Open mike 25/02/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:53 am, February 25th, 2014 - 402 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

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

Step up to the mike …

402 comments on “Open mike 25/02/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. amirite 1
    25 February 2014 at 7:19 am

    David Parker is pushing for a retirement age to go to 67.
    I don’t think this will be an election winner. It certainly won’t help youth employment.
    How about doing something more courageous, like means-testing?

    • Saarbo 1.1
      25 February 2014 at 8:06 am

      Weird policy to win votes…who would support it? Maybe its courageous and responsible…but unfortunately unhelpful in getting votes.

      • Colonial Viper 1.1.1
        25 February 2014 at 8:40 am

        Maybe its courageous and responsible…

        Which it isn’t. It’s thinking which is locked inside the current neoliberal monetary framework and further evidence of why Labour is simply a centrist, fiscally orthodox party.

        We can afford super to stay at 65 simply by having the government print $20M per week and putting it into the Cullen Fund.

        Instead, the Labour Party’s proposal is to make people work longer for profit hungry capitalists, struggling with low paying jobs which are not there.

        The fact that the UK Tory party wants to raise their retirement age too is just the icing on the cake.

        • tinfoilhat 1.1.1.1
          25 February 2014 at 9:00 am

          “We can afford super to stay at 65 simply by having the government print $20M per week and putting it into the Cullen Fund.”

          Then why not get $200 million a week printed and put onto the Super fund ?……. honest question.

          • bad12 1.1.1.1.1
            25 February 2014 at 9:36 am

            Tinfoilhat, there is a negligible effect within the economy of ‘printing’ 20 million dollars a week, especially when such monies are in effect locked up to appear in the economy years away from that actual printing,

            Interestingly,or not, the IMF in it’s initial report to Slippery’s National Government advised them to consider ‘printing money’ to bridge the negative effects of the Global Financial Crisis as opposed to borrowing the billions of dollars it so far has,

            The 100–300 million dollars a week which was the negative effect of the GFC, if printed by the current Government would have had the effect of lowering the value of the NZ dollar, a good point for the countries exporters but not so good as far as imported goods are concerned,

            Probably the most widely felt effect of this would have occurred at the petrol pump as a lower kiwi dollar value would have meant across the board fuel cost rises which would then have fed through into other costs to the consumer,

            Putting aside the Green issue of the need to use less fossil fuels for the moment, the Government could have simply nullified this negative effect by printing a slightly larger amount of dollars than actually needed to cover the effects of the GFC and using that little extra to cover the cost simply lowered the fuel taxes which it collects equating to a 1/3 of the cost of fuel at the pump…

            • tinfoilhat 1.1.1.1.1.1
              25 February 2014 at 10:36 am

              Thanks for the feedback – I agree that it would have been better to take the approach you suggest, along with reversing the tax cuts at the higher end.

              • bad12 …
                25 February 2014 at 11:33 am

                Tinfoilhat, a large YES to the reversal of the tax cuts in the high end of the earnings scale which if accomplished along with ‘money printing’ instead of ‘money borrowing’ would have had the Government running a large surplus by now,

                The added pluses would have been an export sector recording even greater profits off of the back of a devalued dollar,(and an even higher tax take accruing to the Government),

                As stated above imported goods would become more expensive again off of the back of a devalued dollar which would result from printing money, the upside to this of course is that much of what we now import can be manufactured here so there would be some incentive to do so…

          • greywarbler 1.1.1.1.2
            25 February 2014 at 10:07 am

            infoilhat

            Then why not get $200 million a week printed and put onto the Super fund ?……. honest /question.

            Dishonest question. DNFTT.

            • tinfoilhat 1.1.1.1.2.1
              25 February 2014 at 10:38 am

              Grow up you twit

            • Lanthanide 1.1.1.1.2.2
              25 February 2014 at 12:32 pm

              Perfectly honest question IMO.

              It’s just uncomfortable to answer, because the answer is invariably “trust the government” or, more honestly, “no reason”.

              • Tracey …
                25 February 2014 at 12:58 pm

                Except at 930 an answer by bad.

              • Colonial Viper …
                25 February 2014 at 2:02 pm

                $20M per week injected into the Cullen fund is more than enough to keep super at 65, probably beyond the year 2100, and that is the reason you do it at that level.

                In other words, you fit the solution to the problem and size the budget needed appropriately, in order to achieve your goals and your social values. Its really simple.

                This is what a country run by politics for society looks like, instead of a country run by orthodox economics.

                • Lanthanide …
                  25 February 2014 at 6:33 pm

                  The Cullen Fund buys international securities using NZ $. It trades NZ $ for US $ and other currencies to buy those securities.

                  What happens when suddenly the $NZ is worth less because of your money printing? Do you start propping it up by $22M/week? What about when other countries refuse to take our currency any more?

                  • KJT …
                    25 February 2014 at 6:38 pm

                    You mean like we are refusing to take US dollars because of their money printing, or renmimbi, because it is also printed.

                    Not to mention bank loans?

                    • Lanthanide …
                      25 February 2014 at 6:45 pm

                      Hint: we’re not China or the US. Different rules for the big guys.

                    • KJT …
                      25 February 2014 at 6:53 pm

                      OK.

                      What is the difference between Westpac “printing” 100 million into buying houses, and the Government “printing” 100 million to put solar cells on houses, for example.

                      Apart from the fact that the solar cells have a return, which pays back the cost over time, making us richer, while the bank loan simply pushes up prices, and charges interest, which disappears offshore, and makes us all poorer.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      25 February 2014 at 6:56 pm

                      Firstly, you speak of the NZD being worth less (as opposed to being “worthless”) as if it is a problem. It’s not. If it dropped in value by 20% to US70c a lot of manufacturers and ex pat Kiwis returning home would be very happy, for instance.

                      Secondly, almost every central bank in the world big and small has been manipulating their currency supply through various means. We’re simply too naive for words.

                      Thirdly, people all over the world need and want our dairy protein. To buy it they require NZD. We also have a productive economy which exports other products and sells valuable property using NZD. People want to buy NZ farms, they don’t want to buy farms in Zimbabwe. Hence demand for NZD ain’t going away any time soon.

                      Hint: we’re not China or the US. Different rules for the big guys.

                      Yes that is true, so we need to play smarter and faster, sometimes alongside the big boys, sometimes away on the sidelines.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      25 February 2014 at 7:03 pm

                      KJT:

                      I love the way you use “printing.”

                      Because of course there is no printing. Simply electronic ledger operations.

                      When I pay $100 into KJT’s Westpac business account from my Westpac business account, all that Westpac does is increment’s KJT’s account by $100.

                      And decrements mine by $100.

                      In two separate, unrelated arithmetic operations.

                      If Westpac decides NOT to decrement my account by $100 guess what…it has just “printed” $100 into existence.

                      And the world did not get sucked into a resulting singularity.

                      NB Westpac doesn’t give a damn whether I pay KJT $1 or $10,000,000 because all that “money” (electronic numbers) doesn’t move from Westpac at all!

                    • Lanthanide …
                      25 February 2014 at 10:33 pm

                      Westpac lends the money and takes security over the houses. If the loans don’t get paid back, with interest, it takes the houses. It tries very hard to only lend the money to people it think can pay it back, because it would prefer not to own houses (if it did, it’d just buy them itself). Westpac doesn’t lend money to any bum that walks in the door, or lend the money on just any shack.

                      The difference between that, and the government, is that there’s no risk, penalty, or limit on the government printing money. It can choose to print $20M a week. Or $22M. Or $42M. or $402M. There’s nothing really stopping it from printing as much as it wants.

                      @ CV: If the NZ$ dropped 20%, we’d see a spike in inflation. Similarly printing money itself is inflationary.

                      Probably not a great idea to talk about Zimbabwe when you’re talking about printing money. Also Zimbabwe no longer has its own national currency as a result of their money printing.

          • KJT 1.1.1.1.3
            25 February 2014 at 11:55 am

            Or. We could just reverse some of the 7 tax cuts the wealthy have had since 1984.

            Then we can afford, super, infrastructure, education and regional development, just as we did in the past.

            What we cannot afford is the wealthy going on Hawaii holidays and financial gambling.

            Kiwisaver and other private sector funds are likely to crash long before we really need them. And if they don’t all the retired people spending it into the economy at the same time will run up against resource constraints. Unless we, tax and spend, to build capability now

            • Enough is Enough 1.1.1.1.3.1
              25 February 2014 at 12:01 pm

              Exactly – We can balance the books without the eed for Austerity from a Labour government!!!!!

              • Colonial Viper …
                25 February 2014 at 2:08 pm

                We can balance the books without the eed for Austerity from a Labour government!!!!!

                “Balancing the (government) books” is NOT a virtue!!!

                In a country with a persistent current account deficit like NZ, it’s in fact crucial NOT to balance the books, because doing so will guarantee dramatic losses out of worker incomes, household savings and SME profitability.

            • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1.3.2
              25 February 2014 at 2:04 pm

              +111

            • Herodotus 1.1.1.1.3.3
              25 February 2014 at 3:38 pm

              Yet another blind follower who centres all the issues of taxing the wealthy by paye tax scales. No wonder nz is troubled, divided and rule allow in fighting between the workers. Even those who some may consider to be earning obscene salaries still paye the highest marginal tax rate. How about how and where wealth is concentrated or created at the detriment to nz inc. or how different mechanisms are put into place to allow some to take advantage of what the state offers yet contribute nothing ?
              Find out who the “real enemy” of nz inc/the state and place structures into effect to capture their contribution to nz. E.g. As a small token Nat did eliminate the stupidity of allowing depreciation to be deducted off an appreciating rental/investment property. But there are plenty of other areas that can be attacked.

              • KJT …
                25 February 2014 at 4:23 pm

                Since when did I advocate ‘only’ changing PAYE tax scales?

                I’ve talked about wealth taxes, FTT, CGT and land taxes, and various other ideas, including getting rid of the grossly regressive and locally anti-stimulatory, GST.

                • Herodotus …
                  25 February 2014 at 5:02 pm

                  There is a preoccupation of high earners getting of in paying their fair taxes, and that this is assisted by various govts lowering threshold rates.
                  From your comment that I was responding to there was IMO a continuation of this. I don’t tr#ll through contributors to see what their history is, but will follow a thread to get a feel of how their commentary has evolved or been fleshed out by further comments. If a responses or comment I have made is either from a misunderstanding or I have missed the context I would appreciate a response in pointing out my error.

                  • KJT …
                    25 February 2014 at 6:54 pm

                    Well, I would answer if I knew what you were saying?

                    • Herodotus …
                      25 February 2014 at 9:20 pm

                      Sorry having issues with connections and hardware !!!
                      I did not see any references to your comments regarding extending or widening the tax base. Just your reference regarding the 7 tax cuts, which I took to mean that your only option was to increase the tax take to pay for increased spending.

      • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2
        25 February 2014 at 1:59 pm

        It’s neither courageous nor responsible. What it is is putting the boot into people who’ve done manual labour all their lives.

        Want courageous and responsible? Go for a Universal Income high enough to maintain a decent living standard and tax the bejeezus out of the rich. Continuing to kowtow to the rich is what’s causing all the suffering in NZ and the world.

        • KJT 1.1.2.1
          25 February 2014 at 2:02 pm

          Seconded.

        • Colonial Viper 1.1.2.2
          25 February 2014 at 2:11 pm

          In the last 30 years it became “courageous and responsible” for wealthy privileged white males in positions of power to smash the shit out of the working class, the underclass, and those in poverty – those who are of course typically disempowered, less educated and coloured.

          What a load of amoral shite we’ve been swallowing as a society, thanks to our so-called “leaders.”

          Well past time for our politicians to remember Matthew 25 and caroing for ‘the least of these.’

    • bad12 1.2
      25 February 2014 at 8:34 am

      Exactly, that’s 3 of us here at the Standard thinking exactly the same thing this morning, Act have just come out announcing that they favor raising the age of Superannuation entitlement so we know that the policy of raising the age to 67 is part of the Neo-Liberal hangover,

      amirite, you are right, if there is one impediment to Labour winning the 2014 election it is this one policy of raising the age of entitlement and my impression is at the least it is a 2% vote loser for Labour,

      My view, Labour need back away from the policy NOW and with maximum publicity, sure Labour will cop a bit of negative publicity in the form of ”its a policy U-turn” etc etc, But, such an announcement need canvass the idea that Something HAS to be done surrounding the Superannuation issue with ‘means testing’ being firmly put as one of the options that has to be explored,

      While there might be that initial burst of negative publicity those who have departed Labour over this issue, and i would suggest here that 2% of the voters might be the soft number and the reality is more likely to be 2–5%, will have been given a reason to return to the Labour fold,

      i suggested back in 2011 that Phill Goff campaigning during that election on this very issue of raising the age of entitlement for super cost Labour 2% and the election and i do not resile from that belief,

      i will go further this election and bluntly state that Labour will continue to be the Opposition until at least 2020 unless this policy is dropped, THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES, my preference IF change is needed, and i do not believe that Labour have put forward a narrative that successfully argues that need,would be for a means tested Superannuation which i think most would, given the options, believe to be a fair system of delivering future retirement income,

      If David Cunliffe want’s to be the next Prime Minister of New Zealand then i would strongly suggest that the current Labour Party Superannuation Policy is the one major policy that will stop Him gaining that position…

      • Colonial Viper 1.2.1
        25 February 2014 at 8:42 am

        amirite, you are right, if there is one impediment to Labour winning the 2014 election it is this one policy of raising the age of entitlement and my impression is at the least it is a 2% vote loser for Labour,

        Myself and others at Conference last year made similar points. Unfortunately the majority of the membership went happily along with the MPs.

        • bad12 1.2.1.1
          25 February 2014 at 9:07 am

          Make that 4 of us here at the Standard this morning who see Labour’s raising the age of superannuation entitlement to 67 as an election loser???,

          i am surprised that the ‘thinkers’ in the Labour Party,(there must be a few surely), did not identify this policy flogged by Phill Goff leading into the 2011 election as the cause of at least 2% of the vote having deserted Labour,

          Anyone nearing the age of entitlement will have taken note of Slippery the Prime Minister’s promise not to raise the age of entitlement, and, the not insignificant fact that this is probably the one thing the PM,(besides the tax switch),has not blatantly LIED about nor fudged with some meaningless drivel about what the promise actually meant,

          And, voted accordingly,

          Ask anyone involved in the workforce in a Labouring type activity for most of their working life at which point their bones can no longer support such manual labour and most will tell you that once they hit 50 it is all downhill from there as far as ability goes,(my bones crapped out way earlier but then i was on the shovel mixing the concrete for house foundations at 14),

          So for the manual labourers, those who provide the actual sweat in the economy even 65 is a long wait for an actual retirement and it is these workers who will be the most negatively effected by raising the age to 67,

          i would tho suggest that it is ‘across the board’ of the broad electorate that Labour has lost a sizable slice of support,(2–5%), because of this one policy and the need is for the Party to back away from it Now and with the maximum amount of publicity along with a promise to fully canvass all the options in it’s first term of Government…

        • Skinny 1.2.1.2
          25 February 2014 at 9:50 am

          I was highly annoyed when this proposed policy was being discussed and critiqued for alterations, and voted on for surpport at our LEC. I could not believe it was being supported and carried, I voted against ‘for the record’. My biggest concern were for the blue collar workers many who struggle to live to 65 let anlone having to carry on working on the tools a further2 years. Though people put the argument up if your unfit you will still be able to go on a benefit. I also thought of the young who are shut out of jobs because babyboomers wont call it a day. The impact of robotics & computerisation will see 50% of jobs lost for workers in less than 20 years anyway.

          I think ‘means’ testing is a must, I know a billionaire who is probably claiming a pension by now. How the hell can this happen? What I paid my taxes so I’m entitled to be paid back by way of a pension? This is the attitude of too many wealthy people, no offense to babyboomers but some in this group need to get real and think of the following generations.

          • greywarbler 1.2.1.2.1
            25 February 2014 at 10:36 am

            Skinny

            I don’t like raising the age of retirement past 65 either, and in some cases it should be at 60, those on the old invalid benefit particularly, considered for this.

            You are forgetting, or never learned, about the policy reasons for universal benefits. For the old age pension called superannuation, it is that there is equality of pension, everyone is entitled, the wealthy are getting the same now they are wealthy as they would had they suffered bad financial losses earlier. And there is no stigma to getting it.

            At one time when you received charity as an old person, you were looked down on like a beggar. If you had no relative or patron that would or could maintain and house you were sent to finish your existence in the poorhouse with probably an Oliver-like existence of mean conditions, austerity and discomfort.

            But CV is right. The return to that thinking of expansion of the good life for the wealthy with financial systems underpinning it, but for the poor a drawing in of purse strings, and ultimately a poorhouse mentality that excludes the old person from enjoyment of life by constantly raising the retirement age is harsh and deliberately wilful ignorance of alternatives.

            One way to help the country progress, is for retired people to volunteer for about 15 hours a week, from a number of activities that assist their local Council, environmental, social, reading recovery, tourist assistance etc. Their productivity would be high as the cost would be low. And NZ would benefit. They would also. And the hours would lessen as they aged or were less fit.

            Housing would be available that would be simple and suitable and valued annually starting at historical cost then just adding annual administration and maintenance charges each year plus whatever the CPI inflation rate was. With the profit taken from it, the Council could provide low-priced dwellings at a rent that covered all costs and was no burden on the rates. Without the profit, house inflation, and selling agents’ fees, a slew of costs are avoided. So more for the oldies, and sufficient money for a comfortable life with extras results.

            • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.2.1.1
              25 February 2014 at 11:11 am

              It also fucks me off that Labour MPs, who are on high incomes, generous super plans and excellent Kiwi Saver schemes, would have the nerve to be taking money out of communities by cutting back super eligibility, all the while ignoring the massive excess labour pool/under-employment problem the nation is facing.

              And yes I think that the policy will cost Labour up to 2% support, and confirms further to non-voters that the current Labour Party is full of clever intellectuals who have no idea of life in the real world where you don’t get employers handing over 20% top ups into your KiwiSaver scheme.

          • KJT 1.2.1.2.2
            25 February 2014 at 12:01 pm

            No problem with a billionaire getting a pension. So long as he is paying his fair share of taxes.

            Universality is the best way to go.

            • Skinny 1.2.1.2.2.1
              25 February 2014 at 2:27 pm

              While he gave the impression he paid his share of taxes in Australia. That didn’t appear to be the case in NZ. I knew his TB breeding operation in New Zealand was one big tax loophole. I knew of the former IRD man who worked the fiddle. There were plenty of rich listers milking that cow till it got closed out. Trouble is they just move on to the next rort, the majority all use colourful accounting practices. Shrilland could testify to that one!

        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 1.2.1.3
          25 February 2014 at 1:58 pm

          @ CV

          “Myself and others at Conference last year made similar points. Unfortunately the majority of the membership went happily along with the MPs.”

          Thanks to you and those others for taking the time and making the effort to shift this one CV.

          • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.3.1
            25 February 2014 at 7:08 pm

            Sometimes you have to defy even your own institution and its leaders. People who do not realise this quickly fall prey to careerism.

            Thank you BL.

          • Anne 1.2.1.3.2
            25 February 2014 at 7:34 pm

            Yeah… blue leopard, you know what Labour Conferences are like. If the MPs tell you to be lemmings and walk over the cliff with them then the delegates will…

        • cricklewood 1.2.1.4
          25 February 2014 at 3:18 pm

          The cynic in me says that Labour are only pushing the age increase to hold an opposing position in an attempt to embarrass John Key.
          It’s hardly a policy to benefit their core constituency what’s a low wage manual worker going to do at 65? Go on the sickness benefit? Get heckled by Winz? plenty struggle to make 65 as it is….

    • GR 1.3
      25 February 2014 at 9:04 am

      … or implementing the living wage across the board. That would put an extra $10K a year in the hip pocket of those that need it most.

    • Bearded Git 1.4
      25 February 2014 at 9:25 am

      amirite-agreed, the raising of the retirement age to 67 is a significant vote loser. Parker seems to be blinkered on this.

      It should be noted that the German Social Democrats, in their grand coalition deal with Merkel* just before Christmas, forced Merkel to drop her policy of raising the retirement/pension age to 67 and change it to a policy where it is possible to retire at 63 (if you have contributed for 45 years) rising to a retirement/pension age of no later than 65. Some details are here:

      http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304428004579350733617120864

      It should be noted that the new policy (63-65) has widespread support among the German people (see article). Labour should change its policy to something similar, and fast.

      Raising the age to 67 is also a barrier to a deal with Winston.

      *unfortunate deal this-why didn’t they go with the Greens?

    • wtl 1.5
      25 February 2014 at 10:10 am

      I don’t blame Labour for standing by this move. In terms of current fiscal policy, it is the responsible thing to do. National is being extremely cynical by refusing to address the issue, and just kicking it down the line for a future government to handle.

      While I can understand the criticism here about the change in the age of Super entitlement, I think a lot of the reasoning behind this is pie-in-the-sky. Sure it is possible to raise taxes or print money to keep the Super age as it is, but I doubt these ideas would really get a lot of support among the general voting population. The only other option is to do what National is doing and that is simply irresponsible.

      • weka 1.5.1
        25 February 2014 at 11:07 am

        Fiscal policy responsibility? Seems like you are forgetting that the government exists for the benefit and wellbeing of the people. The people don’t exist to work for the govt, but raising the super entitlement age treats them exactly as if they do (or treats some classes of them).

        • wtl 1.5.1.1
          25 February 2014 at 11:58 am

          And you seem to be forgetting that the government has to raise the money from somewhere to pay for the increased costs of super, be it raising taxes, cutting services or printing money, yet I doubt these suggestions will be well accepted by many voters.

          • KJT 1.5.1.1.1
            25 February 2014 at 3:29 pm

            Actually. It is goods and services for the elderly, that need to come from somewhere. Money is just the allocation mechanism.

            We have ample food, housing, and workers. It is the money that is in the wrong places.

            • Draco T Bastard 1.5.1.1.1.1
              25 February 2014 at 4:00 pm

              We have ample food, housing, and workers. It is the money that is in the wrong places.

              And that is where the government creating money and spending it into the economy can fix things as the money will be in the right places.

      • KJT 1.5.2
        25 February 2014 at 12:02 pm

        I think you will find there is a lot of support for making the wealthy pay their share of taxes.

        • weka 1.5.2.1
          25 February 2014 at 12:18 pm

          And why not ask them. Why ask the country if they would rather use those other means of paying for super, or just keep putting the age up (it’s not like it’s going to stop at 67 right?). Use that as an opportunity to educate people about the various options we have for managing how we pay for things in this country instead of just reinforcing TINA and neoliberalism.

        • srylands 1.5.2.2
          25 February 2014 at 12:25 pm

          They pay more than their share of taxes. They pay almost all the taxes.

          • Lanthanide 1.5.2.2.1
            25 February 2014 at 12:34 pm

            No we don’t.

            • KJT 1.5.2.2.1.1
              25 February 2014 at 1:48 pm

              Seconded.

              In fact

              The most taxes are paid by the middle cohort of PAYE payers.

              And. The most wealthy often pay the least tax. As the IRD says, more than half of the wealthiest New Zealanders pay little or no tax!

              And far to big a proportion by those who have almost no income.GST etc.

              The highest marginal tax rate is levied on the poorest.

              Taxes are payment for the services you receive from society.
              The well off, have the benefit of the bulk of the services, so we should pay more tax.

      • RedBaronCV 1.5.3
        25 February 2014 at 10:41 pm

        Keep it at 65 and reintroduce estate taxes above a certain level. That way even the billionaire who gets it then has to cough up out of his estate, while the less wealthy get to preserve their wealth. Reverses trickle up.

    • Anne 1.6
      25 February 2014 at 10:44 am

      Agree with amirite. It may be the right thing to do, but it definitely isn’t a politically clever thing to do.

      I wish our current caucus were around in the 1970s. Phil Goff knows was around then so should remember what happened. Muldoon’s storm to victory in 1975 was entirely due to his massive superannuation bribe which we have been paying the price for ever since. He pandered to the greed of the middle aged and they voted en bloc for National.

      Some sort of means testing is a far better way to go. In time it could be morphed into a later retirement age when people have latched on to the fact they are not going to diddled out of their entitlements.

      It seems sometimes that each generation of Labour parliamentarians are destined to make the same mistakes as the previous. Greywarbler suggested a few days ago that some of us old hands should be approached by Labour’s strategy team and give them account of our knowledge and experiences. That would be a good idea but it won’t happen because each generation thinks they’re cleverer than the last.

      Mark my words. A big push by Labour to arbitrarily lift the retirement age will kill them later this year!

      Edit: having now read the comments I see I’m in good company.

      • greywarbler 1.6.1
        25 February 2014 at 11:15 am

        Anne
        I agree that this – raising the super age to 67 and beyond – (goody-goody little responsible Labour prostrating itself to old-time financial norms and motifs) would tilt the vote from its present upward rising angle.

        And about Muldoon’s offer of old age benefits. They were too high and unaffordable so later had to be revised, but women preferred to go with Muldoon more because the Labour one as proposed by economic textbook reader Roger Douglas, was to be a payment based on earnings. And women at that time were very aware that they were discriminated against in the earnings tables, in employment opportunities, and were large in general poverty statistics. They would just continue into their old age in the same straitened circumstances they had always been kept in by The System called patriarchal and very male-oriented, not like now of course!

        So looking at the whole issue on acceptance of Muldoon’s proposition rather than that of Douglas, changes the view slightly just as understanding the concept of universality and why the wealthy get the same super as the poor changes perceptions of that policy.

      • flip 1.6.2
        25 February 2014 at 7:08 pm

        I kinda liked the idea of making super dependent on how long you have been paying taxes and means testing if affordability is an issue in the future. Early retirement should considered as an option for people who have had physical work most of their lives.

        • Colonial Viper 1.6.2.1
          25 February 2014 at 7:13 pm

          That would work quite well if the Govt ran a full employment policy.

          Because now, what happens when you get made redundant at 55 and no one will take you on again?

          • Murray Olsen 1.6.2.1.1
            25 February 2014 at 11:21 pm

            What would happen to someone made redundant at 55? They’d get a lot of experience with officious little twits at WINZ offices sending them on employment courses, teaching them how to write CVs, and cutting their benefits every now and then. Purely to help them into employment of course. Because Dr. Aylward says that being on a benefit is as bad as being a heroin addict.

            Why the hell does some neoliberal Rogernome fool that’s sneaked his way into the Labour Party think older people need two more years of this treatment? I find it hard to believe someone so bloody stupid wants to be in government, and find it even harder to think what use having him there would be.

          • flip 1.6.2.1.2
            26 February 2014 at 8:40 am

            “what happens when you get made redundant at 55 and no one will take you on again?”

            You’re future is stuffed.

            “Because Dr. Aylward says that being on a benefit is as bad as being a heroin addict.”

            Idiot comment which shows he understand neither.

    • Enough is Enough 1.7
      25 February 2014 at 11:57 am

      Is this just politics? Key says it is staying at 65 so Parker wants to raise a point of difference.

      Every leftie should let their local Labour MP or candidate know this form of austerity is not acceptable for a left leaning Labour Party.

      It is outrageous that they would attempt to balance the books by cutting social welfare entitlements. This is the kind of bullshit that Ruth Richardson would be proud of.

      We can abalnce the books without austerity. It involves taxing those that have robbed the worked of this country for the past 30 years.

      • Ant 1.7.1
        25 February 2014 at 1:11 pm

        Soon people are going to want to work past 65 anyway, the whole idea of hitting that age and going out to pasture is thinking from 50 years ago.

        A lot of boomers are hitting 60 and their careers are peaking, they’re not going to shut up shop in 5 years.

        Labour just need to back up raising the retirement age with robust help for people who can’t work into their 60s and 70s due to the nature of their jobs/health/life.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.7.1.1
          25 February 2014 at 4:17 pm

          Soon people are going to want to work past 65 anyway, the whole idea of hitting that age and going out to pasture is thinking from 50 years ago.

          True but that just means that a Universal Income with no superannuation fits even better.

          A lot of boomers are hitting 60 and their careers are peaking, they’re not going to shut up shop in 5 years.

          But most are are hitting 60 and finding that they can’t work any more due to physical disability caused by their working.

          Labour just need to back up raising the retirement age with robust help for people who can’t work into their 60s and 70s due to the nature of their jobs/health/life.

          And get into the same problem that targeted benefits have always caused – massive attacks from the greediest and ever increasing amounts of administration that will achieve sweet FA. Just as we’re seeing now from this government against beneficiaries – beneficiaries that exist solely because this government runs policies that ensure 6% or more unemployment so as to keep wages low.

          • Ant 1.7.1.1.1
            25 February 2014 at 4:28 pm

            Yeah I agree, but I’m running on the assumption that they don’t have the nads to implement a UI which would be a best case scenario.

  2. northshoredoc 2
    25 February 2014 at 7:20 am

    Further to the debate some days ago regarding measles and the rationale for immunising, now 19 cases at a single Auckland school

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11209216

    • Colonial Viper 2.1
      25 February 2014 at 8:49 am

      Bet you that a quarter or more of those who are sick had also received vaccinations.

      • northshoredoc 2.1.1
        25 February 2014 at 8:58 am

        Why is that relevant ?
        Seeing as I know the answer to that question can I ask how much you’d like to wager ?

        • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.1
          25 February 2014 at 9:01 am

          Oh do share, in that case. Both the fully vaccinated number and the partially vaccinated number who got sick, please.

          • northshoredoc 2.1.1.1.1
            25 February 2014 at 10:20 am

            You answer my questions first ..

            … then I’ll happily answer yours

            • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.1.1.1
              25 February 2014 at 10:50 am

              Why withold public information in the hope of making a quick buck 🙂

              • northshoredoc …
                25 February 2014 at 11:15 am

                One partially vaccinated the remainder not vaccinated.
                Now can you answer my first question as to the relevance of your initial comment in this thread ?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  25 February 2014 at 11:30 am

                  Thanks, and I know I was being a bit of a pain, but its good to have a professional like yourself give details which the news did not report.

                  My inital comment was around my expectation that the MMR vaccination almost always gives less than 95% protection against exposure to measles, and possibly way less.

                  The numbers you suggest in this latest incident suggest that the protective ability of the vaccination was actually very high at this particular school at this particular time, although it is not possible to tell without knowing the exact numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated in the school.

                  • northshoredoc …
                    25 February 2014 at 12:01 pm

                    “My inital comment was around my expectation that the MMR vaccination almost always gives less than 95% protection against exposure to measles, and possibly way less.”

                    Your expectation is incorrect 2 doses of the current MMR vaccine as per the MoH guidelines (15 months and 4 years) will provide an immunity level to Measles at close to 99% even a single dose at 12-15 months will provide immunity to over 90% of recipients.

                    If you have no immunity to measles and come into contact with the live virus you have around an 80% chance (from memory) of becoming ill

                    • Disraeli Gladstone …
                      25 February 2014 at 12:15 pm

                      Yes. In the United States and the United Kingdom, I believe it’s on record that the current MMR has a 95% immunity rate at one dose and 99% at two.

            • weka 2.1.1.1.1.2
              25 February 2014 at 11:14 am

              I’d like to know the answer too.

              • northshoredoc …
                25 February 2014 at 11:16 am

                Mine or his/hers ?

                • weka …
                  25 February 2014 at 11:31 am

                  I’d like to know how many of the reported cases were people that had been vaccinated. Be good to look at age and socio-economic status too.

                  • greywarbler …
                    25 February 2014 at 12:14 pm

                    I guess that you have all heard the latest report. I think school was Lakeland High School. As I remember 8 cases were from children entering school from overseas and then there were further who caught from the original eight. I think that they are checking 700 people in the Auckland area.

                    Do we need to have a compulsory measles vaccine plus for any other common nasty on those coming to the country? It is very expensive for us to fight off these events. When you go overseas you have to comply with health requirements and get yellow fever jabs etc. What about having that here? Why not?

                    • McFlock …
                      25 February 2014 at 12:49 pm

                      Jabbing immigrants would be a useless measure without jabbing all tourists, too.

                      Which will give us a friendliness rating similar to the TSA in the states.

                    • weka …
                      25 February 2014 at 12:51 pm

                      That’s one solution to tourism.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 February 2014 at 3:05 pm

                      Goes with out “100% pure” waterways…

                    • greywarbler …
                      26 February 2014 at 10:16 am

                      Seeing that we don’t feel friendly to people who bring in diseases from their country of origin, I don’t see that immigrants would be worse off from having compulsory vaccination. If they want to come here, they still will choose to do so. The vaccinations would have to be given under optimum health requirements, ie when the person is not already sick with something else. I understand that the virus doesn’t work well then.

                      It’s not enough to go around with good, happy, positive thoughts about things, these are not efficacious against disease McFlock. Action for protection is required using human intelligence, not just responding to problems with spurious reasons for retaining wishful thinking and doing nothing. Tourists who get sick, get lost, actually cost us more money than they bring in. We don’t want them introducing disease, and there is no reason why we could not insist upon vaccination when considered advisable.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 February 2014 at 12:12 pm

                      at 2.5mil visitors a year, it’s probably just cheaper to make sure we’re vaccinated, rather than processing vaccination confirmation slips for everyone – then having an nzer go visiting elsewhere and bringing something back (either unvaccinated or 1% where it didn’t take).

                    • greywarbler …
                      26 February 2014 at 1:05 pm

                      For sure McFlock but that is looking at cheapness etc. not whether it is a good idea that would be beneficial to us. Immigrants are future residents, and deserve to be cared for against disease outbreaks, just as we deserve to be protected against any serious ones they are likely to bring with them. That would be beneficial to us all. Tourists may have to be treated or barred if coming from a high-risk area or there is an outbreak of a problematic disease.

                      And quoting an exception indicates a rule doesn’t it? A NZr returning with something – that’s always a possibility. But not a certainty. And no reason to throw one’s hands in the air and say it’s not perfect – we can’t do anything.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 February 2014 at 1:15 pm

                      My point is that making vaccination mandatory for immigrants as a visa requirement is redundant, because they are not the only vector. Doubtful even a significant one. And their numbers are too low to impact on herd immunity. So it can wait until they arrange primary healthcare providers..

      • Chooky 2.1.2
        25 February 2014 at 11:17 am

        yup…my son was vaccinated for mumps and whooping cough……and got both…

        imo .this in fact is dangerous ( just like kids being vaccinated for meningitis) because it lulls parents and kids ( and their bodies ) into a false sense of security and they are not on the look out for the virus…which may actually be more severe because it has mutated

        ….measles mutates (from a medical book a doctor loaned me…if i remember correctly….. some university students in the USA have been vaccinated 4x for measles and they still contract different strains…and some of them are more severe than if they had had the virus naturally as a kid

        ……meningitis has at least 40+ different strains

        …getting the wild variety of measles without vaccination…actually immunises you for life

        i am not against all vaccines or vaccinations however

        • weka 2.1.2.1
          25 February 2014 at 11:33 am

          One concern is that the skills to managing measles and other similar communicable diseases get lost from the community. I’m in my late 40s, so had measles, mumps and rubella naturally as a child. My siblings all did too. Mum and Dad knew what to do to help us recover, as did most of their peers. I would guess that those skills are pretty much lost outside of the communities that don’t vaccinate intentionally.

          The other issue of course is poverty. By all means make vaccines available and accessible, but for gods sake look at the role that standard of living plays in disease and how changing that affects all diseases.

          • Chooky 2.1.2.1.1
            25 February 2014 at 11:45 am

            weka +100 …totally agree

            vaccination should be a choice ….and if i were living in a poor overcrowded situation with 5 kids …i would be vaccinating for everything….it really is the easy way out in the short term….but long term consequences are unknown and side effects are not catalogued….it is great for health departments and governments who can not or will not address poverty

            • Colonial Viper 2.1.2.1.1.1
              25 February 2014 at 12:02 pm

              .and if i were living in a poor overcrowded situation with 5 kids …

              And vaccinations are least effective in the poor living in poor conditions with insufficient nutrition. A compromised immune system is compromised, no matter what drugs you pump it with.

              • northshoredoc …
                25 February 2014 at 12:05 pm

                No incorrect.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  25 February 2014 at 7:22 pm

                  Well that’s not what the University of Virginia Health System reckons

                  Researchers followed children in Dhaka, Bangladesh, from birth to one year, trying to solve a mystery: Why are oral polio vaccines only about half as effective in developing countries as they are in the U.S.?

                  They observed some similar circumstances when the vaccine failed: Those children had had two or more episodes of diarrhea, were malnourished or were weaned early.

                  UVA infectious disease researcher William Petri Jr., MD, PhD, who collaborated with an international team on this project, said the children with two or more episodes of diarrhea were twice as likely to fail polio vaccination. “While our observations need to be validated and extended at other regions of the developing world, they are encouraging to me as they suggest that very simple interventions, such as promoting exclusive breastfeeding, can improve vaccination and hasten eradication of polio,” he said.

                  http://uvahealth.com/blog/2014/01/14/malnutrition-diarrhea-reduced-breastfeeding-polio-vaccine-fails-developing-countries/

              • srylands …
                25 February 2014 at 12:20 pm

                “And vaccinations are least effective in the poor living in poor conditions with insufficient nutrition. A compromised immune system is compromised, no matter what drugs you pump it with.”

                That is complete bullshit.

              • weka …
                25 February 2014 at 12:26 pm

                I’m not going to agree with that one CV. People with poverty compromised immunity don’t usually have the resources to manage illnesses when they happen, so are much more at risk from serious complications. Doubly so (compromised immunity, lack of resources).

                In NZ there is also the issue of whether Maori and Pacific Islanders have adapted to the diseases that are relatively recent in evolutionary terms. I don’t know what work has been done on that, but I think those communities have the right to make their own decisions.

                In the absence of fixing poverty, I think give people a wide range of information, and the tools and resources that give them choice (vaccinations and alternatives). Then let those families and communities decide.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  25 February 2014 at 7:29 pm

                  Just to clarify weka, which is the specific sentence of mine that you disagreed with?

                  • weka …
                    25 February 2014 at 11:00 pm

                    I thought there was an inference of something following on from Chooky’s comment, but reading it again I can see there probably isn’t. Sorry bout that.

              • Zorr …
                25 February 2014 at 1:22 pm

                Ah great. CV proving he doesn’t understand how vaccines work… sigh

                Gotta love how the anti-vaxxer debates expose the scientifically illiterate…

                • Colonial Viper …
                  25 February 2014 at 7:33 pm

                  Oh look here’s something else – rotavirus vaccine appears to be much less effective in developing countries with poorer populations, than in developing countries.

                  Learn something every day eh mate?

                  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20622508

                  • Zorr …
                    25 February 2014 at 8:14 pm

                    And you use this link as an argument against vaccines?

                    -_-

                    The dumb, it burns. It may show decreased efficacy in developing rather than developed nations but a pooled efficacy in developing nations of 51% when talking a disease that causes 500,000 deaths per year is not to be fucking sneezed at.

                    Just… what… the… fuck…

                    Seriously…

                  • greywarbler …
                    25 February 2014 at 8:58 pm

                    I wondered CViper do you have your own blog site?

            • srylands 2.1.2.1.1.2
              25 February 2014 at 12:22 pm

              “.but long term consequences are unknown and side effects are not catalogued….”

              That is simply incorrect.

        • Disraeli Gladstone 2.1.2.2
          25 February 2014 at 12:05 pm

          Measles vaccines led to a >99% reduction in the United States of America according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

          An over 99% reduction.

    • weka 2.2
      25 February 2014 at 11:13 am

      “Further to the debate some days ago regarding measles and the rationale for immunising, now 19 cases at a single Auckland school”

      At a single high school. Why are kids getting measles at that age instead of preschool or early primary?

      • northshoredoc 2.2.1
        25 February 2014 at 12:03 pm

        Do you really want me to explain it to you or do you want to have a little think and figure it out yourself.

      • amirite 2.2.2
        25 February 2014 at 12:11 pm

        Because idiot parents who swallowed the flawed conclusion of a study that found a link between measles vaccine and autism. The study has been proven wrong but the damage is lasting..

        Here, this article will explain this First world problem better than I ever could:

        http://www.livescience.com/43577-why-rich-educated-parents-avoid-vaccinations.html

        • weka 2.2.2.1
          25 February 2014 at 12:29 pm

          If I had children I would choose to not vaccinate them for measles (assuming we weren’t in the conditions that Chook describes), and it has little to nothing to do with the MMR or autism.

          • Zorr 2.2.2.1.1
            25 February 2014 at 1:21 pm

            Then what is your reason weka? There are some vaccines that it may be arguable that their effects are negligible and potentially not worth the expense, but in the case of the MMR vaccine, I have yet to hear a valid argument against it.

            I tire of the vaccination debate because it so completely encompasses the stupidity of selectively choosing which scientific results to listen to.

      • McFlock 2.2.3
        25 February 2014 at 2:08 pm

        Herd immunity is reliable, not perfect.
        That is why everyone who can be should be immunised

      • srylands 2.2.4
        25 February 2014 at 2:36 pm

        umm because they were not vaccinated as kids?

    • Disraeli Gladstone 2.3
      25 February 2014 at 11:41 am

      When people on the left doubt vaccinations or fluoridation, I just shake my head. We’re the politics that embrace knowledge and science, not superstition and ignorance.

      There’s very little difference between a vaccination-sceptic/fluoride-sceptic and a climate change denier.

      All of them ignore science and cling to some primeval human fear that doesn’t deal with evidence.

      • northshoredoc 2.3.1
        25 February 2014 at 12:04 pm

        I agree it is depressing.

      • Colonial Viper 2.3.2
        25 February 2014 at 12:05 pm

        LOL

        you do know that not all vaccinations are of the same value and safety right?

        you do know that the majority of countries in the OECD do not fluoridate, right?

        I mean, it sounds like YOU who are ignoring the facts here, in favour of a religious, faith based orthodoxy.

        • Disraeli Gladstone 2.3.2.1
          25 February 2014 at 12:10 pm

          The reason that a lot of countries don’t fluoridate is because it occurs naturally in a higher quantify than in New Zealand.

          Before I moved here, my dentist in the UK told me “you’ve got to be careful because the water in New Zealand is too -pure-. If they’re not adding fluoride, you’re going to need to do it yourself.”

          Which is fine. I’m fine with adding it myself. People in lower income families might struggle to do that. Anti-fluoride is adversely affecting the worst off in our society.

          So maybe don’t call yourself left-wing or liberal anymore.

          • McFlock 2.3.2.1.1
            25 February 2014 at 2:20 pm

            The thing I really love about flouridation is that the only demonstrated side-effect of flouride in water at <1ppm (dental fluorosis, usually white patches on teeth) occurs at higher rates in non-fluoridated areas of NZ than in fluoridated areas. As well as decay rates being higher.

            Which suggests that water fluoridation is the safest way to provide that essential nutrient.

      • weka 2.3.3
        25 February 2014 at 12:14 pm

        “All of them ignore science and cling to some primeval human fear that doesn’t deal with evidence.”

        The thing that really bothers me is that the people who believe that science is the only true way to understand something, then go and apply such ridiculous logic. If you think that all people who don’t want to vaccinate their kids are anti-science or ignorant of science, then you really have little understanding of the communities that choose to not vaccinate and probably shouldn’t be expressing an opinion about them. I can understand your frustration because the anti-vac websites do often come across as scientifically illiterate and rabid with it, but you can’t extrapolate that to the whole population. Further, there is plenty of bullshit happening on the ‘we must vaccinate everyone’ side, and I suspect you are blind to that because of your ideology.

        • northshoredoc 2.3.3.1
          25 February 2014 at 12:27 pm

          What do you think are the main reasons that parents choose not to vaccinate ?

          The main reasons i’ve come across in no particular order are..

          Religious/spiritual reasons
          Fear of vaccination side effects
          Belief in natural immunity
          Medical reason preventing immunisation
          Belief that there is no need to vaccinate
          Forget to have it done

          • weka 2.3.3.1.1
            25 February 2014 at 12:38 pm

            If we just look at the people that choose from an informed place (so leave out people that forget, don’t have access, religious prohibition etc), then I would say that most of the people I know made the choices because of a range of the following (in no particular order)

            they don’t believe that vaccinations don’t have adverse affects on overall health.

            they are concerned about adverse reactions.

            they believe that illnesses like measles are normal childhood events

            that having measles creates a challenge for the immune system that is important for lifelong health, and that if you avoid all illness you compromise immunity/health.

            they believe that being ill is a normal part of life and that it’s not possible to make the world completely safe, nor is it desirable to try.

            they believe that reductionist science is not the only way of understanding the world and tend to have a much broader understanding of health care models than most GPs.

            I would add that I can’t think of anyone I know who chose to not vaccinate who didn’t also take other measures with regards to protecting their child’s health ie not vaccinating is not a passive process.

            Many parents I know who have chosen to not vaccinate also make the decision on a case by case basis, depending on the vaccine, and the issues involved in that particular illness.

            • amirite 2.3.3.1.1.1
              25 February 2014 at 12:57 pm

              One or two out of every 1,000 children infected with measles will get pneumonia or meningitis and die, it could be your child or your niece, so tough? Is the risk of not vaccinating them worth it?

              There are children that can not be vaccinated for physiological reasons and that’s fine, but all others have no reason to risk the lives of their children when prevention is at hand.

              • weka …
                25 February 2014 at 2:21 pm

                “One or two out of every 1,000 children infected with measles will get pneumonia or meningitis and die, it could be your child or your niece, so tough? Is the risk of not vaccinating them worth it?”

                You are assuming that it’s not possible to prevent those two kids getting ill by other means.

                I said, “I would add that I can’t think of anyone I know who chose to not vaccinate who didn’t also take other measures with regards to protecting their child’s health ie not vaccinating is not a passive process”. So no, it’s not just a case of tough.

                • northshoredoc …
                  25 February 2014 at 2:39 pm

                  “You are assuming that it’s not possible to prevent those two kids getting ill by other means.”

                  Do you know of some other means from preventing Measles amongst someone who has not be immunised or had the disease previously – apart from the obvious method of keeping them isolated from anyone who is infectious ?

                  • weka …
                    25 February 2014 at 2:46 pm

                    I wasn’t talking about preventing measles. Amirite implied that complications like pneumonia or meningitis are inevitable in those two children referred to. I’m saying that there are other factors at play in addition to the measles infection and the bacteria, where interventions can be used.

            • northshoredoc 2.3.3.1.1.2
              25 February 2014 at 1:29 pm

              Thanks for that, it’s an interesting list and IMO stays more about my profession and public health in general inability to communicate the benefits and risks of vaccination amongst all the other information that people are bombarded with these days.

              • weka …
                25 February 2014 at 2:25 pm

                Nope. I’m of the generation that was making these decisions before the internet. I have a pretty good understanding of the medical and public health issues involved in the pro-vaccination argument, and I even agree with some of it. Many of the people that I know who don’t vaccinate their kids are also well informed about what the pro- arguments are.

                • northshoredoc …
                  25 February 2014 at 2:35 pm

                  “Many of the people that I know who don’t vaccinate their kids are also well informed about what the pro- arguments are.”

                  Well no they’re not otherwise they wouldn’t come up with such counterintuitive, spurious and frankly incorrect reasons against immunisation such as those you’ve listed.

            • Zorr 2.3.3.1.1.3
              25 February 2014 at 1:30 pm

              “they believe that illnesses like measles are normal childhood events” <– it is thinking like this that means that we were nearly at the point of eradicating measles and now it is making a comeback so that childhood suffering can once again be enjoyed by all.

              The same has now happened with smallpox. We thought we had it beaten, now it is back. What next – polio? That’s a normal childhood illness right? Just sucks for those that end up on iron lungs (or modern equivalent) – but that’s all part of childhood.

              The stupidness of the “normal childhood events” argument makes my head hurt because if we can prevent disease, we should. It improves the health of our community and greatly increases the prospects for the lower classes of society because their children spend less time sick and have more energy/development available for attempts at social mobility.

              As someone on the left, highly successful vaccines represent one of the greatest advancements of medical science in the past 100 years for evening out the playing field somewhat.

              • weka …
                25 February 2014 at 2:27 pm

                You think that polio and measles are comparable childhood diseases? Seriously? And you want to call people who don’t vaccinate their kids stupid?

                Honestly, I can’t begin to imagine in what world you would think that polio was a normal childhood illness and then compare it to measles /facepalm.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  25 February 2014 at 2:31 pm

                  NB polio infection is overwhelmingly asymptomatic (or sometimes mildly flu-like) in healthy people of good nutrition and incomes.

                  A small proportion of individuals however suffered serious long lasting adverse infects from infection. Somewhere between 1:50 and 1:1000 I think.

                  • McFlock …
                    25 February 2014 at 2:50 pm

                    shame if you’re in that 1:50, though.

                    And the adverse reaction rate for the vaccine?

                  • Chooky …
                    27 February 2014 at 10:16 am

                    ….and dont most of us carry the meningitis virus around in our throats anyway …..it is only in a small percentage that it becomes actively virulent

                    …it would be better to study why and how it turns malevolent and becomes an epidemic…….rather than the vaccinating the whole population willy nilly

                    ( maybe it interacts with other viruses, even vaccinations…or maybe the psychology/stress of the individual/group has something to do with it)

                    • McFlock …
                      27 February 2014 at 1:00 pm

                      Best to do both. Because it might go bad for a small percentage, but it fucks them up badly. Because while we work on the “maybes” (maybe Saturn’s orbit has something to do with their chi), 4 kids a year die and dozens are hospitalised.

                • Zorr …
                  25 February 2014 at 2:58 pm

                  Actually, they have both been combated by vaccines and for the majority (as CV states) the polio virus didn’t have a serious effect – but for those that did suffer from it, it was crippling. In the time period prior to the vaccine for it being developed, it was considered a normal childhood illness, who are you to suddenly be arbitrator of what is a normal childhood illness and what isn’t? What are your criteria? The only criteria I am using is “can you get this illness as a child”…

                  • northshoredoc …
                    25 February 2014 at 3:19 pm

                    In the not too distant past it was also ‘normal’ for a relatively high percentage of women to die during childbirth and for a relatively high number of children to not make it past their childhood.

                    • srylands …
                      25 February 2014 at 3:34 pm

                      What gets me with folk like Zorr and CV is that they (I assume – I stand corrected if this is wrong) rightly deride climate change deniers for ignoring the science, yet do exactly the same with vaccinations.

                      What is the difference? I think because vaccines are a product of science (and pharmaceuticals companies) they fear or do not understand. Whereas climate change is caught up in fossil fuels use which they think is eveil as a matter of course.

                      Anyway whatever it is scary.

                      northshoredoc – I admire your persistence but you might consider giving up – you will get nowhere 🙂

                    • Zorr …
                      25 February 2014 at 3:48 pm

                      uh srylands – I am pro-vaxx – get it right 😛

                      I don’t think all vaccines are equal (and cost-benefit analysis does need to be done with any medical treatment) but the benefits of vaccination greatly outweighs the negatives.

                      There is, however, the issue of Big Pharma and that medical research should be compensated for its work but it shouldn’t be given the opportunity to extort obscene profit.

                    • weka …
                      25 February 2014 at 4:29 pm

                      Sorry, but that is just disingenuous in the extreme. You take a phrase that I used, put it in another context and then put your own spin on it.

                      (I like the childbirth example though. You know what reduced mortality? Increased standard of living).

                      Let’s change the language then. Rate the seriousness of measles compared to polio.

                      “The only criteria I am using is “can you get this illness as a child”…”

                      Yes, that’s why you don’t understand what I wrote. But it’s not about you. I was asked to say what I thought the reasons where for some to not vaccinate. If you are really interested in understanding why intelligent, informed parents choose to not vaccinate their children, I’m happy to keep talking with you. You don’t have to agree with what I or they say, but I’m not that interested in arguing with you when you won’t even understand the basics of their decisions.

                    • Zorr …
                      25 February 2014 at 4:39 pm

                      So please, enlighten me. What are they using as the basis for their decision making other than emotive reasoning?

                      You are the one who chooses to use measles as an example of an “ordinary childhood disease” but then, because the damage of polio is so much worse, choose to not rate that as an “ordinary childhood disease”. There is so much illness and suffering that has been avoided because of the widespread use of effective vaccines – smallpox being yet another example. What about whooping cough?

                      The ones that are most adversely affected by the refusal to vaccinate are also our most vulnerable.

                    • weka …
                      25 February 2014 at 4:46 pm

                      What do you mean by emotive reasoning?

                    • Zorr …
                      25 February 2014 at 4:55 pm

                      I tend to define emotive reasoning as the decision making made by the heart as opposed to the head (if one were to still use such an archaic division). In this instance though, the anti-vaxx movement relies on evoking an emotional response to the issue rather than encouraging a well-considered review of the evidence because if they were to rely on rational reasoning, they would lose. The balance of scientific evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of vaccination but this argument continues to crop up.

                      It shares a lot in common with the climate denier movement as another field of science where experts continue to have to battle well-funded “think tanks” full of ideological morons that continue to endanger the population.

                    • weka …
                      25 February 2014 at 5:06 pm

                      Ok. I think we should clear this up. I’m not part of the anti-vac movement, I’ve never had anything to do with them other than reading occassionally on websites but I have a pretty low tolerance for them so tend to stay away now. I couldn’t tell you what I think about them other than that (for instance, I’m assuming they’re not all scientifically illiterate, but I have no idea what percentage). I’m guessing that you don’t have much idea either.

                      Likewise, most of my generation thought these things through before the internet and while there was already an anti-vac movement in NZ by then it wasn’t something that was pushing people’s choices.

                      As for the heart. I don’t have a problem with people making heart decisions so long as they balance that with some evidence too. In fact there is increasing evidence that the heart is a very good mechanism for decision making in general, and that using hard cold rational thinking without any heart is just as detrimental as the other way round. The biggest point of difference I see between you and I is that seem to believe that the only valid evidence comes from hard science. That is an unscientific belief.

            • Chooky 2.3.3.1.1.4
              25 February 2014 at 1:39 pm

              +1000 thanks weka …could not have put that better myself …also know very well educated people who have chosen not to vaccinate…and it is proactive and no the easy way out ( certainly not child abuse)

              …as it happens I did vaccinate my children albeit delayed …….but i had a doctor who didnt believe in it!….i went against this doctor’s advice …but it was accepted with respect after i had studied quite a lot of literature ( so the medical profession is not united on this issue).

              ..in the end i made the decision out of some expediency because of pressure from the creche the children went to in the mornings….i still wonder if I made the right decision with my partner because my son has some signs of Aspergers

              ( as it happens thankfully by delaying the vaccinations we missed out on a vaccine which the govt was using which had been rejected in Hong Kong? or Singapore or Japan ? as having adverse side effects….and it had been used in those countries on older children not very little babies)

              • Zorr …
                25 February 2014 at 1:45 pm

                “because my son has some signs of Aspergers” – you do realize that Andrew Wakefield has now been fully discredited and exposed as a fraud and conman who was in it for the money? Who deliberately misreported and manipulated results to make his claims?

                Also, this:
                http://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/10measles.pdf

                Immunization is helping.

                • Chooky …
                  25 February 2014 at 2:21 pm

                  ..well sorry i dont know anything about Andrew Wakefield …i am just making an observation…..and i am very grateful my doctor recommended not vaccinating him when he was a very little baby…and thank goodness it is very mild ….almost normal…in fact probably normal ….and possibly nothing to do with vaccinations….but the signs have been/are there nevertheless

                  i really find it quite bamboozling how some people get so irate/dogmatic /put downish/authoritarian when others express some scepticism and doubts about vaccinations for everything and everybody…talk about open minded doctors /scientists always being professionally open minded a la Karl Popper ….now that really is a myth!

                  ….but i guess it is a multi billion dollar business and doctors do get golden handshakes for every child they vaccinate….and there are a many others with vested interests in the vaccination loop…say no more.

                  • Zorr …
                    25 February 2014 at 2:33 pm

                    Do you want to know why people like myself get so irate? Because we are constantly barraged by the idiocy of “balance” – that someone who feels strongly about vaccines is given the same air time and treatment as qualified medical researchers. That Koch-funded climate change deniers get to share the air waves in the mainstream media with climate scientists that have spent the last 30-40 years studying and researching.

                    If you were presenting any science, then I would be sitting here open mindedly reading and clicking any little bit of info you provided. But you’re not – in your comment you made a possible link between your sons Aspergers and vaccinations – whether you know who Andrew Wakefield is or not is beside the point because that is where that little piece of misinformation has derived from.

                    Science asks questions and then tries to answer them through investigation and analysis. It requires an open mind. What it does not need to do though is accept every random brain fart as equally valid.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  25 February 2014 at 2:22 pm

                  you do realize that Andrew Wakefield has now been fully discredited and exposed as a fraud and conman who was in it for the money?

                  You do realise that Andrew Wakefield and his publications have zero bearing on what Chooky commented about their son?

                  You seem to be implying because Wakefield was declared a fraud by the establishment, that Chooky must somehow be wrong in making the comment about aspergers characteristics.

                  Try and think scientifically dude.

                  • Zorr …
                    25 February 2014 at 2:28 pm

                    Andrew Wakefield was the medical “researcher” behind the paper that originally linked ASDs and the MMR vaccine. It has now been as completely and utterly retracted as is even possible.

                    Show me any other peer-reviewed research that displays any link between autism spectrum disorders (like Aspergers) and vaccines? I’m happy to wait.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      25 February 2014 at 2:39 pm

                      Sure, I know that, but this discussion is really quite funny. And you pride yourself on being scientific?

                      But insist that if something is not written up in one of your peer reviewed bibles, then the phenomena cannot exist or have happened in real life?

                      And here I thought that formal science was supposed to be the study of the natural world, not the other way around.

                    • Zorr …
                      25 February 2014 at 2:43 pm

                      Name a phenomena? Please do.

                      The fact that you are already referring to peer reviewed journals as “bibles” shows how much stock you put in scientific process and decent research.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      25 February 2014 at 2:50 pm

                      Decent research?

                      What’s decent research got to do with it? Decent research would actually involve being curious about self reports like Chooky’s. Not being instantly dismissive.

                      So if it’s not in your precious tomes, it not only doesn’t – but it can’t – exist, is what I just read from you.

                      That’s very clearly a kind of religious faith masquerading as science and rationality.

                    • Zorr …
                      25 February 2014 at 3:06 pm

                      No. Just no.

                      Anecdata can be a leap pad for further research but once disproven, should not continue to be used as such. The fact that you are unwilling to discuss Andrew Wakefield is one of the surest signs that you are ignoring the evidence.

                      His premise of a link between vaccines and autism has now been so thoroughly disproven during his fall from “researcher” to fraud that it gets almost as close to a proven negative that science is capable of. This is why I so immediately dismiss Chooky’s anecdote and even the anti-vaxxers that I know personally who are well-educated steer well clear of the autism link stuff these days because they are aware that even in their circles it automatically invalidates anything else they may say.

                      If you want the links to research disproving the linkage, I can go dig them up. But then again, you’re not that interested in science – you seem to be only interested in defining what science isn’t rather than accepting what science is.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      25 February 2014 at 3:10 pm

                      So one bad researcher with poor or fraudulent methods, in your eyes automatically discredits everyone else who puts forward a comment about their own experience with their own children. Now these kinds of parents are either misguided, lying or just plain wrong.

                      Good oh. You sciency types know best.

                    • Zorr …
                      25 February 2014 at 3:16 pm

                      You are completely ignoring what I am saying – as I expected CV. I am saying that his completely flawed study propelled other researchers to investigate – and their investigations showed the complete lack of a link.

                      As you are so wont to say – do try to keep up.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 February 2014 at 3:40 pm

                      So one bad researcher with poor or fraudulent methods, in your eyes automatically discredits everyone else who puts forward a comment about their own experience with their own children. Now these kinds of parents are either misguided, lying or just plain wrong.

                      He was the only researcher to get those results.

                      So what is the experience parents have with their children?
                      “A was vaccinated with B, then we noticed A had ASD, therefore B caused ASD”?

                      ASD is relatively common (around 150/100k in NZ). Vaccination rates are around 90%. Easily detectable effect, if it existed. But nobody has seen it. Other than a fraud selling a competing vaccine, of course.

                    • wtl …
                      25 February 2014 at 3:40 pm

                      The fact that CV thinks that a pseudonymous comment on a blog with an n=1 is an important piece of scientific information tell us all we need to know about his knowledge of science.

                  • McFlock …
                    25 February 2014 at 2:41 pm

                    Because Wakefield was actually a fraud, it means that people claiming their kids might have caught an ASD because of a vaccine have exactly zero evidence to support that theory.

                    And yet almost every single case of measles is linked to a lack of vaccination.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      25 February 2014 at 2:44 pm

                      Because Wakefield was actually a fraud, it means that people claiming their kids might have caught an ASD because of a vaccine have exactly zero evidence to support that theory.

                      Meaning I suppose no one in the establishment is interested and they can turn a blind eye.

                      And yet almost every single case of measles is linked to a lack of vaccination.

                      only sometimes, and only in some circumstances and countries, McFlock.

                    • northshoredoc …
                      25 February 2014 at 2:53 pm

                      “only sometimes, and only in some circumstances and countries, McFlock.”

                      In fact most of the time and in most circumstances and countries.

                      You might be interested in the website below which follows various outbreaks over time, very clever site

                      http://healthmap.org/en/

                    • McFlock …
                      25 February 2014 at 3:01 pm

                      Meaning I suppose no one in the establishment is interested and they can turn a blind eye.

                      No, meaning that if someone who wasn’t trying to sell their own vaccine actually managed to demonstrate the association Wakefield “found” but without using fraudulent data, they’d be in line for the Nobel Prize and a range of other awards.

                      But as it is there’s no evidence and no biological theory as to why it might exist. You might as well state that you know someone who might have caught autism because of Saturn’s orbit.

                    • srylands …
                      25 February 2014 at 3:17 pm

                      “You might be interested in the website below which follows various outbreaks over time, very clever site.”

                      Give up. In my experience Colonial Viper is immune to reason.

                    • srylands …
                      25 February 2014 at 3:18 pm

                      “Now these kinds of parents are either misguided, lying or just plain wrong.”

                      Yes you got it. That is exactly correct.

                  • srylands …
                    25 February 2014 at 4:56 pm

                    “that Chooky must somehow be wrong in making the comment about aspergers characteristics”

                    That you think he could be anything other than wrong is extremely concerning.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.3.3.1.1.5
              25 February 2014 at 3:27 pm

              “reductionist science”

              Well sure. Physics is quite reductionist, for example. Biology, medicine, not so much.

              Reading the rest of the list reminded me of that phrase about truth taking time to get its boots on.

              The fact is some of these beliefs are just as noxious as neoliberalism. Noxious as in “deadly”. Northshoredoc is talking prudent medical good sense, but I sense their exasperation.

              • weka …
                25 February 2014 at 4:19 pm

                However, the list was written generically and vaguely enough that I have no idea what your rejection is based on. Why not address individual points and see if you even now what I was talking about?

                “Well sure. Physics is quite reductionist, for example. Biology, medicine, not so much.”

                It’s all relative I guess. Compare conventional western medicine to other models of medicine and it appears very reductionistic.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  25 February 2014 at 5:06 pm

                  Do these other models of medicine demonstrate similar (cf: life expectancy) success rates?

                  Perhaps you could point to some recent advances in traditional medicine, for example?

                  • weka …
                    25 February 2014 at 5:32 pm

                    Life expectancy is generally related to standard of living. You improve diet, housing, sanitation etc and people live longer (partly because they don’t get infectious diseases due to improved immunity and decreased exposure). However living longer means people are more likely to have chronic illness. Western medicine isn’t that great at treating a lot of chronic illnesses, which is why one of the very common things you hear from alternative practitioners is that they get so many people who come to them once things are really bad and their doctor tells them there is nothing more to be done.

                    I’m not aware cross cultural comparisons of the kind you are suggesting, although they may exist. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is a good example of another model. It’s been in existence for thousands of years and is highly successful at what it does. But comparing it to Western medicine doesn’t really make sense to me because they serve different purposes. If I broke my leg, I would go to A and E and get xrays and painkillers and a cast. But if I had menopausal hot flushes that were ruining my life, I would go to someone like a TCM practitioner. You could then say, ok let’s do some RCTs on hot flush treatments, both western and TCM, but you are really comparing apples and oranges. Which might be a valid thing to do so long as it’s explicit that that’s what is happening.

                    (if I lived in China and I broke my leg, I would go to A and E and see a TCM practitioner. So there is one thing, it is possible to integrate these systems. We are just bad at it in the West).

                    When these arguments come up, the scienceheads want the RCT evidence alone. I prefer to also listen to the person who was suffering and whether they were helped or not. Not all evidence comes from RCTs.

                    Beyond that there are a whole lot of cultural issues, both western/asian, and reductionist/holistic, that are probably beyond this conversation.

                    “Perhaps you could point to some recent advances in traditional medicine, for example?”

                    There’s some really good work being done around phytotherapy and treating bacterial infections. Many plants have antibacterial properties that match antibiotics, but they don’t appear to cause bacterial resistance. Use of plants to treat bacterial infections is not new, but there are some interesting layers being added in response to MRSA etc.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      25 February 2014 at 5:48 pm

                      …and this is different from the “reductionist” medicine that gave us digitalin, penicillin, and genetics how? You’re going to have to do better than “come up with something from the natural world” as a distinction, because physicians have been doing that forever.

                    • weka …
                      25 February 2014 at 6:16 pm

                      The big difference between drugs and plants, with regards to treating bacterial infections, is that plants are a complex range of chemicals and drugs aren’t. This is why bacterial resistance occurs with antibiotics but doesn’t with plants. Herbalists understand this because they think about the whole plant. Scientists got the antibiotic thing right (single substance, well targeted), but then fucked it up. If they had thought about the holistic approach as well, we would have kept the antibiotics for serious situations, and used herbs for treating other, easier to resolve infections. It’s the world view of scientists* that has prevented this from happening, and instead we have squandered the amazing usefulness of antibiotics in less than a century.

                      *including antagonism from medical doctors towards traditional and alternative pracitioners. If you really want to understand why we ended up with this divide, research what happened to professional development of medicine in the 1800s in the US.

        • srylands 2.3.3.2
          25 February 2014 at 2:17 pm

          “Further, there is plenty of bullshit happening on the ‘we must vaccinate everyone’ side”

          Incorrect.

          I don’t normally advocate banning things. The Greens are so good at it. But I would simply ban all unvaccinated children attending school. They can all be home schooled.

          People that don’t vaccinate their kids are irrational and they pose a danger to everyone else. They deserve to be treated the same as moon landing deniers and 911 consipiracy theorists.

          • Colonial Viper 2.3.3.2.1
            25 February 2014 at 2:23 pm

            People that don’t vaccinate their kids are irrational and they pose a danger to everyone else. They deserve to be treated the same as moon landing deniers and 911 consipiracy theorists.

            Speaking of irrationality and complete disrespect for parents making their own choices in raising their own children, you top the list right here.

            But big pharma appreciates your lobbying for more millions in tax payer dollars.

            • McFlock 2.3.3.2.1.1
              25 February 2014 at 2:36 pm

              Which parental choices in raising their own children would you disrespect?

            • northshoredoc 2.3.3.2.1.2
              25 February 2014 at 2:47 pm

              Pharma companies make very very little out of the vaccines we are discussing far more money for them in the oral treatment of chronic diseases – the argument you’re running really is a red herring.

              • Colonial Viper …
                25 February 2014 at 2:53 pm

                Is that so? Not much money in vaccinations? Please remind me how much the MeNZ B programme, which was a single one off programme, cost NZ tax payers.

                Clue: it was on the order of half a dozen brand new regional hospitals.

                • northshoredoc …
                  25 February 2014 at 3:23 pm

                  And here’s me thinking we were discussing Measles.

                  I also don’t think you have any idea of the cost of a hospital you certainly wouldn’t be able to build a brand new regional hospital such as Northland base in Whangarei out of the money we spent on MeNZ B

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    25 February 2014 at 5:48 pm

                    Oh sorry I didn’t correctly read, you had limited your comment to the MMR vaccine only.

                    you certainly wouldn’t be able to build a brand new regional hospital such as Northland base in Whangarei out of the money we spent on MeNZ B

                    Dunno about that…the new $60M West Coast hospital + IFHC in Greymouth approved by Ryall in Sept would have fit inside the MeNZ B budget very easily.

            • Chooky 2.3.3.2.1.3
              25 February 2014 at 3:35 pm

              thanks CV and Weka…you are my heroes…dont think anything more is going to come out of this discussion…however i have just thought of a very good Sci fi plot….

              Nasty Parmac multnational trolls persuade the govts of the world to vaccinate all their lovely little kiddies and sweet little babies ….and when they have snatched them all out of their parents arms( because they know best) and given them the jab ….then they come after the parents with their great big injections!!!!urrrggghhhh…(.except a few wild Chooks and CVs and Wekas get away to the mountains …they have natural wild immunity of course which makes them naturally have bush intelligence and be wily and skeptical )

              ….in the meantime everyone who has been vaccinated has been turned into zombies….because they put some nasty stuff in the vaccines that interfered with their DNA….( piggy DNA and cow DNA …and all they go around mooing and snorting and grunting because their evolution has now been horizontally changed…and they are returning to four leggedness and developing tails and their noses and tongues are getting fatter )

              ….meanwhile back in the mountains a counter jab is being hatched……..( to be continued)

              ….bet this never sees the light of day as a bedtime story called ‘War of the Viruses’ for kiddies…bet it is regarded as very VERY irresponsible

              • Disraeli Gladstone …
                25 February 2014 at 4:34 pm

                What I’ve learnt today.

                CV, Weka and Chooky can never judge a climate change denier again.

                Anti-intellectual, anti-science rubbish.

                Sigh.

                • weka …
                  25 February 2014 at 4:39 pm

                  Citation for where I have said something today that is anti-science or anti-intellectual.

                  • Disraeli Gladstone …
                    25 February 2014 at 4:48 pm

                    Your first comment of:

                    “If you think that all people who don’t want to vaccinate their kids are anti-science or ignorant of science, then you really have little understanding of the communities that choose to not vaccinate and probably shouldn’t be expressing an opinion about them.”

                    Okay. There’s nothing wrong with that in principle. Nothing anti-science or ignorant of science there.

                    Now let’s look at your list of reasons:

                    “they don’t believe that vaccinations don’t have adverse affects on overall health”

                    Anti-science/Ignorant of science.

                    “they are concerned about adverse reactions”

                    Anti-science/Ignorant of science.

                    “they believe that illnesses like measles are normal childhood events”

                    Anti-science/Ignorant of science.

                    “that having measles creates a challenge for the immune system that is important for lifelong health, and that if you avoid all illness you compromise immunity/health.”

                    Anti-science/ignorant of science.

                    “they believe that being ill is a normal part of life and that it’s not possible to make the world completely safe, nor is it desirable to try.”

                    Anti-science/ignorant of science.

                    “they believe that reductionist science is not the only way of understanding the world and tend to have a much broader understanding of health care models than most GPs.”

                    Anti-science/ignorant of science.

                    You literally told me off for accusing people of being anti-science and then provided a list which was completely full of ignorance.

                    Look, if you want to believe what you want, fine. But don’t call yourself pro-science. And don’t judge people who do the same thing with climate change because you’re exactly the same. And don’t call yourself left-wing or liberal because attitude like these disproportionately hurt the poor more.

                    Good day, sir.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      25 February 2014 at 4:52 pm

                      Sorry to say +1

                      Apart from the “no true Scotsman” argument in the penultimate sentence.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      25 February 2014 at 5:33 pm

                      “they believe that reductionist science is not the only way of understanding the world and tend to have a much broader understanding of health care models than most GPs.”

                      Anti-science/ignorant of science.

                      LOL what a narrow concept of the world you hold, DG. You may as well label people who view the world differently as heretics and disbelievers lol

                      Let me know when you start holding your “anti-science” show trials.

                    • weka …
                      26 February 2014 at 9:37 am

                      Ok, here we go. You haven’t bothered to say why you think these statements are anti-science/ignorant of science, so I’ll just hazard a guess.

                      Now let’s look at your list of reasons:
                      “they don’t believe that vaccinations don’t have adverse affects on overall health”
                      Anti-science/Ignorant of science.

                      Leaving aside that me reporting the beliefs of other people doesn’t make me anti-science/ignorant of science, let’s look at the statement as is.

                      You calling it anti-science/ignorant of science infers that science has studied everything there is know about human health, and vaccinations. That’s simply not possible (science increases its knowledge around human health, and vaccinations all the time). But if you have some evidence that proves that vaccinations are inherently safe beyond all doubt, I would be interested. My own view is that you can’t prove such a thing one way or the other, and that the scientific method would instead look at the value of the vaccine against any known risks. Over time it could also look at the bigger picture and assess what the likelihood of impacts on health are, but I don’t know if this is being done. Do you?

                      “they are concerned about adverse reactions”
                      Anti-science/Ignorant of science.

                      Medsafe report on adverse reactions and assessment of causality
                      http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/puarticles/vaccine.htm

                      “they believe that illnesses like measles are normal childhood events”
                      Anti-science/Ignorant of science.

                      Am going to leave this one because I don’t see how this is anything to do with science at all. It’s more a philosophy and social ethics question.

                      “that having measles creates a challenge for the immune system that is important for lifelong health, and that if you avoid all illness you compromise immunity/health.”
                      Anti-science/ignorant of science.

                      I would actually be very interested to see if medical science has done any work on this. Do you know?

                      We do know that science is now hypothesising that exposure to bacteria is part of building strong immunity (google the hygiene hypothesis if you are not familiar with this). I don’t know if there is scientific evidence with regards to viruses, other than immunity established in response to specific viruses on exposure, but it’s not anti-science to ask this. Science should be open to looking at this very question.

                      “they believe that being ill is a normal part of life and that it’s not possible to make the world completely safe, nor is it desirable to try.”
                      Anti-science/ignorant of science.

                      Again, this is not really anything to do with science, it’s a philosophy and ethics question. You might not like the statement, and you might even be alarmed at the raising of the question, but that you point a scornful finger and say anti-science is really just saying that “my beliefs are better than yours simply because I believe them”.

                      “they believe that reductionist science is not the only way of understanding the world and tend to have a much broader understanding of health care models than most GPs.”
                      Anti-science/ignorant of science.

                      AFAIK historically GPs haven’t been trained in multi-cultural models of health care, nor in alternative models. Those that have an understanding educate themselves and they are obvious compared to their colleagues who don’t. This is a pretty well known phenomenon amongst patients who are using conventional medicine alongside alternative healthcare. So the comment about GPs is not anti-science, it’s just based on observation.

                      Saying that the parents I know who have chosen not to vaccinate their kids all have a broad knowledge of other models is on reflection overstating the case (some do, some don’t).

                      If your objection is to the idea that there are other ways of understanding the world in addition to reductionist science, then again I can’t see how you could support that statement scientifically without bringing your own beliefs into it. That there are other ways of knowing doesn’t mean that reductionist science isn’t useful. It just means we have more tools in the box.

                      Look, if you want to believe what you want, fine. But don’t call yourself pro-science.

                      I don’t call myself pro-science, but I’m not anti-science either. I think science is a tool that should be evaluated constantly for where it is useful, where it is not, and where it is succeeding and where it is failing. I like science and use it a lot, but it’s not the only thing I refer to for understanding.

                      And consider this. Even if I were anti-science re vaccinations, how would that make me anti-science/anti-intellectual in general. Most people have blind spots. That you would make such a sweeping judgement about me based on actually very little evidence says quite a lot about your ideology.

                      And don’t judge people who do the same thing with climate change because you’re exactly the same.

                      You have yet to produce a single statement of mine that denies proven science, so I think this comparison is pretty flawed. It’s not like I’m saying that MMR causes autism and heres’s the science to prove it. That would be a closer equivalent to saying that AGW doesn’t exist.

                      Your assertions appear to be based on the idea that vaccinations are always safe and good for all people all the time. That is a statement of belief and philopsophy and ethics, so stop trying to make out that science can make such a claim. As I said, the parents I know tend to make judgements based on risk assessment. For instance one friend didn’t vaccinate her kids against measles, mumps, rubella etc. Both the parents were fit and healthy, had a high standard of living and access to good nutrition, health care etc, so she considered the children at low risk of complications from those illnesses. But as she had travelled internationally a lot she was really clear that if she took them overseas to places where there were more serious illness and less control over their environment she would vaccinate.

                      And don’t call yourself left-wing or liberal because attitude like these disproportionately hurt the poor more.

                      Lots of things we do disproportionately hurt the poor more. I’m willing to bet the manufacture of your computer hurt the poor more than everyone else, not to mention many other things that you do in your life. It’s a specious argument.

                • marty mars …
                  25 February 2014 at 5:26 pm

                  and in the ‘pro intellectual, pro science’ camp ? oh dear tough choice. Science is pure – no ‘personal’ issues, no agendas – just pure and clean – like pissed on snow. Science has one major flaw imo and that is the hubris of many many scientists. But oh know that means I don’t believe in gravity!!! What great military (killing) inventions are scientists coming up with today i wonder, how many experiments are being doctored to give the results wanted and needed to get the money. How would we know – we too dumb to understand – must be forcefed by whitecoated elites – oh know now I suppose i don’t believe in the big yellow thingy in the sky now.

                  and on a serious note – the duality of the argument is the major flaw – “i am right – you are wrong or you are wrong and i am right” – that approach has caused more shit in this world that just about anything else imo

                  • McFlock …
                    25 February 2014 at 5:40 pm

                    Sometimes people really are right and others wrong. Sometimes it’s a bit of both. Sometimes it’s the opposite.

                    A kid is either alive or dead.
                    It’s a bit difficult to avoid the duality of that.

                    • marty mars …
                      25 February 2014 at 5:57 pm

                      True, the death of any kid is a tragedy.

                      I wonder if we did a tally what the count would be for scientists causing the death of children verses saving the lives of children – I suppose we’d have to put ethnic and other bias in there to really get the full story.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 February 2014 at 9:23 pm

                      well, that’s just super 🙄

                    • Chooky …
                      26 February 2014 at 9:57 am

                      @ McFlock…you are a very simplistic thinker and therefore I would say not a good scientist

                      “A kid is either alive or dead.
                      It’s a bit difficult to avoid the duality of that”

                      kid either dead or alive …sure …that is how a farmer talks about sheep …it is either a dead sheep or an alive sheep.

                      ….however you are ignoring the fact that children can die for many reasons…it may be a fully vaccinated child but its parents may smoke….contributing to causing a fatal asthma attack or chronic bronchitis or a cot death

                      …the parents may be booze artists and drunkenly neglect the kid …causing diseases of neglect and an undermining of the kids immune system which puts it at risks of vaccines anyway

                      … the parents may feed the kid coca cola instead of milk…let it run wild on the road……

                      Life is multi -factorial ….and i would say a kids health is ultimately the result of the parents health and the health of the local community and country…ie where there is caring and love the kid will thrive …vaccination or no vaccination

                    • northshoredoc …
                      26 February 2014 at 11:33 am

                      “Life is multi -factorial ….and i would say a kids health is ultimately the result of the parents health and the health of the local community and country…ie where there is caring and love the kid will thrive …vaccination or no vaccination”

                      Unfortunately that is not always true.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 February 2014 at 11:58 am

                      @chooky

                      The 80-year change mortality rate due to diseases that can be addressed by vaccine begs to differ with you.

                  • weka …
                    25 February 2014 at 5:44 pm

                    “But oh know that means I don’t believe in gravity!!!”

                    rofl. Thanks marty 😀

                    “and on a serious note – the duality of the argument is the major flaw – “i am right – you are wrong or you are wrong and i am right” – that approach has caused more shit in this world that just about anything else imo”

                    +10000.

                    I kind of like these arguments because it helps me hone my thinking, but in the end it is boring when I consider how far we could go if we stepped out of that duality.

              • weka …
                25 February 2014 at 4:42 pm

                Not sure where you were going with that Chooky, but the sad fact is that there are people who believe things like the govt is trying to control populations for nefarious reasons by vaccinating them, and those people are all over the internet doing a lot of damage. It’s not something I like to joke about.

                • Chooky …
                  25 February 2014 at 5:26 pm

                  sorry weka …didnt realise others were actually talking about it on the internet and scaring themselves …..ooops!!!!!!( I think maybe i am getting bored with my other work ..and come here for light relief)

                  …for some reason i cant take the whole thing seriously….although I really don’t like the idea of people being forced to vaccinate against their wishes ( because if a child dies through the side effects of a vaccination …who is going to take responsibility for compensation?…not that there ever would be compensation enough

                  ….and if it turns out in 15 years from now that people who have been vaccinated are susceptible to a certain sort of cancer or another virus which has a mortality far worse than the original virus which was protective ….who is going to pay compensation for this medical intervention/mishap down the track….?….my bet is that nobody will take responsibility…just like the misuse of antibiotics or certain drugs which have subsequently been shown to be very harmful

                  i would like to see accountability …particularly if people are pressurised into vaccinations

                  i guess most in the anti -vaccine camp…rather than being ignorant or fadist or child abusers are the ultimate sceptics

                  • McFlock …
                    25 February 2014 at 5:31 pm

                    and if it turns out in 15 years from now that people who have been vaccinated are susceptible to a certain sorts of cancer which have mortality far worse than the original virus which was protective ….who is going to pay compensation for this medical mishap down the track….?….my bet is that nobody will take responsibility…just like the misuse of antibiotics or certain drugs which have subsequently been shown to be very harmful

                    Agreed, in that situation it would be like thalidomide or agent orange.

                    But then only 20 kids so far have measles, it could be 1 in 20 without more sensible parents using the vaccine.

                    • Chooky …
                      26 February 2014 at 10:07 am

                      @ McFlock…you really are paranoid about measles….i feel sorry for you…life must be very precarious

                      .i have had measles as a child and i think of it is a positive experience….ie my Mother’s care and concern …it was slightly dangerous…a very very high fever and uncomfortable ….. but i had a feeling afterwards that i was at one with life and i was a survivor and i was a part of life…and i know now i am immune from any wild measles mutations for life

                      .i have heard that in old India measles was considered a blessing….a gift from the Gods that the child had received wisdom…people were congratulated that their child had had measles

                      …my point is life is multi -factoral …to be embraced not shunned……..derrrh

                    • northshoredoc …
                      26 February 2014 at 11:18 am

                      ‘……i have heard that in old India measles was considered a blessing….a gift from the Gods that the child had received wisdom…people were congratulated that their child had had measles”

                      You have heard wrong..

                      http://luckylosing.com/2011/11/13/measles-a-gift-from-a-goddess/

                      Furthmore references to measles can be found from as early as the 7th century. The disease was described by the Persian physician Rhazes in the 10th century as “more dreaded than smallpox.”

                      Measles is still a common and often fatal disease in developing countries.
                      The World Health Organization estimates there were 164,000 deaths globally from measles in 2008.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 February 2014 at 12:05 pm

                      @ chooky

                      I have heard that having a gun held to your head often has a similar effect on worldview.

                      That doesn’t make it a “gift from god”.

                    • Chooky …
                      27 February 2014 at 10:28 am

                      @ Mcflock..

                      ….a gun pointed at your head by another human is not the same as having a natural virus ( although with the fanatical pro vacc docs around here one could get confused)

                      humans are made up of viruses…

                      http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/02/14/mammals-made-by-viruses/#.Uw5XgOOSxF8

                      …in many ways this debate is similar to the debate about genetic modification of plants and crops…there are considerable risks ( sure you wouldnt make a better sheep farmer than a doc?)

                      [Click to Edit | Delete]

                    • McFlock …
                      27 February 2014 at 12:42 pm

                      I’m not a doctor, nor am I a sheep farmer.

                      the point was that your changed worldview was a reaction to the danger your life was in, not some amazing revelation the virus whispered to you. An asteroid impact is also “natural”, but “natural” does not mean “beneficial” or even “good”. It is what it is.

                      But then I don’t expect too much from someone who thinks “by” and “of” are interchangeable.

                    • northshoredoc …
                      27 February 2014 at 2:36 pm

                      “humans are made up of viruses…”

                      No they are not, how anyone could come to that conclusion is unbelievable.

                      “…in many ways this debate is similar to the debate about genetic modification of plants and crops…there are considerable risks”

                      Um no actually the only similarity is that there is some debate on both topics.

              • Tim …
                25 February 2014 at 10:52 pm

                @Chooky
                Bloody good selling point though for the likes of Nigel Latter – or whoever the fuck else is the latest ‘parenting expert’ is on the work-life-balanced regular gal’s Nine to Noon (apologies – I have trouble remembering her real-life name at times … Kathryn….Rinny….I did me time in the Gallery…etc).

                Selling guilt might very well be the next big thing:

                Oh Gawd!!!!! – I’m such a bad bad bad parent!

                (No badder, badest, more baderer, no more or less experienced, no more or less expert, no more or less compassionate/concerned/involved/etc. than the next one – plus moi kuds are a betterun yours) … there are limits of course as child abuse stats will attest.

                Apologies folks, but I’m a grandparent that sometimes despairs at the twttering bullshit that seems to go on sometimes. It’s becoming fucking pathetic.
                (Now make sure people that you take some of that ‘free’ hand cleanser next time you enter ‘the NEW WORLD’); only swim in the open sea; never buy supermarket fruit and veges …… etc.

                Oh GOD!!!! I failed! I FAILED! I vaccinated my kuds! It’s going to fucking kill them before their time! I can’t cope – now my daughter-in-law is blaming me for the slight imperfection in my grandson. God – what if he has to take fukn anti-depressants for the rest of his life …. JESUS! – what if he turns out …. err GGGAY ffs!

                Poverty people!
                Obesity!
                Sugar
                Cardio-vascular
                Hep C
                School tuckshops
                Cold/damp housing
                …….
                …………….
                ……………………
                BASHED kids FFS!

                Muddle Class indulgence!

                • miravox …
                  25 February 2014 at 11:00 pm

                  Don’t apologise Tim. I like the rant, and you’re dead right about selling guilt.

                  • Tim …
                    26 February 2014 at 9:13 am

                    Yep …. well I live very close to a day care centre. You should hear some of the parents beating themselves up! Neurosis even….. to the extent some can’t even be left to play and discover – then collected at end of day by harassed parents throwing them in the back of SUVs without adequate restraint whilst yacking on their cellphones, and off the vroom. Meanwhile others on low incomes can’t even afford to take their kids to the doctor (let alone afford daycare whilst they flit between 2 or 3 jobs).

                • Chooky …
                  27 February 2014 at 10:32 am

                  Tim…to be a parent is to be neurotic imo….( seems kids also make some docs neurotic)

                  ….and yes I knew those sorts of parents….i fled back to university to keep my sanity…and biffed the kids into the creche….at least in the mornings

            • srylands 2.3.3.2.1.4
              25 February 2014 at 3:43 pm

              Oh yes evil big pharma. I was right about you. Pity about the dead children as a result of irrational morons ignoring science.

          • weka 2.3.3.2.2
            25 February 2014 at 2:31 pm

            “But I would simply ban all unvaccinated children attending school. They can all be home schooled.”

            Which vaccines are you talking about?

          • weka 2.3.3.2.3
            25 February 2014 at 2:37 pm

            ““Further, there is plenty of bullshit happening on the ‘we must vaccinate everyone’ side”

            Incorrect.”

            Incorrect. Fucking ideologues on both sides give me the shits.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.3.3.2.3.1
              25 February 2014 at 3:53 pm

              And yet you cite so many in that list of yours.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  25 February 2014 at 4:26 pm

                  Ideologues. Citing “beliefs” is the same as citing ideologues.

                  • weka …
                    25 February 2014 at 4:35 pm

                    I was talking about people being dogmatic in their beliefs. I don’t have a problem with people having beliefs, we all do that. It’s how they do it and what they do with them that’s at issue.

                    • Zorr …
                      25 February 2014 at 4:43 pm

                      Show me where I have stated a “belief” or a “dogma”? Wait, that’s right, I’m just being so unreasonable as to expect some small amount of scientific research to back up your position on the matter of vaccination.

                      If you could actually point to any research to back up your statements about the decision to not vaccinate, you would have. Instead, you are choosing to paint those who have scientific evidence backing up their argument as persecuting you.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      25 February 2014 at 4:47 pm

                      False frame Weka. You’re conflating peer reviewed evidence based research with urban myths.

                      The neo-cons hate anything that contradicts their models, and the climate deniers hate anything that confronts their lifestyle. I’m sure you can figure out why I brought them up for yourself.

                    • weka …
                      25 February 2014 at 4:57 pm

                      Zorr, ror you specifically, you seem to believe that the only valid knowledge is that produced by RCTs. That’s a belief system, and fair enough, I understand why some people like it so much. It becomes dogma when it prevents you from engaging in dialogue with people who have other (in this case complementary) beliefs (not referring to vaccination there).

                      You could have taken my original list, and we could have explored what some of those things meant, to the people who believe them and seen what that meant for both of us. Instead you reacted from your dogma (measles = polio), without even really understanding what I wrote, or why people place value on those beliefs, or even what they are based on (you assume there is no evidence, but what evidence do you have for that, esp what evidence from what I wrote???).

                      You might very well argue that you don’t care, that science is all knowing and everyone should think like you. But here’s the rub. I hear scienceheads complaining a lot about scientific illiteracy and things like popular misunderstandings about science. And I hear many, many more people complaining about science, people from both the mainstream and alternative communities. I just want to bang your bloody heads together. The really frustrating thing is that both sides are right and both are wrong, and in the meantime lots of damage is being done. More and more people are being turned off science because science does fuck up quite a lot. If you want to get those people back you will have to listen to their concerns and not call them dumb fucks.

                      I also suspect that your dogma means you think I am scientifically illiterate. I’m not. I understand the value of RCTs. I understand what the scientific method is. I place value on those things (different than yours, but still value). I place value on other ways of knowing too (even evidence based ones that haven’t been studied by western science yet).

                    • weka …
                      25 February 2014 at 4:59 pm

                      “False frame Weka. You’re conflating peer reviewed evidence based research with urban myths.

                      The neo-cons hate anything that contradicts their models, and the climate deniers hate anything that confronts their lifestyle. I’m sure you can figure out why I brought them up for yourself.”

                      There is a lot going on in this fast moving thread, so sorry, no I don’t know what you mean. Perhaps you could link to the comment where I talked about an urban myth?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      25 February 2014 at 5:01 pm

                      The “beliefs” you cite are urban myths.

                    • weka …
                      25 February 2014 at 5:09 pm

                      Which beliefs? I’ve said many things in this thread.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      25 February 2014 at 5:19 pm

                      The ones I already linked to in this thread. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Probably.

                    • weka …
                      25 February 2014 at 5:38 pm

                      No, I’m not being deliberately obtuse. I’m tired and I think the onus is on you to be clear as to what you mean.

                      Please provide some evidence that the things in that comment of mine are ‘urban myths’. All of them I presume.

                    • Zorr …
                      25 February 2014 at 5:38 pm

                      I really can’t be arsed anymore but, in summation, Dara O’Briain:

                      Still interested in knowing what alternatives you think are other ways of knowing that are rational/evidence based?

                    • weka …
                      25 February 2014 at 5:48 pm

                      “Still interested in knowing what alternatives you think are other ways of knowing that are rational/evidence based?”

                      If you ever want to have an open, engaged conversation about that, come back to me 🙂

                    • Zorr …
                      25 February 2014 at 5:50 pm

                      I am actually asking as I am interested. Just don’t expect me to accept your word that they are and to go do my own research in to them.

                    • weka …
                      25 February 2014 at 6:06 pm

                      No I wouldn’t be expecting you to take my word for it, and I would provide examples. I would however want you to check things out with me and dialogue rather than writing stuff off. I’m going to try later and respond to Disraeli down thread because I think it’s a very good example of him assuming stuff without checking out, writing it off, AND then making value judgements about me that aren’t true.

                      I would probably also need your response to criticisms of reductionist thinking and/or reductionist science. It’s hard to present other ways of knowing unless the limits or even the parameters of that are acknowledged.

                    • Zorr …
                      25 February 2014 at 8:41 pm

                      “Jump through my hoops and I might let you in on my awesome secret” – uh, no thanks, I’m good

                      If it is a form of rational evidence-based “knowing” then it should be able to stand on it’s own two feet without assistance. I am always open to new ideas – I’m not interested in jumping through someone elses hoops in order to even get any information about them.

                      Though, considering your language and general hostility to “reductionism” as you see it, I am assuming something holistic and potentially Gaia-based.

                    • weka …
                      25 February 2014 at 10:22 pm

                      The reason I am asking for those things is that I don’t want to waste either of our time. You are putting your own parameter on acceptable conversation, why can’t I?

                      It’s not about something standing on its own two feet or not. It’s about me not wanting to put effort into a conversation that isn’t going to go anywhere.

                      No, I wasn’t going to talk about Gaia.

                      Hostility all round. I don’t have a problem with reductionist thinking, I use it all the time myself. I have a problem with how it’s being applied in this conversation. That’s actually quite interesting I would have thought.

                    • Zorr …
                      25 February 2014 at 11:11 pm

                      I am not necessarily meaning to be overly hostile and in a different environment I probably wouldn’t be as… confrontational.

                      Part of the problem is that for providing understanding of the natural world, I have yet to meet a better approach than the scientific method for providing that understanding. If there is something else out there, I would like to know about it so that I can at least attempt to judge it on it’s merits and see if it has any value.

                      Additional to this though, I view “personal philosophy” separate to the greater overall question of science v religion v anything else v FSM. It’s interesting to me to learn what makes other people tick and to find out whether anything in someone else’s world view may fit within my own in such a way that it enriches me. However, opening up with ones own philosophical viewpoint in this setting would be somewhat akin to throwing red meat to ravenous wolves and not to be recommended.

                      I don’t really know any way to suggest a continuing discussion elsewhere from this forum… shrug feel free to suggest one if you will

                    • weka …
                      26 February 2014 at 9:58 am

                      Thanks Zorr,

                      “I am not necessarily meaning to be overly hostile and in a different environment I probably wouldn’t be as… confrontational.”

                      Likewise, and I think I was naive in how I approached the conversation yesterday.

                      “Part of the problem is that for providing understanding of the natural world, I have yet to meet a better approach than the scientific method for providing that understanding. If there is something else out there, I would like to know about it so that I can at least attempt to judge it on it’s merits and see if it has any value.”

                      I’m not suggesting there is something better. I’m suggesting there are other tools that can be used alongside. I’m also suggesting that there are limitations to the scientific method and that when we aren’t aware of that we lose out.

                      “Additional to this though, I view “personal philosophy” separate to the greater overall question of science v religion v anything else v FSM. It’s interesting to me to learn what makes other people tick and to find out whether anything in someone else’s world view may fit within my own in such a way that it enriches me.”

                      Me too.

                      “However, opening up with ones own philosophical viewpoint in this setting would be somewhat akin to throwing red meat to ravenous wolves and not to be recommended.”

                      Lol, exactly. Which explains my rather exaggerated caution in taking this further at this time.

                      “I don’t really know any way to suggest a continuing discussion elsewhere from this forum… shrug feel free to suggest one if you will”

                      I reckon let’s just keep an eye out for when the opportunity arises here on ts naturally, and we should probably avoid trying to do it in conversations about vaccination, homeopathy or religion 😉

        • RedBaronCV 2.3.3.3
          25 February 2014 at 10:48 pm

          Unfortunately you also have a bunch of parents in the community that have vaccinated their kids only to find the kids get the diseases anyway. The you try to treat these parents as crap too, instead of dealing with their very real concerns.

          • weka 2.3.3.3.1
            25 February 2014 at 11:02 pm

            Were you talking to me? How have I treated those parents as crap?

            • RedbaronCV 2.3.3.3.1.1
              26 February 2014 at 9:39 pm

              Sorry Weka no I was not insulting you. This was in response to I think SSrlands much futher up the post but it’s now a convoluted set of posts. Many apologies

      • srylands 2.3.4
        25 February 2014 at 2:39 pm

        Yes exactly. As soon as I meet anyone who is a vaccine denier, I write them off. I refuse to trust anything they say. It is the canary in the coal mine. Same as:

        911 was perpetrated by the CIA
        The planet is cooling, not warming
        Man didn’t land on the moon
        Childhood vaccines are dangerous/against nature

        • Colonial Viper 2.3.4.1
          25 February 2014 at 2:57 pm

          Wall St wanted WWI to ensure that their loans to France and Britain would be repayed

          The US placed an energy embargo on Japan, knowing that it would likely lead to war

          The Pentago waged war on secular Iraq after 9/11 even though most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi and religious Saudi financed.

          Nothing to see here, all is business as normal.

          Childhood vaccines are dangerous/against nature

          You do know that 98M Americans, and maybe more around the world, were exposed to cancer causing SIV infection through earlier versions of polio vaccines given to children, right?

          You do know that a previous version of the MMR vaccine was causing severe and life threatening reactions including encephalitis, in UK babies, right?

          Grow a brain, mate.

          • McFlock 2.3.4.1.1
            25 February 2014 at 3:26 pm

            You do know that 98M Americans, and maybe more around the world, were exposed to cancer causing SIV infection through earlier versions of polio vaccines given to children, right?

            cancer causing SIV infection: cite, pls. Because nobody’s found an increased cancer incidence, even from such a large sample set.

            You do know that a previous version of the MMR vaccine was causing severe and life threatening reactions including encephalitis, in UK babies, right?

            How many?

            Versus, say, the 1400-odd cases of measles in unvaccinated people in the recent south Wales outbreak alone?

            • Colonial Viper 2.3.4.1.1.1
              25 February 2014 at 5:39 pm

              And how many of those 1400 odd cases had life threatening consequences like state mandated vaccine encephalitis?

              cancer causing SIV infection: cite, pls. Because nobody’s found an increased cancer incidence, even from such a large sample set.

              Oddly, this 1999 peer reviewed paper seems to disagree with you. Although, I’ll let you off the hook because I meant Simian Virus 40 (SV40), not SIV.

              “Our analysis indicates increased rates of ependymomas (37%), osteogenic sarcomas (26%), other bone tumors (34%) and mesothelioma (90%) among those in the exposed as compared to the unexposed birth cohort.
              CONCLUSIONS:

              These data suggest that there may be an increased incidence of certain cancers among the 98 million persons exposed to contaminated polio vaccine in the U.S.; further investigations are clearly justified.”

              • Zorr …
                25 February 2014 at 5:46 pm

                You haven’t actually answered McFlocks question – “”You do know that a previous version of the MMR vaccine was causing severe and life threatening reactions including encephalitis, in UK babies, right?”

                How many?”

                Please try to actually engage rather than Gish Gallop.

                Can you provide the links please? It’s simple enough to copy the URL in to your comments and it would sidestep any awkwardness with selective quoting.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  25 February 2014 at 5:55 pm

                  “”You do know that a previous version of the MMR vaccine was causing severe and life threatening reactions including encephalitis, in UK babies, right?”

                  How many?”

                  A couple of dozen? Not sure. It wasn’t picked up for a year or two because no systematic monitoring was being conducted, or if it was it was insufficient.

                  NB the UK govt introduced the vaccination even though other govts (eg. Canadian) had been cautious about it due to problems already being noted.

                  As for the link you wanted

                  “Anticancer Res. 1999 May-Jun;19(3B):2173-80.
                  Cancer risk associated with simian virus 40 contaminated polio vaccine.”

                  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10472327

              • northshoredoc …
                25 February 2014 at 5:47 pm

                You do know that vaccine technology and medicine in general has moved on exponentially since that vaccine was in use (1955-61) don’t you ?

                The relatively recent history of the disease and efforts to eradicate are fascinating.

                http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/polio.html

                • Colonial Viper …
                  25 February 2014 at 5:51 pm

                  And in 1955-1961 doctors were saying that patients could fully trust their new modern treatments because knowledge had moved along exponentially from 1925-1931.

              • McFlock …
                25 February 2014 at 5:52 pm

                All of them. Measles is life threatening.
                Even with a developed health system, one person died.

                Which paper?
                Any subsequent ones, say from around 2005? Or are you just cherry-picking studies that agree with you?

              • McFlock …
                25 February 2014 at 9:20 pm

                all of them, including one death.

                How many cases of encephalitis?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.3.4.2
          25 February 2014 at 3:00 pm

          …and yet you refuse to confront evidence that increasing the minimum wage has little or no effect upon employment rates.

    • PapaMike 2.4
      25 February 2014 at 2:05 pm

      Understand that most of those identified caught the disease whilst overseas.
      Christmas holiday travel.

      • northshoredoc 2.4.1
        25 February 2014 at 2:15 pm

        No those were just the initial couple of cases, most since that time are community acquired locally.

    • felix 2.5
      25 February 2014 at 4:09 pm

      Boringz. It can be mac vs pc tiem nao plox?

      • Murray Olsen 2.6.1
        26 February 2014 at 1:01 am

        Sorry, I hadn’t noticed Draco had posted the same link above. Great minds think alike, or maybe that other one ….

  3. Saarbo 3
    25 February 2014 at 8:14 am

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9758796/Kiwibanks-SAP-move-criticised

    “Business consultant and tech commentator Lance Wiggs said in his opinion the investment could be a risky move.

    He described SAP as a “vast, complex and barely usable system for managing complex businesses”, with a history of failure to deliver on promised costs and benefits.”

    I agree 100% with Lance Wiggs. I have been involved with implementing this rigid hopeless system in a large business and we lost visibility of our business for a good 18 months to 2 years…its a horrible dog of a system.

    Was thinking hard about shifting to Kiwi bank but will wit a while now.

    • Colonial Viper 3.1
      25 February 2014 at 8:51 am

      SAP as enterprise software for a medium sized operation is appalling. Some consultants are going to make a mint out of the NZ tax payer.

      • Lanthanide 3.1.1
        25 February 2014 at 12:40 pm

        All I’ve ever heard about SAP is bad. Why does it continue to be so popular? Are they just really good at sales and making promises they can’t meet? Wouldn’t people be able to see through that now?

        • Hayden 3.1.1.1
          25 February 2014 at 12:46 pm

          It’s not limited to SAP, but there’s an expectation that once you’ve been through an implementation of a large ERP you can then become a highly-paid consultant, or “change manager”, or something in sales for the provider. I recently experienced it (at a distance) with MS Dynamics AX.

          • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1
            25 February 2014 at 2:26 pm

            You got it.

            All I’ve ever heard about SAP is bad. Why does it continue to be so popular? Are they just really good at sales and making promises they can’t meet?

            SAP is typically sold through major consulting companies who make a shit tonne of money out of the implementations and ongoing maintenance.

            You talk to any of the majors about a project like this, and they will inevitably recommend an ERP system like SAP, Oracle or what have you. $$$ and years of fees for the partners…

            btw once working well, the ERP packages can certainly be fast at getting the job done. But the time and money needed to get to that point, plus ongoing, its simply massive.

            • tc 3.1.1.1.1.1
              25 February 2014 at 5:46 pm

              The industry term is ‘pouring cement’, once in and set you’ll not be moving it without serious pain.

              They’ve got the spiel, the brown paper bags, ‘conferences’, and know how to use fear and play the egos in a sales cycle.

              baaaaaa

              The Spell

              Between ze germans, MS and Larry there are few real choices left if you want true end-to-end integrated business software for the basic back office i.e.Procure to pay, Sell to collect, payroll, general ledger)

              • Hayden …
                25 February 2014 at 9:47 pm

                That’s why I do bespoke development for SMEs – no payroll or GL, but able to be integrated with Xero or MYOB or something.

                Also, if you have access to the back-end it’s pretty easy to build a reporting suite on top of an ERP and go around the main provider.

  4. Tracey 4
    25 February 2014 at 8:22 am

    Dear Mr Key

    If we give you a knighthood now will you leave and never come back?

    regards

    Tracey

  5. tricledrown 5
    25 February 2014 at 8:36 am

    David Parker
    If he is pushing this policy he is an idiot.
    Compulsory kiwisaver is a far smarter policy.
    Forget about increasing retirement age he is handing the election to National.

    • bad12 5.1
      25 February 2014 at 9:10 am

      Make that 5 of us this morning who see Labour raising the age of superannuation entitlement to 67 as an election loser???…

      • Tim 5.1.1
        25 February 2014 at 9:13 am

        +1 = 6

        • phillip ure 5.1.1.1
          25 February 2014 at 9:25 am

          +1 = 7..

          phillip ure..

          • bad12 5.1.1.1.1
            25 February 2014 at 9:44 am

            Bearded Git, with a good comment on the German experience above at (1.4), makes it 8…

            • bad12 5.1.1.1.1.1
              25 February 2014 at 9:54 am

              KJT above makes it 9 of us this morning who see the Labour policy of raising the age of superannuation entitlement to 67 as an election loser in 2014…

              • bad12 …
                25 February 2014 at 9:56 am

                From reading Skinny’s words in the comment above i think i can safely say make that 10…

                • srylands …
                  25 February 2014 at 10:25 am

                  Given that it is going up internaionally, I think the writing is on the wall. The Australian government yesterday flagged an increase in Australian eligibility to 70.

                  In the last election it was the only really good labour policy, in my opinion.

                  The age will increase. There is no alternative. Only question is which Government does it.

                  Labour would win some kudos from the financial markets and the OECD in announcing an increase to 67, preferably with a phased increase to 70.

                  • Skinny …
                    25 February 2014 at 10:38 am

                    “The age will increase, there is no alternative”
                    How about the moral issue of ‘means testing’ it is a benefit and like all benefits they should be means tested.

                    I know morality isn’t your strong suit but let’s hear what you have to say on this regardless.

                  • bad12 …
                    25 February 2014 at 10:42 am

                    SSLands, right you are, the perfect reasons for not raising the pension age are to be found in your appearance this morning,

                    Those involved in the financial markets do not need a pension full stop which is why many of us commenting this morning are advocating for a means tested pension and the OECD have no interest either as voters or recipients, their only interest being is to keep the serfs pushing the heavy wheel of capitalism ever faster while being bonded as serfs,

                    As an after thought, OAB has a comment at 9.42am giving an alternative view to your stupidity about the minimum wage put forward in yesterday’s ‘open mike’ which of course you tucked tail and run from as usual…

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      25 February 2014 at 10:54 am

                      Re: the effects of raising the minimum wage on Earth.

                      In science, when reality diverges from the model, the solution is to improve the model, and there is intense competition to be the one to do so first.

                      S Rylands, it could be you, but I bet you continue to insist that your model is more accurate than reality instead.

                    • Skinny …
                      25 February 2014 at 10:58 am

                      Shrillands ducks in and out on here between intervals of 6 minute packets, probably a bean-counter with the usual blinkered vision.

                  • freedom …
                    25 February 2014 at 10:50 am

                    Any given reason for raising the age is wrong imho, but wow srylands, you want to use “they are jumping off a cliff so I must jump off a cliff” as a valid argument for denying one of the core responsibilities of a civilized society.

                    Which is ( just in case your feather-headed brain has forgotten) to properly care for the life and well being of its aged members.

                    I know , I know, DNFTT

                    • bad12 …
                      25 February 2014 at 11:04 am

                      Bearded Git, indeed, an ‘under–bridge–dweller’ of the lowest order is probably the kindest comment that can be made about SSLands,

                      Also a Liar when Beareded Git’s comment at (1.4) is taken into account,

                      There are alternatives and a suggestion is that there are two opposing views becoming apparent,

                      (1), Being simply raise the age of entitlement for Super as per the Labour Party Policy,

                      (2), Being means test the Super just as any other benefit is,

                      Even those who see a financial imperative to raising the age see the political noose pushing such an idea is for Labour,

                      i would suggest Labour adopt a COMPRoMISE position with the broad electorate, very simple really,

                      Promise a Referendum on the Superannuation question giving the two options above and a third if there is enough support for such,

                      If raising the age gains 50% of a vote in a referendum then it is the will of the majority, at the moment such is simply the will of part of 34%…

                    • KJT …
                      25 February 2014 at 12:11 pm

                      Simply leave it as it is. Or reduce to 60.

                      If we can find the money to give to private sector investments, such as Kiwisaver, for retirement, which will dissipate in the next GFC without taxpayer funded bailouts, anyway, then we can find the funding for State super.

                      This is one of the issues which really show who is stuck in the Neo-liberal dogma.

                      Do you really think Shill prick, and co, will stop with super?

                      What he is really saying is we cannot find the resources to feed and house our elderly. A patent nonsense. Lets just increase the number of people in poverty so shrill prick can have a tax cut?

                  • KJT …
                    25 February 2014 at 12:18 pm

                    So. After 30 years of neo-liberal reforms, which were supposed to make us all better off, we can no longer afford our old people.

                    Great achievement Srylands!

                  • Rodel …
                    25 February 2014 at 1:38 pm

                    How about reducing the age to 60, means tested but universal at 70?
                    Relative of mine in South Australia was earning $80,000 at age 80 but no pension, until the day he retired when he received a govt. pension much more generous than NZ’s. Also lot’s of discounts.

                    • PapaMike …
                      25 February 2014 at 2:09 pm

                      He receive his pension based upon his contributions plus the large compulsory employers one.

                • bad12 …
                  25 February 2014 at 10:47 am

                  And Greywarbler above,(with debatable qualifications), appears to bring the number of those opposed to the raising of the age to be eligible for Super to 11…

                  • bad12 …
                    25 February 2014 at 10:53 am

                    Anne,(again with debatable points), would seem to be in agreement as far as an election losing strategy being attached to the raising of the Super entitlement age goes, we now number 12…

                  • Rodel …
                    25 February 2014 at 9:02 pm

                    Sorry. Not asset tested…just income tested

          • David H 5.1.1.1.2
            25 February 2014 at 12:42 pm

            +1=8

          • Rosie 5.1.1.1.3
            25 February 2014 at 3:30 pm

            +1 = 9

        • Tim 5.1.1.2
          25 February 2014 at 10:04 am

          …. plus …. I’m now mulling over whether they even get an electorate vote or not. I had been thinking they may get electorate, but not party.
          Given Mr Cunliffe’s apparent absolute faith in that “Presbytarian Miser” (Nine to Noon), it’ll likely be neither unless he can somehow indicate that Parker’s penny pinching won’t be allowed to impact on improving the lot of NZ’s most vulnerable.

          • phillip ure 5.1.1.2.1
            25 February 2014 at 10:24 am

            re prest miser..

            ..i agree that..tho’ i think that parker-image is a good one to foster..that must be hand-in hand with that poverty-busting policy-package..the spending must be done where the spending is needed..

            ..and i wd like to see parker going all presbyterian over that $5 billion ripped off/stolen by the elites in/with criminal tax-evasion..each and every year..

            ..i reckon he should announce a three-month amnesty..with dodging elites able to come forward and pay what is owed..with no penalities..

            ..and then promising after that to go gangbusters on/all over them..

            ..put the fear of ‘the presbyterian mimister’ into them..

            ..i reckon…

            ..phillip ure..

            • Tim 5.1.1.2.1.1
              25 February 2014 at 10:54 am

              I’m hoping the left has its shit together such that come an election win on Saturday, the SWIFT link is taken down while various preventative measures are put in place (a la post-Muldoon).
              Like you Phil, it’s not JUST about stopping the trickle up, but recovering some of the stolen.

          • amirite 5.1.1.2.2
            25 February 2014 at 11:35 am

            +1 Tim

            • Tim 5.1.1.2.2.1
              25 February 2014 at 1:37 pm

              @amirite …
              It’s 2 plus hours later, and hardly a blip on the reality radar.
              I don’t hold out much hope of it happening.

              There is however hope … but I’ll wait and see. The Rangitikei candidate has made a post that’s quite appeaing – IMMEDIATELY followed by Karol’s inquiry.
              ….. waiting
              …… waiting
              …… waiting

              As I’ve said elsewhere … it’ll mean the difference as to whether Labour get at least ONE of the candidate/party votes – or none – until they prove themselves.
              We’re talking about 30 years here – far too long to be just voting for what one perceives as the least worst option under an FPP system, to one in which there are at least genuine alternatives exist (that is of course, if one genuinely believes in democracy).

  6. Tracey 6
    25 February 2014 at 8:45 am

    the nzd is on the rise again. key was crowing the other day about overseeing low interest rates. he is not crowing about tge high exchange rate which continues to rise. if interest rates rise soon, as expected, the dollar will go up. greens and labour need to get into this now, hammering key. as for the happy ceos… interview the exporting ceos and see what they think about the prospect of 96 aus dollar and . 85 usd.

    its a safe way to attack their management. saying nothing gives the economic management win to national.

    key has presided over a soaring kiwi dollar, crucially against aussie and a huge govt debt of over $55billion. simple enough message.

  7. Tautoko Viper 7
    25 February 2014 at 8:54 am

    Glenn Greenwald has an interesting article in which he describes the way that James Clapper, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence has a large wooden relief structure dedicated to the U.S. Constitution.

    “James Clapper has converted the wall outside of his office into a flamboyant homage to the very same U.S. Constitution that he vandalizes on a daily basis.”
    https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/02/24-4

    The NZ flag issue raised by John Key illustrates hypocrisy. Here we have a man who has sold off a large part of NZers’ energy assets, is hoping to push through the TPP (which will affect our health & environment and which will involve a loss of sovereignty for the people of NZ), wanting us to think that he is patriotic with our best interests at heart.

    I also like this quote from Greenwald in the same article:

    “anyone at this point who is willing to equate evidence-free government assertions with Truth is drowning in some extreme levels of authoritarianism, by definition;”

    particularly in relation to the issue of GCSB and funding from sources outside this country.

  8. bad12 8
    25 February 2014 at 9:15 am

    David Cunliffe is on RadioNZ Nationals Nine to Noon program now for anyone interested…

    • phillip ure 8.1
      25 February 2014 at 9:30 am

      he very tidily dismissed nationals’..’the economy is booming again!’ self-congratulatory meme..
      ..(record dairy prices + christchurch insurance payout..)

      ..he should use that again..and again…

      ..very potent/effective..

      ..phillip ure..

      • phillip ure 8.1.1
        25 February 2014 at 9:42 am

        also..very smart portraying parker as the tightfisted-child of a presbyterian minister..

        ..in the cullen-mould..

        ..as the one in charge of the finance-team..

        ..once again..a potent/effective tool to overturn the standard tory ‘budget-blowing’ scare-stories against labour..

        ..and it also should be used..again..and again..

        ..and all and all..an effective outing from cunnliffe..

        ..i’d give him a 7/10..

        ..he really does best in the longform interview..

        ..and should leap at chances for them..

        ..phillip ure..

      • bad12 8.1.2
        25 February 2014 at 10:19 am

        Yep, It–Is–The–Economy–Stupid is where elections are won and lost, David Cunliffe need add into His narrative the 80+billion dollar Government debt,(set to rise to 100 billion under a third term National Government),

        Along with that He should be stressing the annual 300–600 million dollar hole in the forecast business tax take showing that the present Governments removal of IRD staff from across the country has stifled its ability to collect due taxes from business,

        And lastly the 1.79 Billion dollars of sugar in the form of a deficit this Government is surviving on, a movable feast where ‘balancing the books’ is a fiction set to happen at a future date that is a simple fantasy being promoted by the Government…

    • Skinny 8.2
      25 February 2014 at 10:05 am

      That was a safe on the fence interview, which annoyed Ryan by the sounds of it. It was just noise to me. Cunliffe needs to forget about appealing to the middle bloc. They are mostly in camp National. The me too just won’t work Labour does need to set themselves apart from National who the heck likes anything ‘lite’ I hope the afiliate Unions council give the party the curry up bigtime as it’s probably the strongest voice that has their ears.

      • aerobubble 8.2.1
        25 February 2014 at 10:41 am

        It wasn’t entirely boring, he did talk about process a lot. I didn’t need to hear how they were getting out the rank and file… …etc…blah..blah.

        Key is left looking like a safe pair of hands. Where’s the attack????

        Take ChCh, its economical good sense to let the new ChCh shake out and then build to the need instead of this monolithic, lets make ChCh central so boring like Adelaide (and its really boring there).

        There’s a list of really bad policies Key is running, from education, to industry…

        take broadband, why are we wasting money having installers visit each home seperately, its
        economically stupid. Dig up the whole road and install broadband in every home then the cost
        would be much lower.

        But no, we have to bank lots of fees and charges at every node in the business. Just like our banking sector, where you pay for all the forms about fees, charges, and the cheap banking which all would be far cheaper if they didn’t do all that gunk.

        • Draco T Bastard 8.2.1.1
          25 February 2014 at 6:39 pm

          take broadband, why are we wasting money having installers visit each home seperately, its economically stupid. Dig up the whole road and install broadband in every home then the cost would be much lower.

          QFT

          We really shouldn’t be having discussions about how much the price of copper carried ADSL will be as it shouldn’t even be available after the fibre is rolled out.

          • aerobubble 8.2.1.1.1
            26 February 2014 at 3:28 pm

            Greens are for ending this unnecessary uneconomic activity. Keys been metaphorically sniff petrol fumes, and insuring that money keeps churning through the financial system from unnecessarily expensive activities. And of course the market knows how to gear up the
            fees and charges. This is not capitalism its just exploitation by numbers.

            Even our legal system has been screwup. Take Ross ponsi scheme. Some of the investors want the tax back they’ve paid this by implication would mean the taxman has been knowingly taking taxes off profits from other moneys involved in the ponsi scheme.

            Why should some investors get taxes back when others keep the benefits of the fraud and the tax man keeps the taxes of that fraud.

            But wait its worse. Now it turns out parliament has essentially let Ross’s family keep the proceeds of his criminality.

            Look sure, an investor who made money from Ross, and had no idea, should keep some of their profits. Like in the Madoff ponsi, it makes sense to not to allow investors to take the higher than normal profits, and just cap them at a average rate. That would mean the
            profits would then be available (and taxs on) to the victims of the ponsi.

            But no thats too complicated for National, so National (and parliament) lets the family of criminals live it up on the crime of their father, brother, etc.

            Its just horrendous thinking how poorly parliament has allowed the law to get, you’d think after decades of smooth economic growth we’d have breed better law, but no, the idiots came to power in the late 70s and decided to throw all the regulations and protections out.

      • greywarbler 8.2.2
        25 February 2014 at 10:56 am

        Skinny

        That was a safe on the fence interview, which annoyed Ryan by the sounds of it. It was just noise to me.

        Bullshit. I think that Cunliffe was careful, in line with his comment right at the beginning that he was learning to watch what he said because of the likelihood of small errors being magnified and things being misunderstood.
        Not a ‘safe’ interview as a description in my mind, more showing thought and care. But at the same time he said he wanted to talk to NZs more, so that we could get to know him as a person.

        I think I heard David Cunliffe say that he would aim to have a list of firms that had adopted the living wage program for wages for their people, and that they would be given priority for government contracts. Now that is something to be happy about. That’s a good commitment, to putting NZ in the front of the queue when opportunities for business are being offered. Much needed and good on Labour for that!!!

        • Skinny 8.2.2.1
          25 February 2014 at 11:15 am

          Ok Warbler point taken no offence to DC you make some good points.
          I was hopeful he was going to give National a serve on yesterday’s news of the ballooning costs of the use of contractors and consultants. It’s issues like this (mates clipping the ticket, Aussie mates of Key) that anger taxpayers.

          I will wait to hear Winston Peters on the show, you can guarantee Peters will lift his attacks on Key-National as he won’t want them stretching out to too bigger lead in the polls.

          • greywarbler 8.2.2.1.1
            25 February 2014 at 1:07 pm

            Yeah good Point Skinny about the contractors and so on. It seemed to me that this was an introductory joust setting some of the parameters.

            Really I think David said as much when he said that it was early days yet. I think it’s a balance – giving out some form to the policies but not enough so that the NACTs can arm themselves with scissors from all sides cutting off bits till the policy garment is unrecognisable.
            I just want to see Labour encouraged, not damned because they didn’t promise everything that any individual has strong issues with.

            If people change the way they look at government and the economy right around, I think they will get a clearer understanding of where we are now. Say that the economy has come to be what the people in government want, and they grow or shrink it wherever and whenever the mood takes them at any particular time. They haven’t got any interest in the people, who are a package that go along with the economy, and who have to be manipulated into doing so, and to get them to vote for the party most motivated to get hold of the economy for themselves.

            That is why the NACTs are doing so well. Very focussed motivation on money, business and profit. All those things are sacred and like prosperity churches, the belief is that if you have these three things, you are righteous and blessed. The rest of the rabble are just a millstone around the neck of the achievers. That is why you can lie to the people if that seems propitious.

            So don’t expect anything good from NACT and try to keep the remnants of old Labour and all of new Labour away from the siren call of simple greed and self-centredness. Otherwise they won’t let the rest eat cake, they will even whinge at the cost of noodles in salty water for the paeons.

          • PapaMike 8.2.2.1.2
            25 February 2014 at 2:13 pm

            I would like to hear Winston on RNZ attacking Key, but will it do any good ?-
            Winston will not have a bar of the Greens whatever, in which ever way they are presented.

  9. tricledrown 9
    25 February 2014 at 9:35 am

    CV IS disagree completely with you on vacination the only vaccination that has low coverage is hooping cough.
    All other vaccinations have very high coverage according to the British Medical Journal .
    Please front with evidence otherwise.
    This school in Auckland most likely has a high immigrant population many of who haven’t had full immunization.

  10. phillip ure 10
    25 February 2014 at 9:35 am

    this is an indicator of the deeply-ingrained perception-problem labour currently have..

    ..especially amongst those 800,000+ voters who have switched-off/become deeply cynical about any govt ever really helping them..

    ..(it’s been so long..eh..?..)

    http://whoar.co.nz/2014/i-grew-up-in-poverty-so-i-know-for-a-fact-that-the-scars-left-on-children-do-not-easily-heal-comment-and-the-black-propaganda-from-helen-clark-david-farrar-and-all-those-others-wit/

    (excerpt..)

    “..and of course this campaign of hatred/marginalisation has been helped along by the efforts of david farrar @ the rightwing blog..kiwiblog..

    ..with an apogee reached by him with the publication of the story of a fake/made-up solo-parent..

    ..a maori (of course..!) called ‘tania heke’..”

    phillip ure..

  11. One Anonymous Bloke 11
    25 February 2014 at 9:42 am

    Key said the decision to lift the minimum wage was made against the background of an improving economy, with a fall in unemployment to 6 per cent.

    The rise would have a negligible effect on jobs, although it was estimated 2300 would have been lost if the minimum wage had gone up to $14.50, he said.

    Stuff.

    I’d like to know which “model” was used to make this “estimate”, given what happens on Earth.

    • phillip ure 11.1
      25 February 2014 at 9:52 am

      yeah..ya gotta luv those (fill in blank-space) jobs-lost! horror-stories that are orifice-plucked..

      ..whenever it is suggested the worst-off should get a little more..

      ..of course those same horror-struck folks are silent as a sack of doorknobs at news of eye-wateringly high elite-earnings..

      ..but you get that..

      ..eh..?..

      ..phillip ure..

    • bad12 11.2
      25 February 2014 at 10:31 am

      Nice link OAB, everyone should have a good read of that, especially those who have it ingrained in there nut that raising the minimum wage leads to job losses,

      And No, for the ‘wing-nuts’ we ARE NOT advocating the minimum wage be raised to 30 dollars an hour or some other ludicrous number pulled from your rectal cavities,

      The economy, especially the low waged one can afford a series of small pay rises throughout the year, raising the minimum wage in that particular studies case lead to NO higher unemployment rate when compared on a State by State basis in the US,(in fact the opposite occurred),

      The simple economics would suggest that even at 15.50 an hour in the fast food industry the current level of profit would remain with a small raise in the cost of each burger sold of between 2 and 5 cents, are a mass of people going to decamp from purchasing big mac’s because of such a rise in price, doubt it…

      • One Anonymous Bloke 11.2.1
        25 February 2014 at 10:40 am

        Or more cash in low-waged consumer pockets equals higher sales volumes.

      • srylands 11.2.2
        25 February 2014 at 10:53 am

        Yeah nice link. Pity it is rubbish. Someone at The Standard posted that study prevuiously. It is famous in the literature for being highly flawed. It has been reevaluated most notably in 1996. This showed that the data actually showed that raising the minimum wage had a material impact on employment:

        http://www.nber.org/papers/w5224

        • One Anonymous Bloke 11.2.2.1
          25 February 2014 at 11:01 am

          Cullen raised the minimum wage nine times in nine years. Unemployment fell.

          “This has not been true in the past. The balance of probabilities is that a higher minimum wage does not cost jobs.” Treasury quoted by 3News.

          Get over it S Rylands: “All models are wrong. Some are useful.” George Box.

          • bad12 11.2.2.1.1
            25 February 2014 at 11:18 am

            Strange that ae OAB, Cullen kept raising the minimum wage and unemployment kept falling, in a world occupied by SSLands where having at least one hand tucked down the front of the Y fronts would seem to be compulsory that just didn’t occur…

        • One Anonymous Bloke 11.2.2.2
          25 February 2014 at 11:14 am

          The response finds “no difference in hours growth between the samples”. In other words your slam-dunk isn’t.

        • bad12 11.2.2.3
          25 February 2014 at 11:15 am

          i have got things to do, later SSLands i will add a link to every comment i make to you outlining that the raising of the minimum wage DOES NOT lead to more unemployment,

          Hopefully this time round, my having posted many of these links on a previous occasion, you will not turn yellow,tuck tail, and, scarper like the coward many of us here view you as…

        • Skinny 11.2.2.4
          25 February 2014 at 11:37 am

          That old hat has been disproven in a number of Countries. It’s Chicken Little stuff put out here by big business interest groups, like cheerleader Phil O’Reilly of Business NZ. Who I might add, was deplorable sticking up for Aussie corporate Progressive Enterprises. You would think he would of backed the Kiwi suppliers, instead of crying how hard done by PE was. So no credibility there whatsoever.

          • Hayden 11.2.2.4.1
            25 February 2014 at 12:19 pm

            Phil O’Reilly of Business NZ

            I imagine he checks his ledger before weighing in on any issue.

        • Poission 11.2.2.5
          25 February 2014 at 12:44 pm

          70% of Nobel laureates in economics endorse the call for an increase in minimum wages (3 deferred 1 model)

          http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-14/seven-noble-laureates-urge-increase-in-u-s-worker-minimum-wage.html

    • Draco T Bastard 11.3
      25 February 2014 at 6:41 pm

      Key doesn’t use a model, he just says things to justify his position.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 11.3.1
        25 February 2014 at 6:43 pm

        He’s quoting someone else’s estimate. If there is no estimate, then that’s news too.

  12. CAnker the pig fucker 12
    25 February 2014 at 9:53 am

    Just heard most of Cunliffe on National Radio. What I heard was brilliant. Spot on. Well done David

    • xtasy 12.1
      25 February 2014 at 10:29 am

      Cunliffe seems to take the rather poor poll results as of recent as a challenge to do more and better, rather than to accept defeat this early in election year. He gave good answers and sounds like a PM in waiting, certainly is more convincing and better spoken than John Key and his twisted talk.

      Here is the audio, a MUST LISTEN TO:

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2586927/david-cunliffe-labour-party-leader

    • xtasy 12.2
      25 February 2014 at 10:36 am

      Compare David Cunliffe’s very good interview (well spoken, self confident, objective, balanced, respectful, fair and sensible) to the comparatively below average performance of John Key a week earlier (compliments of Radio NZ National audio service):

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2586259/election-year-interviews

      Any sensible, intelligent enough person will after comparing both interviews surely get the message, Key cannot be trusted, Cunliffe has ideas, a vision and potential for leading NZ into the future!

      • logie97 12.2.1
        25 February 2014 at 11:03 am

        xtasy. DC did come over well but unfortunately RadioNZ listenership is largely an audience of ‘already committed’ voters.

        Worse, it has a pathetically small audience compared with talkback Radio Network and the “shallow-DJ-culture-music” stations. Even the sports network has politically biased/aligned jocks who get their subtle right-wing digs in.

        • xtasy 12.2.1.1
          25 February 2014 at 11:12 am

          Yes, I admit that RNZ has a small, mostly above average educated and more politically interested listener-ship.

          But the hope is, and Cunliffe mentions this, that Labour (besides the Greens already doing this to a degree) will use social media, networking, local meetings and events and other means, to reach out and spread their message!

          That is the only way to get attention, indirectly also by the MSM. It would be wrong and foolish to rely on the MSM to change and get more honest, fair and balanced, as they will not, so there is no hope for any in opposition to get the coverage needed to spread news about policy and persons they will have as candidates.

          Yet to a degree the MSM will need to be answered and used, but it must be done with extreme cautions and perhaps under conditions. With events, social media driven discussion and so, the people will hear and ask and discuss, and it would be stupid for the MSM to just ignore this. So indirectly they will be forced to pay some attention and report on it.

          It may even assist Labour by exposing the bias by certain media in interviews, pointing this out, and that will show listeners and viewers, they have a point, they are not given the same respect, time and so forth.

          • logie97 12.2.1.1.1
            25 February 2014 at 11:30 am

            A slight tangent, but what annoys me is how the SlipperyOne has been able to avoid the MSM reminding the conservative and fundamentalist voters of his personal stances on social issues.
            Issues that are considered social engineering amongst many.

            Correct me if I am wrong…

            Key was instrumental in the repeal of S59 of the crimes act and proud of it.
            Key makes milage from his support of Gay rights, Gay marriage etc.

            Things that are anathema to the FamilyFist/brigade Conservative party (and I suspect to many of the 800,000 who didn’t vote last time around).

            • logie97 12.2.1.1.1.1
              25 February 2014 at 11:43 am

              … I have the enduring image of John Key and Helen Clark approaching the waiting media scrum in the Beehive to announce that they have worked through the repeal of S59. And that moment was the breaking of the Clark government/making of Key as a negotiator (real or imagined).

              • xtasy …
                25 February 2014 at 12:23 pm

                Yes, that is only the result of MSM BIAS, none else. Key and Nats are not challenged on any of that, so the public (with short memories) forget things that happened, and they will not even think of it. Out of mind out of sight, so to say.

                And I think, for Labour, Greens and others, there is NO alternative to use all other means of communicating information and messages to vote, via social media, via online forums, via public meetings in public squares and places, with events in similar places (with free entertainment, possibly by “friendly” and popular artists like musicians), with going to work places, with talking to people face to face, with question and answers at such events!

                Winston “First” did have his political comeback because of his hard work of filling halls all over the country for months, yes years. Every MP from Labour and Greens, every candidate, must do the same over the coming months, as the MSM cannot be relied on, to be fair and balanced, as too many working for them are upper middle class, and opportunistic, now often young and career minded, having too little experience of a society before the 1990s, when neoliberalism become firmly printed onto the society and into the minds of people here (dividing, and leading to lower income for years increased crime, social degredation and worse).

                The “media personalities” of baby boomer age are mostly also well to do folks, now, who work mostly for the private, corporate media, and they have settled for nice salaries, and will not want a change, where they have to pay more taxes and may have to compete with more and better public service media.

                • phillip ure …
                  25 February 2014 at 1:24 pm

                  @ xtasy,,

                  “..The “media personalities” of baby boomer age are mostly also well to do folks, now, who work mostly for the private, corporate media, and they have settled for nice salaries, and will not want a change, where they have to pay more taxes and may have to compete with more and better public service media…”

                  • 1..

                  ..self-interest/corporate-pressures drives/tinges so much of what they do..

                  ..phillip ure..

                • PapaMike …
                  25 February 2014 at 2:17 pm

                  Winston’s audiences are made up of people who no longer go to work.
                  His meetings are at about 10.30am with tea and scones to follow, which is why many go for the feed.

              • phillip ure …
                25 February 2014 at 1:29 pm

                @ logie..i totally agree with yr reading of that sec 59 moment..

                ..clark in that moment moved key from outsider/hollow-man..

                ..to someone she could work with..

                ..and thus gave him a leadership stamp of approval..

                ..that was perhaps one of her biggest tactical-mistakes..

                ..and one of keys’ cleverest moves..

                ..phillip ure..

            • felix 12.2.1.1.1.2
              25 February 2014 at 10:28 pm

              “Key was instrumental in the repeal of S59 of the crimes act and proud of it.
              Key makes milage from his support of Gay rights, Gay marriage etc.”

              Yep, Key wins elections by appealing to voters well outside of the National party’s core die-hard base of bigoted entitled horse-fuckers, and the horse-fuckers roll with it because he keeps winning elections.

              Have you not been paying attention for the last 8 years?

      • freedom 12.2.2
        25 February 2014 at 11:08 am

        That interview with John Key last week was aggravating, which is not a shock in itself. What was so galling was the obvious weak handed wrestling expressed by Ryan. (again not a shock but it was extraordinarily tame).

        Key freely stated that inheriting a 10 billion dollar debt when they entered Govt in 2008 was a very dangerous thing and his tone inferred something akin to Labour planting an IED in the books and it was only his team’s meticulous skills as bomb disposal experts which pulled us away from certain destruction. (i may have read into his words a little 😉 )

        but what cannot be disputed is that at no time during the discussion did Ryan raise the issue of the 80 billion dollar debt we currently are shackled to. Like lead weights on a mooring line, all we can do is watch the approach of an incoming tide.

        • xtasy 12.2.2.1
          25 February 2014 at 11:29 am

          Yes, Ryan could have and should have put on the pressure more on finance and other issues, and not let Key get away with his up-talking of the economy. But she firmly challenged Key on the electoral reform issue, where it was the Nats that stopped reforms, to change the threshold for smaller parties and stop the piggy backing by small parties getting in by just winning one electorate and not reaching the threshold.

          Key did try to mislead there, like in other areas, and she nailed him on that. It was National that wanted to keep electoral law as it is, so they could rely on a small party like ACT or United Future getting in, perhaps getting more than one MP into parliament, while not reaching 5 per cent of the vote.

          An informed person would though have heard how Key was his usual, twisting figures, making up arguments and claims, and dodging some questions by not giving clear answers.

    • Murray Olsen 13.1
      26 February 2014 at 1:30 am

      I remember Goff blathering on about changing the law so that people the cops said were criminals, even if they weren’t convicted of anything, could have their assets seized on the basis of some obscure unprovable assertion that they were the proceeds of crime. Funny how this doesn’t seem to apply to corporate fraud, although if the Maori family down the street buy a couple of new Harleys they run the risk of losing them.

  14. captain hook 14
    25 February 2014 at 11:45 am

    I heard David Cunliffe on 9-noon thisx am.
    too much beltway blah.
    the question is where are the jobs.
    forget the mangement speak.
    that does not and will not win votes.

    • karol 14.1
      25 February 2014 at 12:32 pm

      Part of the problem was the questions: too much focus on polls, post-election alliances, and poltiical strategies. That provides a beltway framing to the whole interview.

      • captain hook 14.1.1
        25 February 2014 at 2:20 pm

        well David Cunliffe has to remember that ryan is only one vote and to hell with the questions.
        he is a poltician and not some uni lecturer speaking to a classroom of crypto eggheads.
        its our party and not theirs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        if he doesn’t understand this then they are going to keep blindsiding him with irellevant nonsense.

        • BM 14.1.1.1
          25 February 2014 at 4:01 pm

          I disagree, I’d say the majority of people who listen to National radio are crypto eggheads.
          They probably found what Cunliffe had to say quite exciting.

          • felix 14.1.1.1.1
            25 February 2014 at 4:14 pm

            Oh look, a new social classification for you to add to your thesis that society is divided into tradies, office workers, and beneficiaries.

            🙄

  15. ankerr 15
    25 February 2014 at 12:20 pm

    The point about DC today was that he can and did perform extremely well. Especially given the challenges at the moment. He didn’t falter.

    Ryan kept asking repetitive questions about who he would promote from other parties etc. He handled it very well. Beltway blah as you call it Captain Hook is probably appropriate for this audience.

  16. greywarbler 16
    25 February 2014 at 12:42 pm

    Radionz Radionews

    How can farmers make a buck when this sort of thing is going on? If NACTs are said to be the business-friendly party, is this true of all businesses including the 90% mini businesses that NZ runs on, including small farmers? Why doesn’t the government dismantle the ever invasive traffic police that increasingly are at hand to sanction everything we do, and set up fast-response units to aid the country people, supposedly the backbone of NZ earnings and enterprise??

    Police in Southland are investigating the death of 500 sheep at a farm near Gore. They appear to have suffocated.
    Police say the sheep were discovered dead in a gully on a farm at Mt Wendon, about 45 kilometres north of Gore.

    They say it isn’t clear whether the deaths are suspicious, as the sheep may have smothered themselves after being spooked by an unwelcome presence on the property, such as poachers.
    The stock loss is estimated to be worth thousands of dollars.

    Police say poaching is becoming an increasingly common problem in the area and they’re keen to hear from any farmers who have seen suspicious activity, especially around Mt Wendon, in early February.

  17. phillip ure 17
    25 February 2014 at 2:22 pm

    bless pandora radio..eh..?

    ..how it alerts you to things you didn’t yet/even know you liked..

    ..i had heard of (the late) jeff healy..

    ..but never heard him..

    ..then i heard this..

    ..and if you don’t mind the odd bit of blues-tinged fender stratocaster show-off geetar-playing..

    ..i urge you to watch this..

    ..he starts to show off at about 1 min 36..

    ..and seriously cranks it up at about 2 mins 40..

    ..and yep..he goes for the big finish..

    ..there are a couple of verses of lyrics..

    ..but they just seem to get in the way..

    ..you just want more of what healy has to offer on/from his fender..

    ..a seriously good player..

    ..phillip ure..

  18. Tracey 18
    25 February 2014 at 2:35 pm

    last week ryan asked key when the next asset sale would be. he said the decision hadnt been made.

  19. Tracey 19
    25 February 2014 at 3:03 pm

    bathurst have pulled out of denniston indefinitelt, laying off 29 people.

    greens have a press release

  20. Tracey 20
    25 February 2014 at 3:19 pm

    Kids love dinosaurs.
    So what better way to inspire their interest in the oil and gas industry than telling them that dinosaurs that once roamed the earth live on in the fuel in mummy and daddy’s car.
    Except, that’s wrong. Almost all oil and gas is comprised from plant matter which decomposed millions of years before dinosaurs existed.
    This is one of several scientific inaccuracies in an oil and gas industry roadshow touring Taranaki and Whanganui schools to ‘educate’ kids about the drilling off their coast.
    The dinosaur theme is the lure they use to attract children to their propaganda on how great, safe and important it is to explore and drill for oil.
    Sadly the Minister of Education is happy to allow this corporate incursion into schools with no requirement for balance.
    Climate change does not even feature in the “educational experience” except as something that affected dinosaurs many years ago, while the science that is mentioned is often compltely wrong.
    Here is an example: “Those dinosaurs that roamed Earth millions of years ago are now oil and gas. We get it out to put into your family car”.
    These are the kinds of factual errors which annoyed Dr Mike Dickison, Whanganui Regional Museum Curator of Natural History, who highlighted the industry’s “cynical ploy” to attract kids in his local paper this week.
    The show “was not an educational show at all,” Dr Dickison said, “but is entirely funded by the gas and oil industry to convince kids that drilling is safe and cool”.
    The Green Party is astonished at the bias in this presentation and that it raises no concern at all from the Minister.

    press release from green party

    • Murray Olsen 20.1
      26 February 2014 at 1:36 am

      Dinosaurs in the petrol tank remind me of the creationist museums in the US and A, where Adam and Eve have pet dinosaurs. Does Colon Craig know that petrol comes from dinosaurs, and doesn’t it worry him that the oil companies make no effort to separate decomposed dinosaurs from decomposed humans? Would a good christian like Colon run his car on the rotted remains of Jesus? I’d love to see an interviewer ask him about that one. Maybe we’ve found a new ally against fracking and drilling 🙂

  21. Puckish Rogue 21
    25 February 2014 at 4:16 pm

    “We all know the Government is going to change. It’s either going to change this time or next time. I think it’s more likely to change this time, and if it does, the question in front of New Zealanders is what is the composition of that new government going to be?”

    A bob each way for Cunliffe but yes I agree that Labour will win the 2017 election

    • fender 21.1
      25 February 2014 at 6:20 pm

      “……… Labour will win the 2017 election”

      So is this election or the next you want cancelled?

  22. captain hook 22
    25 February 2014 at 5:14 pm

    one for the banal poltroons. teenage arsonists now get fire safety courses instead of psychological evaluation.
    howzatt.

  23. captain hook 23
    25 February 2014 at 5:51 pm

    score two for the banal poltroons in the justice system (industry). there is no amount of courses, counselling or resources will turn an aspergers person into a non aspergers person.
    I really hope I haven’t offended anyone and changed their lives forever (sic).

  24. chris73 24
    25 February 2014 at 6:06 pm

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/02/im-going-show-something-rarely-seen-wild/

    I’m sure everyone here will join in congratulating Whaleoil on his win as a win for Whaleoil is a win for all political blogs

    • fender 24.1
      25 February 2014 at 6:26 pm

      Did Key buy that for him??

      Is there a new camera/surveillance device in that box??

    • bad12 24.2
      25 February 2014 at 6:28 pm

      Yes we are sure Blubber boy is thrilled with His little plastic bauble, a childs dummy would have been far more appropriate…

    • lprent 24.3
      25 February 2014 at 9:49 pm

      …Whaleoil is a win for all political blogs

      I hadn’t noticed that it was a political blog. After you get past the click bait, the paid ranting, the sorry for himself posting, the blustering and rhetorical grandstanding on historical issues that Cam is too young to know about, there really isn’t a lot of politics left or right.

      I’d have described it as a classic “blog” in the original sense in which a poor depressed soul pours out their sorry hard luck story. In the days of yore he’d have spent a lot of time in a pub – and let me tell you that I heard a lot of no-hopers like him when I served the public bar. Everything is someone or something elses fault and never because he is a lazy irresponsible fuckwit.

      It is as predictable as a male Mills and Boon and just as tedious…

      Now you were saying…

      • ropata 24.3.1
        25 February 2014 at 10:37 pm

        It’s not really a blog, there is little original content, just a stream of jokes, random youtube clips, and abusing people. Occasionally there’s a quote from the news with a sentence or two of drivel from the keyboard of the Great Blubber.

        Is the award for getting random google hits from round the world? It can’t be for political analysis because at no point in his rambling incoherent posts is he even close to anything resembling a rational thought. Everyone who sees that blog is made dumber for having read it. I award Cam Slater 0 points, and may God have mercy on his soul.

        ref: http://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0

  25. bad12 25
    25 February 2014 at 6:33 pm

    Slippery the Prime Minister is playing ‘gambler’ with Nationals chances at the 2014 election, i suppose He has to at least pretend the main stream media polls are anywhere correct and not simply the propaganda from Nationals supporters,

    Now Dissing Winston Peters to the max Slippery is trying to accomplish a 2008 result, a Parliament without NZFirst obviously enamored of the dream of ‘Governing alone’…

    • miravox 25.1
      25 February 2014 at 10:51 pm

      Slippery the Prime Minister is playing ‘gambler’ with Nationals chances at the 2014 election

      Playing gambler and winning on his hunches seems to give the PM an extreme buzz and are the things that make his life worth living. Oh – and denigrating anyone with a social or environmental conscience.

  27. Jenny 27
    25 February 2014 at 9:15 pm

    Like the dying days of the asbestos industry, the writing is on the wall for coal in this country it is only a matter of time. But the sooner the better, if we are to leave a survivable climate for future generations.

    http://business.scoop.co.nz/2014/02/25/bathurst-hunkers-down-as-coking-coal-price-keeps-sinking/

  28. swordfish 28
    25 February 2014 at 9:49 pm

    You see, I’m just a little confused, here. In the latest Listener, the Nats’ somewhat pompous Trade Minister, Tim Groser, tells Guyon Espiner that “I was essentially…..the most employed child actor in New Zealand as a small child”, reflecting on his work on radio and TV dramas such as CLOSE TO HOME.

    Putting aside the fact that I’d never heard of Groser before his relatively recent foray into politics, how can someone who was born in 1950 have been “a child actor” in a series (CLOSE TO HOME) that first aired in 1975 ? Did he have some sort of delayed childhood ? Still in nappies at the age of 27 ???

  29. Jim 29
    25 February 2014 at 11:44 pm

    I see Mike Bush “Detective Inspector Bruce Hutton had integrity beyond reproach” is now the Police Commissioner.

    How reassuring to have a guy who does not believe the royal commission when they say there was police corruption. Of course the police never do anything wrong, so he won’t have to invest any time in creating a culture where they ever have to admit mistakes.

    He leads by example. When challenged on his comments he apologised if they gave offence but did not resile from his claim about Hutton ‘s integrity.

    This is not minor IMHO. This sends the wrong message to the police rank and file, and places in-house loyalty and achieving business results ahead of openness and service to the community.

    The NZ Police cannot advance as a more open organisation when their leader rejects well-researched criticism.

  30. Huginn 30
    26 February 2014 at 1:56 am

    I’m having trouble reconciling this sort of thing from the Herald:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11209767

    With this from Stuff who think that I might want to know that this affair

    ‘. . .will also embarrass the Government because of the ties between the council and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and NZ Trade and Enterprise.

    As chair of the Middle East council, Mr Vukcevic rubs shoulders with powerful figures from MFAT – including Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully.

    The ministry said tonight that Mr McCully had no knowledge of the CV fraud, and nor did the ministry. “It is a matter for the council. It is a private sector organisation. MFAT has a good working relationship with the council and its members.”

    The council’s current executive includes former Young Nats president Daniel Fielding, and the vice-chairman is Auckland lawyer Stewart Germann. Former National Party president Michelle Boag advises the executive.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/9762437/High-level-businessmans-CV-false