web analytics

The more difficult end to the vaccination programme

Written By: - Date published: 8:26 am, September 23rd, 2021 - 204 comments
Categories: covid-19, health, Judith Collins, trevor mallard - Tags:

We are reaching an interesting stage in the vaccination program.  The country’s recent vaccination roll out has been on steroids and we are now in a position where 80% of the target population should be vaccinated within the next month or so.  We were slow starters, mainly because we were not subject to a pandemic that was killing our people and clogging our health systems, so we were able to have an orderly and properly organised roll out instead of panicking.  But ever since the response has accelerated.

The complaints about the speed of the roll out have continued.  But to be frank they miss the point.  Our vaccination rate in comparison to the rest of the OECD is improving and our death rate is phenomenally good.

We are at the bottom of this graph, hidden because our ranking is so low.

Our death rate, at 5.6 deaths per million people is at the bottom of the OECD ranking.  The second best country is Australia at 46 deaths per million, followed by South Korea at 47 and Iceland at 96.  If we had emulated Australia’s performance, second best in the OECD, there would have been 230 deaths, if we had performed as well as Denmark, an advanced nation with a superb health system the body count would have been 2,250.  And if we had been as bad as Hungary there would have been over 15,000 deaths.  Choose your preference.

Novelty campaigns such as the Shot Bro bus and the suggested KFC for jabs will have some effect particularly in poorer areas that are suffering the brunt of the latest infections.  But we are now getting to the situation where we are reaching the reluctant and different techniques for this group will be required.

Throughout the world there are a variety of measures being used, from the coaxing and persuasion to the more gnarly use of regulatory might.  Vaccine passports will soon be a reality.  If you cannot prove you have been vaccinated then you may not be able to fly or attend concerts or even visit restaurants.

Employers will be under some pressure.  How do you balance the right of a staff member to determine what health treatment they receive with the need to provide a safe workspace?

The more public facing the role the more likely that the right to refuse medical treatment is going to be overridden by policy decisions setting reasonable legal limits that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society which is doing with a pandemic.

Trevor Mallard has sparked the debate by wondering if non vaccinated Parliamentary staffers should work from home and not at the Parliamentary precinct.

Handling of the end of the roll out will be critical.  We are now moving from the highly motivated though the general population and into the reluctant sector of the population.  And the virus does not discriminate.  All it seeks is a warm body to propagate in.

This is why among all of her recent misdemeanors Judith Collins claiming that we should not make vaccination compulsory and that we will end up with two classes of people is so irresponsible.  Publicly feeding into anti vaccination feelings is highly irresponsible.  Although she is right in one respect.  There will be two classes of people, vaccinated people for who a covid infection will on most occasions be no more than an irritant and unvaccinated people who will face the prospect of a lingering death.

Persuasion is still the most effective technique.  If a family member, friend or work colleague is reluctant this information may help.

Otherwise there is always this Family Guy video.

204 comments on “The more difficult end to the vaccination programme ”

  1. Dream On 1

    Yes because coercion and suspension of civil liberties in a democracy is always a winning formula when strong arming people into taking experimental vaccines with indemnity for the manufacturer.

    Just look at Melbourne. It all going swimmingly, right?

    • mickysavage 1.1

      I have attempted to present both arguments neutrally and to highlight that this is not a simple issue and there is no simple answer.

      • RedLogix 1.1.1

        Yes I do appreciate that you've been reasonably even-handed in this post. It does ask good questions.

        Sadly I'm beginning to suspect they will have no good answers.

        • Incognito 1.1.1.1

          To jab, or not to jab, that is the question.

          • Drowsy M. Kram 1.1.1.1.1

            A good question, and a good answer was provided in an easy to understand graph posted by Macro on 14 Sept.

            The current COVID-19 vaccines and treatments aren’t silver/magic bullets (not that any rational person would make such a claim), but imho they’re useful alternatives to the let 'er rip ‘solution’ that some are advocating. Time will tell.

          • Dream On 1.1.1.1.2

            For myself I'd say only if you choose to do so. If not then that's your right and should be respected.

            I would prefer to wait and be sure its fully tested and any indemnity removed.

            • McFlock 1.1.1.1.2.1

              What do you even mean by "fully tested"? Pfizer went through the same tests as every other jab or drug does these days.

            • Andre 1.1.1.1.2.2

              If you want to refuse a fully tested and approved treatment that's already been taken by hundreds of millions of people with an astonishingly good safety record and astonishingly high real world effectiveness, yes, you do have the right. But you don't have the right to be a willful health and safety risk to everyone else that gets near you.

              So I'd prefer a medical officer then exercises their power under section 70 of the Health Act to keep you quarantined. At least until the government formalises vaccine passports and legislates to make it clear 'no jab, no job" policies are totally acceptable, even necessary, for employers to meet their health and safety obligations.

      • Gezza 1.1.2

        From your post:

        This is why among all of her recent misdemeanors Judith Collins claiming that we should not make vaccination compulsory and that we will end up with two classes of people is so irresponsible. Publicly feeding into anti vaccination feelings is highly irresponsible. Although she is right in one respect. There will be two classes of people, vaccinated people for who a covid infection will on most occasions be no more than an irritant and unvaccinated people who will face the prospect of a lingering death.

        Collins, in my view, is being completely disingenuous with this claim. Just the she-dog barking at EVERY car going past – again. From observing her as a Minister over several years, I would put money on it that – God forbid, were she the PM – she would be the PM most likely to make vaccinations compulsory.

        Always likes to project herself as a strong authoritarian character.

      • Dream On 1.1.3

        And debate is worthwhile so I hope you don't take this as a personal rebuttal. My concern is that vaccines typically take 5 or more years to develop. I have taken them all my life so I'm someone who hates vaccines and scorns them.

        I worry as many do I'm sure about the potential side effects and those that may arise in future? I also question why other well established medications are not being considered?

        And as I say when does coercion by governments ever work well? Its not working well in France, its not working well in the UK and as for Australia as we seeing its not going so well.

        I would say too we live in a democracy, people have rights and it worries me if they are not acknowledged now, will they be in the future?

        I could say a lot more but these points will suffice for this discussion.

        Thank you.

        • roblogic 1.1.3.1

          Potential side effects of vaccine: Feel tired, get a headache

          Potential side effect of Covid-19: 1-2% chance of death, much higher chance of "long covid", permanent damage to lungs, brain or other organs.

          "Status Quo Bias": a pattern of thinking where the risk of doing nothing is ignored, and the risk of doing something is exaggerated.

          • Gezza 1.1.3.1.1

            Yep. I got a slightly sore/tender upper arm at the injection site the next day, & woke up with a headache the morning after, after both jabs.

            The injection itself was painless. I only knew it’d been done when the nurse said “All done!” And 2 ibuprofen at breakfast cured the headache completely in about 30 mins max.

            Even the tender upper arm was gone within another 24 hours – and it didn’t stop me using that arm. It was a breeze.

          • Andre 1.1.3.1.2

            I actually got hit kinda hard by the first one. About as bad as when I got Hep A, Hep B, polio booster, and rabies all in one session.

            Arm was sore for three days, and the day after I felt really lethargic and just super-cold all over. It's the only day I've wanted a heater all winter, and the heater didn't help much.

            If the second one hits harder like it does for most people, it'll be no fun at all. Kinda like only one day of a very mild flu.

        • Clive Macann 1.1.3.2

          Dream On. What do you think the "side effects" of NOT being vaccinated will be?

  2. Adrian 2

    The health treatment in a safe work place conundrum is compounded by those more accident prone jobs which put workmates in a seriously compromised position in needing to give immediate cares to an injured non- vaccinated coworker.

  3. Ad 3

    Sugar gest more honey than vinegar. Less Bounties and more Bounty Bars. The imagination of the patrician state run can wild with a running menu from toughest 20% down to toughest .5%:

    – Free KFC, or McDonalds, or Fish and Chips, for whole family

    – Free haircuts. Great after lockdown

    – Get your bond back if your household gets it

    – $500 cash if you bring 5 unvaccinated people

    – Free bicycle per person

    – Free dog biscuits for a year

    – Free kitten!

  4. Anne 4

    I agree with Le Gros. Anti-vaxxers should not be allowed air-time and more needs to be done to prevent them from undermining the efforts to overcome this virus:

    Meanwhile Malaghan Institute professor Graham Le Gros told TVNZ anti-vaxxers who did not want a jab were "nuts" and shouldn't be given any air time.

    Work needed to be done to take down the barriers preventing some people getting vaccinated – including misinformation, he said.

    "This virus is bad and the virus will find you. If we don't get vaccinated – they'll be in trouble."

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-delta-outbreak-govt-concedes-big-mountain-to-climb-to-lift-vaccination-rate/E4KNJBYJYBANWL7EOWZLWN2Y4I/

    I know an anti-vaxxer and they are not capable of rational thought, so trying to make them see sense does not work. You only have to look across the Tasman to see the aggressive antics they deploy and the danger they pose to everyone including the police. The ‘vaccine hesitant’ are a different story. Many of them are only hesitant because an anti-vaxxer has got to them.

    I would go so far as making the distribution of anti-vax pamphlets a criminal offence. You have to fight fire with fire and this is one of those rare occasions when it needs to happen.

  5. Cricklewood 5

    Need to be very careful using mandates… I think there is real potential to do more harm than good in the long term… outside of very specific circumstance im against.

    For example you can argue that institutionalized racism which already see's worse outcomes for both Maori and Pacific people in our society leads to distrust of govt and a reluctance to engage… going down the path of wide spread mandates would potentially further alienate these groups particularly I suspect in the younger age range say 15-25 which long term will probably leave us worse off as a nation you could also argue it would be an extension of the institutional racisim we see in our health and justice statistics already. Waitangi tribunal claim perhaps?

    Better to use carrots and if a stick is necessary maybe wave it at someone like Brian Tamaki…

    • Ad 5.1

      Wait for ACC, Worksafe, Director obligations, Southern Cross, and the main business insurers to make their views known to government. Then come the bank mortgage loan conditions.

      Won't be any escaping differential premiums.

      This will be way worse than smokers.

    • Anne 5.2

      Its a very specific circumstance Cricklewood.

      And suggesting a similarity to institutionalised racism is a false equivalence imo.

      Racism is a disorder that has existed since forever and involves a significant portion of the population. Anti-vaxxers only comprise a tiny percentage of the population but they are vociferous, very aggressive and are attempting to derail a world-wide effort to contain a pandemic. In some cases they are doing it for pecuniary gain. They are not afraid to adopt tactics which in other spheres of activity would attract the attention of law enforcement agencies anyway.

      • Cricklewood 5.2.1

        Im not talking about anti vaxxers im talking about the reluctant, those in our society that get the short end of the stick ie more likely to be arrested, more likely to be in unstable or overcrowded housing, etc etc… and these pre existing circumstances which some put down to institutional racism result in a reluctance to engage with the 'system' for the 'public good'.

        My arguement is that further marginalization of these cohorts in our society will be vastly counterproductive it needs to be all about the carrots.

        • Anne 5.2.1.1

          I did separate vaccine hesitant from anti-vaxxers in my original comment @ 4.

          The ‘vaccine hesitant’ are a different story. Many of them are only hesitant because an anti-vaxxer has got to them.

  6. Muttonbird 6

    It should just be your civic duty, right? We don't excuse those who are outside the tax system. They are classed as a "risk to the economy".

    Similarly, the unvaccinated are a risk to the health system. They will begin to clog up hospitals in the coming months, taking beds away from vaccinated people who require emergency, medical or surgical treatment. People who have done their civic duty.

    By removing vaccine passports from the table, and the possibility of regulations for the workplace and large social events, you give anti-vaxxers and the vaccine hesitant an out. They will take it.

    That leads to lower rates of vaccination. Best to keep the pressure on with both incentives, and conditions.

    • Anne 6.1

      yes
      Same wave-length.

    • dv 6.2

      Unvaccinated need to be down the hospital lists if there is a need for vaccinated who need hospital care.

      • Gezza 6.2.1

        “Unvaccinated need to be down the hospital lists if there is a need for vaccinated who need hospital care”

        The way our health system works, or certainly here in Welly I believe, unvaccinated non-Covid cases are quite likely to go to the front of the queue because their overall medical risk is perceived to be greater.

        The hospital would take any opportunity presented to vaccinate them at the same time.

        • McFlock 6.2.1.1

          The way our health system works, or certainly here in Welly I believe, unvaccinated non-Covid cases are quite likely to go to the front of the queue because their overall medical risk is perceived to be greater.

          Which works until the system gets overloaded, then the sickest people get pushed to the "no treatment" area so people with a better chance of survival can be treated.

          But triage generally doesn't involve whether the injury was caused by one's own stupidity or a noble accident (medics are human, but they still usually do their job reasonably well).

  7. Patricia Bremner 7

    The incentives are more likely to attract those in difficult situations, and people need reassurance when they feel threatened or frightened.

    The earlier or later clinics could help those with difficult work times.

    The food /food vouchers idea is attractive in such times.

    Laying on "free taxi vans" to transport distant families to a pop up bus in their area.

    Sporting and pop icons and influencers encouraging the reluctant.

    All that should be tried before any mandates. imo

    But as a last resort requests to do certain activities will require vaccinations.

    • Muttonbird 7.1

      Agree with that. Incentives first. The people living outside of society are at once most at risk from Covid, most likely to spread Covid, and most likely to reject vaccination.

      Point I'm trying to make is that by attacking the possibility of mandates and regulations you fuel the real problem, anti-vaxxers, who are motivated to spread fear in the communities referenced above.

      • Gezza 7.1.1

        You & Patricia both make good points, imo.

        All out incentivising & the employment of several different strategies to make actually getting vaccines easier for the hesitant first – but with the legal work done now to provide for mandatory vaxing (and/or exclusion from certain places or activities) so these moves are already legally available when & if required to deal with the anti-vaxers.

  8. Tiger Mountain 8

    Citizens need to take responsibility themselves, not just leave it to “the authorities”.

    Ask re vaccination status if someone enters your home, or personal space. I have no compunction in sending friends, acquaintances or strangers packing until they have had shot #1.

    Ethnic groups are being supported to deal with their specific vaccination situations, and sub cultures and off grid people need the same active support and encouragement approach. If it takes goodie bags and rewards it is worth it.

    40 years of Neo Liberal individualism, and “anything can mean anything” post modernist philosophy have helped get us to this position of over tolerating people that put themselves and others at serious risk.

  9. georgecom 9

    has anyone found a satisfactory answer from antivaxers about the following scenario. I am not meaning those who do not believe covid is real, obviously they won't contract the virus and get ill. But the antivaxers who rely on their own immune system to protect them.

    When an antivaxer gets covid of course their immune system will confer a degree of protection when they recover. However what if they get really ill to a level requiring medical treatment. I assume such antivaxers will do the honorable thing and stay at home and tough it out, rather than fill up our hospitals. If they don't die then they are fine.

    The important piece of information here is that pretty much all existing vaccines provide high protection against getting really ill and death. Some are effective against catching the virus however even the weaker vaccines have 80+ protection against serious illness, so low chances of you ending up in ICU after vaccination.

  10. Reality 10

    Just been reading SMH item on vaccine passports for Sydney and parts of NSW which are being planned. Pubs, restaurants and hairdressers will be allowed to open for those fully vaccinated after NSW hits 70 per cent vaccination of those 16 and over.

    Excellent idea which hopefully will be brought in here. Anti vaxxers don't have any right to endanger others, regardless of their so called rights. Remember the objections to no indoor smoking rules? Who would want to go back to the days of unpleasant smoke from others putting people at risk. As a COPD person who has never smoked, I was told I grew up at a time where everyone around smoked everywhere.

    The idiots rioting in Melbourne and Sydney are the ones who will spread and get Covid.

  11. Restrict access to government services. Suspend driver licences, suspend benefits, suspend tax exemptions, suspend Covid support payments to those who refuse to be vaccinated. Give them plenty of warnings and time to comply. But let them know that it is not acceptable to pose a public health risk because of some shit you read on Facebook

    • Nic the NZer 11.1

      The messaging has to be way clearer and better than for mask use. At this time in several instances people who got a mask exemption and followed all the rules were still discriminated against. There are a small number of people who can't be vaccinated so the govt policy will need to have and work with occasional exemptions.

    • Patricia Bremner 11.2

      Roblogic, that would just push some communities further away. What about their children? They would be collateral damage, and such policies reek with Big Brother overtones.

      Community and Public Service means helping when people are marginalised by poor health poor education poor housing rubbish food and ease of access to mind numbing lies on some internet platforms.

      They need support to think this through with a view of a better future. Hope not threats.

      The group who should be tackled are the spreaders of misinformation. Fines, community service etc.

  12. tc 12

    Good post mickey. I'd like to see the msm stamp on any conspiracy antivaxer dog whistling (hello Judith).

    Oz have 2 MP's spreading such that scumo and Barnaby refuse or are unable to reign in.

    We need to make every effort.

  13. Muttonbird 13

    A lot of people are realising what it means to be outside the economy and society now. No wage subsidy or RSPs for you if you haven't been paying GST.

    Same should go for this particular health initiative.

  14. Maurice 14

    All sounds a bit tribal to me – let's drive those that are not like us OUT!

    My prediction is that this is not going to end well and may well degenerate into extremes of violence.

    I sincerely hope not.

  15. gsays 15

    A pleasantly balanced post

    Just a couple of dissenting thoughts.

    The narrative has radically shifted from the start of the pandemic. Cousin of the common cold, can't vaccinate for that. 2 years later, the drums are beating for compulsory medication

    This enthusiasm for mandating medication, does this apply to boosters, 'next generation' vaccines etc. If so, get yr Big Pharma shares now.

    I have heard talk of businesses offering $100-$150 to staff who have been reluctant. Not a lot of money to someone who is reticent.

    This seems like the top of a very steep, slippery slope.

    • Patricia Bremner 15.1

      A steeper slope is 7000 possible deaths and who knows really, how many hospitalisations ?(Hendy)
      Equating vaccine reluctance with “Big Pharma” is a bit of a red herring. We are collectively paying for this from the covid purse, at no cost to the individual, and any notion such incursions are begun to make money is a stretch.

        • Sacha 15.1.1.1

          Has aroused some stats community chat.

          [link fixed]

          • Gypsy 15.1.1.1.1

            Thanks – can you repost the link…that one doesn't work.

          • Gypsy 15.1.1.1.2

            Thanks Sascha. It seems the model Hendy used has a problem with the vaccine efficacy levels.

            • Incognito 15.1.1.1.2.1

              It seems you know how to correct this problem, so please don’t hold back and share your knowledge and put it out in the open, just as Hendy and co-workers did. Me thinks you’re just another arm-chair expert and critic who knows nothing much.

              • Gypsy

                I have no idea how to fix the problem. But then I'm not being paid the big bucks to supposedly inform the public. The 7,000 deaths claim has been described by another modeller as “absolutely unconvincing”, and since then there has been criticism of the vaccine efficacy used in the original modelling, and that the model assumes no restrictions. Producing information that has more than an aura of alarmism, at a time when the government is trying to get more people vaccinated, doesn’t seem that helpful.

                • Drowsy M. Kram

                  Intriguing comment.

                  "the big bucks" ?

                  Do tell.

                  "another modeller" ?

                  Do tell again. Any idea if "another modeller" is being paid bigger bucks?

                  Producing information that has more than an aura of alarmism, at a time when the government is trying to get more people vaccinated, doesn’t seem that helpful.

                  "More than an aura of alarmism", you say. Intriguing again.

                  Which do you think might be more helpful in persuading Kiwis to get vaccinated: an estimation of the potential deaths should COVID-19 get more than its current toehold among the unvaccinated; or expressions of 'concern' along the lines of "more than an aura of alarmism"?

                  • Gypsy

                    "Absolutely. Is Jones an educator? A scientist? A statistician?"

                    I wasn't aware he was now the only communication medium for all of government.

                    "but NZ's COVID-19 health outcomes to date paint a pretty positive 'story' to this natural pessimist."

                    Indeed. Which makes the alarmist claims about 7,000 deaths all the more unhelpful.

                    • McFlock

                      Please show your justification for calling one particular value in Hendy's document "alarmist". What number does your modelling show for the same assumptions?

                    • Drowsy M. Kram

                      I wasn't aware he [Jones] was now the only communication medium for all of government.

                      Gypsy, you linked to economist Jones' critique @15.1.1 (6:18 pm), and quoted Jones @7:03 pm. Do you perhaps, like “another modeller” Jones, believe that the predictions from scientist Hendy's modelling are alarmist? Because that’s the impression I’m getting.

                      If Jones believes "we need a positive story", how about: Since March 2020 New Zealand has recorded 408 days of ZERO community cases. A well-deserved reward for some hard work by the team, imho.

                      https://www.covidplanb.co.nz/our-posts/dissection-of-prof-hendy-model-presented-at-ardern-conference-23-9-21/

                  • Gypsy

                    "Do you perhaps, like “another modeller” Jones, believe that the predictions from scientist Hendy's modelling are alarmist?"

                    Do you believe that the documented shortcomings in Hendy's model are inconsequential?

                    “A well-deserved reward for some hard work by the team”

                    The reality of what we have achieved and the mitigation measures used, seems to make a nonsense of using a model that assumes we won’t use the full mitigation measures we have available. Agree?

                    • Drowsy M. Kram

                      "Do you perhaps, like “another modeller” Jones, believe that the predictions from scientist Hendy's modelling are alarmist?"

                      It was a straightforward question Gypsy, but I can understand why you'd rather not answer.

                      The reality of what we have achieved and the mitigation measures used, seems to make a nonsense of using a model that assumes we won’t use the full mitigation measures we have available. Agree?

                      I'm OK maintaining previous "full mitigation measures" indefinitely – are you?

                      For better or worse, "full mitigation measures" aren't set in stone; new COVID-19 variants, increasing vaccine coverage, the capacity of the public health system, and team acceptance of those same measures are just some of the continuously changing inputs that affect a modeller's predictions.

                      Time will be the best judge of worth of Hendy et al.'s modelling, and far better than ‘judge Jones’, imho.

                  • Gypsy

                    " I can understand why you'd rather not answer."

                    Except that I already had.

                    “”full mitigation measures” aren’t set in stone; ”
                    That’s no excuse for leaving them out.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram

                      That’s no excuse for leaving them out.

                      If you say so – perhaps the reviewers will insist on putting them in.

                      Some seem to be fixating on the predicted worst outcomes (which "could be mitigated if more restrictive control measures, akin to current Alert Levels 3 or 4, were utilised.") in just one of several alternative scenarios analysed by the team of modellers.

                      The last three bullet points in the executive summary, which include the offending "7,000 fatalities per year", seem realistic rather than alarmist, but then we all have different ‘alarm thresholds’ on any given topic, and that could explain your 'concern'.

                      https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus

                      Modelling to support a future COVID-19 strategy for Aotearoa New Zealand [Steyn Plank Hendy, 23Sept 2021; PDF]

                      • We find that there are scenarios where, through a combination of high vaccine coverage (including amongst those aged 5-11) and moderate public health measures, population immunity is achieved, resulting in very low mortality burden. For example, with 90 per cent vaccine coverage of the population over the age of 5, a suite of moderate public health measures and an effective test, trace and isolate system, the modelling suggests there would be around 500 hospitalisations and 50 fatalities from COVID-19 over a one year period.

                      • There are scenarios where, despite a high vaccination coverage, population immunity is not achieved, resulting in a disease mortality burden that is an order of magnitude greater. For example, with 80 per cent vaccine coverage of the population over the age of five and moderate public health measures, the modelling suggests there would be around 60,000 hospitalisations and 7,000 fatalities per year from COVID-19. Such outcomes could be mitigated if more restrictive control measures, akin to current Alert Levels 3 or 4, were utilised.

                      • Nonetheless, the results suggest that a combination of high levels of vaccination within the community, a strong test-trace-isolate-quarantine system (assuming case numbers are kept sufficiently low) and moderate public health measures may be enough to attain population immunity, greatly reducing the need for strong public health measures, such as stay-at-home orders and workplace closures.

                  • Gypsy

                    "Some seem to be fixating on the predicted worst outcomes…"

                    Understandably, given those are what Hendy is emphasising in the media.

                    "The last three bullet points in the executive summary, which include the offending "7,000 fatalities per year", seem realistic rather than alarmist…"

                    I tend to distrust those numbers on a mathematical basis, using hospitalisation and mortality data I have posted here previously.

                  • Gypsy

                    "Not following that answer."

                    Nor do I! I meant to say "to regain some kind of normality". I'm pro vaccination, and believe a high vac rate is the best way to mitigate the ongoing financial and social cost of Covid.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram

                      Yep, agree with that.

                      Both of Sweden's pre-vaccine COVID waves peaked at ~100 deaths per day. Fortunately for Kiwis, our government followed the prudent advice of health experts and implemented precautionary measures to limit the freedom of the virus to infect and cause illness/death.

                      I'd prefer that most things went back to 'normal' sooner rather than later, and I'd prefer even more to continue following the advice of health experts that have served us exceptionally well to date, because I believe that’s the best path for NZ to get back to ‘normal’ with minimal loss of life.

                      In this pandemic, a little public patience is not just a virtue – it can be a lifesaver. Imagine if we'd had to wait years for an effective vaccine.

  16. Jimmy 16

    Heard on the radio the other night that six vax buses have been on the road for a week and have only vaccinated 400 people! That's very disappointing if true as that is less than 10 people per day per bus!

    • McFlock 16.1

      And folks were "disappointed if true" when the main vax rollout was just beginning, as well.

      Does "on the road" mean "fully staffed, equipped, and operational, and parked in a major centre's supermarket carpark with full advertising"? Or does it mean "couple of days to get the crew to familiarise themselves with it, and then a tiki-tour around some remote small communities do get rural people vaxed and test out the routine"?

      • Jimmy 16.1.1

        As suggested, perhaps parking one next to the KFC drive through would up the numbers.

        • McFlock 16.1.1.1

          or perhaps there isn't a KFC where the buses have been operating. Remote people need jabs, too.

          • Jimmy 16.1.1.1.1

            "Shot Cuzz will be parked at the Clendon Park, Pak'nSave car park this Tuesday and Wednesday and Southmall, Weymouth Rd entry, Thursday and Friday from 9am to 4pm."

            It's not that remote if there's a Pak n Save there!

            https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-delta-outbreak-new-vaccination-bus-shot-cuzz-hits-auckland-streets/JZMDL3PD6S7CDWOFAOREV2TWMY/

            • McFlock 16.1.1.1.1.1

              So is that bus number 7? When did the other six start, and where?

            • Incognito 16.1.1.1.1.2

              Do you know the difference between remote and hard-to-reach communities/sub-populations?

              • Gypsy

                You’re repeating the same lie again that one of Hendy’s many (!) predicted outcomes (i.e. your all-time favourite of 7000 deaths) was the worst case scenario when i

                Except I didn't use the figure of 7,000 in that comment, did I?

                [Which number AKA worst case scenario did you have in mind, this time?

                You’re wasting my time, and McFlock’s, but he seems to be still enjoying it (!?), so you’d better make it work well for you because I’ve lost my patience with you a while back. The only reason you’re hanging on to your commenting privilege is that this is an older Post – Incognito]

                • Incognito

                  See my Moderation note @ 5:03 pm.

                • McFlock

                  You’re wasting my time, and McFlock’s, but he seems to be still enjoying it (!?)

                  It's getting towards the end, but there's a sort of graceful symmetry when they start finding the limits of their inventiveness – I imagine the threads like a linear flow chart that slowly turns into a spiralgraph sort of thing, with loops and swirls and eddies as they recycle points from earlier in the thread.

                  Sometimes the painting is finished when every comment can be responded to with a sequence of links to earlier comments (preferably theirs).

                  Sometimes it just fnishes when the computer finishes counting whatever I'm counting and I can start outputting the pretty charts and tables, and no longer need a low-cpu distraction to keep me awake (it's embarrassing when a colleague wakes you up and the computer finished counting an hour before)/

        • McFlock 16.1.2.1

          Jones' arguments aren't peer-reviewed either.

          All models are constructs. As an economist Jones should know this.

          But most of all, I was looking for your thinking on this. But you're just latching onto (ahem) news reports.

          BTW, Singapore is back up to a thousand cases a day (h/t advantage) with over a hundred on oxygen last weekend. But then I'm not sure they meet the full criteria of assumptions for the "7000" mark you guys obsess over.

          • Gypsy 16.1.2.1.1

            "Jones' arguments aren't peer-reviewed either."

            Jones’ isn’t making the claims of 7,000 deaths. He’s critiquing the model, not publishing it.

            "All models are constructs."

            Yes, but the word 'artificial' was meant to convey the lack of real world reality.

            "But most of all, I was looking for your thinking on this."

            My thinking is that the 7,000 is hyperbole, based on the current vaccination trajectory, the hospitalisation rate for vaccinated people, and the death rate for fully vaccinated people (around 0.5% of covid patients).

            "BTW, Singapore is back up to a thousand cases a day (h/t advantage) with over a hundred on oxygen last weekend."

            In 21 months, Singapore has had 70 deaths from 82,860 cases. That's 1 death in every 1150 cases, or 1 death in every 80,000 people. Even using them as a comparison (which is dubious given their population density is around 500 times more than ours), to get to 7,000 deaths with our population would take, well, a hell of a long time. Still, I guess if we wait long enough just about any prediction could come true.

            • McFlock 16.1.2.1.1.1

              Singapore has had 15 deaths this month, out of their total of 70.

              My thinking is that the 7,000 is hyperbole, based on the current vaccination trajectory, the hospitalisation rate for vaccinated people, and the death rate for fully vaccinated people (around 0.5% of covid patients).

              OK, so what are the numbers you are projecting for vaccination coverage and disease control measures?

              The worst-case 7,000 figure was an example for 80% vaccination (>=5yr) but community exposure with no measures beyond level 2 (i.e. no L4, no L3 stay-at-home orders) and limited TTIQ.

              That becomes 50 deaths at 90% fully vaccinated and full TTIQ.

              Should we read that you are expecting a rate of fully vaccinated people five and over being in excess of 90%? Are you assuming higher vaccine efficacy than Hendy's model?

              Are you even disagreeing with the model, rather than just the worst-case scenario paragraph from the executive summary (ignoring the better case scenarios in the same section)? Have you even read the report? There's a link to it in comment 22.

              • Gypsy

                "OK, so what are the numbers you are projecting for vaccination coverage and disease control measures?"

                I'm not 'projecting', but my gut feel is there will be around 10% of the population who are anti-vac or vaccine averse/hesitant. I'm also of the view that a lot of parents will not want their 5-12 year olds vaccinated.

                "The worst-case 7,000 figure was an example for 80% vaccination (>=5yr) but community exposure with no measures beyond level 2 (i.e. no L4, no L3 stay-at-home orders) and limited TTIQ. That becomes 50 deaths at 90% fully vaccinated and full TTIQ."

                The deaths number 7000 is mathematically implausible, based on the known data around cases and mortality.

                "Are you even disagreeing with the model, rather than just the worst-case scenario paragraph from the executive summary (ignoring the better case scenarios in the same section)? Have you even read the report? There's a link to it in comment 22."

                Yes, i have read the report. Yes I understand the 7,000 was a worst case scenario. I do a lot of business scenario modelling, and I would never present a paper to shareholders that was 1) not peer reviewed and 2) not plausible given other known factors.

                • McFlock

                  So if you have access to the report, and all the workings are in the report, what bit of the report leads to the worst case scenario being too extreme, according to your gut?

                  It seems that your gut feels tell you that vax uptake will ballpark 90% and therefore the 80% bound is unrealistically low. Is that it? Is 80% completely impossible, though?

                  • Gypsy

                    Here's how I think it will play out – the adult population will get to around 90%, the under 12's nowhere near that, maybe 66%.

                    But that doesn't paint the full picture. I expect the vaccine uptake by the more vulnerable to be high, so while cases will continue, the death rate will be low.

                    The death rate in the general population globally is around 0.1%. The death rate from the current outbreak in Singapore is 0.18%, say 0.2%, with 80% of their population fully vaccinated.

                    On that basis, for us to get 7,000 deaths, say over 2 years, we would need a population of 17.5m.

                    The death rate is around 2% of the total number of cases.

                    On that basis, for us to to get to 7,000 deaths, say over 2 years, we'd have to have a total of 175,000 cases.

                    Assuming my maths is correct (smiley), and acknowledging the 2 years is arbitrary, the 7,000 number doesn't pass any kind of reasonableness test.

                    • McFlock

                      So for a start, that's ~87% vax estimate. Not 80%. Hendy didn't project 7000 dead for 87%.

                      Secondly, the death toll is projected for one year from the first case of an outbreak, not 2.

                      Thirdly, that leaves half a million eligible people unvaccinated. Even if only a quarter of them catch it, with your 2% CFR that's a couple thousand dead right there, at 87% vaccination.

                  • Gypsy

                    "So for a start, that's ~87% vax estimate. Not 80%. Hendy didn't project 7000 dead for 87%."

                    Even at 8-%, the numbers don't add up.

                    "Secondly, the death toll is projected for one year from the first case of an outbreak, not 2."

                    Which makes the numbers even more absurd. To have that many deaths with our population would mean 350,000 cases out of a population of 4.917m, which is 7% of the population.

                    "Thirdly, that leaves half a million eligible people unvaccinated. Even if only a quarter of them catch it, with your 2% CFR that's a couple thousand dead right there, at 87% vaccination."

                    1. The unvaccinated are going to be far less vulnerable (as I said above, it is the more vulnerable who will have a higher uptake) so the death rate won't be anywhere near 2%.
                    2. The most affected age cohort is 20-29 years olds, who, without underlying conditions, would have a very good chance of survival.
                    3. A 25% infection rate is far too high IMHO. In 2020 there were 2174 confirmed cases out of an unvaccinated population of 4.917m. I’m not even going to try to type that minute %.
                    4. In the same period there were 25 deaths. That is a death rate of only 1.15%.
                    • McFlock

                      In 2020 we had level 4.

                      A quarter might be high, but 1 in 8 yanks have been infected. So let's halve that, 1/16, and take your revised death rate of 1.15%. That's about 420 dead.

                      Even at 8-%, the numbers don't add up.

                      So you'd be able to precisely describe the exact errors in the report for 80%, and what the true value should be.

                  • Gypsy

                    "In 2020 we had level 4."

                    Not the whole year we didn't.

                    "A quarter might be high, but 1 in 8 yanks have been infected."

                    But not 1 in 8 kiwi's. In the period before vaccinations, the infection rate in nz was 0.04% or 1 in every 2,500.

                    "So you'd be able to precisely describe the exact errors in the report for 80%, and what the true value should be."

                    That's for Hendy to resolve. He needs to explain why his modelling produces results that defy all mathematical reason.

                    • McFlock

                      We had L4 for the times we had covid in the community. That is why only a couple thou NZers have had covid by now, not an eighth of us. [edit: or do you think NZers have a natural immunity to covid19 that we can share with the rest of the world?]

                      He needs to explain why his modelling produces results that defy all mathematical reason.

                      Well, given that your projection for 87% >5yo vaccination results in 420 dead, and his projections for 85 & 90% are 1411 and 50 (respectively), you both seem to be in the same ballpark.

                      His only sin seems to be to have applied that math to vax levels in the 70-80% areas for different eligibility requirements. Do you think Hendy should not have presented the calculations for 70-80% vax rates?

                      Me, I like it when I get presented a range of options upon which to base a decision. Even the unrealistic options, so if someone asks a stupid question I can say why it's stupid (in a considerate and inclusive way, of course).

                  • Gypsy

                    "Me, I like it when I get presented a range of options upon which to base a decision."

                    Sure, but I'll go back to my business example. The range of options still need to be within the realms of mathematical believability. I don't think Hendy's are. But we can agree to disagree.

                    • McFlock

                      So you don't think NZ levelling off at a 70% or 80% vaccination rate isn't mathematically believable?

                      Or do you think there is something weird about NZ that reduces the R0 of covid19 to a fraction of it's level overseas?

                      You're not actually making any statements to agree or disagree with. You think Hendry's worst case scenario is unrealistic. Well, it's possible, but it's a worst-case scenario, if it turns out that a fifth of the country get persuaded to avoid vaccination. I hope it's unrealistic, because your opinion seems to be consistent with his math in the 85-90% modelling ballpark.

                      But I don't think it would be appropriate to just assume a mid-case or best-case scenario will eventuate.

                  • Gypsy

                    "So you don't think NZ levelling off at a 70% or 80% vaccination rate isn't mathematically believable?

                    I don't think the predicted outcomes are mathematically possible, given historical infection and mortality rates. A peer review would have asked those questions and resolved them.

                    • McFlock

                      Except you haven't raised any questions. You just say you don't like the numbers.

                      And using your own mortality figure, the 87% >5 vax rate has a mortality between Hendy's projections for 85% and 90%. So at least for the range of vax you find likely, his results aren't "mathematically impossible".

                      Perhaps you don't like the baseline R0 for delta: 6. What value do you believe it should be?

                      Do you think his range of estimates for pfizer effectiveness are far too low? Why?

                      Sure, the math for low achievement is scary, but it's backed up by experiences overseas.

                  • Gypsy

                    I’m not saying I don’t ‘like’ the numbers. I’m saying mathematically they make no sense.
                    1. The NZ Population is 4,917,000.
                    2. Hendy uses a Vac rate of 80% for over 5’s. let’s use 70%.
                    3. That leaves an unvaccinated population of 1,475,100.
                    4. In 2020, NZ had 2174 infections across an unvaccinated population. That is an infection rate of 0.0442%.
                    5. Apply 0.0442% to the unvaccinated population (1,475,100) and the result is 652 infections.
                    6. The case fatality rate for NZ is 0.65%.
                    7. That’s 4 deaths.

                    • Incognito

                      Seriously??

                      Your comment has more holes than a Swiss cheese skewered by Sir John Key at a cheese fondue.

                    • McFlock

                      4. In 2020, NZ had 2174 infections across an unvaccinated population. That is an infection rate of 0.0442%.

                      You think Hendy should assume that a population without level 3 or level 4 movement restrictions would have the same infection rate as a population that shut down entire sectors of its economy for months (and told people to stay at home for all but the most essential reasons for weeks)?

                      Please, go into more detail on that. I would love to know how months of lockdowns don't affect the infection rate of a communicable disease.

                  • Gypsy

                    "You think Hendy should assume that a population without level 3 or level 4 movement restrictions would have the same infection rate as a population that shut down entire sectors of its economy for months (and told people to stay at home for all but the most essential reasons for weeks)?"

                    I think Hendy should assume that the government would apply lockdown's consistently. And done some maths. To get to 7,000 deaths on those numbers would require an infection rate of 75%.

                    • Gypsy

                      McFlock here’s a variation on my original calculations using global data for Infection rate at 2.8538%, and Case fatality rate at 2.05%.

                      Number of deaths 863.

                    • McFlock

                      I think Hendy should assume that the government would apply lockdown's consistently

                      I think that various projections should include the full range of options being discussed by NZ politicians and public figures, including the leader of the opposition saying L4 wouldn't be necessary with 70% vaccination of 12+.

                    • McFlock

                      McFlock here’s a variation on my original calculations using global data for Infection rate at 2.8538%, and Case fatality rate at 2.05%.

                      Number of deaths 863.

                      National ranges within that global infection rate being from 0% to something like 12.5%.

                      So, zero, no worries.

                      But 1/8 of those 1,475,100 is 184,387 infections and 3,600 dead.

                      It would be great if it was zero, but I'm not going to bet nan's life on it.

                  • Gypsy

                    "I think that various projections should include the full range of options being discussed by NZ politicians and public figures, including the leader of the opposition saying L4 wouldn't be necessary with 70% vaccination of 12+."

                    OK, but the current government is in power at least until late 2023.

                    "National ranges within that global infection rate being from 0% to something like 12.5%. So, zero, no worries. But 1/8 of those 1,475,100 is 184,387 infections and 3,600 dead."

                    Yep, but then you'd have to almost double the mortality rate to get to 7,000 deaths.

                    Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

                    • McFlock

                      OK, but the current government is in power at least until late 2023.

                      Are you suggesting that Hendy shouldn't consider the full range of options in the public discussion simply because our government can do what it wants until 2023?

                      Yep, but then you'd have to almost double the mortality rate to get to 7,000 deaths.

                      So? Being off by 2% isn't exactly outside the realms of being "mathematically possible". Treasury forecasts routinely fail by more than that, particularly in election years:

                      Treasury officials had expected tomorrow's GDP figure to reveal a 23.5 per cent drop over the period from when New Zealand first went into lockdown.

                      But its updated numbers show it's now expecting that figure to be 16 per cent.

                      Maybe rather than having economists expounding forth upon epidemiological predictions we should have health researchers doing economic projections.

                  • Gypsy

                    Are you suggesting that Hendy shouldn't consider the full range of options in the public discussion simply because our government can do what it wants until 2023?

                    No, I’m suggesting any modelling should take into account the track record of the current government.

                    So? Being off by 2% isn't exactly outside the realms of being "mathematically possible".

                    It's not 2%. To get to 7,000 deaths, you have to assume an infection rate 280x what we have experienced (from 0.0442% to 12.5%), and a mortality rate 4x our historical experience and double the world average. Or a combination of those.

                    There are very few countries in the world with a mortality rate from confirmed cases above 4%.

                    • McFlock

                      No, I’m suggesting any modelling should take into account the track record of the current government.

                      Doesn't that do the country a disservice? What if collins were right and 70% was sufficient vax level to keep deaths to a minimum? Shouldn't Cabinet and the country be made aware of that? And shouldn't the Cabinet and the country be equally made aware that the data doesn't fit Collins' complacency?

                      It's not 2%. To get to 7,000 deaths, you have to assume an infection rate 280x what we have experienced (from 0.0442% to 12.5%),

                      Dude, enough with the 0.0442% bullshit. We're talking about doing without L3 and L4, not jumping the nation to L4 if there's a single covid-positive case.

                      and a mortality rate 4x our historical experience and double the world average. Or a combination of those.

                      There are very few countries in the world with a mortality rate from confirmed cases above 4%.

                      So it's not just mathematically possible, it's actually happened.

                  • Gypsy

                    Doesn't that do the country a disservice?

                    No. Go back and review the level of intervention built in to Hendy’s model and compare it to your Çollins’s cenario.

                    Dude, enough with the 0.0442% bullshit. We're talking about doing without L3 and L4, not jumping the nation to L4 if there's a single covid-positive case.

                    The 0.0442% is what actually happened. But hey use the world average infection rate of 2.8538%. You still need totally unrealistic variables to get to 7,000 deaths.

                    So it's not just mathematically possible, it's actually happened.

                    One variable. For a handful of countries out of hundreds. Now add all the others and you’ll see the 7,000 is not credible.

                    • McFlock

                      No. Go back and review the level of intervention built in to Hendy’s model and compare it to your Çollins’s cenario.

                      lol you'd better hope that not wanting to discriminate against unvaccinated people (i.e. vaccine passports) doesn't negate having L3 as an option, because at 70% 12+ the numbers are even worse.

                      And I'd still like to know how months at level 4 didn't impact our covid transmission rate, according to you.

                      But hey, you're now including in your global rate populous countries that took extreme measures to control covid, as well as populous countries that might be underreporting their death toll by 90%.

                      Personally, I'll go with the guy who accurately predicted our actual mortality rate given the controls we actually implemented rather than your gut feels and dodgy math.

                  • Gypsy

                    “And I'd still like to know how months at level 4 didn't impact our covid transmission rate, according to you.”

                    I’d like to know why you and Hendy would assume there’d BE no level 4.

                    “But hey, you're now including in your global rate populous countries that took extreme measures to control covid, as well as populous countries that might be underreporting their death toll by 90%.”

                    Only for one calculation. Feel free to come up with your variation that shows 7,000 deaths. Your assumptions would have to be heroic.

                    “Personally, I'll go with the guy who accurately predicted our actual mortality rate given the controls we actually implemented rather than your gut feels and dodgy math.”

                    You mean the guy who predicted one scenario with 80,000 deaths? That's 2% of our population! Geez that's 11 x what happened in Sweden!

                  • Gypsy

                    "So why are we vaccinating?"

                    Because people who are vaccinated still get covid.

                    "Sweden actually implemented some (half-arsed) controls in 2020."

                    Half arsed is right. And got not within a country mile of that mortality rate.

                    • McFlock

                      "So why are we vaccinating?"

                      Because people who are vaccinated still get covid.

                      Not sure that follows.

                      Half arsed is right. And got not within a country mile of that mortality rate.

                      But came pretty close to the lower end of options that are similar to what they actually did implement. About twice his estimate for "Case isolation, household quarantine, and population-wide social distancing"

                      They kept schools open, but "encouraged" social distancing, lots of people self-isolated, and so on. 14,000 dead in 10 million.

                      But I guess that's mathematically impossible, too.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram

                      "So why are we vaccinating?"

                      Because people who are vaccinated still get covid.

                      Not following that answer. Vaccination against COVID-19 decreases the risk of serious illness and death due to infection, with the added benefit of decreasing the chance of infecting others.

                      5 Things To Know About the Delta Variant [24 Sept 2021]
                      So, instead of a three- or four-year pandemic that peters out once enough people are vaccinated, an uptick in cases would be compressed into a shorter period of time. “That sounds almost like a good thing,” Dr. Wilson says. “It’s not.” If too many people are infected at once in a particular area, the local health care system will become overwhelmed, and more people will die, he says. “That’s something we have to worry about a lot.

                      Alberta, Canada: population 4.5 million (over half concentrated in two metropolitan areas centred on Calgary and Edmonton); ~80% white; good public health infrastructure; politically conservative.

                      Alberta's former chief medical officer of health calls for 'urgent' COVID-19 change [26 Sept 2021]
                      The disconnect between what is going on in the province and what frontline healthcare workers are experiencing is incredibly difficult, Talbot said.

                      "To deal with that psychological discrepancy between business as usual in the community and the hospital care system about to collapse, I don't know how you deal with that psychologically," he said.

                      Alberta doctors plead with new health minister for ‘fire break’ lockdown amid 4th COVID-19 wave [26 Sept 2021]
                      Albertans are now dying at a rate of 15 (per) day from COVID-19 with as many as 29 dying in a 24-hour period. This is frighteningly close to our worst experience in the pandemic, when 25 people (per) day were dying and far fewer people were immunized,” the letter stated.

                  • Gypsy

                    Sweden had an infection rate of 11% of total population, a death rate from cases of 1.29%, and a death rate to total population of .144%.

                    Apply those stats to the NZ population and the 80,000 death estimate is out by a factor of 11. It's not even close.

                    • Incognito

                      Is the average life expectancy of Māori and Pacific people in Sweden also many years shorter, as is the case in Aotearoa-New Zealand?

                    • McFlock

                      so you're saying that Sweden got within a factor of eleven of the theoretical do nothing / change nothing logical baseline for covid responses, while we took the most extreme option modelled and achieved a result that would require a factor of three hundred to match Sweden's deaths, and your takeaway is that the modelling is wrong because no accurate model could have an elevenfold difference between real-world results?

                  • Gypsy

                    "…your takeaway is that the modelling is wrong because no accurate model could have an elevenfold difference between real-world results?"

                    If you're ok with an 1100% difference then that's up to you. Given that was early in the life of the Covid experience (March 2020) we can cut him some slack, but it makes the heroic claims in the latest model even more inexcusable. That's why peer review is helpful.

                    • McFlock

                      The actual difference between NZ and Sweden's death tolls is 27 times the theoretical difference between the death toll Sweden actually achieved and the "do nothing / change nothing" projection for NZ.

                      Peer review ain't going to change that.

                  • Gypsy

                    "The actual difference between NZ and Sweden's death tolls is 27 times the theoretical difference between the death toll Sweden actually achieved and the "do nothing / change nothing" projection for NZ."

                    The difference between the modelled NZ death rate and the actual death rate in Sweden was a factor 11. No matter how much you try to spin it, a peer review would have picked up the mathematical absurdity of the 7,000 deaths prediction. The data around case numbers and mortality, local and global, would have shown up to any reviewer that the prediction of 7,000 deaths was, at best, hyperbole.

                    • McFlock

                      The difference between the modelled NZ death rate and the actual death rate in Sweden was a factor 11.

                      Which is small compared to the real-world range of mortality, and should of course one would expect Sweden to have a lower death count than the "do nothing, change nothing" scenario simply because they actually did some things and some people did change their behaviour.

                      A ferrari can be outrun by a mini if the mini is flooring it and the ferrari is half-arsing it.

                      No matter how much you try to spin it, a peer review would have picked up the mathematical absurdity of the 7,000 deaths prediction. The data around case numbers and mortality, local and global, would have shown up to any reviewer that the prediction of 7,000 deaths was, at best, hyperbole.

                      The model is fine. You have a problem with one of the assumptions around controls, yet that assumption (rule out lockdowns) is a recurring part of the public discourse, so it is proper to include those assumptions in that model.

                      I look forward to see you lobbying for lockdowns now and in the future. Should we be at level 4 right now? What does your modelling suggest?

                  • Gypsy

                    “Which is small compared to the real-world range of mortality”

                    The world has a total population mortality rate of 0.059%.

                    Iceland has 80% vaccinated and has a total population mortality rate of 0.01%.

                    Denmark has 75% vaccinated – population mortality 0.046%.

                    Ireland has 74% vaccinated – population mortality 0.105%.

                    And that includes deaths from before those countries had any of their population vaccinated.

                    At 80% vac rate, and the 'real world experience' for both cases and mortality, a prediction of 7,000 deaths is not mathematically sound.

                    “You have a problem with one of the assumptions around controls, yet that assumption (rule out lockdowns) is a recurring part of the public discourse, so it is proper to include those assumptions in that model.”

                    It's not the assumptions I have a problem with. The model produces predictions for deaths that are mathematically absurd. When the estimate of deaths popped out of the model, that should have been reviewed.

                    • Incognito

                      Let’s compare apples with apples and Delta with Delta.

                      Denmark, for example, has just over 75% of its population fully vaccinated, which means about 90% of its eligible people aged 12+ if their age distribution is similar to NZ (I can’t be bothered checking this, but it won’t be miles off, I reckon).

                      They have recently lifted most but not yet quite all domestic restrictions.

                      The 7-day average of daily new cases is ca. 350.

                      The 7-day average of hospitalisations is just over 100.

                      The 7-day average of patients in intensive care is ca. 25.

                      The 7-day average number of daily deaths is between 2 and 3.

                      The recent modelling by Te Pūnaha Matatini for 90% vaccination of 12+ population, i.e. ca. 76% of total NZ population, predicted 21, 1557, and 6623 deaths over one year in NZ with High, Central, and Low vaccine effectiveness estimates (assumptions), respectively. Although it would not pan out this way during an outbreak, as per the model, 1557 deaths averaged over one year equals just over 4 deaths per day.

                      Given that NZ demographics are different, e.g. we have a high percentage of Māori and Pasifika people who are more vulnerable and at higher risk of dying from Covid-19, I think the modelling predictions for NZ look eminently realistic to me.

                    • McFlock

                      It's not the assumptions I have a problem with. The model produces predictions for deaths that are mathematically absurd. When the estimate of deaths popped out of the model, that should have been reviewed.

                      Except your numbers for 87% produced a result between Hendy's 85% and 90% projections.

                      You then said that the assumption of no level 3 or 4 was what was unrealistic. Now you don't have a problem with the assumptions.

                      Make up your mind.

                  • Gypsy

                    “Except your numbers for 87% produced a result between Hendy's 85% and 90% projections.”

                    “You then said that the assumption of no level 3 or 4 was what was unrealistic. Now you don't have a problem with the assumptions.”

                    You're getting confused between the inputs and the controls. I have never expressed doubt about the control assumptions. I have been very clear that it is at the extreme high end of the model that Hendy has it wrong. Not because of control assumptions but because his input data for infection rate and case mortality rates (at 80% vaccination rate) do not match real world data.

                  • Gypsy

                    "So you're happy with the assumption that L4 and L3 will not be used under a high vaccination rate?”

                    Yes. If I’m challenging the models output, I need to use the control assumptions consistent with that model for that output.

                    • McFlock

                      Then why do you insist on using NZ infection and mort rates from last year and this year, when L3/4 were the main tools for infection control?

                  • Gypsy

                    "Then why do you insist on using NZ infection and mort rates from last year and this year, when L3/4 were the main tools for infection control?"

                    Fair question.

                    1. No-one was vaccinated in NZ in 2020. So I'm assuming that a high vaccination rate going forward would offset the gains from L3 and L4 lockdowns in 2020.
                    2. I also used the global average data, which brings in the whole global mix of control measures with zero vaccination rates.
                    3. I accept that if those historical infection rates and/or case mortality rates are wrong, my calculations are affected.
                    • McFlock

                      No-one was vaccinated in NZ in 2020. So I'm assuming that a high vaccination rate going forward would offset the gains from L3 and L4 lockdowns in 2020.

                      By how much? It's highly unlikely they'd be an exact substitute, one for the other. I also note that assuming no L3/4 is the exact opposite of what you wrote in the discussion here:

                      I think Hendy should assume that the government would apply lockdown's consistently.

                      But now you're okay with that assumption, we can move on. You're using L3/4 transmission rates because you believe L3&L4 to have an effectiveness equivalent to vaccination.

                      I also used the global average data, which brings in the whole global mix of control measures with zero vaccination rates.

                      So is therefore likely a massive undercount of identified cases and includes data from countries that used measures even more restrictive than NZ. China alone would skew your stats.

                      Let's go back to first principles: what's your R0 for delta?

                      How is that R0 affected by moderate mitigation measures – L1/L2, tracing, isolation of cases and contacts, etc?

                      What vaccine efficacy are you going with?

                      How do your values for any of these numbers differ from Hendy's?

                  • Gypsy

                    "So is therefore likely a massive undercount of identified cases and includes data from countries that used measures even more restrictive than NZ. China alone would skew your stats."

                    Sure. But then the stats also include a significant period when no-one within the population were vaccinated. There is also the possibility that in some countries the death rate has been overreported in situations where people died WITH covid as opposed to OF covid.

                    "Let's go back to first principles"

                    Yes, let's. I've made it clear I'm not questioning any of Hendy's assumptions, because I'm not creating a new model. I'm applying a mathematical 'sanity test' to a particular output from the model, using real world historical data. Hendy may well have done the same thing and been satisfied with the variation.

                    • McFlock

                      I'm applying a mathematical 'sanity test' based on my gut feels to a particular output from the executive summary of the model from the people who accurately predicted NZ's death count to 0.00005%, using real world historical data including data I know to be invalid.

                      Fixed it for you.

                  • Gypsy

                    "I'm applying a mathematical 'sanity test'…"

                    There is no 'gut feels' at all, just maths and actual historical data. It's not like I'm the only one querying Hendy's outputs.

                    • McFlock

                      No gut feels, except for your estimate of likely vaccine coverage.

                      edit: I’ll also point out that while you and one or two others throw shade at Hendy’s report, none of you actually point out (let alone resolve) exactly where Hendy’s model falls down. Sure, you’re an internet whatevs, but Jones could literally peer review it himself, argue about the vaccine efficacy or R0 inputs that lead to the outputs that he has a problem with.

                      But for some reason the extent of that peer’s “review” is to complain peers haven’t reviewed it.

                  • Gypsy

                    "No gut feels, except for your estimate of likely vaccine coverage."

                    Which had absolutely nothing to do with the maths. In fact that comment starts with “I’m not ‘projecting…”. But you knew that eh.

                    • McFlock

                      But that's the problem you've created for yourself: you say that Hendy's projections are not mathematically possible, and when asked for the math that leads you to this conclusion you come up with utter bullshit and biased assumptions – like L3/L4 reducing infection rates in precisely the same proportion as NZ's eventual vax rates and vax efficacy.

                      But when challenged on that math, you're "not projecting" and suddenly the numbers upon which "not mathematically possible" are based disappear.

                      If you can demonstrate his numbers are shit, fine. But every time you get called on your own working, suddenly you're not providing any basis upon which to criticise the work.

                  • Gypsy

                    "and when asked for the math that leads you to this conclusion you come up with utter bullshit and biased assumptions"

                    I'm using a mathematical approach that incorporates real world historical data. The only 'assumption' I'm making is that that data can inform the mathematical calculations. Given that the numbers Hendy claims have been called out by others, I'm in good company.

                    • McFlock

                      Assumptions you make include:

                      • the effects of vaccination are consistent with the effects of L3&L4 (otherwise NZ's transmission rates in 2020 are not relevant to calculations about a vaccinated society that does not use L3 or L4)
                      • The the global aggregate rates of infection is consistent with the NZ rates of infection when we are highly vaccinated (although many people around the globe have been subject to controls far in excess of those in NZ in 2020, and national official tallies of covid dead have, in some nations, been politicised or are inaccurate for other reasons)
                      • that no mathematically possible projection could be accurate and eleven times more severe than a nation that doesn't even meet the criteria for that projection (despite the variations in real-world data including differences of several orders of magnitude)

                      There are probably others, but those are more than enough to suggest that your gut feels could do more homework.

                  • Gypsy

                    "Assumptions you make include:"

                    No, I'm not making those assumptions at all, and when objections have been raised to the validity of the historical data as a predicter, I've replaced those values with a range of more negative data. Unless you want to take a position that makes heroic assumptions about infection and mortality rates, Hendy's 'worst case scenario' doesn't stack up.

                    [You’re repeating the same lie again that one of Hendy’s many (!) predicted outcomes (i.e. your all-time favourite of 7000 deaths) was the worst case scenario when it has been pointed out to you that it is not the worst case scenario at all. This is starting to look deliberate and intentional and as wilfully misunderstanding, ignoring, and misrepresenting the work by Hendy et al.

                    If you must insist, the real worst case simulated outcome in the study is 20,102 deaths (cf. first row of Table 3 in the column with Low VE).

                    If you keep up with the lies, you’ll know what will happen, don’t you? – Incognito]

                    • McFlock

                      No, I'm not making those assumptions at all, and when objections have been raised to the validity of the historical data as a predicter, I've replaced those values with a range of more negative data

                      Yes, you've become more and more surreal in your efforts to get the result you want.

                      But if you're not assuming that historical values in NZ 2020 will match the values when covid hits a highly vaccinated NZ, and you're not assuming that the global aggregate values (that run the gamut of responses and reporting protocols) will match the values when covid hits a highly vaccinated NZ, just what values are you desperately cherry-picking now in order to support your predetermined position?

                      I am beginning to believe your claim that you "do a lot of business scenario modelling". You probably specialise in justifying to managers and clients their already preferred course of action.

                    • Incognito

                      See my Moderation note @ 11:29 am.

          • Gypsy 16.1.2.1.2

            "You probably specialise in justifying to managers and clients their already preferred course of action."

            No, I run an international business. My ability to sniff out bogus data and sanity test outputs from models is part of what keeps producing returns for the people I work for and me in my job.

            • McFlock 16.1.2.1.2.1

              lol whatevs.

              I'm genuinely curious to your answer to this question, though:

              But if you're not assuming that historical values in NZ 2020 will match the values when covid hits a highly vaccinated NZ, and you're not assuming that the global aggregate values (that run the gamut of responses and reporting protocols) will match the values when covid hits a highly vaccinated NZ, just what values are you desperately cherry-picking now in order to support your predetermined position?

              • Gypsy

                I've already answered that.

                The only 'assumption' I'm making is that that data can inform the mathematical calculations.

                Remember I have flexed those numbers by even higher infection and case mortality rates, and still hendy's number looks suss.

                • McFlock

                  "those numbers"? What numbers are you actually using?

                  • Gypsy

                    The historical data for infection rate and case mortality rate.

                    • McFlock

                      Which historical data? Because apparently you're using neither global aggregate nor NZ data from last year.

                  • Gypsy

                    "Because apparently you're using neither global aggregate nor NZ data from last year."

                    That's exactly what I'm using. (I think at one point I quoted the 2020 CMR for NZ at 0.65% (which was actually the total CMR), which I later corrected to 1.15%).

                    I've just updated the numbers as follows:

                    NZ

                    Infection Rate 2020 0.0442%/Total 0.0864%

                    Case Mortality Rate 2020 1.15%/Total 0.64%

                    Population Mortality Rate 2020 0.0005%/Total 0.0005%

                    World

                    IR 2020 1.06%/Total 2.96%

                    CMR 2020 2.31%/Total 2.05%

                    PMR 2020 0.025%/Total 0.061%

                    So, taking a NZ population of 4,917,00, if we apply the World PMR for 2020 we get 1,200 deaths. To get to 7,000 deaths we would need a PMR of 0.15%, which is x273 the actual historic NZ PMR (both for 2020 and total), x2.5 the total world PMR and x6 the world 2020 PMR.

                    As you’ve rightly pointed out, there may well be reporting issues with the global numbers, but there are plenty of countries we can trust. For example, the PMR’s for Iceland = 0.010%, Denmark = 0.046%, Singapore = 0.002%, Norway = 0.016%, Australia = 0.005%, Canada 0.074%.

                    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-toll/

                    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

                    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1103040/cumulative-coronavirus-covid19-cases-number-worldwide-by-day/

                  • Gypsy

                    "So you are making assumptions that:"

                    No, I'm not. You’re first link goes to precisely that comment (“The only ‘assumption’ I’m making is that that data can inform the mathematical calculations.”)

                    It seems to me you can't actually find a flaw in the maths, so how do you propose we would get to a PMR x273 the actual historic NZ PMR (both for 2020 and total), x2.5 the total world PMR and x6 the world 2020 PMR?

                    • McFlock

                      I'm assuming nothing other than the historical data is a reasonable basis for future projections. That includes "assuming that a high vaccination rate going forward would offset the gains from L3 and L4 lockdowns in 2020."

                      But you denied making that assumption in this comment.

                      The flaw is in you having a methodology written in preferential quantum mechanics: when a specific aspect of your position is observed, rather than collapsing randomly your superposition collapses in the direction you most prefer at that instant.

                  • Gypsy

                    "But you denied making that assumption in this comment."

                    No, I didn't. I'm making no assumptions other than that the historical data is relevant to future predictions. If you want to state that those assumptions are implicit in whether the historical data fits is up to you. Of course you can always try to show how the historical data does not fit.

                    "…your superposition collapses in the direction you most prefer at that instant."

                    No, again. Because the argument I'm putting forward is simply that a predicted outcome is substantially at variance with historical data, and, that to arrive at that predicted outcome requires a flexing of the key components that is too large to be viable.

                    • McFlock

                      Of course you can always try to show how the historical data does not fit.

                      frownfrownfrown

                      fucksake.

                      Assuming that you're not expecting me to compare historic data with the actual data from future events, I'll just say that:

                      • the effects of vaccination are highly unlikely to be consistent with the effects of L3&L4, so NZ's transmission rates in 2020 are not relevant to calculations about a vaccinated society that does not use L3 or L4
                      • The the global aggregate rates of infection include many people around the globe have been subject to controls far in excess of those in NZ in 2020, and national official tallies of covid dead have (in some nations) been politicised or are inaccurate for other reasons. Therefore those aggregate rates are unlikely to be consistent with the NZ rates of infection when we are highly vaccinated .

                      Just keep with your circular bullshit. You're assuming the data fits without making any assumption on how very different conditions might or might not affect that consistency? Fair enough. Meanwhile, Hendy let the data form his projections, not the other way around.

        • Drowsy M. Kram 16.1.2.2

          Six links to two reports on economist Rodney Jones' critique. Anyone else getting the impression Jones’ critique is being spruiked more than the original modelling?

    • Incognito 16.2

      What part don’t you understand about hard-to-reach communities?

      • Gypsy 16.2.1

        "I think the modelling predictions for NZ look eminently realistic to me."

        The 7 day average daily deaths gives a mortality rate of 0.0189%. To get 7,000 deaths in NZ would need a mortality rate of 0.1424%, a factor of 8 higher than your example, so you seem to have reinforced my point.

        You can think whatever you like, but to get 7,000 deaths at 80% vaccination is simply not plausible.

        • Incognito 16.2.1.1

          The same model predicts 1557 deaths over a one year-period at a population vaccination level similar to Denmark’s assuming Central vaccine effectiveness. Denmark’s steady stream of Covid-19 deaths, which is not an outbreak as per the model, would add up to between ca. 730 and 1095 deaths over a period of one year. I think that is pretty close to 1557, don’t you agree?

          I know you’re trying hard but you’re not making the correct comparisons and assumptions here.

          • Gypsy 16.2.1.1.1

            My point has always been to question the 7,000 deaths number (and the earlier 80,000 number), ie the worst case scenarios. The low and mid range scenarios may well be fine.

            • Incognito 16.2.1.1.1.1

              You can question whatever you choose, but the model/modelling appears sound to me; you simply don’t like the results and you try desperately to find fault with it by making incorrect comparisons and assumptions to confirm your cognitive bias.

              Why are you so hung up on that one single predicted number of 7000 anyway? There are whole tables with predicted numbers in the study report, yet you cherry pick that one!? Is it because the media zoomed in on that one too? In which case you’re not very original nor an independent critical thinker, it seems.

              With slightly different input parameter values, we go from 1557 to 7004 deaths. Neither is a worst-case scenario, which would be 6623 and 11870 deaths, respectively, assuming Low vaccine effectiveness.

              If ca 4 deaths per day seems an acceptable (does it?), as in realistic, model prediction then why is 7000 deaths over one year all of a sudden unacceptable, as in unrealistic and “not mathematically sound”, “mathematically absurd”, “mathematically they make no sense”, “mathematically implausible”, and other emotional outbursts of utter disbelief? You cannot have it both ways.

              Please put your IQ to work and come up with a better rebuttal because as it stands, you’re simply wasting your own and our time with frivolous pseudo-analysis.

              PS We have dealt with that 80,000 number previously, but if you don’t want to learn anything here then we’re indeed wasting our time with you.

              • Gypsy

                It's really quite simple. Given NZ's population, real world results for infection and mortality, the 7,000 prediction was always mathematically ropey. I've repeatedly evidenced that, and your own example (Denmark) confirmed it, even if only for a 7 day period.

                "Why are you so hung up on that one single predicted number of 7000 anyway? "
                Public policy is based on these models. They should be peer reviewed, and I’m confident the questions I’m raising would have been asked.

                “With slightly different input parameter values, we go from 1557 to 7004 deaths. ”
                Not so. The input variables to get to 7,000 deaths in the NZ situation require inputs so far in excess of real world data as to be implausible. That’s the point.

                “If ca 4 deaths per day seems an acceptable (does it?), as in realistic, model prediction then why is 7000 deaths over one year all of a sudden unacceptable,”
                Because the difference between 1,400 deaths and 7,000 deaths is significant. More than significant.

                • Incognito

                  sigh and groan

                  I like your word choice “mathematically ropey”, which is a very apt description of your own ‘evidence’ and algebraic acrobatic contortions.

                  Do you know what a 7-day average is AKA 7-day rolling average AKA 7-day moving average? It seems not.

                  The Danish actual data are actually quite close to the model predictions for NZ.

                  The model results inform in different ways then you seem to think. Policies and Public Health measures are not based on a single model prediction and most certainly not on your personal favourite of 7000.

                  Peer review is not about to change the model predictions to numbers that you find more ‘plausible’.

                  From the not-yet-peer-reviewed technical study by Te Pūnaha Matatini:

                  Results from both Te Pūnaha Matatini’s SEIR vaccination model [3] and the ESR model [4] suggest that if the reproduction number is even slightly greater than 1, fatalities would be measured in thousands, despite high vaccine coverage.

                  Reference [4] has been peer-reviewed by and published in a top medical/science journal.

                  For example:

                  Where 0–11 year olds are not vaccinated and total population uptake is 80% (the maximum uptake is 84.9% and HIT [herd immunity threshold] is not achieved) there is an estimated 37,700 total hospitalisations (peak 2,980 active and 343 new daily cases in hospitals), and 3,120 total deaths.

                  Looks like both studies are quite consistent too.

                  Edit: you were still editing your comment and I missed your last two paragraphs and you changed some other wording too, I noticed. It doesn’t fundamentally change my reply.

                  You need to get over your mental block and bias of what you find plausible and implausible; in science you don’t get to pick and choose based on what you like and/or prefer. In non-linear models such as these, a slight change in parameter values can have major impact on output values; this is the nature of the beast and many beasts are exponential or power functions. The term/concept “significant” has a specific meaning in modelling and it is not how you use it.

                  • Gypsy

                    The danish data is not ‘quite close to the model predictions’ if you're looking at the most recent Hendy model

                    “Where 0–11 year olds are not vaccinated and total population uptake is 80% (the maximum uptake is 84.9% and HIT [herd immunity threshold] is not achieved) there is an estimated 37,700 total hospitalisations (peak 2,980 active and 343 new daily cases in hospitals), and 3,120 total deaths.”
                    The hospitalisation rate (1%) is about right, but the case mortality rate is 8x the NZ data and 4x the global averages. Now that there is a problem.

              • Gypsy

                Put simply:

                NZ Population is 4,917,000

                In 2020, the infection rate across the entire population (all of whom were unvaccinated) was 0.0042% (2,174/4,917,000).

                The case mortality was 25 or a case mortality rate of 1.15% (25/2,174).

                At 80% vaccination rate, the unvaccinated population is 983,400.

                983,000 x 0.0042% = 435 cases.

                435 x 1.15% = 5 deaths.

                And here's the kicker:

                Even if we apply the global infection rate of 2.8538% to the entire NZ population (meaning zero vaccine efficacy), and the global case mortality rate at 2.08%, we only get 2,900 deaths.

                • Incognito

                  sigh and groan again

                  Wrong numbers, wrong assumptions, wrong conclusions AKA garbage in, garbage out.

                  Here’s one kicker for you: the Te Pūnaha Matatini study explicitly rules out Level 3 and 4 restrictions. Question for you: how many times did we have these in 2020?

                  Here’s another kicker for you: the Te Pūnaha Matatini study assumes the following:

                  Simulated outbreaks are seeded with an average of 1 case per day arriving at the border and entering the community. This approximately represents a situation where current tight border restrictions are relaxed, but strong border controls remain in place to limit the number of infectious travel-related cases entering the community

                  Question for you: do these conditions apply to NZ in 2020?

                  Here’s another kicker for you: the Te Pūnaha Matatini study is specifically for the Delta variant. Question for you: which was the dominant variant in NZ in 2020?

                  I could just go on, but knowing that you’re identical to a previous commenter here who refused to admit that they were wrong when it was blatantly obvious this was the case, and which ultimately led to a ban, I’ll stop here and now because it gives me no joy banning somebody who so obviously just doesn’t get it. Just be careful that you don’t spread misinformation about Covid-19 vaccination and ignorance is no excuse and wilful ignorance is just irksome.

                  • Gypsy

                    "Question for you: how many times did we have these in 2020?"

                    How many people were vaccinated in 2020? None.

                    The model output we’re focusing on is at 80% vaccinated.

                    Do you seriously think that with no controls but 80% vaccinated the global average data is not applicable?

                    • Incognito

                      What I read is the assumptions and caveats of the Te Pūnaha Matatini study, which you don’t seem to have taken in and/or understood. It models the effects of various levels of controls, it assumes various levels of controls, it is a lot more nuanced than you seem to think and a lot more realistic based on real world data as much as possible, contrary to your belief. Why don’t you read it, let it sink in, and learn something before you comment here and put your biased and wilful ignorance on full display? You know what often happens to people who win millions in Lotto? They think they have won a couple of thousand because they simply cannot comprehend the truth at first. You remind me of those lucky ones who cannot believe their eyes, but in a negative way.

                      You can’t even answer my simple questions because your bias gets in the way and you know it.

                  • Gypsy

                    "What I read is the assumptions and caveats of the Te Pūnaha Matatini study, which you don’t seem to have taken in and/or understood. It models the effects of various levels of controls,"

                    You're totally missing the point.

                    I'm not arguing the control assumptions. I'm not arguing the caveats.

                    I'm saying that working WITH those assumptions and caveats, the prediction of 7,000 deaths requires either an infection rate or case mortality rate (or a combination of the two) that is outside of any acceptable deviation from the historical real world data. Now if you disagree, then show me where I've got the actual calculations wrong.

                    • Incognito

                      Now if you disagree, then show me where I’ve got the actual calculations wrong.

                      Read the study and the references therein and once you’ve done that and understood all of that get back to us, thanks.

    • Drowsy M. Kram 16.3

      400 more Kiwis vaccinated – outstanding! Keep up the good work.

    • joe90 16.4

      vaccinated 400 people!

      So, saving lives.

  17. Andre 17

    Dealing with a covid outbreak with a low-vaccinated population is going to be very difficult to do without extended lockdowns. Lockdowns curtail actual Bill of Rights rights to freedom of movement, freedom of association, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of religion.

    With a highly vaccinated population, outbreaks can be suppressed with much less restrictive measures that at worst very lightly restrict those rights.

    So it's simple, bring on the vaccine passports. Those that value refusing one of the safest, cheapest, lowest risk, most thoroughly tested medical interventions ever devised can live the lockdown life by themselves, not force the lockdown life on to everyone else.

    The right to refuse medical treatment does not confer any rights beyond one's own skin. It does not confer the right to be a willful health and safety to everyone around you, whether at work, at the supermarket, at a concert, wherever.

    The other thing really needed urgently from this government is clear legislation that "no jab, no job" workplace policies are totally justifiable on health and safety grounds, and that the current circumstances make it totally fine to unilaterally add that in to existing employment contracts.

  18. Enough is Enough 18

    Although I suspect we will still come out miles on top, it is a little premature comparing death rates. This pandemic still has a long long way to go.

    In the next 12 months though we are going to see and feel some of the pain that most of the rest of the world expereinced in 2020.

    90% vaccination still leaves half a million of our friends, neighbours, brothers, sisters, colleagues etc unvaccinated. Whatever their reaons are, some of them will get very sick, and some of them will die when we open the doors. There is no way around that.

    • Cricklewood 18.1

      Yep, will be a reasonably solid number of double vaxxed people fall seriously ill usually older (over 60) and/or with other pre existing issues on top of the unvaxxed.

  19. Andre 19

    Am I the only one going hmmmmm at the ongoing stereotyping grouping together of KFC customers and "vaccine hesitants"?

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300413828/covid19-govt-considering-vaccinating-people-in-fast-food-queues

    • Patricia Bremner 19.1

      Perhaps in Auckland, this the reason to come out.

    • AB 19.2

      Nope – you're not the only one.

      Also, would eating residual antibiotics or hormones in the chicken (assuming they survive deep-frying and the application of 'secret herbs and spices') be common practice in the chemophobic?

  20. William 20

    Does anybody know where to find a copy of the Shaun Hendy modelling report?

  21. UncookedSelachimorpha 21

    I think we can get to a good place with encouragement rather than coercion. Peer pressure will help – if everyone at work has been vaccinated and obviously had no serious issue, you start to feel a bit stupid being the only one refusing.

    I would reserve coercion for anti-vaxxers – not getting them vaccinated, but public distribution of vaccine misinformation should be criminalised. So putting antivax leaflets in letterboxes, harrassing people outside schools etc should be a crime.

    • Anne 21.1

      Yes. Said the same thing here the other day. Its the way to go because in the current circumstances it is a crime. No need to use bans. Just prevent them from spreading disinformation. Stops them causing any further damage.

    • McFlock 21.2

      Personally, I don't think there's any need to talk coercion yet.

      The low-hanging fruit is done, for the next 10% or so I reckon we'll need the ladders to reach out. Our health inequities bite us in the arse around the mid 80s, and a chunk of folks will grumble but do it when employers start asking (then insisting), and being the odd ones out who haven't done it.

      If we look at kids and their vax schedules(p66), we are pretty good at hitting 90%, but the caveat on that is that we miss it dismally at the six month schedule and "hesitancy" is only a part of that (~5% for all reasons). A lot of it is access to healthcare and barriers – not just financial ones, the gamut of socioeconomic inequity, language, education, transport, etcetcetc.

      Buggered if I'm going to take L4 as a risk for another 18 months just because we're shit at addressing equity in a timely manner, though.

  22. zee 23

    Mr Parker said Hager had been painted as a villain by the Government after the release of his book and today’s findings vindicated him.

  23. Mark 24

    Actually giving people a $25 voucher would likely be more effective at upping the vaccination rates and money a good deal better spent than millions on any other form of advertising and propaganda

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Tokelau champions language and culture
    COVID-19 continues to be a powerful reminder of the importance of language and culture to the wellbeing of our Pacific communities, said the Minister for Pacific Peoples, Aupito William Sio. “Our Tokelau community in Aotearoa has responded strongly to the challenges of the global pandemic by getting vaccinated and supporting ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    11 hours ago
  • Festival drug-checking services get a boost
    The Government is financially supporting drug-checking services to help keep young people safe at this summer’s large festivals and events, Health Minister Andrew Little says. “This is not about condoning drug use, but about keeping people safe,” Andrew Little said. “There is clear evidence that having drug-checking services at festivals ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Expanded vaccination order for health and disability, education and prison workers
    A newly-signed Order means most people working in three key sectors will very soon need to be vaccinated against COVID-19 for the sake of themselves, their workmates and their communities, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins has confirmed. The extended COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order 2021 comes into effect ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • APEC finance ministers focus on inclusive, sustainable COVID recovery
    APEC finance ministers will continue to work together to respond to the effects of COVID-19 and ensure a sustainable and inclusive recovery while capitalising on the opportunity to build a more resilient future. The New Zealand Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson chaired the virtual APEC Finance ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Improvements to child and maternity facilities at Timaru Hospital on track
    Improvements to child and maternity facilities at Timaru Hospital are well underway, and the next stage of the project will begin next month. Health Minister Andrew Little visited Timaru Hospital today to view progress onsite. “The improvements are part of South Canterbury DHB’s four-year refurbishment project and will create a ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Govt responds to independent review into WorkSafe
    The Government has clear expectations that WorkSafe must action the recommendations of the independent review into the regulator to improve its management of adventure activities following the tragedy at Whakaari White Island, Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Michael Wood says. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) today released the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Prevention funding to reduce tamariki in care
    A new iwi-led prevention programme will receive funding from Oranga Tamariki to help reduce the number of tamariki and rangatahi coming into state care, Children’s Minister Kelvin Davis has announced. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu (Te Rūnanga) will receive $25.9m of Oranga Tamariki funding over three years to improve outcomes ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Transforming New Zealand’s mental health legislation
    Public consultation is now open for Aotearoa New Zealand to have a say on the repeal and replacement of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. “’He Ara Oranga, the report of the Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction’ made it clear that we needed to replace ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • COVID-19 Protection Framework
    Kia ora koutou katoa Today I’m speaking directly to all New Zealanders to share a plan that will help us stay safe from COVID-19 into the future. A future where we want to continue to protect people’s lives, but also to live our lives – as safely as possible. Our ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Business boost to transition to new COVID framework
    We know that over the last twenty months the approach New Zealand has taken to COVID and Delta has saved lives and livelihoods. Along with one of the lowest mortality rates in the world, we have also had strong economic growth, low unemployment and one of the lower levels of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • COVID-19 funding boost to protect maōri communities
    Tēnā koutou katoa As you have heard from the Prime Minister, the new protection framework will support us to keep people safe especially our vulnerable communities and minimize the impact COVID-19 has on business and our day to day lives. If you want to protect yourself, your whanau and your ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • New COVID-19 Protection Framework delivers greater freedoms for vaccinated New Zealanders
    New COVID-19 Protection Framework provides pathway out of lockdown and ability for businesses and events to re-open to vaccinated New Zealanders Simpler framework to minimise cases and hospitalisations without use of widespread lockdowns Auckland to move into the new framework when 90 percent of eligible population in each of the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • New fund to accelerate Māori vaccinations
    The Government has established a $120 million fund to accelerate Māori vaccination rates and support communities to prepare for the implementation of the new COVID-19 Protection Framework. The new Māori Communities COVID-19 Fund will directly fund Māori, Iwi, community organisations and providers to deliver local vaccination initiatives for whānau, and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Government extends hardship assistance for low income workers
    Income limits for Hardship Support through the Ministry of Social Development have been temporarily lifted so more people can recieve assistance. “Cabinet has agreed to make it easier for low income workers to recieve assistance for items such as food and other emergency costs,” Carmel Sepuloni said. “We know the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • More support for learners with highest needs
    Students most in need of extra help in the classroom are the focus of a new review that gets under way today, Associate Education Minister Jan Tinetti says. About 50,000-80,000 children and young people are expected to benefit from a Ministry of Education review into Highest Need Learners that will ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Parts of Waikato to stay at Alert Level 3 for next six days
    The parts of Waikato that have been in Alert Level 3 will remain at that alert level till Wednesday, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “Based on the latest public health information, maintaining level 3 in those parts of the Waikato continues to be the most prudent course of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Hon Peeni Henare September 2021 Proactive Diary Release
    ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • NZ passes world-first climate reporting legislation
    New Zealand has become the first country in the world to pass a law that will ensure financial organisations disclose and ultimately act on climate-related risks and opportunities, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Dr David Clark and Climate Change Minister James Shaw today announced today. The Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Prime Minister NZ UK FTA opening remarks
    Tēnā koutou katoa. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou katoa. I am delighted to announce today that following a conversation with Prime Minister Johnson last night, New Zealand and the United Kingdom have Agreed in Principle a historic high-quality, comprehensive and inclusive free trade agreement. I’m joined today by the Minister ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • New Zealand secures historic free trade deal with the United Kingdom
    A boost of almost $1 billion to New Zealand GDP, unprecedented access for New Zealand exporters to the UK market UK to eliminate all tariffs on New Zealand exports, with over 97% being removed the day the FTA comes into force NZ exporters to save approx. $37.8 million per year ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Quarterly benefit numbers show more people in work
    Benefit figures released today show a year on year fall of 9,807 people receiving a Main Benefit in the September Quarter.  “The Government is working hard to tackle COVID-19 and it is clear our strong response to the initial outbreak has created a resilient labour market which is providing opportunities ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Health reforms bill introduced to Parliament
    Legislation central to fixing the health system has been introduced into Parliament by Health Minister Andrew Little. “Rebuilding the public health system is critical to laying the foundations for a better future for all New Zealanders,” Andrew Little said. “We need a system that works for everybody, no matter who ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • NCEA and NZ Scholarship Exams to proceed
    NCEA and New Zealand Scholarship exams will proceed, including in areas where Alert Level 3 has been in place, Education Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “The New Zealand Qualifications Authority, Ministry of Education and Ministry of Health have been working together to ensure exams can be managed in a safe ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Limited change to onsite learning – for senior secondary students – in Level 3 regions
    Onsite learning at schools in Level 3 regions will start from next week for senior secondary school students to prepare for end of year exams, Education Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “Secondary schools in these regions will start onsite learning for years 11 to 13 on Tuesday 26 October,” Chris ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Guaranteed MIQ spots for health workers
    The Government is changing the way managed isolation is co-ordinated for health workers, guaranteeing 300 spots a month for the health and disability sector. “Our world-class workforce is vital in rebuilding the health system and dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic,” Andrew Little said. “Whether it’s bringing doctors or nurses in ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Govt helps to protect New Zealanders digital identities
    Making it easier for New Zealanders to safely prove who they are digitally and control who has access to that information is one step closer to becoming law, Minister for Digital Economy and Communications, Dr David Clark said. The Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill passed its first reading today ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Red tape cut to boost housing supply
    New building intensification rules will mean up to three homes of up to three storeys can be built on most sites without the need for a resource consent New rules will result in at least 48,200 and as many as 105,500 new homes built in next 5-8 years Bringing forward ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Nationwide business partnership grows conservation jobs
    Further Government support for New Zealand’s longest-standing sustainable business organisation will open up opportunities for dozens of workers impacted by COVID-19 to jump start a nature-based career, Conservation Minister Kiri Allan says. Partnering to Plant Aotearoa, led by the Sustainable Business Network (SBN), is a collaboration with iwi, hapū and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • New Zealand increases climate aid contribution
    Government commits $1.3 billion over four years to support countries most vulnerable to the effects of climate change At least 50 percent of funding will go to the Pacific as it adapts to the impacts of climate change The increase means New Zealand now meets its fair share of global ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Super Māori turnout for Super Saturday
    Māori have put a superb effort into mobilising to get vaccinated over Super Saturday, with thousands rolling up their sleeves to protect themselves, their whānau and communities from COVID-19, Associate Health Minister Peeni Henare says. “It was absolutely outstanding that 21,702 Māori got vaccinated on this one day alone with 10,825 ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Language assists Tagata Niue to thrive
    Despite the uncertain times we face with the challenges of COVID-19, our cultural knowledge, values and language remain constant, helping us progress towards goals in life, said  the Minister for Pacific Peoples Aupito William Sio. This year, the Niuean community in New Zealand decided on the theme, “Kia tupuolaola e ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New Zealand Ambassador to France announced
    Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta today announced the appointment of Caroline Bilkey as New Zealand’s next Ambassador to France and the OECD. “Aotearoa New Zealand and France have a shared history, and enjoy a strong, collaborative partnership. This includes a strong trade and economic relationship, a shared commitment to support ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Govt welcomes nurses’ pay settlement
    The Government is welcoming news that a new employment agreement for nurses working in public hospitals has been settled. “I am very pleased that the hard work of the Nurses Organisation and District Health Boards has led to a settlement that both can support,” Health Minister Andrew Little said today. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Judge of the High Court appointed
    Māori Land Court Judge Layne Harvey has been appointed a Judge of the High Court, Attorney‑General David Parker announced today. Justice Harvey graduated with an LLB from the University of Auckland in 1992 and commenced employment as a law clerk with Simpson Grierson in Auckland that same year. In 1997 ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Kiwis to have their say on plan to reduce waste
    New Zealanders are invited to have their say on proposals for a new waste strategy and options for new waste legislation. “Reducing waste is one of the issues all New Zealanders – especially younger Kiwis - care deeply about,” Environment Minister David Parker said today “New Zealand is one of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Next steps in action plan for indigenous rights kicks off
    Minister for Māori Development Willie Jackson has today meet with more than 30 national Māori organisations in an online hui, kicking off the process to develop a plan for New Zealand to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the Declaration). The previous National Government signed ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Iwi-led housing solutions build homes for the future
    Whai Kāinga, Whai Oranga will open on 20 October, to receive applications for investment through Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga – Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and Te Puni Kōkiri The $730m fund combines investment from Budget 2021 ($380m) and the Māori Infrastructure Fund ($350m) - the largest investment seen ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • E whakarite ana Te Kāwanatanga i ngā tūāpapa mō twhakamaumahara ki Te Petihana Reo Māori ka t...
    I te rā nei, i pānuihia e te Minita mō Manatū Taonga, ko Carmel Sepuloni, rāua ko te Minita Whanaketanga Māori, ko Willie Jackson, ā tērā tau, ka whakanuia rawatia te 50 o ngā tau mai i te whakatakotoranga o te petihana mō te Reo Māori me te huanga mai ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • E whakarite ana Te Kāwanatanga i ngā tūāpapa mō tewhakamaumahara ki Te Petihana Reo Māori ka t...
    I te rā nei, i pānuihia e te Minita mō Manatū Taonga, ko Carmel Sepuloni, rāua ko te Minita Whanaketanga Māori, ko Willie Jackson, ā tērā tau, ka whakanuia rawatia te 50 o ngā tau mai i te whakatakotoranga o te petihana mō te Reo Māori me te huanga mai ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Government green lights rapid antigen testing
    Some of the country’s largest businesses have put in an order for 300,000 approved rapid antigen tests for their workforce, after working at pace with the Government on a new scheme unveiled by Associate Minister of Health and Research, Science and Innovation Ayesha Verrall. A coalition of around 25 businesses ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago