- Date published:
6:00 am, June 26th, 2022 - 120 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:
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 …
I could say..unbelievable…but sadly its all too true.. And I note the “management” word. I sure hope the “managers” are looking for new jobs…..and well away from vulnerable people.
After noticing a surge in Covid positives locally in the last weeks I did a bit of digging and to my surprise I found that on Wednesday 22 June around 6300 international arrivals came here, that’s about the daily average, but of that number 593 tested positive at the border, that’s about 1 in 10! Again about the daily average, give or take. If this was in the general population half a million people would be newly positive a day. Are we being gamed, are arrivals getting Covid and climbing on a plane heading for better health care ?
Downloading the data is difficult, some of it is huge and our internet isn’t up to it and nowI’ve got Covid after 2 1/2 years avoiding it and struggling to concentrate. Look up NZ Covid status and then arrivals data. Sorry, best I can do but this is serious.
The question is the isolation arrangements – and at whose expense (as most will not require hospitalisation). It would seem that travel involves a high risk of getting omicron as the vaccination does not prevent spread.
NZ customs simply says if you have a positive test you have to isolate (doesn't say anything about where or who pays)
MIQ says there will be 4 remaining isolation facilities after 30 June – 3 Auckland, 1 Christchurch. I suspect these will be for people who have no other isolation options.
I'd say the ones returning to NZ will be isolating at home. Ones here on business will be isolating in their hotel rooms (too great a cost to the business for them to knowingly spread Covid). Tourists? Who knows. Depends on how sick they are. I suspect any with a mild or asymptomatic case, will be strongly tempted *not* to isolate.
Risk of them *not* isolating is probably about the same as the general population. We know (from the late 2021 Auckland lockdown) that some Kiwis don't isolate. Anecdotally, we know that some self-employed contractors don't isolate – with very mild or asymptomatic cases (not surprisingly, not working = no pay)
And number of actual Covid cases from travellers is dwarfed by the public infection rate.
FWIW. Travellers entering NZ no longer have a PCR test, instead they have a self-administered RAT test (lower accuracy).
I'd say it's highly unlikely that anyone is getting Covid and then choosing to hop on a plane and come to NZ.
Airlines won't board anyone with obvious symptoms. And airfares are both hugely expensive (especially at the last minute) and flights are very thin on the ground (not many planes flying, mostly fully booked). Auckland to Sydney, next week, for example is over $1K one way. It's nothing like the cost/convenience pre-Covid.
What is happening is that airports are giant petrie dishes for cross-infection.
"Although the official advice from the ministry of health and airlines is to delay your travel if you're sick, most travellers would rather come home rather than face being stuck abroad.
One in five Kiwis say they'd still fly home with Covid, according to a recent Herald poll.
Over sixty percent of New Zealanders say they would fly while sick, with only two thirds of these respondents saying they'd bother to take a Covid-19 test first"
Agree that this is likely. But not the scenario posited – that people would wait until they were sick, and then choose to fly to NZ because of better health care.
People are having to book a long way out to get airfares, and they are pretty expensive. Not really likely to be a drop of the hat decision to fly. But probably reinforces the choice to fly if not well (too expensive to cancel)
I'd say that it would actually be higher for Kiwis inside NZ (although the figures look a bit odd – both 1 in 5 and 60%).
So, you start to feel unwell at work. Do you leave immediately? (depends on the workplace, and how supportive they are for Covid/respiratory illness leave). Do you take the bus home? (if you're a PT user – what are your other options?).
Guidance for workplaces with staff impacted by COVID-19
Your number of detected cases is off and most likely you mixed up daily new cases at the border with total number of cases.
Sorry to hear that you have Covid-19. Take it easy because it can be a real bastard.
Take your own advice, Adrian, old friend, and take care. As Incognito says above, Covid-19 can be like you! 🙂
Luke Malpas from Stuff.
Any journalist who regularly quotes Oliver Hartwich is telling us they’re a neoliberal shill.
I was beginning to think better of Stuff. Sigh…
He worked with Hartwich, right before somehow getting his current job. And before that with the equivalent organisation in Aus, the CIS. Radical right winger.
And yet Stuff employ him as a Senior Political Journalist. WTF!
Yeah – he's part of the Taxevader's Union too – about as much journalistic credibility as Jordan Williams.
So, National on the wrong side of history yet again.
Luxon should be skewered on this, repeatedly, more particularly, just prior to the election.
Why? Its an American court case,we are not going to start driving on the wrong side of the road,introduce capital gains tax on housing,or allow the carry of concealed weapons as allowed by the other decision released by the SCOTUS .
Because Luxon is anti-abortion at a very strong fundamental philosophical level, as are other MPs in his party. Abortion law in NZ isn't settled or particularly secure from conservative governments if we have a regressive cultural shift.
Further, National MPs now advocate anti-abortion lines. Compare this to someone like Bill English, who is Catholic and anit-abortion, but apparently didn't consider this relevant in his time as leader of National.
It's appropriate and reasonable to pressure Luxon now about what he will do in the future given that. If he can't rule out removing abortion access in the future, including via legislation or policy, then the electorate needs to know this.
The significance of the US SC decision isn't that we are like them legally, it's that the US public ignored what was happening and lost an extremely important right as well as legal case. No way should women, or the left, be complacent about abortion rights in NZ. In ten years the political and social landscape here may be very different.
He is also a teetotaller ,is the angst of worry in the chardonnay bourgeois class troublesome.They already have problems with irrelevance as seen during the Pandemic,where they were deemed to be non essential.
There are significant issues in NZ,that will be increasing towards the election such as 10% mortgages,an unsustainable balance of payments.large blowouts on white elephants etc.
It will not be an election issue,as it will not be in the US at the mid terms,where inflation and recession are the foremost issues.
You're missing the point. If we wait until it's an election issue, it's much harder to fight. Getting Luxon to be honest right now makes it easier.
You might not see it as an important issue, many women do.
Current arising economic issues will pale in comparison to what's coming with the climate crisis. What's foremost in the general voter's mind isn't the only important thing.
The climate crisis is not the foremost issue globally,it is the economic crisis from war and altruism (QE) that has shocked the world and forced a reversal in policies from Europe (especially German greens) to both increase the use of coal,and investment in FF.
The economic damage that the act/nats would inflict would be inflationary and hence increase interest rates (a cost spiral) similarly munting our agriculture exports (which would do zero to CC mitigation) would also increase our risk to pay our debts and would be inflationary on borrowed debt.
and yet all of that is going to fall over because we won't act on climate.
Climate is the one real hammer that the Left has against the Right in electioneering.
And, in a close election (which it looks as though 2023 will be), they need to stop wasting time on peripheral issues.
Economy (always a big issue in NZ elections), governance (3 waters, etc.) and Climate (especially with repeated disasters), are the levers which can shift the election.
Social stuff doesn't usually change votes. Left wing on social issues already vote left. There are no votes to garner here.
Is anyone suggesting that abortion should or will be an election issue in 2023? As I said above, the reason it matters now is because it makes it easier to retain abortion rights. It doesn't have to be an election issue for that to be true.
How are you thinking 3 waters factors into that?
How much more honest can he be? He's said repeatedly that the NZ abortion laws won't change under his government.
Now, unless you have some evidence that that is a lie…..
His personal beliefs aren't particularly relevant to National Party and (potentially) government policy. However, he's acknowledged that some people may be concerned over them, and been very specific that there will be no change to abortion legislation.
NZ has a history of Labour governments pushing social change legislation, which National governments don't roll back.
I don't see that there is in NZ (unlike in the US) any strong groundswell for change. Roe v Wade has been a deeply unpopular decision among sectors of the American population ever since it was passed.
We simply don't have that large a % of the population who are passionately against abortion in NZ.
Especially when abortion numbers are dropping, consistently, over the last decade (better access to contraception and/or morning after pills would be my take on the reasons)
Well no, but there's no evidence that it's the truth either. Parties pledge things only to backtrack after they've been elected all the time.
His views are reflective of a substantial section of his party, as evidenced by voting on the 2019 abortion law reform act. If it came to a conscience vote, which it very likely would, he has little influence on the outcome to be making those sorts of claims.
You mean like social welfare *cough cough*
Around 23.5 of the population is Maori and Pasifika, many of whom have complicated views about that. Tariana Turia while in the Maori Party went on the warpath against Family Planning comparing it to genocide. Any assumption that NZ is a default western country is a mistaken one. And some of our fastest growing demographics come from religiously conservative parts of the world. Don't make assumptions about the status quo.
Which actually makes abortion a more attractive target for conservative politicians. They can point to that and suggest it be eliminated altogether.
No, I mean like homosexual law reform, and euthanasia. Social change legislation, which has little (if any) impact on the financial bottom line.
Neither of which would have been enacted under a National government (IMHO), but National sees no benefit in trying to repeal (regardless of the beliefs of some of their core constituency).
Generalizing broadly, Maori and Pasifika don't vote National (Labour, and more recently TPM are their natural home) – so little point for National in appealing to their vote (assuming that this would do so).
If you assume that all politicians that you dislike are automatically lying, there really is no basis for any political discussion.
It comes down to 'I hate him, don't vote for him' which is really not very convincing….
"Neither of which would have been enacted under a National government (IMHO)".
Why would they not have done so, at least for homosexual law reform? After all the first attempt to reform the law was attempted by a National Party MP, Venn Young, in 1974. He didn't succeed but that was when we had a Labour Government with a leader, PM Norman Kirk, who was vehemently opposed to both Homosexual Law reform and also Abortion Law reform.
Perhaps Young should have tried a bit later after Kirk had died but when he had a go no-one expected Kirk's death and trying in 1975 would have been harder as it would have brought the debate, and the votes into peoples' minds during the election campaign.
However it was a National MP who first tried to bring about the change.
I thought I had explained this. If NZ becomes more regressive socially and politically, there's nothing stopping changes in abortion rights. I don't think National would go into an election saying they're going to repeal abortion access. I would expect them to chip away at it if it was to their benefit to do so.
By the time a nation state gets to the point where removal of abortion rights is supported, it's far too late to change that. That's because it doesn't stand alone, but sits within regressive politics. We are incredibly naive if we think NZ is somehow immune from regressive shifts. We're already seeing bits of this here. Since Trump the rise in overt nastiness, and sexism and outright misogyny (eg what is directed at Ardern). We know that Qanon and other regressive forces are at work in NZ. We know that humans tend to vote conservatively in emergencies eg Chch post quake. And so on.
I can't prove Luxon is a liar. He may even believe what he is saying. Or think he does. I still don't trust him or National.
it's not about the 2023 election, it's about holding National to account now for their values and policies. Playing the long game.
Thanks Weka – good tips for parsing any political statement, imho.
the 'ultimately settled' bit raises my hackles.
If NZ becomes more regressive socially, you are right that there is nothing preventing changes in abortion rights. Or in gay rights. Or in any other social structure.
That's the way our law works, parliament pretty much makes it (with some theoretical backstop from the Bill of Rights – but nothing preventing that being repealed, either).
But, I don't see any signs of NZ becoming more regressive socially. The push-back I see is around the far edges of the social reforms (where trans-rights infringe on women's rights; where iwi rights impact on democracy, etc.).
To me, this says, that the rights shift (and there is always a shift) has gone as far as the current social Kiwi environment feels is comfortable. Not that it’s rebounding towards more social conservatism.
Political parties are always shaped by the social environment – and if NZ became more socially regressive (which, again, I see no signs of), all political parties (including left wing ones) would be influenced by this change.
2020 aside, the left holds a narrow majority, then the right, then left etc. It's not just about social progress, it's about political. The left isn't making much ground.
Not that many months ago, a large, chaotic, multi-influenced group the like of which we've never seen before occupied the ground of parliament for three weeks. Those people haven't disappeared, and their hatred of the left is growing. I see people in my community, previous left wing voters, who are appalled at the Labour government. Some of those people are at risk of radicalisation by qanon etc.
We have a still growing divide between wealthy and poor in NZ, this is a recipe for disaster.
None of this is particularly controversial. These are known dynamics. I see good things happening that will prevent the bad things happening, but I don't see NZ as being immune from a regressive shift, nor from that happening suddenly in a large crisis.
Bad scenario would be something like National and ACT being in government with the support of a small ultra conservative party and a big quake hitting Wellington or the Alpine Fault and causing widespread chaos to people's lives as well as huge economic stress. This isn't not a far fetched scenario. You really think NACT won't use this as an opportunity to build more power for themselves?
I am also very open to us shifting progressively, not just on social issues but on environment and the bigger changes needed to prevent the worst of climate change, and the adaptations we need. Much of what I write now is in that vein: how can we create proactive pathways that help people see a way to good futures and thus step away from the bad ones (social, political, environmental).
I see us at risk of not achieving that, and I don't see any compelling reason that NZ would inherently survive repeated emergencies and come out intact without that proactive change.
"If NZ becomes more regressive socially"
New Zealand has already become more regressive socially:
1. Benefit rates les s than NZS
2. Youth rates extended to age 25 from under 18
3. Loss of the right to strike except at the end of an agreement – in most cases once every three years
4. Loss of 8 hour working day 40 hour working week
5. Working on weekends and especially Sundays
6. Social obligations on sole parents
7. Freely being able to gift- resulting in a massive transfer of wealth away from wives and matrimonial settlements
8. Reduction in taxation for the wealthy and highest paid (think not only tax rates but tax on luxury items, stamp duty, etc
9. The reduction in state housing and the shift to market rents for those tenants as well as the removal of working people from state housing
10 The rise of slum landlords and renting rooms and putting homeless in motels
11. The rise of foodbanks and churches having to do charity work (not that they aren't willing participants).
These things all start to set the scene for more regression over time. It is so bad that Labour couldn't even bring them selves to increase benefits rates as suggested by WEAG but when COVID hit they showed that they can do middle-class welfare very well.
Things that were normal for me growing up and starting work – all gone.
I just watched a film about the Yukon in winter….climate change is definitely here….ask the mountain goats
Which is basically what Kavanaugh and Gorsuch said to the US Senate when questioned on their approach to Roe v Wade it is settled law and 50 years of precedent. Liars.
So, there is nothing that he can say will convince you.
Really, no point in any further debate.
No – I would not trust him in the slightest. When asked a direct question he repeatedly diverts and avoids giving a direct reply.
eg. "Not a NZ issue" – Yeah Right!
Macro (@4:41 pm), "diverts and avoids giving a direct reply" is why Luxonites believe he'd make a ‘useful’ PM – anything's possible!
Just like Key.
"No more taxes". Then 16 new taxes, sorry, charges, and an increase in GST.
"No more asset sales". Just Air NZ and several others.
“We will fix child poverty”. Joke!!
If you believe anything National says before an election, I have a bridge to sell you!
As always with National “If you don’t like my principles (Before the election) we have others”.
I'd save the skewering for issues which are likely to change people's voting.
He's got a very strong line (no doubt well-developed and tested by PR), which he's repeated in multiple interviews
People who hate him, will continue to hate him; people who like (or at least tolerate) him, will continue to do the same. People in the middle, aren't likely to be shifted by this issue.
His commenting (or rather choosing not to comment) on Roe v Wade isn't really going to resonate with the electorate in 18 months time.
What will, is the economy (most elections are about the economy) and political inclusion/exclusion (3 waters, etc.).
Left wing commentators/journalists need to hammer the points where National is vulnerable to losing (or not gaining) support from the centrists. There's little point in hammering them on issues which only resonate with the people who already vote for you.
When people tell you who they are, believe them.
Luxon believes abortion is tantamount murder and Reti wouldn't rule out narrowing access and said it would be up to a caucus likely to include more than a few of their ilk. I believe them.
The point I was trying to make is that this is not something which is going to convince the middle to shift their vote.
Left can argue that Luxon and/or Reti would narrow access – but 'up to caucus' means that they'd have to convince the majority (and probably a super-majority) of their caucus that this needed to happen.
Which is not at all likely. National are cold-bloodedly pragmatic about social legislation – they don’t buy into fights which don’t have a lot of popular support. Labour are the ones who (generally) push the social legislation, which National doesn’t roll back.
Middle regard it as pure speculation, now back to the economy……
Bella….the public should know if Luxon supports abortion or not …..it's a simple yes or no answer.
They do know.
His personal preference AND the commitment that he's made not to change the existing law under his government.
Even politicians are allowed personal ethics….
And, I notice none of this angst being directed to Adrian Rurawhe, who is about to be elected Speaker, who voted ‘no’ in the final Abortion bill.
Which says to me that a lot of this outrage is directed at Luxon because A) he’s Luxon, and B) he’s the Leader of the Opposition.
I don't agree with your premise that Luxon's personal views are irrelevant. Would you vote for the Labour Party if its leader opposed abortion?
And in my post I mean that Luxon needs to be asked about his personal views on abortion during the election campaign so that people know what they are voting for.
People like you and me, political tragics, follow these things more closely than the person in the street many of whom will have forgotten Luxon's personal views.
TBH. Unless Abortion reform were on the political agenda, I probably wouldn't care about the personal views of a candidate.
I mean, I might make assumptions about what Ardern's views are, but I didn't actually know, one way or the other, at the 2020 election.
Unless you have a passionate conviction on a social issue (e.g LGBT or abortion), you're probably not going to be very aware of an MPs personal convictions on an issue, or change your vote because of this. Unless it's a topical issue at the election (i.e. there is a proposal to change the law)
I know of several right-wing women who changed their vote over the Homosexual law reform bill (had family members who were gay). But, once that legislation was in place, they reverted to voting on their traditional economic grounds (i.e. moved right wing again).
Social conscience vote issues are widely recognised to be across parties – there are Labour members who are personally anti-abortion, as well as National ones.
Exactly right Robert.
Did any Nat poli comment?
This was Shane Reti last month:
The abortion law in 2020 was passed 68 to 51.
The link show who voted for and agin
Thanks for that link dv.
The 68 YES votes were distributed 34:34 between women and men.
The 51 NO votes were distributed 15:36 – guess which way.
Imho NZ political parties should endeavour to achieve close to a 50-50 representation of women and men in Parliament.
Labour — 37 W , 28 M (after Faafoi and Mallard are replaced)
National – 11 W, 22 M
Greens —– 7 W , 3 M
Act ———– 4 W , 6 M
Māori ——- 1 W , 1 M
House ——- 60 : 60
Currently, two parties are doing the heavy lifting. [apologies for any errors]
Everything is connected.
We could/can stop covid-19, we could/can stop climate change, we could/can even stop war.
Tackling these three scourges means imposing controls on the market.
Which is why it can't/won't be done.
Cards stay stacked until someone tips over the table.
Demonising a category of the human population based on the behaviour of some of that group is a form of
2. guilt/shaming by association
3. collective smear
4. promotion of hate based on political creed
It's a bit like the McCarthyist era fellow travellers/UnAmerican approach that has reduced the USA to the culture war nation it is today.
What's interesting is that the same slurs against the woke/liberal progressives/progressive left occur as often on left blogs such as this site and the Daily Blog as they do on Kiwiblog.
I appreciate your engagement in the last couple of days, SPC, even as I suspect you are doing less listening and addressing points made, than making points yourself. (You probably consider me to be doing the same, so that's just where we are at present. The achievement is that engagement has been ongoing and respectful).
In that vein, I would like clarity on this comment:
"Demonising a category of the human population based on the behaviour of some of that group is a form of
2. guilt/shaming by association
3. collective smear
4. promotion of hate based on political creed"
Who do you believe is being 'demonised' and who do you believe is 'demonising', and how (as in common examples) is this being done?
You expressed support for one of those posts, from a poster from whom they are his regular contribution, yesterday.
Can you link, this is a bit vague?
(and possibly falls under:
2. guilt/shaming by association
3. collective smear)
I don't follow all the conversations here (other things to do) but I may be able to partially answer your question. SPC noted:
Using a local historical example, I think the same sort of thing has happened in NZ albeit to a lesser degree.
Back in the 1970s and 1980s, there was a covert/overt movement in NZ who, using today's terms, would be described as being on the extreme right of the political spectrum. The public persona was seen in the form of the National Front Party and the Skinheads of the same period, but behind them were almost certainly more powerful individuals, This movement was said to be associated with like minded overseas groups. There was an article about the rise of neo-nazism and its possible NZ consequences in the Sunday Star Times back in the 1990s.
They selected individuals based on either their ethnicity, religion or political persuasion. and targeted them by way of bizarre hoaxes and other demeaning behaviour. There were some well known people among the targets including a former prime minister. Another common theme was to set up an individual or special group up for ridicule and embarrassment then watch the fallout which inevitably followed. A good example of that was the Colin Moyle affair.
That is by no means all they did. Some of their behaviour was unlawful – criminal offences were committed – but they got away with it or were allowed to get away with it – not sure which.
I knew two people who were on the periphery (at the least) of this movement although I had no idea at the time. They were members of the Labour Party in the 70s and 80s.
Just like McCarthyism laid the foundations for what is going on in America today, I believe that movement back un the 70s and 80s was the fore-runner of what we are seeing today in NZ.
I was noting the use of attack lines borrowed from American right wing social media (and possibly some crafted in Russia).
But sure in earlier times other metholology – Murray Ball tried to lampoon it, the attempt to create some right wing white nativism, in Stanley.
Demonising a category of the human population based on the behaviour of some of that group is a form of…
Yep. See it here all the time. 'Rosemary McDonald is not Pfizer shot and supported the Freedom Village protestors and believes there were better ways of handling the Covid pandemic so she must be…
1. a right wing nutbar, fascist anti semite racist misogynist, pro plague anti vaxxer.
2. a pathetic gullible victim of Russian/American/Canadian/Martian cyberbot misinformation peddlers.
etc. etc. I could go on but I've work to do. (PS…I scan multiple sites periodically as you clearly do and tbh, TDB and KB are further down the road of tolerance of 'alternate Covid opinions' than here. For now. )
Meh, you're a government/health knows it all cynic from way back before social media was on the radar.
"Meh, you're a government/health knows it all cynic from way back before social media was on the radar."
And that's a problem, …how?
Do not misrepresent my post.
Most people in RM's position (health care and social support for those with disability) would have a level of cynicism – the failure is so egregious that it was noted, quite recently, as one of our human rights failures.
"Do not misrepresent my post."
Didn't mean to, just asked for clarification.
Sarcasm doesn't read clearly in text. If it was in recognition of the truth of Rosemary's comment, I agree.
For mine, most of us on blogs are a little bit cynical about government and MSM, some with more personal experience reasons than others and some because of a perceived failure to do enough (unfulfilled idealism/ambition for government/society).
It could hardly been a comment in disagreement with her post, since she agreed with mine.
And being a cynic about the state of the health care system is just part of being a sentient being atm in Enzed.
You're right. Kind of.
I think it was Uncle Ashley and the 'home based disability care workers don't need to wear masks unless they work within 1 .5m of the disabled person' that drove in the final, cynical nail.
Stupid, stupid man.
Then there was the 'No CPR from paramedics….' edict that went down like a cup of cold spew with…paramedics…that added the deeper drive -in.
Then there were the nurses who got up a petition because the hospitals were not allowing them to wear masks at work…masks they had bought themselves. The doctors even stepped up…
(If you knew how many times I have read the words "flexible" and "responsive" on moh.govt.nz documents you would understand more where I'm coming from.)
Ministry of Health. Failing to acknowledge the expertise of health professionals and patients since forever.
You would have had enough reason to be cynical a long time before COVID.
A paucity of support to carers, the inadequate level of the disability benefit.
The manager of my the major rest home who looks after my father told me that the social isolation caused by the lockdowns was just cruel.
Said with a particular vehemence.
Even more cruel to knock the residents off with covid.
How about telling us about your many years experience in running large rest homes for the elderly.
How about the experience of my elderly parents, who were considerably more "isolated" during covid than rest home residents, who are thankful to be still alive, unlike so many of their contemporaries in countries like the UK and USA, whose Governments didn't give a shit.
If your parents were not in a rest home then their experience of lockdowns was probably not the same as the almost 2 years of severe restrictions and isolation from families and friends most rest-homes had to endure.
I am impressed at how very readily you dismiss a person who has extensive first-hand experience informing her view.
Excess mortality in NZ is around 20% above baseline for the 1/4
Multiple causes,including an increase in all respiratory illnesses.
Thank you. I was looking for that data a while back.
Imho "the lockdowns" were prudent precautions informed in part by the impact of the pandemic on rest home residents in NZ and other countries.
Maybe NZ got the balance between 'deaths' and 'isolation' wrong, and certainly some would be keen still to put the 'cruelty boot' in, regardless of how any hypothetical alternative responses might have played out.
I don't recall anyone calling you these names. Disagreeing with you yes but stating all those things you have listed.
I could be wrong but I don't recall that.
There's lots of things wrong with health – the DHB setup, the time and motion minimum staffing we can get away with imported from the UK, the contracting out of services that reduces staff wages, the underfunding, the closure of rural hospitals, the reduction in mental health beds and respite care, and lots more.
There's lot that works well too and we shouldn't forget that.
Many of the health staff got relentless abuse from people in the anti-vax brigade. Some of it was absolutely appalling.
I would suggest, and you may disagree, that some of the tolerance on the right leaning sites is due to the views being seen as anti-government rather than supporting the views directly. It isn't tolerance you are seeing – it is just grist to their mill.
OK. I'll cross out three slurs that have not been directed at me personally…but I assume apply because of 'guilty by association'. The rest all stand.
right wing nutbar, fascist
anti semite racist misogynist, pro plague anti vaxxer.
I'll add to that…"bully" (because I object to the vaccine mandates) and "Goebbels" after I posted about the rise and rise of homeschooling during Covid. Baffling. But there we are.
As for the Righty Sites. Anti Government, anti Left, anti Labour and anti Jacinda for sure. Exactly like TS when the Natz were in. Tribal is as tribal does.
But it was interesting to see how many of the regulars altered their opinion (especially about the mRNA products) when published research and data not seen in MSM here was posted. There were a few, as on here, who called for such 'anti vax/ anti public health ' posts to be banned. But hard to do that when it is sourced from government sites or published, peer reviewed research.
Fear is the mind killer. And there are/were a fair number of truly frightened folks around who attack anyone not following the government script.
You seem like an intelligent person…perhaps you'd be interested in this conversation.
What you did Rosemary was distort the actual facts (as opposed to the false facts) both during and after the parliamentary protest. Time and again numerous people on this site corrected your claims yet you continued to make them.
That is what those who opposed you were remonstrating you about. Trying to re-write history is not going to cut it.
Trying to re-write history is not going to cut it.
You got that right.
"Time and again numerous people on this site corrected your claims yet you continued to make them."
Numerous people incl Moderators…..And Aye absolutely
Indeed…the “anti mandate” /anti vaxxer/ anti mask/anti guvmint , quite the selfish….did they never consider there are MANY OTHERS who would indeed be very adversely affected? Of course not. I give them NO credence . At all.
…quite the selfish…
There were a few people in wheelchairs at the Freedom Village. Some having been disabled for some time who like my partner chose to err on the side of caution with the experimental mRNA shots out of concern it could exacerbate existing conditions, and others in wheelchairs because of adverse effects from said mRNA shots.
Now, it could very well be that there are some people with disabilities in New Zealand who still cling to the expectation that the 'guvmint' will protect them from all ills and render the entire physical environment flat and 100% accessible.
The same benevolent entity will fund all the personal care they need, as well as ensuring the carer workforce is well stocked and fully trained in the skills required to keep those with very high care needs alive.
My partner is not one of these. He lives in the real world. He has to. It took 26 years for him to get a government funded wheelchair, and he used to have to get flatmates in to do his personal cares because as a working person he had no entitlement for funding for home based care.
(This is not for want of trying to get the guvmint to provide the supports he needs…as well as trying to educate bureaucrats in the ways they could improve the 'service' they are paid by the taxpayer to provide…but one has only so much in the way of energy for such Sisyphean tasks.)
I'm not sure if you have kept up with how those seriously impacted by side effects from the mRNA shots are faring PscylingLeft.Always?
It may very well be that you are one of the many guvmint supporters who accept the determination that there have been no serious adverse effects from the experimental mRNA shots, that it is mere coincidence that the neurological symptoms and the euphemistically described "chest discomfort" began shortly after taking the shot and that it is perfectly reasonable to demand that a person who ended up in A&E with myocarditis after shot 1 or shot 2 has to get shot 2 or shot 3 to keep their job.
Many, many thousands of New Zealanders do not think the mandates are acceptable and and are appalled at the way the experimental mRNA products have been forced on working people, and that the awful side effects experienced by too many have been largely dismissed and denied by the guvmint.
The people most impacted continue to struggle. In the UK they have started to acknowledge the harms and pay compensation…but it has, and continues to be, a very long haul for these people.
If people feel they are at risk they should take precautions. If they think the mRNA shots are safe and effective they should by all means avail themselves of them. I sincerely hope the shots work for them as they have been told they will. But we knew last August that the shots did not prevent infection or transmission and did not necessarily reduce viral load and did not necessarily prevent hospitalisation. They may reduce death. That was for Delta.
If disabled or immune compromised people think that their mRNA shot will 'work' only if everyone else has also taken it then they may have to examine their faith. And perhaps take other precautions.
And above all take as much responsibility for one's own health and welfare as possible…because sure as fuck one cannot rely on guvmint.
A significant adverse event (such as requiring hospitalisation) after and attributed to Covid-19 vaccination is grounds to apply for a temporary medical exemption.
Indeed. The operative word being "temporary".
I have spoken with a few people who truly believed they were dying from a 'heart attack' after their 2nd jab. There's no way in hell these people could be persuaded to take another. However 'recovered' they may be.
I think/hope that one day we'll look back and see the utter fucking madness that possessed our so called health system when it demanded that Covid "vaccine" injured take yet another shot in order to feed their families.
Accepting that it doesn't prevent infection or transmission, if the Pfizer product actually works ( at preventing serious illness, hospitalisation and death) it shouldn't matter if the person next to you has also had it. Should it?
In the meantime…https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/450874/covid-19-data-visualisations-nz-in-numbers
…today the 'fully vaccinated' just top the chart for the highest number of hospitalisations per 100,000 of that population. Tbf..the three main groups..twice jabbed, thrice jabbed and the fucking filth have been pretty much neck and neck for the dubious top honours for the past 2 months.
I agree that the current mandates have a much thinner basis than at the beginning, but the vaccines are still effective against serious illness, hospitalisation, and death although this drops the longer ago one has been boosted/vaccinated and it becomes less certain (as in unknown/undetermined) with longer time since the last shot.
There are now vaccines other than the Pfizer one and these are reasonable alternatives in most cases from a strictly medical perspective.
Beliefs are tricky beasts and very strong motivators and influencers of individual decisions but not a good basis for rational evidence-based Public Health measures.
If you keep repeating the same strongly negative language long and often enough, you’ll start to believe it too.
Can’t wait until trans people replace the gestationals in the Black Ferns, jeez we’ll win the World Cup for sure.
[TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
To state the obvious, the rules of the IRB International Rugby Board) for its events would apply to all nations contesting.
as I posted earlier, the health service is in absolute crisis;and they send staff a lapel pin.
He does the dismissive very well – it began after the election with the marijuana referendum and the way the medicinal marijuana regime has been managed since.
Admin (a more easily addressed problem) has also been a problem in the area I've been receiving healthcare in.
Automated messages for fixed 4-weekly treatments have not been sent for several months. The nurses who give the medication just wave me in and administer it. This is only possible because I have to pick up the medication and take it with me.
This is not possible on a regular six month fixed appointment where the administration of the medication is 45 min and is provided. The last two appointments have only been scheduled on time because I've chased them up, and had them scheduled on time.
The last monthly appointment gave an indication of how far basic housekeeping has fallen behind. I spoke to the receptionist at length, saying I was here for the monthly jab. She checked her computer and said that my last injection was two months prior. I said, No, I was in last month, and not only had my injection but also the six-monthly medication at the same time. She repeated that my last visit was two months prior. Despite me giving the dates more than once, I ended up with saying – well, in that case I am one month overdue for the injection, so here I am. She then sent me to the waiting room.
Very soon after came in the nurse practitioner – who is one of three that I see regularly. She was in the back of the office while I was having my conversation with reception, and went and got my physical file. It was not in the patient filing system. It was in the pile of records that needed to be updated on the computer. This pile was more than six weeks behind.
Data entry can be brought up to date without the need for specialised skills. It's not only the medical professsionals that are unsupported at present.
(This is the Superclinic in Manukau.)
I'll say also at my local GP. Where they've had several staff out with Covid and/or household isolation. It's only when you are speaking to a temp, who is clearly struggling with the booking system, and identifying who you are, and what this issue is, that you realise what a great, intelligent, job the usual team do.
I finally had to ask to speak to the practice nurse, to sort out the issue – which she did quickly and efficiently. But it's a waste of her time to be dealing with admin, and just adds to her workload/stress levels.
The staff are the usual, and from talking have not (yet) been directly affected by Covid absences. I think it's more indicative of a general winding-down of resources and support – in this particular case.
Whatever the reasons, it's going to take a lot of effort and attention to address.
I know a lot of health workers (everyone from Doctors, through to nurses, radiologists, psych workers and other allied health professionals).
Every one is under huge pressure, both personally, and on behalf of their patients (they tend to go into 'caring' professions in order to make a difference to people's lives).
Massive stress-levels, burnout, and re-considering their future. Where they can, they're managing their workload – e.g. GPs closing their patient lists; it's virtually impossible to get to see a psychiatrist (even if you have a ton of money to throw around); nurses exiting the public health system – and going to work in private practice (or a totally non-related field – there's plenty of jobs out there).
None of them have anything good to say about Little pressing forward with the reforms, ATM. And that includes people who were pro the reforms, initially, and think that DHB restructure/reform was/is needed. But not now.
Where is he getting his advice from? Does he think it's too far down the track to press 'pause' on.?
Well, it's legislated and been given the Royal Assent, and takes effect on Friday (1 July), so it's probably too late to press pause now.
It's hard to believe they're even bothering to turn up to work any more. But someone's got to hold their finger in the dyke. People made of finer stuff than the political class, that's for sure.
(click tweet to read hidden sentence).
The thing with Simeon and Simon O'C is that not only are their views revolting, unlike Luxon both of them are too stupid and incompetent to realise how bad it plays in the electorate.
Banning abortion isn't popular with the US electorate either. Those in power don't care about popular support:
Some of their base will be salivating.
They're on a roll. But misunderstood, apparently.
Chris Penk is Simeon Brown's epsilon intellectual, but because Brown has offended people National want to offend (to secure the centre middle class vote) he has been promoted to a higher rank. That must hurt.
If you give people the resources they are more likely to make better decisions with better outcomes. Science is an invaluable resource, which is why it is a concern that trust in science has been eroding and science denial has been growing. The parallels between Covid-19, smoking, and climate change, for example, are striking and show the points of overlap. However, there’s no one-size-fits-all explanation and thus there’s no one-size-fits-all solution except starting with awareness of the growing problem and eternal vigilance (similar to the price of liberty and safeguarding democracy).
Patriarch Spy has an oops.
Cynicism is a double-edged sword and can have a positive influence or a negative destructive one. This can be seen played out in the occupation of Parliament grounds, which started off as a peaceful protest but ended in a riot.
The article makes a case for so-called intelligent cynicism – a critical disposition to ask questions, reject the status quo, and resist rosy narratives that hide the truth of things – as opposed to irrational cynicism – based on anger and fear. The problem I have is that there is not necessarily a neat separation between these two forms of cynicism as is clear, for example, from the Parliament protest.
The question thus is how to morph or channel irrational cynicism into intelligent cynicism, assuming this is possible, of course.
Some might find this discussion about the Parliament Protest interesting. Or not.
(Marama Fox was not part of the protest action, is triple vaxxed and anti mandate. She found herself involved and was there on that last day when the cops violently broke up the protest.)
Thanks, but I don’t have that much spare time!
I’m vaccinated and had an issue with some aspects of the mandates or rather how and why they were implemented in the first place; not all mandates were equal and not all employers followed the same approach.
Pity. Fox certainly not all on the side of the protestors and she could see that the 'peace and love' were wearing thin and the angry ranty spoiling for a fight faction were getting louder.
She vehemently objects to the suggestion that especially Maori were gullible and manipulated by white supremacist extremists.
She cried herself to sleep after witnessing the violence…mostly metered out by the cops.
And she's one tough wahine.
Interesting that she apparently thinks that Māori were somehow ‘immune’ [pun intended] to the mis- and dis-information and undeniable manipulation on social media in particular.
I really don’t have 100 min to watch YT clips but I do read very fast.
I watched the first 15 mins, because I've always respected her. She's good here too. I wish they would explain things more, there's a bit too much jumping around to keep me engaged. But her passion and sharp mind are great.
I have learned to listen… rather than tying up valuable working time watching. My wee tablet has good sound (I don't do earphones), and often accompanies me as I work. (Leaving it in full sun while up a ladder painting was not the best idea. )
It begins with quite a long preamble, but at some point it becomes compelling story-telling.
If you haven't listened to this…https://rdln.wordpress.com/2022/05/24/marama-fox-on-the-maori-presence-at-the-recent-parliamentary-protests/ …thoroughly engaging. It may very well be one of the truer, most credible accounts of the Freedom Village 'event' in the archive.