vaccinated…or sacked for refusing
           • northshoredoc 9.2.2.1.4.1

             3 August 2015 at 4:24 pm

             That may be your opinion Chooky but there is no evidence that influenza vaccine is worse than influenza in fact there is quite considerable evidence to the contrary with several hundred thousand deaths annually world wide directly attributable to influenza.

             Once again no one is being forced to be vaccinated…
             • weka …

               3 August 2015 at 4:40 pm

               You also can’t claim that any individual hasn’t had an idiosyncratic reaction to any vaccine (or drug, or anything for that matter).
               • northshoredoc …

                 3 August 2015 at 4:43 pm

                 I didn’t say that and it’s disingenuous of you to suggest I did. What I see you doing just now is deliberately misrepresenting one person’s argument because you have no other way to address the issues I have been raising.

                 😆 I couldn’t resist.
                 • weka …

                   3 August 2015 at 4:58 pm

                   Your implication was that because Chooky was technically wrong her point was invalid. But if we look at the adverse reaction data on the flu vaccine data sheet we can see the symptoms that Chooky describes. That she technically had an adverse reaction rather than contracting influenza virus isn’t actually better.

                   http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/datasheet/f/Fluvaxinj.pdf

                   This is one of the problems with the sciencehead approach. A lay person doesn’t get the theory right, and their basic argument gets written off. But Chooky is right. For her, the reactions to the vaccine were worse than the flu. That’s her lived experience, which of course is a big no no for some people, but in terms of her individual health and healthcare it’s completely relevant.

                   You read her post and respond by pointing out she is wrong. I read her post and think, fair enough. The loss of the subjective from healthcare is a real problem.
                   • northshoredoc …

                     3 August 2015 at 5:53 pm

                     Weka in my opinion your position is pretty much to support anyone who argues against immunisation from either a personal or population perspective.

                     Choke made the statement that “flu vaccines are worse than the flu”
                     I commented that there is considerable evidence to the contrary. If you want to stand up for some perceived working against choke good for you frankly the more I interact with you on this issue the more mendacious I find you.
                   • weka …

                     3 August 2015 at 6:06 pm

                     “Weka in my opinion your position is pretty much to support anyone who argues against immunisation from either a personal or population perspective”

                     And you’d be completely wrong. I look at the arguments being made and go from there. It is true that in this forum I tend to argue against the scienceheads, but I’ve been relatively open about my antipathy for the shortcomings of the anti-vax lobby as well. Some of the anti-vax arguments and actions internationally make me cringe and I think they’ve done a lot of damage (but probably for different reasons than you do).

                     Vaccination is complex. Some of the concerns that people have about vaccination are valid. Chooky’s comment about her reaction to the flu vaccine is one example. I notice you don’t actually address the points I made about that, so it’s hard to go anywhere useful after that, which is what happens with a lot of these discussions. I’m not interested in absolutes, I am interested in the underlying beliefs behind various people’s positions (all sides), and how that affects health care in its broader sense.

                     I can also make arguments for vaccination. You seem to want me to be pro or anti, but I’m neither (or I’m both).

                     “If you want to stand up for some perceived working against choke good for you frankly the more I interact with you on this issue the more ”

                     I have no idea what the first part of that sentence is supposed to mean, and if you think I am lying about something please point to it specifically.

                     “Choke made the statement that “flu vaccines are worse than the flu” I commented that there is considerable evidence to the contrary.”

                     That’s not all she said though, and as I’ve already pointed out we both listened to what she said and heard different things. I’m more interested in that than pedantic arguments about one aspect of a comment someone made. The differences in what gets heard is a core aspect of health care and why there is such a division between the people who believe science is the be all and end all and the people who have experiences that don’t fit into that. Thankfully we still have some rights in this country that allow for the blurry lines that that entails, both as patients and as workers.
                   • northshoredoc …

                     3 August 2015 at 6:18 pm

                     “I have no idea what the first part of that sentence is supposed to mean, and if you think I am lying about something please point to it specifically.”

                     Autospelling on smartphones is less than useful unfortunately. Regarding lying no you don’t take any position that allows for an outright lie or truth.

                     Anyways not sure whether there is much point continuing the discussion in preference to having dinner.
                   • weka …

                     3 August 2015 at 6:59 pm

                     So I’m telling covert lies? I’m happy to be really clear about what I mean if people ask. People rarely bother in these conversations.
             • Ergo Robertina …

               3 August 2015 at 4:40 pm

               There is evidence that the flu vaccine adversely affects immunity when taken year after year – http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/flu-vaccine-paradox-adds-to-public-health-debate-1.2912790
               It’s unethical to push a vaccine whose safety, efficacy, and even mechanism are anything but settled.
               • northshoredoc …

                 3 August 2015 at 4:48 pm

                 That study does not say what you think it does.

                 … and on a side note the safety, efficacy and mechanism of vaccination for influenza vaccination is far more settled that the science around anthropogenic global climate change and i would regard anyone who would suggest we don nothing about the man made causes of climate change to as irresponsible as those who would suggest we don’t offer to vaccinate our vulnerable populations against a potentially dangerous illness such as influenza.
                 • Ergo Robertina …

                   3 August 2015 at 4:59 pm

                   What does the study say?

                   And on your side note – if the science is wrong on climate change, you are still more likely to effect good outcomes by having taken care of the environment.
                   Get the science wrong on flu vaccines and the personal and societal costs are immense.
                   • Ergo Robertina …

                     3 August 2015 at 11:10 pm

                     northshoredoc – I infer from you not deigning to reply to the question that this study doesn’t fit with your view so you disregard it without being able to say why.
                     I guess you can’t fall back on the weight of evidence line given there isn’t a body of evidence for multi-year effects.
                   • McFlock …

                     4 August 2015 at 11:22 am

                     So in the absence of evidence you infer that a medical professional is ignoring research that doesn’t fit their worldview.

                     Funny thing, perspective. I merely inferred that nsd saw a comment that took a narrow, albeit interesting, effect where vaccine efficacy appears to be reduced when recipients have regularly received similar vaccines for variants of that virus in the past and extrapolated that to a generalised statement about the entire immune system and a massive claim about ethics resulting from a further generalisation based on that statement, and nsd simply inferred that any response would be insufficient to address the preconceptions behind that comment.

                     I infer from your inference that (if my initial inference was accurate) nsd’s inference was probably pretty accurate.
                   • Ergo Robertina …

                     4 August 2015 at 2:39 pm

                     I asked ‘what does the study say’?; I didn’t ask ‘what implications for public health/ethics/medical protocols/patient safety/research’?.
                     Given nsd declared that it ‘does not say what you think it does’ it’s not unreasonable to draw a subjective inference from their lack of further response.
                   • McFlock …

                     4 August 2015 at 3:15 pm

                     You made a claim about what your link said, no? Or did you make a claim about immunity and just link randomly to an irrelevant article?

                     Then you made a ethical claim that was apparently related to your claim about the link.

                     NSD said the study did not say what you seemed to think it does.

                     You asked nsd to explain it for you. NSD couldn’t be bothered. From that, you drew one inference. I drew another.
                   • Ergo Robertina …

                     4 August 2015 at 3:43 pm

                     Nope you haven’t followed the thread – that’s not the comment whose lack of response I queried.
                     I didn’t ask NSD to comment on my interpretation of the study; I asked what the study said to them.
                     As you indicated we all draw inferences, and that’s why I’m not sure why you think this worthy of comment. I daresay NSD couldn’t care less what inference I drew. If they did they’re more than capable of fighting their own corner.
                   • McFlock …

                     4 August 2015 at 4:40 pm

                     Yes. They are. I am not fighting their corner.

                     I’m merely pointing out that your inference (of an example of the medical establishment ignoring discussions and research that do not fit with the conventional worldview) is a pretty reasonable example of why someone might not be bothered to answer in the first place, and is easily predictable from the way you misinterpreted your linked article.

                     I think it’s worthy of comment because I think your inference simply feeds the anti-vax mythos, and that (like global warming) we should all do our part to save lives overall.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     4 August 2015 at 5:04 pm

                     I’m still amazed that pro-vaxxers consider all vaccinations under the same umbrella.

                     Vaccinations are an extremely heterogenous set of drug treatments with widely differing levels of risks, benefits and unknowns, and under no circumstances should be considered as a single category which is “all good” or “all bad.”

                     To do so would be to fall into the realms of irrationality and “mythos.”

                     As for saving lives. A simple response to you McFlock. Save them in the areas where they are being lost. Not in the areas they are not.
                   • McFlock …

                     4 August 2015 at 5:23 pm

                     “Save them in the areas where they are being lost. Not in the areas they are not.”

                     Yeah, that’s the general philosophy behing the vaccination schedule.
                   • Ergo Robertina …

                     4 August 2015 at 6:30 pm

                     Kinda misses the point to say ‘I’m saving lives’ so being a prat is OK. Remember what started the thread – Waikato DHB leveraging the patients’ rights code to coerce staff by citing patient safety.
                     Health unions and others have rightly taken the board to task on that. It’s evidently a point lost on you and, incidentally, the writer of the Herald’s leader today:
                     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11491364
                   • McFlock …

                     4 August 2015 at 9:28 pm

                     lucky that’s not what I said, then.

                     As to the WDHB thing, I suspect the complaints have not so much to do with vaccination as such, more the managerial sickness that seems to be afflicting DHBs across the country as the belts tighten into garrotes. Patient safety might be a plausible justification, but a key motivation for the board’s manner of imposing the policy would be the reduction in staff sick leave.

                     But how a thread starts and how it ends are frequently some distance from one another.
                   • Ergo Robertina …

                     4 August 2015 at 10:33 pm

                     You seem to be suggesting that because cost savings are probably driving WDHB’s decision we ought to be more sympathetic because of the pressures in the sector.
                     Cost is a factor in all healthcare management decisions in DHBs.
                     What counts is whether the measure is ethically acceptable, and whether it is likely to be effective.
                     It’s likely to fail on both counts.
                     Although, I’m not clear what you meant by ‘complaints’; the likelihood is that these workers are upset by the coercion element, not because it’s arisen from a management cost saving drive.
                   • McFlock …

                     4 August 2015 at 11:08 pm

                     “You seem to be suggesting that because cost savings are probably driving WDHB’s decision we ought to be more sympathetic because of the pressures in the sector.”

                     Really? I thought I was more suggesting that the environment attracts a certain style of management.

                     “What counts is whether the measure is ethically acceptable, and whether it is likely to be effective.
                     It’s likely to fail on both counts.”
                     The measure is fine. The application seems to be not so much.
                     Effectiveness is clearly demonstrated in sick leave, less clearly in the patient health area.

                     You say “coercion element”. I reserve judgement on that.
                   • Ergo Robertina …

                     4 August 2015 at 11:20 pm

                     Where you say effectiveness is demonstrated, is there any research specifically on DHB sick leave rates since staff vaccines were targeted five years ago?
                     I’m not sure how else to describe the risk of losing one’s job other than coercion. Forcing someone to wear a mask is humiliating and may be unworkable.
                     You seem to be using weasel phrases to avoid saying where you stand – why reserve judgement?
                     What’s less than ideal with the application? Is there a more sensitive manner in which the DHB could have told staff they had to have the vaccine or wear the mask?
                   • McFlock …

                     5 August 2015 at 12:03 am

                     “Where you say effectiveness is demonstrated, is there any research specifically on DHB sick leave rates since staff vaccines were targeted five years ago?”

                     No idea. It’s perfectly possible that nz dhbs will not have the results demostrated repeatedly if you google scholar “influenza immunisation sick leave”, but I have no reason to assume that they’re particularly exceptional.

                     “Forcing someone to wear a mask is humiliating and may be unworkable.”
                     In a hospital? Interesting concept. Hell, my GP wears a mask if the patient has a sniffle, without exception.

                     I have, however, seen managers implement new policies in different ways. Regardless of the merits of a policy. a bullying “my way or the high way” interaction is sometimes used rather than actualy taking the time to make sure everyone knows why and understands the reasons for it. So that’s why I withhold judgement. I don’t care about masks any more than any other protective equipment, but if the managers are dicks, then coercion might be involved.
           • Psycho Milt 9.2.2.1.4.2

             3 August 2015 at 8:30 pm

             …however he also gets flus that I dont get …

             If you say so, but the flu vaccine is a vaccine against influenza, not the common cold that NZers insist on calling “the flu.” Unless you’re meaning your partner has suffered weeks-long, life-threatening bouts of influenza multiple times without infecting you, in which case I apologise for the implication.
             • Colonial Viper …

               4 August 2015 at 5:07 pm

               so the influenza virus doesn’t cause the common cold?
               • McFlock …

                 4 August 2015 at 5:18 pm

                 [headdesk]
       • northshoredoc 9.2.2.2

         3 August 2015 at 3:47 pm

         A Dr who refuses to have her children vaccinated ?

         Have you asked her why she refuses to have her children vaccinated ?
         • weka 9.2.2.2.1

           3 August 2015 at 3:50 pm

           I also know doctors that don’t always vaccinate themselves or their kids. It’s not unheard of nsd.
           • northshoredoc 9.2.2.2.1.1

             3 August 2015 at 3:55 pm

             Yes, but as you have often commented one would have to know the whole story to form an opinion.
             • weka …

               3 August 2015 at 3:57 pm

               an opinion about what? It’s a fact that some doctors don’t vaccinate.
               • northshoredoc …

                 3 August 2015 at 4:01 pm

                 An opinion on whether the practitioner in question has valid reasons for not vaccinating – surely you wouldn’t want to form an opinion on their decision without knowing the rationale for that decision.
                 • weka …

                   3 August 2015 at 4:05 pm

                   I can only go off the ones I know/have known and I am satisfied with their rationales. These are people who have a foot in both camps so to speak and their decisions are generally well informed.

                   My own GP told me not to get a flu vaccination.
                   • northshoredoc …

                     3 August 2015 at 4:14 pm

                     Perhaps your GP told you not to get a flu vaccination because you didn’t need one ?

                     Perhaps your GP advises some of their other patients to get flu vaccination because they do.

                     Or are you telling me that you know of GPs that advise against vaccinations for everyone ? If that is the case I’d be interested in why they have that view and how that could be considered well informed.
                   • weka …

                     3 August 2015 at 4:23 pm

                     as I said the GPs I know have valid reasons for their decisions (as did my GP in her advice). I haven’t suggested that they oppose vaccinations for everyone. I don’t think you could practice if you did, it would be unethical. You’re the one that’s gone down that track, not me.
               • Chooky …

                 3 August 2015 at 4:19 pm

                 agreed weka…I know doctors that dont vaccinate their children for everything( they have researched the risks for some vaccines ….and also they dont think it likely their children need that vaccine)….and I know one doctor that is against most vaccinations

                 ….people should shop around for a good doctor who can think for themselves …provide education….and leave the clients free to make their own risk assessments and make up their own minds
         • Skinny 9.2.2.2.2

           3 August 2015 at 4:21 pm

           Apparently 1 in 100,000 die was a reasonable reason, when you only have one child and not likely to have another because of her age, we figured not to roll the dice.

           Funny enough before each winter my employer gets the reject call when they offer me a jab. I always sight it is unhealthy and prefer garlic, lemon and honey. Each year I always ensure 5 days sick leave is taken during winter ( 2 last week lol) with the excuse I have a cold. All up 7 weeks leave per year counting 5 days bereavement leave too.
           • northshoredoc 9.2.2.2.2.1

             3 August 2015 at 4:35 pm

             This is mind numbingly stupid. I’m assuming you’re now talking about childhood vaccinations as children are not usually vaccinated for influenza.

             For a start adverse reactions causing death are far rarer than 1/100,000 and the likelihood of contracting the offending disease and having serious harm from it considerably more common.
             • Skinny …

               3 August 2015 at 6:28 pm

               No it was a flu jab at a private school. Your not a bush doctor are you?
             • Colonial Viper …

               3 August 2015 at 6:52 pm

               For a start adverse reactions causing death are far rarer than 1/100,000

               Infant death rates in NZ are about 5 per 1,000 births as a comparison. You’re suggesting that vaccination death rates are hundreds or thousands of times lower than that.

               Hmmmm with a death rate that low how can you be sure that it is being measured correctly and being recorded in a disciplined reliable fashion here in NZ?
               • McFlock …

                 3 August 2015 at 8:03 pm

                 Let’s suppose that there isn’t a centre for adverse reactions to medicine that specialises in detecting high-impact low-incidence events.

                 Then let’s suppose that each and every death of a child or young person isn’t subjected to a multitude of independent examinations, from police to coronor to specialist mortality review committees that look for exactly this sort of thing.

                 Assuming all that, which categories of infant mortality do you think could be misdiagnosed and are actually vaccine-related?
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   3 August 2015 at 9:32 pm

                   love your faith.

                   Now, if vaccination deaths are so incredibly rare, how do practitioners even know what one looks like?
                   • McFlock …

                     3 August 2015 at 10:03 pm

                     🙄

                     There are two main methods of detection of adverse reactions: individual reporting of suspected adverse reaction, and following cohorts of recipients for any variation against the general population.

                     On top of that NZ has about four separate mortality review committees that investigate every death in a few different areas (perioperative, child & youth, perinatal, etc). They’re pretty good at figuring out what caused a death, like traffic accidents or cancer or indeed anaphylaxis within a few minutes of receiving an injection.

                     But of course none of them can read the matrix like you can.
                   • northshoredoc …

                     3 August 2015 at 10:08 pm

                     Come now McFlock you know that such committees are stacked with stooges who are in the pay of (insert relevant bogeyman).
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     3 August 2015 at 10:09 pm

                     Wow that sounds incredibly thorough. So when did the last vaccination caused death in NZ occur, according to this very comprehensive system you outlined?
                   • northshoredoc …

                     3 August 2015 at 10:27 pm

                     Why don’t you search through the MARC minutes and tell everyone ?

                     http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/MARC/Minutes.asp

                     Is there any type of similar oversight of chiropractors ?
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     4 August 2015 at 5:10 pm

                     northshoredoc: I would greatly welcome additional government money, public sector time and university resources being poured into supporting, monitoring and providing additional data on chiropractic practice in NZ.
                   • McFlock …

                     4 August 2015 at 5:23 pm

                     That would be a “no”, then.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     4 August 2015 at 5:33 pm

                     mate, we’re a very small profession which has never ever received any appreciable ongoing funding from the MoH directly or indirectly. If you want us to have additional official oversight, support and monitoring, then that will be a must.
                   • McFlock …

                     4 August 2015 at 9:34 pm

                     Well, there’s a chiropractic council and an association.

                     Let’s start with the basics: if a client walks in and they are treated, then leaves in a wheelchair or ambulance, who does the chiropractor mandatorily (for membership and registration) report that to?
                 • Blue Horseshoe …

                   3 August 2015 at 10:21 pm

                   Let’s suppose that there isn’t a centre for adverse reactions to medicine that specialises in detecting high-impact low-incidence events.

                   Then let’s suppose that each and every death of a child or young person isn’t subjected to a multitude of independent examinations, from police to coronor to specialist mortality review committees that look for exactly this sort of thing.

                   Pretend entities are all any you listed, function as.

                   If you had/have watched the c-span link, you could have identified that two of the co-authors of study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14754936# , Coleen Boyle and Frank Stephano are employed by the CDC.

                   They are accused of shredding documents related to the outcomes of the study.

                   Gotta be pretty fucken thick, or have an agenda to not see the writing on the wall.

                   The pharmaceutical industry see’s it coming, which is why they are sponsoring legislation such as SB277 in California.

                   Thing is, those same companies are now going to under the microscope, along with the endemic corruption, which is a far more sinister threat than any manufactured virus ‘pandemic’.

                   Too many holes in the dyke , champion.

                   Not enough shills to stick their dicks in em.
                   • northshoredoc …

                     3 August 2015 at 10:29 pm

                     Macbeth !
                   • McFlock …

                     3 August 2015 at 10:38 pm

                     lol
                   • Blue Horseshoe …

                     3 August 2015 at 10:47 pm

                     That’s the cold hard stare of exposure, arrowing the way of every medical professional who’ve spent their career preaching the benevolence of an industry, which directly kills millions of the people every single year.

                     With 100% impunity…

                     Fucked if I’d want that on my conscience
                   • McFlock …

                     3 August 2015 at 11:10 pm

                     OK. I’ll bite. What was the “statistically significant race effect”?

                     Bearing in mind that ethnicity’s always fun to quantify lol.
             • Psycho Milt …

               3 August 2015 at 8:37 pm

               This is mind numbingly stupid.

               To be fair, it’s only mind-numbingly stupid if you refuse to accept that garlic, lemon, honey and taking sick leave when not sick are effective prophylactics against infectious disease. Yes, OK, it’s mind-numbingly stupid.
           • Chooky 9.2.2.2.2.2

             3 August 2015 at 4:40 pm

             @ Skinny …In the public service i always used to throw sickies at the hint of a sniffle….and ironically enough the more stoic and committed and dedicated public servants who never threw sickies ….always came down with the worst crash and flus lasting weeks ….and on the final count had much more sick leave taken than the sickie throwers…proof it doesn pay to be a Calvinist stoic
             • Skinny …

               3 August 2015 at 9:21 pm

               +1
               It is not acceptable for people who have a cold to front up at work and sprend it, staff know this and do us all a favour as did I last week when slightly off colour. Burnt it off pretty quick 🙂
10. Sabine 10

    3 August 2015 at 2:31 pm

    an Puerto Rico defaulted.

    file this under shit happens?

    http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion/2015/07/31/opinion-default-is-best-thing-that-can-happen-to-puerto-rico-unfortunately/

    August 1st is a day that may make the history books in Puerto Rico. This Saturday (technically Monday, since the deadline is on a weekend) Puerto Rico has a major debt payment due in the amount of $58 million that it’s not going to pay. For the first time in its history, Puerto Rico will default.

    Puerto Rico has been threatening default since the beginning of time, which has led most creditors to believe its administrators are, yet again, crying wolf. This time will likely be different. Throughout the week, the Governor of Puerto Rico, through his Chief of Staff, has continuously confirmed that Puerto Rico will be unable to make the full payment required by COB Monday. Sources have told me that Puerto Rico has transferred finances to its debt paying authority in an amount that is short its total bill. After years of threats, it’s finally going to happen.

    My final confirmation comes from the fact that the island’s top leaders have all left Puerto Rico. Governor Garcia-Padilla is attending a conference of Governors in Colorado, and will be on vacation when Doomsday rolls around. The Secretary of State (second in command) has also left, while President of the Senate and the Speaker of its House of Representatives have all hightailed it out of town, leaving but the little known Secretary of Justice in charge of the government. “Default and flee?” as one analyst quipped on Twitter.
    ———————————————————————————————————————-
    hattip Daily Kos
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/02/1408174/-The-largest-muni-bond-default-in-U-S-history-is-happening
11. xanthe 11

    3 August 2015 at 7:04 pm

    Two statements from crown law reported in the herald

    A spokeswoman for Crown Law said Dotcom’s statements to Slashdot were “incorrect”.

    “We do not discuss the content of without prejudice discussions.”

    Can anyone else see why i have a problem reconciling these
12. cogito 12

    3 August 2015 at 8:43 pm

    GST threshold for online goods could be cut – PM
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11491354

    Quote:
    Mr Key said: “It’s quite clear from the statements they’ve been making that Australia is looking to reduce … the level at which you have to pay GST from $1000 down to $20 and maybe, potentially, to zero.”
    He said Government had not yet discussed what New Zealand’s new limit could be, but it would definitely have to be lowered.
    “Otherwise the gap is too large,” he said.
    “The balancing act for us is always between the Government trying to have a level playing field and not massive inconvenience for the consumer.”
    Asked whether New Zealand’s tax threshold would be similar to Australia’s, he said: “Yes, potentially. I can’t see why there would be a dramatic difference.
    “If Australia can get to a point where they can adequately complete the test of being fair but not dramatically inconveniencing consumers then we should be able to do the same.”
    End Quote.

    If NZ can harmonise with Australia re GST on off-shore online goods, why can’t they do the same re basic foods which are GST-exempt in Australia? Would be good if ordinary consumers got cheaper healthy foods as a spin-off from raising more GST form off-shore online purchases.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS