Open mike 22/04/2023

145 comments on “Open mike 22/04/2023 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. RedLogix 1

   22 April 2023 at 6:55 am

   The best news I have had in quite a while:

   The Australian government has announced a direct pathway to citizenship for New Zealanders, ending a tension between the two countries that has lasted for more than 20 years.

   Since 2001, New Zealanders in Australia have been able to reside there on a Special Category Visa. While it has allowed them to remain in Australia indefinitely, getting permanent residency and citizenship has been much more difficult.

   It has meant New Zealanders have been unable to access benefits such as student loans, join the Defence Force, or even vote.

   In contrast, Australians in New Zealand have had a clear pathway to citizenship after five years.

   But from 1 July, New Zealanders who have been on the Special Category Visa and lived in Australia for four years will be able to get citizenship.

   They will still need to meet standard criteria (such as pass a character check, a language test, and intend to stay in Australia), and attend a citizenship ceremony.

   The pathway is retrospective, meaning those in Australia since 2001, when the SCV came into effect, will be able to apply for citizenship without gaining permanent residence first.

   Kiwi children born in Australia will become citizens at birth, rather than waiting until they are 10 years old.

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/488449/australia-announces-pathway-to-citizenship-for-new-zealanders

   Credit where it is due to both govts; finally some common sense prevails.
   • Mike the Lefty 1.1

     22 April 2023 at 8:44 am

     Amazing what progress can be made when governments quietly sit down and talk about issues rather than political posturing and grandstanding through the media, something the centre-right parties of both countries seem unable to do.
   • SPC 1.2

     22 April 2023 at 12:23 pm

     Citizenship will allow voting, access to benefits, housing and tertiary education support for children (someone in Oz Labour wants re-election).

     And the Oz pension and access to their health system in retirement is appealing to longer term guest workers.

     The greater certainty provided will make employment there more attractive to Kiwis as we enter a worker shortage era (something their mandarins would have noted).
     • Koff 1.2.1

       22 April 2023 at 7:50 pm

       The main change for older Oz based kiwis is the right to vote. Younger kiwis who work there and opt for Oz citizenship after 4 years will then have the same rights as Australian citizens already have in NZ. The changes just reverse the mean (but politically targeted) policy brought in by the Howard government in 2001. NZ and Oz have a reciprocal social security arrangement so anyone applying for super in NZ or age pension in Oz and have spent time in both countries get a contribution from both Centrelink (Oz) and MSD (NZ) so that the total is equivalent to the applicable pension in the country the person lives. No change with the new policy.

       There are 70,000 Australians resident in NZ, so based on the relative population sizes, equivalent to 350,000 NZers in Oz. That means that there are twice as many kiwis in Oz as Aussies in NZ on a comparable basis.
       • SPC 1.2.1.1

         22 April 2023 at 8:02 pm

         OK. I thought they might have got the slightly higher Oz payment. Just the better resourced health system then.
         • Koff 1.2.1.1.1

           22 April 2023 at 8:26 pm

           Again, NZ and Oz citizens get reciprocal health rights in each country, so if you are a NZer in Oz or an Aussie in NZ you get the right to use each other's health system – if you want to get a Medicare card in Oz as a NZer you have to say you want to live there, which is pretty easy. You then may get free doctor's visits if you can access a doc that allows bulk billing. The Oz health system is under similar strains as NZ even if it is in better condition overall. Many GPs now are rejecting bulk billing unless the subsidy they get from the federal government is bumped up (it stayed the same for many years of Coalition government). The centre left Labor government in Oz has the same challenge as NZ – how to pay for better infrastructure or maintain creaking current infrastructure without finding ways of creating a fairer tax system. The easier pathway for NZers to get Aussie citizenship will not affect their access to health care at all (but will make kiwis in Oz feel more secure for the future in a more general way).
       • Belladonna 1.2.1.2

         22 April 2023 at 8:49 pm

         The actual total of Kiwis in Oz appears to be quite a bit higher.

         This is not the full number of New Zealanders living across the Tasman, estimated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to be around 700,000 – nearly 15% of New Zealand’s population.

         https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/131834539/australia-to-let-kiwis-become-citizens-after-four-years-in-major-policy-shift
         • Koff 1.2.1.2.1

           22 April 2023 at 9:38 pm

           That would be right – as I said above, the percentage of Aussies in NZ compared to the NZ population would be equivalent to 350,000 NZers in Oz, so the fact that there are 700,000 kiwis in Oz means that there are twice as many in comparison. Not sure of the numbers but think the percentage of Maori kiwis in Oz is even higher in proportion. However, that is just a reflection of the fact that people move when they think they can get a better deal when they are permitted to do so. No doubt Maori ancestors from what is now Raetea and the French Poly Society Islands thought the same back in the 1300s when they sailed to Aotearoa!
           • RedLogix 1.2.1.2.1.1

             22 April 2023 at 9:49 pm

             That is a good point – I made much the same rough calculation myself a few years back and came to much the same conclusion. The idea that trans-Tasman migration is all a one-way street is a bit of a myth.

             In fact there are scarcely two nations on earth socially and economically more entangled than Aus and NZ. It has only been the political realm that we have drifted apart in recent decades.

             This move hopefully signals a reversal of that trend.
2. pat 2

   22 April 2023 at 7:31 am

   Brian Easton on the money again…concluding with

   "Explaining how the government has got itself into such a muddle requires another column. It will tell us much about deep structural failures in the government."

   https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/watering-down-three-waters
   • Hunter Thompson II 2.1

     22 April 2023 at 10:20 am

     Brian Easton has given a clear analysis of the Three Waters debacle. His comments on co-governance (also on Pundit) are well worth reading.

     I laughed when the PM said Three Waters had not been accepted by many because the reasons for it had not been communicated well enough.

     It's like the Nazis saying their need for lebensraum had not been properly explained to the people of Eastern Europe.
     • Incognito 2.1.1

       22 April 2023 at 11:33 am

       You laughed because it reminded you, somehow, of the Nazis!?
     • Ngungukai 2.1.2

       22 April 2023 at 12:16 pm

       People are shit scared the mawrees are going to get ownership/control of the water resources.
       • Molly 2.1.2.1

         22 April 2023 at 1:59 pm

         I hear this repeated a lot. Most recently in a conversation with two friends explaining the pushback against the Three Waters proposal.

         While I see that some of the concerns expressed around the co-governance structure come from a place of frustration and/or racism, I think this framing of racism being the main reason for concerns is a form of racism itself.

         The time for such co-governance structures was passed a long time ago.

         We had many mechanisms for including necessary consultation with local iwi for resource consents, and Māori consultants at other levels of local and regional. councils. While some may have valid criticisms of this process, (which are duplicated by environmentalists who are in the same position) it was an implementation in a democratic society that did not impact on transparency, or duplicate needlessly the levels of administration in any organisation.

         Māori are not a hive mind. Any representative selected to hold representative positions in the original proposal, were non-elected and non-accountable.

         Has this changed?
         • Incognito 2.1.2.1.1

           22 April 2023 at 5:04 pm

           Do you believe the representatives are non-accountable or do you assert that? Either way, there’s a clear contradiction in your comment.
           • Molly 2.1.2.1.1.1

             22 April 2023 at 5:52 pm

             There was a conversation on here a while ago where I posted the link to the original paper and discussed the lack of clarity over the way it was written:

             .https://thestandard.org.nz/co-governance-is-orthodox-policy-for-both-national-and-labour/#comment-1923737

             I posted the link to the bill (as it was) here:

             .https://thestandard.org.nz/co-governance-is-orthodox-policy-for-both-national-and-labour/#comment-1924053

             Here's the link:

             https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2022/0136/latest/whole.html?search=y_bill%40bill_2022__bc%40bcur_an%40bn%40rn_25_a#LMS538045

             Section 32 seems to set a competence standard not replicated in Section 33.

             There is no election of 33 representatives – just apptmts.

             I assumed with the review and rebrand it may have changed, do you know if it has?
             • Incognito …

               22 April 2023 at 8:10 pm

               So, you’re deflecting and not answering my very basic and specific question to you and/or addressing the contradiction in your comment? Instead, you’re luring me into three links, no less. Quelle surprise – discussion with you here is futile!
               • Molly …

                 22 April 2023 at 11:58 pm

                 Incognito, I asked a question of Ngungukai to which I thought he might have the answer since he specifically mentioned Māori co-governance.

                 Then answered your question with references to what was known before, so those with updated knowledge could clarify.

                 "Do you believe the representatives are non-accountable or do you assert that?"

                 How can I know the answer to that without knowing if this part has been updated?

                 "Instead, you’re luring me into three links, no less. Quelle surprise – discussion with you here is futile!"

                 I was asking Ngungukai for information.

                 Your demand for a stated position before it was answered is a peculiar one.

                 Your practice of making comments berating style and commenters however is becoming a familiar one. There is an element to it that seems to have lost perspective.
                 • Incognito …

                   23 April 2023 at 7:26 pm

                   So much deflection and twisting of my words.

                   […] I asked a question of Ngungukai […]

                   […]

                   I was asking Ngungukai for information.

                   I asked you to clarify something that was not a question in your comment to Ngungukai but a statement that representatives “were non-elected and non-accountable”.

                   This could be taken as an opinion or an assertion and you asked specifically:

                   Has this changed?

                   So, was it your opinion or your assertion?

                   This was not a demand although Mods do sometimes moderate commenters to clarify their assertions and distinguish those from their opinions – they do this through Mod notes, as you know full well. This is nothing new and nothing personal.

                   Obviously, you cannot know Ngungukai’s answer. But you knew the premise of your final question, which was either your opinion or your assertion.

                   You see, I can read your comments without losing perspective – nice snide, BTW. There was no berating of your style even though I mentioned that there was a contradiction in that particular part of your comment, which was content-related, not style-related.

                   I don’t expect you to answer anymore. I don’t want to have to read through copious links and scroll through long copy & pasta from legal documents and Bills because that’s not what I asked for and I’ll never find it in there, and you know it. I was aiming for a simple clarification from you to a simple question of mine.

                   If you don’t want to give clarifications, don’t want to give answers to straightforward questions, or don’t want to engage in debate, that is perfectly fine unless specifically requested by a Mod – even then you still have a choice to comply or not. Simply say nothing. However, please don’t respond with deflections, twisting of words, or accusations because that’s a likely way of inflaming discourse.

                   Have a good evening.
                   • Molly …

                     23 April 2023 at 8:47 pm

                     "So, was it your opinion or your assertion?

                     This was not a demand although Mods do sometimes moderate commenters to clarify their assertions and distinguish those from their opinions – they do this through Mod notes, as you know full well. This is nothing new and nothing personal."

                     It neither an opinion, or an assertion, it was my previous understanding.

                     Are you feeling adequately fulfilled now with my answer, to leave the offloading of frustration to some other instance? I doubt it, but will live in hope.

                     "I don’t expect you to answer anymore. I don’t want to have to read through copious links and scroll through long copy & pasta from legal documents and Bills because that’s not what I asked for and I’ll never find it in there, and you know it. I was aiming for a simple clarification from you to a simple question of mine."

                     Of course, you don't want an answer. It appears instead you want the opportunity to wax lyrical, without any requirement to read someone else's lyrical waxing.

                     Wax On, Incognito. I may return but I'll wax off for now.

                     [I asked you not to respond with deflections, accusations, and twisting of words. Yet, your immediate response does exactly that!? This is your warning – Incognito]
                   • Incognito []

                     23 April 2023 at 9:27 pm

                     Mod note
                   • Molly …

                     23 April 2023 at 10:14 pm

                     @Incognito

                     Question:
                     “So, was it your opinion or your assertion?”

                     Answer:
                     "It neither an opinion, or an assertion, it was my previous understanding."

                     Is this a brief and clear enough answer to your question?
                   • tWiggle …

                     27 April 2023 at 3:51 pm

                     Incognito, seconded.
             • Shanreagh …

               23 April 2023 at 12:19 am

               Māori are not a hive mind. Any representative selected to hold representative positions in the original proposal, were non-elected and non-accountable.

               Has this changed?

               and

               There is no election of 33 representatives – just apptmts.

               I assumed with the review and rebrand it may have changed, do you know if it has?

               Yes there was concern about the appointment process. This was despite the appointment process being used in planning work in local authorities where there has been provision for the representation from local iwi etc who were subject to selection from within the iwi then appointment not election.

               In the new legislation (bill) there are these provisions

               Clause 6 mana whenua, for an identified area, means the iwi or hapū holding and exercising, in accordance with tikanga, authority or other customary rights or interests in that area

               1 Clause 33 Method of appointing mana whenua representatives to regional representative group

               Mana whenua whose rohe or takiwā is within the service area of a water services entity must appoint mana whenua representatives to the regional representative group of the water services entity in accordance with section 27(2) and (3) and the constitution.

               2 Clauses 27(2) & (3)

               27 Establishment and membership of regional representative group

               (1) This section establishes a regional representative group for each water services entity.

               (2) Each regional representative group consists of a number of regional representatives that is provided for in the constitution (see section 91(a)(i)) and is—

               (a) 12 regional representatives; or

               (b) any greater number of regional representatives.

               (3) Each entity’s regional representative group must include an equal number of—

               (a) territorial authority representatives; and

               (b) mana whenua representatives.

               Clause 38 This group (Regional rep) then appoints a Board Appointment Committee

               The Board Appointment committee has the functions to

               Functions of board appointment committee

               The functions of the board appointment committee are—

               (a) to appoint and remove members of the board of a water services entity; and

               (b) to prepare and maintain an appointment and remuneration policy for the board; and

               (c) to perform or exercise any of the regional representative group’s functions and powers that are delegated to the committee in relation to appointing and removing board members.

               Ok so having got the regional representatives who appoint the Board appts committee, this committee appoints the board.

               57 Membership of board

               (1) The board of a water services entity consists of no fewer than 6, and no more than 10, members.

               (2) The board appointment committee must appoint board members who, collectively, have knowledge of, and experience and expertise in relation to,—

               (a) performance monitoring and governance; and

               (b) network infrastructure industries (for example, water services network infrastructure industries); and

               (c) the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi; and

               (ca) public health; and

               (cb) the environment; and

               (d) perspectives of mana whenua, mātauranga, tikanga, and te ao Māori; and

               (e) perspectives of consumers and communities; and

               (f) perspectives of local government.

               Clause 63 sets out the

               Criteria for appointments by board appointment committee

               (1) A board appointment committee must appoint board members under section 62 in accordance with the criteria for board members and the process for appointment under this Act (including the appointment and remuneration policy (if any) approved by the regional representative group under section 40).

               (2) The board appointment committee may only appoint a person who, in the committee’s opinion, has the appropriate knowledge, skills, and experience to assist the water services entity to achieve its objectives and perform its functions.

               (3) In making an appointment, the board appointment committee must take into account the desirability of promoting diversity in the membership of the board.

               The whole process seems to work by appointment. It seems now to have as many checks and balances as the US Constitution (kidding!)

               What it seems to do, whuch seems bit novel compared with the original process is to build up to the appointment of the board (Water Services entity) or (flaxroots up) or in another way, popular in the 'olden days' of Board etc formation was the concept of a Steering Committee/Group having the power to appoint a Board/s that sat below them.and did all the day to day work.

               I have not seen the explanations of how the new system works philosophically but to me either way from flaxroots up or from a Steering group having an important role would work in a being able to sell the concept.

               ETA I've found this from the press release of 13/4.

               • Strategic oversight and direction to be provided by local representative groups with every local council in the country, as well as mana whenua, getting a seat at the table

               The ability to choose people with skills seems a better fit than perhaps ethnically chosen but run off their feet because the skills may be thin on the ground.

               The areas will be much larger than before and the appointment to the important Regional Representative groups (Local Authorities/Maori) that set in train the whole appt process will include different tribal groups.

               I think I have got this set up correctly. Having worked with this Board type legislation for most of my working life I can see the imprint/influence of a different statutory drafting hand from what was originally drafted. The concept and clauses seem tighter, And more akin to board statutory legislation of old.

               I cannot see any appointment time limits say for 5 years etc or a process to appoint to a vacancy in the mana whenua side should a death or resignation occur. I haven't looked very hard.

               Hopefully this is some help.
               ETA Sorry for all the quotes from legislation. It is an interesting way of working
               • Molly …

                 23 April 2023 at 8:48 am

                 Thanks, Shanreagh.

                 I'll see what else has changed. The was reference in the draft I looked at closely to an as yet unwritten (or unavailable) constitution.

                 I found the details around the mana whenua representatives required a lot of referencing back and forward, and still ended up with a poor understanding of what the bill intended in that respect.

                 I'd hoped someone who considered any concerns raised as "People are shit scared the mawrees" might have a firm grasp on this aspect, and be able to explain it.

                 I'll fumble through your link instead.
               • Molly …

                 23 April 2023 at 9:01 am

                 ""Yes there was concern about the appointment process. This was despite the appointment process being used in planning work in local authorities where there has been provision for the representation from local iwi etc who were subject to selection from within the iwi then appointment not election.""

                 Yes, I mentioned that in my response to Ngungukai and still fully support that consulting role for the relevant knowledge as pertains to planning considerations etc. The one flaw that exists (which is true of any authority consultant relationship) is that as the relationship is established, consultants may become more attuned to the expectations of council and unconsciously adapt their contributions accordingly. Also, as those relationships strengthen – other discordant voices from mana whenua are not heard because there is already a representative at the table.

                 The concerns I had about the initial bill was that there was a requirement for other regional representatives to have experience or knowledge of water treatment systems, but none for the mana whenua representatives.

                 In that case, why are not retained as consultants, rather than given voting rights? There appeared to be no assessment of the value of knowledge they would bring in terms of the fundamental role of managing necessary infrastructure, before allocating them quite heavy influence on decision making, including that of veto.

                 But, as I said, I'll have to wade through. Thank you again.
                 • Shanreagh …

                   23 April 2023 at 12:15 pm

                   It is a complex set up from the legislation.

                   I don't think anyone now could complain about too much Maori representation. It is there where it is most important I feel. The rep group (equal Maori/Local authority numbers) gets to set the Board Appointment Group, which gets to select the Boards.

                   Overnight I have had a think about terms of appointment and feel that is not as important as having a clear way of appointing replacements on resignation or death.
               • weka …

                 23 April 2023 at 9:52 pm

                 mod note:

                 1. don't copy and paste long tracts. Use your own words, selective quotes, and links. Long tracts are a problem for mobile users, and people end up using them in lieu of making a clear point.

                 2. when you copy and paste, you have to make it clear what are your words and what is the quote. In the edit box there is a tag (looks like a quotation mark), that will indent the quote. Let me know if you need help on how to use that. Or you can go old school

                 >>

                 like this

                 <<

                 Or

                 like this.

                 and so on.

                 This matters because mods have to read a lot of material, and I don't want to have to be stopping and figuring out what is what. It also matters so that people reading can be clear about what is being said.

                 _____

                 Please add this explanation to your list on commenting, and please let me know you have read and understood and if you have any questions.
                 • Shanreagh …

                   23 April 2023 at 10:32 pm

                   I am assuming this is aimed at me. When the numbering has gone some of us have adopted the idea of going

                   @xys then copying in the time.

                   Sorry I should have continued to bold the clauses.

                   Or indent though I had thought that was for quoting from other commenter's posts.

                   I had thought that another way is to put my comments in italics..

                   I am not keen on putting in my own words actual clauses of draft legislation that depend on precision. I cannot do better at explaining than the legal draftspeople.

                   So move from particular (legislation) bolded or indented to opinion italicised.

                   Plus other helpful advice is noted.
                   • weka …

                     23 April 2023 at 11:06 pm

                     1. on a computer, there is a Reply list in the top right of every page. You can see that I have replied to you and then click on name of post/date stamp to take you to my comment. (On a phone, it’s the same in the Desktop version, but in the Mobile version there is no reply list. Switch to the Desktop version at the bottom of every page)

                     1. when the thread runs out of Reply buttons, mods can still reply from the back end and thus it will show up as a Reply in the Reply list. I almost always do this when moderating.
                     2. please don't bold the copy and pastes. The occasional phrase or word bolded is fine, but it's better for bold to be left for the mods because it 'pops' and gets people's attention.
                     3. you can instead use the various methods I gave to make it clear what is a copy and paste. Leave your own words in normal text.
                     4. indenting is used for any kind of quote/copy and paste.
                     5. it's fine if you don't want to put it into your own words. Just say something like "there's a good explanation of this in clause 6" and let people click through. Or, "clause 6 is the one to read on the issue of accountability". You don't have to reinterpret, you can just point.
                   • weka …

                     23 April 2023 at 11:14 pm

                     here is an example of using italics for quotes/copypasta.

                     .https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-12-04-2023/#comment-1945350

                     here is an example of using the quote tag.

                     https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-06-04-2023/#comment-1943927

                     Both Joe90 and arkie use their own consistent style in commenting, you might want to take note when you see their comments.
           • weka 2.1.2.1.1.2

             23 April 2023 at 9:43 pm

             Do you believe the representatives are non-accountable or do you assert that?

             what's the difference? Both are opinion and we won't know whether it's true or not until someone clarifies with knowledge and evidence.
             • Shanreagh …

               23 April 2023 at 10:08 pm

               True.

               That is why I tried to answer/comment/help by referring to the new legislation without needing to delve into semantics. It is complex but people who have been following will know of /recall Molly's concern about accountablility and how that was to be managed when people were appointed.
               • Molly …

                 23 April 2023 at 10:21 pm

                 I appreciate the links. Still haven't yet had a look at the details yet.
                 • Shanreagh …

                   23 April 2023 at 10:41 pm

                   I can redo it so the clauses and comments are clearly separated as comment of mine does appear in the middle of some of the clauses.

                   Ok so having got the regional representatives who appoint the Board appts committee, this committee appoints the board.

                   I'gr0 (message from cat!)

                   I am sorry I did not do all these helpful formatting ideas in my post.
                   • Shanreagh …

                     23 April 2023 at 10:52 pm

                     I am a new twitterer and never DM'd anyone so…….

                     charliethecat (@charlie12906411)
                   • Molly …

                     24 April 2023 at 10:00 am

                     Sent you a DM.

                     It will show up as the envelope icon on Twitter.
             • Incognito …

               24 April 2023 at 9:01 am

               Excuse me? We have been modding on this distinction for as long as I can remember!?
               • weka …

                 24 April 2023 at 3:06 pm

                 I'm asking you to explain the difference because I didn't understand your point. Please.
     • SPC 2.1.3

       22 April 2023 at 12:41 pm

       Balance sheet separation allows cheaper borrowing – this requires amalgamation (at least 3 council areas) to dilute control and the inclusion of alternative form of oversight (Maori and government appointee with expertise).

       Anyone aware of WT decisions as to water, and the importance of corporate decision-making as to charging (rather than councillors beholden to an election cycle and the influence of local businesses – National's real connection is here).

       The alternative is loading debt onto government and increasing its cost (keeping this low allows the government to provide funding to those of the 10 with a weaker ratepayer base).
   • Anker 2.2

     22 April 2023 at 1:28 pm

     Excellent article thanks Pat
3. Incognito 3

   22 April 2023 at 10:21 am

   You would think that help create a domestic pipeline of nurses would be receive an enthusiastic response and be treated with some urgency, right? Not so, when the Nursing Council of New Zealand is involved.

   https://www.newsroom.co.nz/up-education-hits-wall-with-nursing-council

   It shows that definitely not all red-tape comes from (central) Government; many obstacles & hindrances are at local levels such as institution or work-place and are often elevated to pseudo-legal (aka shady) status. Reasons behind are diverse but often involve power & control and patch-protection of fiefdoms – there is no meaningful difference between elected and appointed officials or pseudo-officials with more or less fancy titles.
   • Adrian 3.1

     22 April 2023 at 11:09 am

     Getting to be a nurse is difficult i.e a Nursing Degree is required and the reason is obvious, nursing is vastly more complicated than even 20 years ago and the position of Enrolled Nurse is essentially redundant as even the simplest nursing intervention requires a lot of documentation and a very thorough knowledge of maths and other disciplines, including very good communication and language proficiency. If a nurse cannot be understood by a compromised or even elderly person then they are not suitable for the job. The Nursing Council has been steadily upgrading the education of Enrolled nurses for a long time now so that all health staff caring for patients are of a similar standard.

     The right-wing love affair with the idea of just recruiting anybody from anywhere who calls themselves a nurse to fill the void is a recipe for disaster.
     • Incognito 3.1.1

       22 April 2023 at 1:27 pm

       This is about the one-size-fits-all dogma. Some things currently done by fully qualified nurses could easily be done by others with lower/lesser qualifications perfectly well and thus take a load off the hands of nurses to do what they’re trained to do. An example is the recruiting and training of vaccinators when the need was high and outstripped the capacity because of silly restraints. Similar things happening in ECE where staff need have degrees to get a foot in the door.

       It is not about self-ID as nurse, pretend to be one, and then be let loose on unsuspecting patients. Unless one fakes their CV. The Nursing Council seems to have accepted the argument but is simply stalling.
       • Adrian 3.1.1.1

         22 April 2023 at 4:30 pm

         You ‘d be surprised at the number of “ nurses “ who arrive here to do their NZ gualifying course whose certifications are less than acceptable. Just so long as they are working on somebody other than you eh Incognito.
         • Incognito 3.1.1.1.1

           22 April 2023 at 7:19 pm

           Never mind.

           Have a good night.
4. Incognito 4

   22 April 2023 at 10:49 am

   The State-funded RNZ has published an article by a couple of academics that contains more than enough triggers to induce a fit of sorts with some.

   The title (not a headline) contains the dreaded h-word. And it is downhill from there all the way to the end.

   But embracing an argument built on a tissue of circumstantial evidence is also part of the conspiracy theory playbook: magical thinking enters the grey zone of unanswered questions to create elaborate narratives of false reassurance.

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/488430/how-covid-19-lab-leak-hysteria-could-be-straight-from-the-middle-ages

   For the purpose of public debate, anecdotal evidence carries as much weight as circumstantial evidence, which is why it is often accompanied by a weak narrative masquerading as compelling argument. Sounds familiar?

   The “contagion effect” has been in full display here in NZ more recently. It is as real as the Sun and the Moon. It needs pointing out that it can and does work in more than one direction (aka ‘both ways’, in the usual binary situation).
   • Anne 4.1

     22 April 2023 at 11:34 am

     The simplest and most obvious answer to the origins of Covid are that it jumped (naturally) from an animal to a human. How it might have occurred is the question and one that should be dominating discourse – not some convoluted bedtime story about fairies and pixies mixing a Covid brew then transporting it to the wider public in an effort to create widespread genocide of the human population.

     I agree with the authors. The fanciful conspiracies are merely a modern day version of the witches brews and wizardry dating back to before and during the middle ages. The adherents to these conspiracies – like their predecessors – are not very intelligent and live in a state of ignorance and stupidity.
     • Anne 4.1.1

       22 April 2023 at 11:56 am
     • Incognito 4.1.2

       22 April 2023 at 12:14 pm

       The adherents to these conspiracies – like their predecessors – are not very intelligent and live in a state of ignorance and stupidity.

       Intelligence per se doesn’t make one immune against prejudice and bias nor to dogmatic thinking, coupled with a stubborn belief in one’s intellectual & cognitive abilities that often lead to entrenched opinions that are defended with a zeal and a closed-mind for extra protection against the evil forces & influences. Is more common than we like to admit, contagious and never asymptomatic.
     • Drowsy M. Kram 4.1.3

       22 April 2023 at 12:19 pm

       The adherents to these conspiracies – like their predecessors – are not very intelligent and live in a state of ignorance and stupidity.

       A few adherents to such conspiracies may actually be very intelligent, not ignorant, and will advocate for conspiracy theories that are a good fit to their world view – the triumph of pre-existing biases over case-by-case rationality.

       Editorial—The truth is out there: The psychology of conspiracy theories and how to counter them [27 February 2023]
       Accordingly, in this special issue we showcase cutting-edge research that aims to move the field forward by focusing on three related yet previously neglected contributions; (1) experimental work on how to reduce belief in conspiracy theories, (2) research which highlights the unique cognitive processes involved in conspiracy belief, and (3) novel methodological approaches to studying conspiratorial thinking. We discuss the special issue’s contribution to each of these areas in turn.

       Recognising that no-one is conpletely immune to a well-presented rabbit hole is a helpful component of any self-innoculation, but once you're personally invested in a conspiracy theory it can be difficult to climb out.

       The conspiracy rabbit hole: Why do some fall in deep and how do some manage to climb out?
       The study will answer three crucial questions: 1) When a person changes their belief about a conspiracy theory, what reasons do they give for this change? 2) To what extent does belief in one conspiracy theory lead to belief in other conspiracy theories? And 3) Do negative experiences such as stress and depression contribute to belief in conspiracy theories?

       If we can understand more about why people trip and fall into the rabbit hole in the first place, and determine what it takes for them to choose to climb out, this will ultimately contribute to a more cohesive society; one that includes a healthy dose of scepticism, without the blinding darkness.

       Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it. Finally suppose he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence that his belief is wrong. What will happen? The individual will frequently emerge not only unshaken but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed he may even show a new fervor for converting other people to his view.
       – Brooke Gladstone
       • Anne 4.1.3.1

         22 April 2023 at 12:34 pm

         There was a tongue in cheek aspect to my response.
         • Drowsy M. Kram 4.1.3.1.1

           22 April 2023 at 12:35 pm

           
     • RedLogix 4.1.4

       22 April 2023 at 12:55 pm

       The simplest and most obvious answer to the origins of Covid are that it jumped (naturally) from an animal to a human.

       That would the obvious and parsimonious explanation – and it has plenty of precedent. But being obvious and natural does not always make an idea correct. Lab leaks also have plenty of precedent. It is also a documented fact the WIV was performing genetic research on coronavirus's, therefore a leak of a novel variant from this lab is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis.

       It would also be nice if there was a sound chain of evidence supporting the natural ‘jump’ theory, because in this instance it is conspicuously missing.
       • SPC 4.1.4.1

         22 April 2023 at 1:07 pm

         On Thursday Professor George Gao, the former head of the Chinese Centre for Disease Control, said that science needed a “rethink” because it now seemed an extra stage was not needed. The virus may have jumped straight from bats to humans.

         Prof Gao told a conference in Geneva that scientists were also questioning whether Sars and Mers had jumped directly into humans, without needing the palm civets or camels originally blamed for the spillover.

         Why does this matter? It is important because bats are not native to Wuhan, where the virus first emerged. They do not live in the area, and there is no evidence they were being brought from outside for sale in local wet markets.

         Yet bats were coming into Wuhan through another route. Scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) were collecting the animals in China and south-east Asia and bringing them to the city for “sequencing, archiving, analysis and manipulation”.

         https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/20/covid-lab-leak-more-likely-wuhan-analysis/
         • RedLogix 4.1.4.1.1

           22 April 2023 at 1:21 pm

           The details of the science can be found in many places – anyone with the slightest amount of curiosity can find it.

           But in short an animal virus has to master two tricks in order to cause a human pandemic. One is that it has to learn how to infect a new host, which is relatively rare event. There are literally trillions of virus's, but the appearance of novel ones in humans is not commonplace. The other quite different trick is that it then has to learn how to be highly transmissible between humans.

           The odds of both of these happening simultaneously without leaving any genetic chain of evidence of this natural evolutionary process is effectively zero. On the other hand there is plain sight evidence of a lab working on a very similar non-natural process, exactly in the location of the first outbreak.
           • SPC 4.1.4.1.1.1

             22 April 2023 at 1:42 pm

             Some discount the Wuhan lab leak because they note spread from the Wuhan market area.

             However one of the labs in Wuhan doing bat coronavirus research (more than one) actually moved its location to 500 metres from the Wuhan market on Dec 2 2019.

             https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-joe-biden-business-health-coronavirus-pandemic-986f0ff0f97af020de3b4eb3d76b23cd

             PS Some claim the first reports of cases were at the military games in Wuhan in October.
           • Incognito 4.1.4.1.1.2

             22 April 2023 at 1:56 pm

             Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and this applies to both hypotheses. Your assertions show that you’ve already made up your mind and formed your opinion on the matter. However, this doesn’t change anything for those of us who’ll remain open-minded and refuse to pick one over the other. In any case, plausibility does not equate compelling let alone convincing.
             • RedLogix …

               22 April 2023 at 4:37 pm

               Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and this applies to both hypotheses.

               Yes there are two possible contending hypothesis and there is an absence of absolute evidence to definitively support either. Yet the reason for the absence is not equivalent for each. The reason why there is no evidence to prove the natural origin hypothesis is that despite a great deal of highly motivated effort to find it – nothing convincing has been uncovered.

               The reason why there is an absence of definitive evidence for the lab leak is quite the opposite – the Chinese authorities have made every effort to prevent an open and trusted investigation into this matter.

               The tenor of the first four comments on this topic that you have started was sneeringly dismissive of the lab leak hypothesis, linking to an article that offered no science based argument, instead offering an unsupported, spurious comparison with witch burning. It is not difficult to see that you too have made up you mind.

               The reason I would suggest has nothing to do with witch burning, or conspiracy minded biases – it is simply a tribally political need to assure us that anything Trump said is forever automagically wrong. And perhaps more importantly to provide cover for the now well established fact of Democrat supported figures like Fauci who spear-headed much of the global response to COVID, was also deeply involved in the funding that enabled the Wuhan coronavirus research in the first place.

               The unspoken reality here is that we are not debating science – but politics.
               • Incognito …

                 22 April 2023 at 7:36 pm

                 I don’t know what constitutes “absolute evidence” and I strongly suspect that it is a red herring.

                 The Chinese authorities are not the only ones stifling investigations. Nice try though.

                 Since you provided no links to those “the first four comments on this topic”, we can only guess what you have in mind.

                 It is not difficult to see that you too have made up you mind. [sic]

                 I agree, in fact, it is impossible because it is incorrect – you are seeing imaginary things.

                 You assume the article linked to @ 4 is part of a larger conspiracy, a false flag operation conducted by black-op academics.

                 ‘kay.

                 The unspoken reality here is that we are not debating science – but politics.

                 Right, which would mean that the hypotheses of the origin of the virus are a smokescreen in a larger game of smoke and mirrors. Thus, people such as you take sides based on political arguments not scientific ones.
                 • RedLogix …

                   22 April 2023 at 8:29 pm

                   The title of the RNZ article you initially linked to pretty much told me all that I needed to know – implying as it clearly does that anyone who entertains the idea of a lab leak is indulging in 'medieval' hysteria and blame pointing. It explicitly invokes witch burning as a comparison.

                   Returning to the quote you selected to highlight:

                   But embracing an argument built on a tissue of circumstantial evidence is also part of the conspiracy theory playbook: magical thinking enters the grey zone of unanswered questions to create elaborate narratives of false reassurance.

                   Again chock full of pejoratives, and clearly implies circumstantial evidence can always be hand-waved off as 'magical conspiracy thinking'. Ask any criminal barrister about the key role circumstantial or corroborative evidence plays in criminal trials where there facts of the case are in dispute. Especially when there is no access to the original scene of the crime, or there are no reliable witnesses available.

                   The reality is that due to the passage of time, and the obduracy of the Chinese authorities, there is almost zero chance we will ever obtain first hand information that confirms the mountain of circumstantial evidence pointing to a lab leak. (The only remaining prospect of a breakthrough will be a credible whistle-blower, although given what we know about the CCP regime I consider this extremely unlikely.)

                   If you are going to demand an unobtainable standard of evidence, then I respectfully submit the debate you are asking for is going to be stillborn.
                   • Incognito …

                     22 April 2023 at 9:03 pm

                     I see, you assume that if somebody links to an article it must always be about the title, the stuff that jumps out at you, the tip of the iceberg, and nothing else, no double messages, et cetera. It doesn’t seem to cross your mind that it might be because of the implicit take-home message, which might be more general than the topic matter might suggest prima facie – often the topic is merely a hook. This seems to happen with others too who are rather topic-obsessed topic-focussed and they always react to the self-raised red flag in a highly predictable way. I had you pegged as more perceptive and with a more depth.

                     If you are going to demand an unobtainable standard of evidence, then I respectfully submit the debate you are asking for is going to be stillborn.

                     I think this is a self-reference, as you mentioned “absolute evidence”, and nobody else has, so far.
                   • RedLogix …

                     22 April 2023 at 9:17 pm

                     I read the article in question – I always do because in so many instances I find it does not actually say what the person referencing it claims it does.

                     In this instance I found nothing of substance worth commenting on other than clickbaity title.
                   • Incognito []

                     23 April 2023 at 11:10 am

                     A superficial read doesn’t initiate any understanding. Read it again, with different eyes, this time.
                 • RedLogix …

                   22 April 2023 at 9:13 pm

                   The Chinese authorities are not the only ones stifling investigations.

                   The point is that they are stifling this one – the one that matters to this discussion.
                   • Incognito …

                     23 April 2023 at 11:12 am

                     It’s settled then, the Chinese did it. \sarc

                     End of.
           • Francesca 4.1.4.1.1.3

             22 April 2023 at 3:42 pm

             And in fact , the Wuhan scientists in a grant application proposed inserting a furin cleavage site into a coronavirus that would make the virus far more transmissible to humans .The very furin cleavage site that manifested in Wuhan .Why is a lab leak considered a conspiracy theory.?

             It matches the requisites for Occam's razor far better than the leap from bat into humans.

             https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/coronavirus-research-grant-darpa/

             https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/08/why-the-chair-of-the-lancets-covid-19-commission-thinks-the-us-government-is-preventing-a-real-investigation-into-the-pandemic
             • Incognito …

               22 April 2023 at 4:11 pm

               Wow! A grant proposal and Occam’s razor, that’s truly compelling stuff!

               Do you wish to have a go at scientific arguments? We could start anywhere, for example, here:

               SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site was not engineered (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2211107119).
               • RedLogix …

                 22 April 2023 at 4:45 pm

                 For balance I offer the response to the above:

                 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2215826119
                 • Incognito …

                   22 April 2023 at 7:42 pm

                   I don’t want balance, I want debate!

                   Where is the critical analysis of the science, the discussion of the scientific arguments, pro & con?

                   Oh, I forgot, this is not about the science, it is about the politics. Duh! Silly me! Thinking that furin cleavage sites are anything but politics.
                 • Drowsy M. Kram …

                   22 April 2023 at 8:56 pm

                   The unspoken reality here is that we are not debating science – but politics.

                   There remains much 'we' don't know, let alone understand, and debating politics doesn't advance the science – let's remain open-minded while expert scientists debate the science.

                   Have we found the 'animal origin' of Covid? [25 March 2023]
                   "We have to get beyond the politics and back to the pure science," said Prof Holmes.
                   …
                   "Because this will happen again."

                   Searching for SARS-CoV-2 origins: confidence versus evidence [20 March 2023; PDF]
                   The hypotheses debate is reminiscent of the discussions
                   on the origins of HIV. In the late 1980s and ‘90s a now-
                   debunked hypothesis that a batch of the oral polio vaccine introduced HIV similarly captured media attention but was eventually refuted following publication of many robust genomic and phylogenetic studies.
                   …
                   However, one lesson the HIV/AIDS epidemic offers is that establishing the origin of a pathogen requires many studies over a period of time; then, once a large evidence base is gathered and can be objectively interpreted, a consensus can eventually be reached. It is difficult for such a consensus to be reached for SARS-CoV-2 if empty rhetoric that does not present informative data continues to be relayed to the public.

                   A Critical Analysis of the Evidence for the SARS-CoV-2 Origin Hypotheses [28 March 2023]
                   It is important to recognize that interpreting this failure to identify a feral source of SARS-CoV-2 as evidence supporting a laboratory origin constitutes the logical error of using the absence of evidence as evidence for an absence. We note that, as for the 2009 influenza pandemic, it took many years to identify the feral sources of SARS-CoV and HIV after their initial isolation from humans.
                   …
                   Nevertheless, it is possible that its origin may never be known with certainty.

                   The Origin of SARS-CoV-2: Animal Transmission or Lab Leak? [2 April 2023]
                   We are just at the beginning stages of understanding the complexity of viruses in the natural world, and further study will be critical for health and prosperity. U.S. national security experts may eventually need to become as familiar with the biology of pandemics as they are with the nuclear triad. But this won’t be possible as long as politics and rhetoric take precedence over reason and necessary research.

                   What New Evidence from the Wuhan Market Tells Us about COVID’s Origins [12 April 2023]
                   Recently released data from samples of the COVID-causing virus SARS-CoV-2 at the market where many early cases of the disease occurred suggest animals were present but stop short of proving that they were infected and transmitted the virus to humans.

                   Weird SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in mink suggests hidden source of virus in the wild [22 April 2023]
                   • RedLogix …

                     22 April 2023 at 9:41 pm

                     If you were sincerely open-minded about the origin of COVID a man with your evident search engine expertise would have no difficulty finding plenty of references also making the case for a lab-leak.

                     For instance – here is an overview of the current US Administrations perspective on the matter – after considerable investigation:

                     https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-part-2-hearing-wrap-up-intelligence-community-officials-provide-further-evidence-that-covid-19-originated-in-a-wuhan-lab/

                     The other well understood problem here is that virtually every expert virologist who we might normally rely upon for unbiased viewpoints – are hopelessly conflicted in this matter. For a start there is the well documented problem that anyone who speaks out against the approved narrative is very likely to be denied funding in future. And this is before we consider the wider concern many will reasonably have about the massive global damage to their profession's credibility if this event was ever proven to be due to be man-made.

                     The other well known challenge is the outright censorship or curation almost all medical journals are imposing on any COVID paper that is not aligned with editorial policy.

                     Normally I would like to think we could rely on the professional science debate to present both sides of the case in an even-handed fashion, but sadly this is not the case with this pandemic – almost all the regulators, journals and science bodies are deeply conflicted due to their massive reliance on single source, or industry funding, that constrains what they can safely say and still have a job.
                 • Drowsy M. Kram …

                   22 April 2023 at 10:39 pm

                   If you were sincerely open-minded about the origin of COVID a man with your evident search engine expertise would have no difficulty finding plenty of references also making the case for a lab-leak.

                   Thanks Red – note that none of the 6 articles I linked to definitively rules out the lab leak hypothesis, which speaks to their credibility, imho. But have a read of them and see what you think.

                   Given the currently available evidence, the two plausible possibilities for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 are not equally likely. Continuing to frame them as such does us all a disservice, dilutes our efforts, and misdirects resources—only serving to weaken our ability to respond to future pandemics.
                   https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mbio.00583-23

                   We often see what we want to see. The attraction of the lab leak hypothesis is clear, and I admire your unshakable belief in its veracity.

                   I like to think I'm open-minded, and yes, I could find those pro-lab leak references. But, as I've mentioned on several occasions, in matters scientific I naturally tend to rely primarily on the evolving consensus opinion of expert scientists. In this case, maybe that's the wrong approach, but it's an approach which has served me well and for longer than I care to remember.
                   • RedLogix …

                     22 April 2023 at 10:58 pm

                     unshakable belief in its veracity.

                     There was always one sure fire way to have proven me wrong. An unconstrained, trusted, open book, pockets out investigation at the WIV within days of the original event back in October 2019.

                     As it stands three years later we are left with either a natural origin hypothesis for which, despite massive effort, there is insufficient definitive evidence to support.

                     OR a lab leak of some kind for which there is a mountain of corroborating evidence – but for which we are never likely to find the definitive evidence either. But in this case because the guilty parties have determined we must not look for it.

                     And that anyone who does is to be smeared as a medieval, witch-burning ignoramus.
                 • Drowsy M. Kram …

                   23 April 2023 at 9:45 am

                   There was always one sure fire way to have proven me wrong.

                   I’ve little interest in proving that you are wrong – that’s not what motivates me.

                   But in this case because the guilty parties have determined we must not look for it.

                   In this instance, scientists and other 'investigators' who assume there must be "guilty parties" are rather giving their game away – I prefer to remain open-minded, but understand that's not for everyone.

                   And that anyone who does is to be smeared as a medieval, witch-burning ignoramus.

                   Such wonderfully colourful hyperbole – more please.

                   Did COVID-19 start from a “lab leak”? [7 April 2023]
                   Uncertainty and Misinformation

                   Regardless of whether you personally favor the “spillover” or “lab leak” theory, it’s important to keep an open mind and consider any new evidence that comes to light. This is the very essence of the scientific process. Science is not a set of fixed facts, but an ever-evolving process of testing, questioning, and updating what we know based on new information. Beware of anyone so entrenched in their beliefs that they would never change their mind regardless of new evidence. This is a good indicator that their beliefs are not based on science.
                   • RedLogix …

                     23 April 2023 at 11:18 am

                     Such wonderfully colourful hyperbole

                     I was paraphrasing that from the article Incognito linked to in the comment which kicked off this thread. I thought it a little over the top too.

                     At every point I have been scrupulous to note that both the spillover and lab-leak hypothesis are valid choices from a purely scientific perspective. Yet at this point in time I do not believe the evidence we do have to hand supports them equally.

                     Nor for all the reasons I have already touched on, do I consider them 'equivalent' hypothesis. COVID as just another spillover event happily aligns with the interests of a great many professional people who lead and control our medical and public health systems.

                     COVID as a lab-leak by contrast holds a much darker prospect for many of these same people. Show me the incentives – and I will show you the outcomes.

                     it’s important to keep an open mind and consider any new evidence that comes to light. This is the very essence of the scientific process. Science is not a set of fixed facts, but an ever-evolving process of testing, questioning, and updating what we know based on new information.

                     That would be nice, but frankly when I reflect on the broad public debate I see quite the opposite in play – people locked into positionality and refusing to so much as look at the evidence for the case they are opposed to.

                     As far as I am concerned the spillover case is perfectly possible but so far despite almost 3yrs of highly motivated effort, definitive and convincing evidence remains elusive.

                     The lab-leak case by contrast could have been definitively proven or disproven 3yrs ago with a full and transparent investigation. The fact that the relevant authorities have prevented this rather gives their game away – and as far as I am concerned quite fairly speaks to their guilt.
                 • Drowsy M. Kram …

                   23 April 2023 at 3:13 pm

                   At every point I have been scrupulous to note that both the spillover and lab-leak hypothesis are valid choices from a purely scientific perspective. Yet at this point in time I do not believe the evidence we do have to hand supports them equally.

                   Agree 100% – mine has always been "a purely scientific perspective". That's the reason I don't much credit the idea that a secret cabal of "a great many professional people who lead and control our medical and public health systems" is actively concealing the truth. Tbh, that idea seems relatively fantastic to me – much less likely than (for example) the idea that a great many professionals are simply mistaken.

                   I mean, just how big is this group of professionals that might be trying to cover up the truth? Thousands? Tens of thousands? While the lab leak hypothesis remains a possibility, I reckon the idea that a conspiracy of experts is concealing the truth about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 will eventually be consigned to the fringes, much like the idea that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job.

                   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

                   I'll be keeping an open mind, pending further evidence
                   • RedLogix …

                     23 April 2023 at 3:39 pm

                     That's the reason I don't give much credence to the idea that a secret cabal

                     The problem for this argument is that it is no longer much of a secret. In recent months much of how this was done has now become common knowledge, which is why this topic has re-surfaced now.

                     Medicine, as you likely well know, is a very hierarchal profession and it is not hard for a relatively small handful of elites at the top to impose their agenda. Especially when they control research funding, professional registrations, – most especially when they have a great deal of collective credibility at stake.
                   • Incognito []

                     23 April 2023 at 4:05 pm

                     Medicine and science are two quite different things. MDs are not the ones experimenting with viruses in the lab.
                   • RedLogix …

                     23 April 2023 at 5:34 pm

                     @Incognito

                     Ah the old 'I'm going to make myself a small target until I can provoke the other person into saying something I can snipe at' gambit.

                     Nice try – as I recall someone recently saying.
                   • Incognito []

                     23 April 2023 at 6:02 pm

                     There’s only sniper here and it ain’t me.

                     A though-provoker is somebody who’s interested in genuine debate. A provocateur is not. I’m interested in genuine debate with people who have an open-mind and when they talk about science they mean science, for example.

                     Have a good evening.
                 • Drowsy M. Kram …

                   23 April 2023 at 5:29 pm

                   Medicine, as you likely well know, is a very hierarchal profession and it is not hard for a relatively small handful of elites at the top to impose their agenda. Especially when they control research funding, professional registrations…

                   From my point of view, you seem to be slipping further down the 'SARS-CoV-2 lab leak origin' rabbit hole.

                   You're now suggesting that “a relatively small handful [as opposed to a relatively large handful – care to take a punt at how many?] of elite medics used threats and intimidation to quash alternative narratives.

                   Well, if that is indeed the case, then, despite all their power, this small handful of controlling elites hasn't done a very good job. Maybe that's because they are a "relatively small handful" – you know, like the famously small hands of (then) President Trump.

                   Top Trump officials pushed the Covid-19 lab-leak theory. Investigators had doubts. [15 June 2021]

                   At a press conference on April 30, 2020, Trump said the administration had evidence showing Covid-19 came from a lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, although he declined to provide specifics. “I can’t tell you that. I’m not allowed to tell you that,” Trump said.

                   Days later, on May 3, Pompeo told ABC’s “This Week” that there was “enormous evidence” that Covid-19 came from the lab.

                   "Enormous evidence" – 3 years ago! Why are we still debating this?

                   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19

                   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory

                   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation#Virus_origin

                   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS-CoV-2#Reservoir_and_origin
                   • RedLogix …

                     23 April 2023 at 6:06 pm

                     Frankly whenever I come across someone using the word 'misinformation' these days I assume they are attempting to force the debate to a predetermined outcome. Disingenuous at best; more commonly a borderline authoritarian censorship tactic. It certainly does not suggest someone interested in investigating the science in an even-handed manner.

                     And in case you had not noticed, Trump is no longer President. Quoting three year old statements is a tactic that suggests either you are not up to speed with the current developments, or less charitably you are attempting a smear by political association to Donald Trump – a figure with precious little relevance to the debate other than being a handy well-poisoner.

                     The officials and agencies quoted in my link well above – that I assume you did not bother to read – all work for the Biden Administration. And they too clearly indicate there is sufficient reason to take the lab-leak thesis seriously.

                     If you choose not to inform yourself with the excuse that it is 'all some conspiracy minded rabbit-hole' – then I feel no obligation to re-type out here the mass of information available to a man with your evident search engine skills.

                     "Enormous evidence" – 3 years ago! Why are we still debating this?

                     Well if for the sake of argument we allow that Pompeo is correct, it is clear that he is referring to evidence of a circumstantial or corroborating nature – because as we both understand the Chinese authorities have never permitted a proper, transparent investigation. Nor for that matter certain figures in the US Administration who were indirectly funding coronavirus research at WIV.

                     And as Director of the CIA we might hazard a guess that Pompeo had a higher security clearance than you or me, and that if he assessed three years ago the information available to him as a "mountain of evidence" – then who are we to quibble? Especially when this claim has been largely confirmed by numerous independent researchers and various US govt agencies subsequently.

                     I can sympathise with your predicament. If you feel a life-long attachment and respect for the medical and science establishment, claims of their malfeasance will not be welcomed by you. I get it.

                     But the game you are playing here is obvious; you cannot produce definitive science evidence to support your preferred spillover thesis, instead all of your energy goes into various slippery tactics to discredit the alternative. Frankly I am losing interest in this fast.
                 • Drowsy M. Kram …

                   23 April 2023 at 8:59 pm

                   I can sympathise with your predicament. If you feel a life-long attachment and respect for the medical and science establishment, claims of their malfeasance will not be welcomed by you. I get it.

                   I don't think you do, and can only repeat that in matters scientific, I tend to rely on evolving consensus expert opinion. Re alleged "malfeasance", my "predicament" is entirely in your own head.

                   Btw, is it "a small handful of elites", or the (much broader) "medical and science establishment" that stands accused of "malfeasance"?

                   ‘The siren has sounded’: Scientists pinpoint COVID’s origin
                   [2 August 2022]
                   Lab-leak proponents have now turned to trying to find malfeasance in the articles’ peer review process, of all places. Holmes doubts the conspiracy theorists will ever be convinced. “Even if the Chinese do let us in the lab, people would say ‘aha, but they’re covering it up’,” he says.

                   Re playing games, I can 'play' too

                   But the game you are playing here is obvious; you cannot produce definitive science evidence to support your preferred lab leak thesis, instead all of your energy goes into various slippery tactics to discredit the alternative. Frankly I am losing interest in this fast.

                   Fwiw, I'm not trying to discredit the lab leak hypothesis any more than you are trying to discredit zoonotic emergence – it's simply that, based on available evidence, I (and many others) simply don't find 'a lab leak', even an accidental leak, as persuasive as zoonotic emergence. I suggest that we agree to disagree on the most likely origins of SARS-CoV-2, and hope that will not prove too difficult for you.

                   Lastly, it's a bit rich for you to assert that all of my energy "goes into various slippery tactics" – I had hoped you might have grown out of your habit of slurring those who disagree with your convictions, but your comment @6:06 pm put paid to those hopes.
                   • RedLogix …

                     23 April 2023 at 9:39 pm

                     First of all you say this:

                     From my point of view, you seem to be slipping further down the 'SARS-CoV-2 lab leak origin' rabbit hole.

                     Then you say this:

                     Fwiw, I'm not trying to discredit the lab leak hypothesis any more than you are trying to discredit zoonotic emergence

                     Make up your mind as to what you are doing here. Otherwise this is just gaslighting.
                 • Drowsy M. Kram …

                   23 April 2023 at 11:59 pm

                   Red, please – you wrote (@3:39 pm):

                   Medicine, as you likely well know, is a very hierarchal profession and it is not hard for a relatively small handful of elites at the top to impose their agenda. Especially when they control research funding, professional registrations…

                   This is fanciful nonsense that does the lab leak hypothesis no favours – it's effectively piling a conspiracy theory on an (imho) already weak hypothesis, hence my reply (@5:29 pm):

                   From my point of view, you seem to be slipping further down the 'SARS-CoV-2 lab leak origin' rabbit hole.

                   I get it – you genuinely believe that the lab leak hypothesis is the best explanation for the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic – that's fine.

                   But if you can't make a decent case for a lab leak without invoking "malfeasance" on the part of a small global cabal of medical elites, then disinterested readers might wonder about the quality of your evidence.

                   Make up your mind as to what you are doing here. Otherwise this is just gaslighting.

                   What I'm doing in this thread is providing links to support my contention that zoonotic emergence is currently the best explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Not the only explanation, but still the best of the competing explanations, pending further evidence. You have a different opinion, and yet it seems that agreeing to disagree is a step to far for you.

                   In viral games, refs go to the replay

                   SARS-CoV-2-related bat virus behavior in human-relevant models sheds light on the origin of COVID-19 [6 March 2023]

                   Understanding the origin of COVID-19 requires to change the paradigm on zoonotic emergence from the spillover to the circulation model [18 March 2021]
                   • RedLogix …

                     24 April 2023 at 1:34 am

                     It took me 20 min to find serious problems with all three of those references. For the sake of brevity I will deal with just the second one led by Frutos. In Sec 2.1 the possibility of a lab leak is dismissed with this argument:

                     This is a simple and straightforward selective and evolutionary process. RmYN02 also carries an indel at the same place as the furin site (PRRA) indel of SARS-CoV-2 with the insertion of a PAA sequence and the deletion of the immediate QTQT upstream sequence (Zhou et al., 2020b). The naturally occurring PAAR sequence displayed by RmYN02 is not active as a furin-cleavage site but is only one mutation away from the active RNNR furin cleavage site. One additional mutation turning the proline (P) into an arginine (R) will generate a RAAR active furin-cleavage site. This suggests that viruses other than SARS-CoV-2 were under similar selective pressure.

                     The selection of SARS-CoV-2 through successive passages in cell culture was refuted (Andersen et al., 2020). Scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology denied having carried out engineering and gain of function experiments on SARS-CoV-2but only on SARS-CoV in published and openly displayed international collaborations (Cohen, 2020). Altogether, these elements indicate that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of a man-made origin of SARS-CoV-2.

                     The critical idea that COVID might have evolved from RmYN02 is cast heavily into doubt in this paper:

                     https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202100015

                     Which concludes:

                     RaTG13, MP789 and RmYN02 are among SARS-CoV-2′s closest relatives and therefore of utmost importance as key tools for inferring SARS-CoV-2′s phylogenetic relationships and to identifying SARS-CoV-2′s specific genetic features, with the final aim of uncovering its origin. These sequences have been widely used to support a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 but after a close examination, all of them exhibit issues which should be specifically addressed and clarified.

                     Not so clear cut after all.

                     Then there is the second para that somewhat bizarrely relies on Anderson (who was conflicted all to hell and back due to his direct financial involvement at WIV, and whose presence on the WHO 'investigation' highly contributed to it being widely regarded as a farce.)

                     And then even more bizarrely relies on the word of WIV that they were not conducting 'gain of function' experiments, when just a few years earlier they were publishing papers claiming exactly this.

                     And just to insult our intelligence it is implied that the WIV public database could be relied upon to be a full and complete record of every virus they worked with. You know – the same database WIV yanked from the public domain on 12 Sept 2019 and has never been made available since.

                     If a dumbarse non-specialist like me can unearth such elementary logical problems under my own steam with only the smallest amount of effort – I'm not impressed.
                   • RedLogix …

                     24 April 2023 at 1:47 am

                     This is fanciful nonsense that does the lab leak hypothesis no favours

                     Ask the nurses, clinicians and practitioners world wide who have found themselves out of a job or had their registration revoked because they held a dissenting view about vaccines. Or the prominent researchers who suddenly found their papers were being rejected by journal editors before even going to peer review.

                     Or the commonplace experience of seeing anything arbitrarily deemed ‘misinformation’ yanked off social media.

                     Or the tens of millions of us who were sneered at, mocked, censored or gaslit because our experience did not fall into line with 'safe and effective' for some reason.

                     'Fanciful' my arse. The establishment went into overdrive covering it’s butt on this one.
                   • RedLogix …

                     24 April 2023 at 10:40 am

                     Correction:

                     Late at night I mixed up Andersen and Daszak. Daszak of course worked for the now notorious EcoHealth Alliance that was used as the cutout middleman to enable NIH to fund WIV to perform GoF style research, explicitly banned by the Obama administration. Initially received as an expert, his credibility crumbled as his hopeless conflicts of interest became more apparent.

                     Andersen – is neck deep in this is a somewhat different way. It is his often cited "Proximal Origins" paper in March 2020 has gained notoriety because an email chain between him and Fauci, starting late at night on the 31 Jan 2020 has a group of these people all suddenly realising that this new virus really could be a lab leak and that something needs to be done to dampen this speculation down.

                     The immediate outcome was a paper that has been heavily criticised and has become the subject of Congressional inquiry. This article goes into the detail:

                     https://theintercept.com/2023/01/19/covid-origin-nih-emails/

                     The core problem is that this was always a highly specialised field, with probably fewer than 100 people in the world truly across all the relevant material and with hands-on experience. But as the only experts they are also completely conflicted – which makes depending on anything they say inherently problematic.

                     Imagine an Inquiry into say the collapse of a major engineering structure such as a bridge. Absolutely the engineers who designed it would be required to give a full and complete accounting of their entire design process – but there would also be no difficulty in finding respected independent engineers to assist and advise the Inquiry. But the same is not quite as true for highly specialised fields like this – especially when there are networks of funding and professional links that entangle almost everyone.

                     Having said this – there are plenty of highly qualified people with more than enough knowledge of virology who looked at this entire business of genetically manipulating virus's in the lab who have long said the risks far outweighed any potential benefits. This is precisely why the Obama administration had placed a moratorium on this type of research in the first place.

                     And I think events proved this precaution entirely correct. And those who intentionally side-stepped it should be held to account.
                   • Incognito []

                     24 April 2023 at 11:57 am

                     Your bridge analogy is deeply flawed in this context. It does highlight your predetermined mind.
                   • RedLogix …

                     24 April 2023 at 12:27 pm

                     Your bridge analogy is deeply flawed in this context.

                     Why?

                     In the aftermath of the ChCh earthquakes there was a proper investigation into the collapse of the ITV building. Any workplace accident will be investigated; medical people who act recklessly resulting in harm or death can be expected to be investigated.

                     But what does not happen is that we allow the people involved to effectively conduct the investigation into themselves. Nor any related party or with a conflict of interest. The investigators are required to be independent and seen to be so.
                 • Drowsy M. Kram …

                   24 April 2023 at 10:36 am

                   Or the commonplace experience of seeing anything arbitrarily deemed ‘misinformation’ yanked off social media.

                   Or the tens of millions of us who were sneered at, mocked, censored or gaslit because our experience did not fall into line with 'safe and effective' for some reason.

                   'Fanciful' my arse. The establishment went into overdrive covering it’s butt on this one.

                   Thanks Red, that helped me understand your PoV. Enjoy your day.
                   • RedLogix …

                     24 April 2023 at 12:03 pm

                     My PoV has nothing to do with it.

                     If you are defending a group of scientists who might have been culpable for the deaths of some 20 million people – and 3 yrs later have still managed to evade open, transparent scrutiny, much less be held to any account – then I think you are way too complacent.
                 • Drowsy M. Kram …

                   24 April 2023 at 8:00 pm

                   My PoV has nothing to do with it.

                   Good-oh. Not me though – my PoV inflluences the content of my comments, and indeed whether or not I choose to comment at all.

                   If you are defending a group of scientists who might have been culpable for the deaths of some 20 million people – and 3 yrs later have still managed to evade open, transparent scrutiny, much less be held to any account – then I think you are way too complacent.

                   Am I defending a small global confederacy of elite medics/scientists – who are they? 'Might" suggests that you haven't convicted these elites yet, which is encouragingly open-minded, particularly given the paucity of strong evidence – new evidence will likely come to light over time.

                   UK COVID inquiry begins, vowing to expose any culpable conduct [4 Oct 2022]
                   "The disease has caused widespread and long-term physical and mental illness, grief and untold misery," said Keith, adding there had been more than 609 million confirmed cases worldwide with some estimates of the number of deaths put at 17.5 million.
                   https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/

                   Royal Commission to draw lessons from pandemic response [5 Dec 2022]
                   A Royal Commission will prepare New Zealand for future pandemics through lessons learned from COVID-19.
                   https://www.dia.govt.nz/Inquiry-into-COVID-19-Lessons

                   Parliament invites leading experts to inform Long COVID and Repeat Infections Inquiry [13 Feb 2023]

                   20 million is a lot; I recall some Standardistas questioning the accuracy of the COVID-19 death toll, and even the duration of the pandemic in its early months – but PoVs can change with time and new evidence.

                   COVID-19 as a Mass Death Event [PDF]
                   There are concerns that the failure of governments to manage the material and affective aspects of the pandemic may accelerate fascist or populist movements; that it may unsettle and expose the neoliberal assumptions of trade-offs in politics and economics; and that it may intensify nationalism, xenophobia, and democratic backsliding. All of these concerns highlight the ways COVID-19 is challenging and transforming our world and worldview(s).

                   Analysing these changes through the narrow lens of state-centric politics and multifaceted mitigation in the pursuit of an immediate return to something called normal – ignoring the multiplicity of injustices, inequities, and inequalities upon which “normal” life is founded and that COVID-19 magnifies – ultimately limits our collective imaginative ability to consider the transformative moment brought about by the pandemic.

                   There is no guarantee that the post-COVID-19 world will be necessarily more ethical or laudable than the present one. Thinking clearly and carefully about the specific experience of mass death brought on by COVID-19, however, seems to be a prerequisite to imagining a more ethically desirable future after the pandemic.
                   • RedLogix …

                     25 April 2023 at 12:16 pm

                     As usual you reply with a handful of sentences of your own, then pad out the rest of the comment with a wall of multiple references. References have their place, but all too often I sense you hide behind them, not clearly stating your argument. But to work with what little you have offered:

                     'Might" suggests that you haven't convicted these elites yet, which is encouragingly open-minded, particularly given the paucity of strong evidence – new evidence will likely come to light over time.

                     Again returning to the two thesis in play here, spillover or lab-leak. We agree there is no definitive evidence to support either, but very different reasons.

                     Spillover lacks definitive evidence because despite a highly motivated effort to find it, nothing convincing has been found. Lab-leak lacks definitive evidence because despite a mountain of circumstantial and corroborative evidence – we have not been allowed to look for the smoking gun – by the very people implicated in this research.

                     The two cases are not equivalent at all. Spillover, given all the 2020's genomic high tech and resources thrown at it, should have been a relatively straightforward matter to establish on purely science grounds. You can hide behind 'maybe it will come to light in time', but as each year passes that prospect dims. How many more years do you propose waiting? Another three, a decade or more? At some point this argument will expire.

                     By contrast obtaining lab-leak thesis evidence was stifled by ill-intent right from the outset, not just by Chinese authorities, but right from the top in the US and across a network of highly conflicted individuals. None of this is speculation, we now have sufficient documentation to confirm this suspicion.

                     From a judicial perspective the lab-leak prosecution can present, means, opportunity, and guilty action to cover up the crime. Not to mention that mountain of corroboration.
                 • Drowsy M. Kram …

                   25 April 2023 at 2:14 pm

                   As usual you reply with a handful of sentences of your own, then pad out the rest of the comment with a wall of multiple references. References have their place, but all too often I sense you hide behind them, not clearly stating your argument.

                   My 'argument' is that zoonotic emergence is the most likely SARS-CoV-2 origin hypothesis. I sense that many proponents of the lab leak hypothesis are politically motivated and/or conspiracy theorists.

                   COVID-19 conspiracies soar after latest report on origins
                   [2 March 2023]
                   “The vast majority of the evidence continues to support natural origin,” Rasmussen told The Associated Press Wednesday. “I’m a scientist. I need to see the evidence rather than take the FBI director’s word for it.”

                   Spillover lacks definitive evidence because despite a highly motivated effort to find it, nothing convincing has been found.

                   The small global confederacy of elite medics and scientists must be doing a tremendous job of motivating their army of (ignorant?) expert minions to look for evidence of zoonotic emergence. Or do you believe that the minions are also aware of the truth, and this "highly motivated effort" is nothing more than a massive orchestrated smokescreen?

                   Spillover, given all the 2020's genomic high tech and resources thrown at it, should have been a relatively straightforward matter to establish on purely science grounds. You can hide behind 'maybe it will come to light in time', but as each year passes that prospect dims. How many more years do you propose waiting? Another three, a decade or more? At some point this argument will expire.

                   Really – "a relatively straightforward matter"? OK, you know best. Personally, I'd give it another 5 years of scientific investigation – it's important to get this rigtht. More evidence will come to light, and if consensus expert opinion shifts to favour the lab leak hypothesis, then my opinion will shift, in line with evidence-based open-mindedness.

                   Re "highly motivated" – never have truer words been written

                   But given the CCP's utterly vile human rights record right from … well their very beginnings … why are so many people in the West giving them any benefit of the doubt on this? [21 March 2020]

                   But my sense is that what happened after that is where the mystery deepens. At the very least the CCP are gaming their self-inflicted disaster into a propaganda win. [21 March 2020]

                   Until we get to an authoratative account of this virus’ history … the vacuum will necessarily be filled by speculation. [18 April 2020]
                   • RedLogix …

                     25 April 2023 at 2:26 pm

                     Do you recall back in Feb 2020 how the CCP tightly locked down all domestic travel inside China, while at the same time demanding that all other nations continue to allow travel internationally? Some of their more noxious spokespeople insisting it would be 'racist' not to do so. And thereby ensuring that any remaining chance of containing the outbreak would be lost.

                     Do you not recall this act of vile perfidy? And why would any sane person give these people the slightest benefit of the doubt in the light of this?
                 • Drowsy M. Kram …

                   25 April 2023 at 11:32 pm

                   Do you recall back in Feb 2020 how the CCP tightly locked down all domestic travel inside China, while at the same time demanding that all other nations continue to allow travel internationally?

                   I recall domestic travel restrictions (in/out of Wuhan) from 23 Jan 2020, but not the "demanding that all other nations continue to allow travel internationally" bit (link?) – funny how one's mind can play tricks.

                   How did other nations respond to the CCP's demands, do you know?

                   These countries have imposed China travel restrictions over the coronavirus [7 Feburary 2020]
                   New Zealand (As of Feb. 7)
                   Passengers who have transited through or have been in mainland China on or after Feb. 2 won’t be allowed to transit or enter New Zealand. New Zealand nationals, residents and their immediate families will be allowed entry but will be required to self-isolate for a period of 14 days from their arrival.

                   Exempt Chinese students from coronavirus travel ban, New Zealand universities urge [17 February 2020]

                   Racism, Rather Than Facts, Drove U.S. Coronavirus Travel Bans [16 May 2020]
                   Experts say ingrained racism informed media and policymakers’ favorable views toward European countries, clouding their judgment on public health.

                   AP FACT CHECK: Trump and the virus-era China ban that isn’t [19 July 2020]
                   Few doubt that the heavy death toll from COVID-19 would be even heavier if world travel had not been constricted globally. But Trump has no scientific basis to claim that his action alone saved “millions” or even “hundreds of thousands” of lives, as he has put it.

                   Some groups, e.g. COVID Plan B, agitated for a relaxation of border controls early on, and such public health measures also inconvenienced many Kiwis temporarily stranded overseas.

                   The effect of travel restrictions on the spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak [6 March 2020]

                   Trump, Biden Spin China Travel Restrictions [6 April 2020]

                   Impact of travel ban implementation on COVID-19 spread in Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea during the early phase of the pandemic: a comparative study
                   [11 August 2021]

                   Effectiveness of border closures/travel restrictions, screening and/or quarantine to control the international spread of COVID-19 [6 June 2022; PDF]
               • Francesca …

                 22 April 2023 at 5:51 pm

                 So , a lab intends to insert the very mechanism into a virus that makes it super transmissible between humans

                 The novel virus makes its first ever appearance in the human population close to the lab and proceeds to travel quickly to the point we have a pandemic

                 That this happened naturally depends on a intermediary host

                 Have we found that host?

                 Not as far as I'm aware
                 • Incognito …

                   22 April 2023 at 7:47 pm

                   So, the or a lab did insert the furin cleavage site, according to your belief. Problem is that the scientific evidence is controversial and disputed and hardly constitutes evidence for your preferred hypothesis belief.

                   Do you want to discuss the pro & con of the scientific arguments or do you want to deal in conspiracy stuff? If the former, I don’t think you have what it takes. If the latter, you’re right at home.
                   • Francesca …

                     22 April 2023 at 10:35 pm

                     What's the conspiracy stuff?

                     That there's a possibility covid originated from a lab leak ?

                     That we'll probably never know?

                     That natural evolution of the virus still hasn't been proved?

                     Jeez, conspiracy theories just aren't that juicy anymore
                   • Incognito []

                     23 April 2023 at 11:08 am

                     But what about the furin cleavage site??
   • SPC 4.2

     22 April 2023 at 1:18 pm

     Written with no awareness that conspiracy theory creation is part of psychological warfare operations (CIA …)

     The Russians used the psychiatric institution gulag in Siberia and there is a western version – taking people out of the (Kansas) city to the (Missouri) country side cult (a joke about Joseph Smith believing paradise was in Missouri).

     https://fox2now.com/news/missouri/where-is-the-garden-of-eden-why-the-lds-owns-over-3000-acres-in-missouri/
     • Incognito 4.2.1

       22 April 2023 at 1:57 pm

       Maybe, maybe not. It was not relevant to that article.
5. Incognito 5

   22 April 2023 at 11:24 am

   I fully expect the National Party to get behind this and the PR team must be writing the tweet as we speak.

   https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300858769/university-of-waikatos-new-dean-of-health-renews-push-for-third-medical-school

   Edit: Dr Shane Reti had already paved the way the day before:

   https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/131806383/nursing-gaps-at-waikato-indicate-health-crisis–national
   • Belladonna 5.1

     22 April 2023 at 11:40 am

     It would be interesting to see an informed debate over the relative pros and cons of the undergrad health science degree + 4 year medical degree model proposed by Waikato, against the 'traditional' 6 year medical degree (1 yr health science + 5 years medicine) at Auckland/Otago.

     Lane provides figures to show that the proposed Waikato model is at least 25% cheaper per graduate – even though it takes 1 year longer. Is the 'quality' equivalent?

     It seems as though it's the cost per student that the government is jibbing at (or at least, I can't think of any other reason) – so a mechanism to reduce the cost seems like a strategic winner.
     • Incognito 5.1.1

       22 April 2023 at 1:14 pm

       Until we see a detailed proposal and plan, all we have is rumour, speculation, and talking points. This might be good enough for National but not for real decisions that are evidence-based.
6. Adrian 6

   22 April 2023 at 11:26 am

   To Incfognito, I thought it was a very good article, balanced and reasonable. It bought to mind the story as to why the post WW1 pandemic was called the Spanish Flu, it was purportedly because only the Spanish newspapers were able to report on it as the combatant countries were under strict wartime censorship. I was also under the impression that the contagion originated somewhere in the Mid-West in an army training camp just before the troops there were deployed to Europe. Hmmm, wouldn't want that knowledge getting out eh.
7. Incognito 7

   22 April 2023 at 11:44 am

   The Inland Revenue report will, nonetheless, hand Labour a large dilemma: if, as expected, it shows very low tax rates at the top end, the government will either have to do something about it and face a massive political fight, or explicitly say it will do nothing to right the injustice its own research has identified.

   https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/300859115/max-rashbrooke-whats-really-going-on-behind-the-scenes-of-the-latest-tax-battles

   Dear Mr Rashbrooke, there is a third option that will guaranteed to be the preferred one by Labour and National alike: seek non-partisan support across the centre (aka across the floor). Since we all know that this is as hard to find as a unicorn winter grazing in a paddock both parties will embrace this ‘solution’ and ‘look good’ – a win-win.
   • SPC 7.1

     22 April 2023 at 2:28 pm

     A surprising admission from a former Minister of Finance

     She is of the view that increases in incomes derive from inflation, rather than from wage share of profit. Is this based on the idea that profit is (or should be) directed to owners rather than workers?

     How can finance ministers be trusted to fight inflation when, thanks to bracket creep, they profit from it?

     Her other argument is that none of the proceeds from economic growth (bracket creep) should be shared with the government sector. Given the aging of the population – rising health cost and their (until Cullen – and no National Minister has placed money into the NZS Fund) lack of provision for the rising cost of super is frankly irresponsible.

     https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/300856794/ruth-richardson-the-taxation-problem-i-should-have-fixed-33-years-ago
     • adam 7.1.1

       22 April 2023 at 3:29 pm

       Typical ruth richardson answer, flat taxes, to screwing over the poor.

       That is one fubar link SPC – richardson is the classic dogmatic ideological puritanical prig. The type of politician this country produces in spades.

       No wonder we can't have nice things.
     • Incognito 7.1.2

       22 April 2023 at 5:25 pm

       Richardson is a little disingenuous, as expected. For example, somebody on a minimum wage has to work well over 40 h/week for 52 weeks a year to even touch the $48k threshold. She also failed to mention the role of the independent RBNZ in controlling inflation. True to form, she points to Government spending causing inflation, which is another misleading argument. Honestly, I cannot be bothered even trying to counter Richardson’s spin – you can tell it is Election Year when the old rusty tanks get rolled out, making their creaky & squeaky sounds through well-worn cogs & sprockets and let’s hope the wheels don’t start falling off. The Onion seems to have a finger in many pies.
       • Belladonna 7.1.2.1

         22 April 2023 at 5:35 pm

         However, you don't have to be very far above minimum wage ($22.70) to hit the 48,000 for 40/52 weeks – it's $23.08.

         Every local restaurant job earns at least this (or they don't get staff), roading workers are way above, as are bus drivers. Apart from McDonalds, or very part-time supermarket shelf-stacking – you're not going to find any jobs in Auckland paying less than $23 (even if they're advertising lower, they just won't get any applicants).

         Indexing tax rates to average wage is something that's long overdue – and a failure from both major political parties.
         • SPC 7.1.2.1.1

           22 April 2023 at 7:32 pm

           The average is below the median. But even so, more workers are below the average than above it.

           To make more people better off, one changes the thresholds at the lower levels.

           Oz has zero to $18,000.

           https://www.superguide.com.au/how-super-works/income-tax-rates-brackets#Australian_income_tax_rates_for_202223_residents

           Note how their bands are close to ours

           Oz first.

           0-18,000 at 0 ************ 0 to 14,500 at 10.5

           18-45,000 at 19 14,000 ***** 14,500 to 48,000 at 17.5

           45 to 120,000 at 32.5 ****** 48,000 to 70,000 at 30

           120,000 to 180,000 at 37 *** 70,000 to 90,000 at 33

           over 180,000 at 45 ******** 90,000 to 180,000 at 35 (and over 180,000 at 39)

           In the 2023 budget I'd make one change to 10 cents for the first $20,000. And above that as now. That would give all workers $500 pa.

           But for an election policy one could go further.

           With the concept of income tax revenue neutrality – say 2024-2025.

           17.5% to $50,000, 30 cents to $75,000. 33 cents to $100,000. 35 cents to $150,000. 39 cents over $150,000. 45 cents over $200,000.

           And if one brought in some sort of Green wealth tax, say from 2025 – one could go further for 2025-2026.

           Say have 30 cents to $100,000 and 33 cents to 150,000. 35 cents to $200,000. 39 cents over.
           • SPC 7.1.2.1.1.1

             22 April 2023 at 7:51 pm

             PS A Green wealth tax option first threshold change – say 10 cents to $25,000.
           • Incognito 7.1.2.1.1.2

             22 April 2023 at 8:05 pm

             I’d be (pleasantly?) surprised if the Bread & Butter Budget-2023 contained any changes to the lower tax brackets that would take effect in the foreseeable future.
             • SPC …

               22 April 2023 at 8:21 pm

               I'd go with

               1. a statement in the budget this year of the first threshold change for 1 April 2024. Every worker gets the same $500 cut in income tax next year.

               2. then go into the campaign with a policy of threshold adjustments that are income tax neutral.

               But add a provision if there was a coalition deal with Greens that included a wealth tax, then the money would allow adjustments reducing income tax in all threshold bands.

               The point to show greater responsibility than NACT. And a better deal for the many.
               • Incognito …

                 22 April 2023 at 8:27 pm

                 Yes, that sounds good to me, and it would take some wind out of TOP’s sails too.

                 We’ll find out in a few weeks how far Labour is daring to go to win the Election.
           • Sabine 7.1.2.1.1.3

             24 April 2023 at 9:10 am

             Australia vs NZ tax on income (OZ is green NZ is blue)

             0-18,000 at 0% vs 0 to 14,500 at 10.5 % and 14.501 – 18.000 at 17.5%

             (NZ taxes the first 18 grand up to 17.5 % higher then OZ which stands at 0 tax, something that would benefit part time workers/casual workers and low income workers even tho high incomes will also benefit)

             18.001 – 45.000 at 19% vs 14.500 – 48.000 at 17.5%

             (agree this is a similar tax rate and the only one were taxes are higher then in NZ)

             45.000 to 120,000 at 32.5% vs 45,0001 to 70,000 at 30% and 70.001 – 90.000 at 33% and 90.001 – 120.000 at 35%

             (it seems to me that the OZ tax is less complex and overall better for the worker)

             120.001-180.000 at 37% vs 90.000 – 180.000 at 35%

             (now here OZ has more tax income than NZ and in NZ we are charging that higher rate to lower income)

             over 180,000 at 45% vs over 180,000 at 39%

             (OZ charges the higher incomes a much higher tax rate then NZ)

             We are not close at all. We are quite opposite. We have a bloated system that makes no exemption for low income worker but looks well after those on high incomes.

             For the record I have been advocating for 0 tax on the first 25 grand earned as that is still the minimum for a rental to pay for a while now – since the John Key years publicly here and have been told that it would be too complicated, only benefit rich people blablabla.

             Sadly the current government will not change the tax code to benefit the low income worker.
             • SPC …

               25 April 2023 at 1:01 pm

               Our low income earner rebate could be adjusted (it's for those working who have no children and thus cannot get WFF tax credits).

               It's currently $10 a week and operates between $24,000 and $48,000. . It could be larger start lower and go higher (to the median wage c$60,000). That's the alternative to a zero free zone (thus none of the amount goes to those on more than $60,000 that more than halves the cost).

               https://www.ird.govt.nz/income-tax/income-tax-for-individuals/individual-tax-credits/independent-earner-tax-credit-ietc
               • Sabine …

                 25 April 2023 at 1:08 pm

                 stop with the tinkering and go 0 tax on the first 25.000 grand. If OZ can do that, why can't we.

                 our income tax punished the low income earner and gives a well greased handshake to the well to do, but in saying that, i can totes see why Grant Robertson will no more increase his tax burden then would Chris Luxon or Mr. Seymour. Cause they like their low taxes.
                 • SPC …

                   25 April 2023 at 1:32 pm

                   So you want to help those on the lowest income threshhold but only in way that also lines the pockets of those on above median wage incomes. Which more than doubles the cost. Who pays for this – the poor dependent on a run down health system (as they have no medical insurance)?

                   Oz has higher income tax rates over 18,000 than we do, to afford it. They also have CGT and a land tax and stamp duty.
                   • Sabine …

                     25 April 2023 at 2:08 pm

                     The difference between you and me is that i don't care about purity. Firstly.

                     Secondly, yes, taking the taxes on the first 25 grand to 0 will equally benefit the higher income earner as they also would not have to pay taxes on that amount. And here is where OZ has shown us the way, they charge a higher income tax at the higher end,

                     see here

                     120.001-180.000 at 37% vs 90.000 – 180.000 at 35% – OZ being 2% higher here

                     and

                     over 180,000 at 45% vs over 180,000 at 39% – OZ being 6 % higher here.

                     In fact we could dump our system and copy the OZ system, full stop. It would benefit the lower income and raise taxes on the rich. Ka-ching, bingo, we have a winner here. And no one has to think it up either, we just copy!

                     But we will not do such a thing because neither Grant Roberston, nor Chris Luxon, nor Mr. Seymour will change their tax rate to cost them more of their earnings. No siree, why would they.

                     So yes, go OZ well done, you are charging the rich to give a few more pennies to the poor. Well done, Sadly it can't won't be done in NZ cause we are buys finding excuses as to why not, and because we can't even imagine rich people like our Parliamentarian Critters to pay their fair share. So sad!
               • Sabine …

                 25 April 2023 at 1:59 pm

                 10 bucks a week, 520 NZD per year.

                 Good grief that is fuck all.
       • Ngungukai 7.1.2.2

         23 April 2023 at 12:53 am

         She really is as thick as pigsh*t imho.
   • arkie 7.2

     22 April 2023 at 4:18 pm

     The Green Party is calling on the Government to tax the super wealthy as inflation, largely driven by continued increases in the cost of essentials like food and housing, persists.

     Mr Rashbrooke notes "The radical becomes respectable" and "bad ideas don’t stand up to scrutiny. But, as a corollary, the good ones eventually win out."

     “Inflation hits lower-income families the hardest, who spend the majority of their income covering the essentials like food and rent. Wealth and income inequality in this country is a political choice. The Government needs to act,” says Green Party revenue spokesperson Chlöe Swarbrick.

     “The solution is taxing wealth and excess profits and using that money to help people. This makes the most sense in the context of the approximately trillion-dollar wealth transfer to the wealthiest throughout COVID-19.

     “Last year the Reserve Bank admitted in response to my questioning that they are engineering a recession to try and rein in inflation.

     “We know this will disproportionately impact low income people in Aotearoa. It doesn’t have to be like this. This is only happening because the Government isn't acting.

     “Reducing government spending on essential public services would be a mistake at a time when we know our crucial infrastructure across health, housing, education, the environment, and transport desperately needs investment.

     “Instead of relying on the Reserve Bank to use blunt monetary policy like raising the OCR, or manufacturing a recession, the Government can tax the super wealthy.

     “Instead of allowing trickle-down economic thinking to drive economic policy that perversely pushes people out of work, the Government can tax the rich and build a fairer society,” says Chlöe Swarbrick.

     https://www.greens.org.nz/persistent_inflation_shows_urgent_need_to_tax_wealth

     Given that there are more voters negatively affected by our growing inequity, one would imagine there's an election strategy in there somewhere.
     • Incognito 7.2.1

       22 April 2023 at 7:15 pm

       I agree, but I suspect that most Green Party voters are not among the most affected and frankly, I cannot see this changing much before October, if ever.
       • arkie 7.2.1.1

         22 April 2023 at 7:26 pm

         One hopes a certain red-hued faction seizes the nettle and returns to their roots, if one can forgive the mixed garden metaphors; seems appropriate for advice coming from the Greens.
         • Incognito 7.2.1.1.1

           22 April 2023 at 7:38 pm

           As you know, I like metaphors. I hope Budget-2023 will give us hope.
     • Ngungukai 7.2.2

       23 April 2023 at 12:54 am

       That's the answer to their many ill gotten gains.
8. aj 8

   22 April 2023 at 12:23 pm

   Amongst the mountains of dross on television, there are little nuggets of gold. I caught the tail end of Studio B: Unscripted on Al Jazeera this morning.

   Titled "The deadly word, freedom: Brian Eno and Ha-Joon Chang" (Pt 1), many on this site would find common ground with this very interesting discussion.

   Also on YouTube.

   As co-founder of EarthPercent, Eno focuses his artistry and years of activism on galvanizing the music industry and beyond to find creative techniques for tackling climate change.

   In his best-selling books, including Kicking Away the Ladder and Bad Samaritans, Chang busts one mainstream economic myth after another and in his latest book, Edible Economics, one ingredient at a time. They explore creativity, taste buds, artificial intelligence and climate change, offering successive takedowns of the status quo and paths to a fairer society.

   https://www.aljazeera.com/program/studio-b-unscripted/2023/4/16/the-deadly-word-freedom-brian-eno-and-ha-joon-chang
9. Molly 9

   22 April 2023 at 12:50 pm

   With acknowledgement this is not political in any form – is anyone else on TS watching and enjoying Apple TV's – Ted Lasso?

   (Currently halfway through the third and final season)

   https://youtu.be/3u7EIiohs6U
10. adam 10

    22 April 2023 at 3:18 pm

    Queensland is more enlightened than us. Well to be expected with how fubar we are and how beige our last two governments have been.
11. SPC 11

    22 April 2023 at 3:49 pm

    The USA Supreme Court is allowing the continued supply by mail of an abortion pill, overturning a Court of Appeal ruling that required collection visits while a case over the legality of the pills (on the dubious grounds of process to authorise their use, as per safety, when the pills now have a decades long real world safety record) is on-going.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65356390

    Basically conservative judges, in states set to ban abortions, are being targeted by abortion opponents to ban the pill nationwide. One suspects however (sans SCOTUS finding in their favour) that the real political agenda is to legislate a federal ban on movement of the pill into states with abortion bans (it's a reprise of the underground railroad scenario of the 19thC).

    The same people also oppose funding for Family Planning (contraceptive pills, condoms and morning after pills), sex education in schools and fertility treatment.

    https://www.duckworth.senate.gov/news/in-the-news/democrats-look-to-protect-fertility-treatments-in-post-roe-era

    https://www.npr.org/2018/05/23/613777772/under-trump-family-planning-funds-could-go-to-groups-that-don-t-offer-birth-cont

    https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/press-release/poll-finds-most-americans-oppose-trump-administrations-changes-to-restrict-title-x-family-planning-funds-from-clinics-that-provide-or-refer-for-abortion/
12. weka 12

    22 April 2023 at 6:47 pm

    The Standard Housekeeping

    Headsup that the Mobile version of TS has been turned off for now because it was causing too many problems. We can still use the Desktop version on a mobile device, but some people won't be able to comment from there. Sorry about that, but all posts should be able to be read now.

    If you are on a mobile device and can't comment from the Desktop version, can you please reply below with details, cheers.

    Edit, I can make a new comment from the Desktop version but I can’t usually reply.
    • Macro 12.1

      22 April 2023 at 6:52 pm

      I've been having problems commenting from my phone. Interesting I can reply here!
      • weka 12.1.1

        22 April 2023 at 7:00 pm

        are you using the Desktop version on your phone right now? Were you not able to comment from that before?
        • Incognito 12.1.1.1

          22 April 2023 at 8:44 pm

          If you change the time stamp, it'll go to the top of OM 😉
        • Macro 12.1.1.2

          22 April 2023 at 8:57 pm

          Yes I am using desktop version. Haven't been able to access the mobile version for some time now. And no I wasn't able to comment on some occasions. Click on reply button, but no keyboard 😕
          • weka 12.1.1.2.1

            22 April 2023 at 8:59 pm

            strange. Most of the time I can't comment, very occassionally I can if I double click in the text editor.
13. Incognito 13

    22 April 2023 at 8:38 pm

    @ Muttonbird, I lifted your ban @ 8:20 pm. I checked and I can’t see why your comments are still ending up in Trash. Apologies for the inconvenience, but this is above my pay-grade.
    • weka 13.1

      22 April 2023 at 8:58 pm

      they trashed that last comment themselves?
      • Incognito 13.1.1

        22 April 2023 at 9:07 pm

        Yes, you’re right, it does seem that way. So, MB may be good to go, phew! Otherwise, they’ll just have to wait for Lynn – there’s nothing else I can do here.
14. Incognito 14

    22 April 2023 at 8:42 pm

    @ Muttonbird, have you seen the Housekeeping Note from weka (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-22-04-2023/#comment-1946902)?
15. joe90 15

    22 April 2023 at 9:57 pm

    Russia, a terror state where elderly women are fined twice their monthly pension for saying Zelensky is handsome, single fathers imprisoned and their child returned to her long estranged mother for producing an antiwar drawing and where dissident journalists are sentenced to 25 years in prison for being, of course, dissident journalists.

    https://www.thebulwark.com/putins-reign-of-terror-russia/

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS