New Zealand is now free of coronavirus

[Ken555]

Auckland, New Zealand — There are no known novel coronavirus cases in New Zealand for the first time since COVID-19 arrived in the country on Feb. 28, the government announced Monday afternoon local time.

New Zealand is now free of coronavirus — Axios

There are no known novel coronavirus cases in New Zealand for the first time since COVID-19 arrived in the country on Feb. 28.

apple.news

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[CanuckTravlr]

One of the advantages of being a more remote island nation, combined with a fairly early response and a relatively rigorous lockdown. The next (and harder) issue will be how to eventually re-open the country to foreign trade and outside visitors and still keep it safe from the spread of Covid-19.

 

["Roger"]

Just to add to what is mentioned in the article, lifting all restrictions means movie theaters, concerts, sporting events can now be held with full crowds. No restrictions means no restrictions.

It never could have happened here (our dependence on international trade, our cultural resistence to hard line measures, etc.) but I am in awe that they have accomplished even with such favorable factors.

 

[Old Hickory]

February 28 was the end of Summer which means the virus season is still a few months away. Good to be New Zealand.

 

[SmithOp]

If a tiny country with a sparse population at the bottom of the world couldn't control it the rest of us don't stand a chance.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

 

[Ken555]

I think it’s interesting that many posts about New Zealand explain their success first by the size of the country, the fact it is an island, and that they have a relatively low population compared to many others, and only then mention that it was their early difficult decisions that resulted in this fantastic result.

No. No excuses.

Had we (ie. almost any other country) acted early, listened and acted based on our medical experts, with proper medical supplies and with full political support, we could also have made a significant difference, as well. Don’t fool yourselves.

As of today, the USA has 112,738 deaths. We could have made this number lower, had we simply acted earlier and with proper support. We may not have been New Zealand, but we certainly wouldn’t be where we are today.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[rapmarks]

My brother in law was married to a New Zealand woman whose niece is the prime minister of new zealand. He is ultra conservative but says Jacinda did a wonderful job. I expected to complain about the lock down

 

[Patri]

Had we (ie. almost any other country) acted early, listened and acted based on our medical experts, with proper medical supplies and with full political support, we could also have made a significant difference, as well. Don’t fool yourselves.

Except that the medical advice changed almost daily, and even now there are inconsistencies on how to move forward. And many medical experts knew the path to follow, but they weren't on the briefing committee.

 

[LannyPC]

Had we (ie. almost any other country) acted early, listened and acted based on our medical experts, with proper medical supplies and with full political support, we could also have made a significant difference, as well. Don’t fool yourselves.

While that is possible and could be true, I think the big problem would have been for everyone to get on board some two or three weeks earlier. As it is, many people resisted the idea of a lock down when they could clearly see the spread of the pandemic and its tragic results. Imagine the outcry, outrage, resistance, and protest that would have occurred before all the tragedies and and fatalities were piling up.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

Despite the inconsistencies,, research indicates there were benefits from the lockdowns:

"In the United States alone, the researchers estimated that coronavirus policies prevented some 4.8 million confirmed cases and 60 million total cases. Only China prevented more confirmed cases, 37 million, and total cases, 285 million, during the study's time period."

Uc Berkeley Study Says Covid-19 Prevention Measures Prevented 500M Infections

Emergency health and safety measures taken in six major countries have prevented more...

www.sfgate.com

 

[gresmi]

While that is possible and could be true, I think the big problem would have been for everyone to get on board some two or three weeks earlier. As it is, many people resisted the idea of a lock down when they could clearly see the spread of the pandemic and its tragic results. Imagine the outcry, outrage, resistance, and protest that would have occurred before all the tragedies and and fatalities were piling up.

Funny. Corona virus doesn't seem to be affecting looters and rioters. Nor do I see any lockdown enforcement of those doing the looting and rioting.

I think masks, social distancing and sheltering were beneficial. But, at least where I live, further control over people's lives is just a rouge for a deeper problem.

That's why I'm seeing why many of my friends are calling it the baloney virus, at this point.

 

[Cornell]

While that is possible and could be true, I think the big problem would have been for everyone to get on board some two or three weeks earlier. As it is, many people resisted the idea of a lock down when they could clearly see the spread of the pandemic and its tragic results. Imagine the outcry, outrage, resistance, and protest that would have occurred before all the tragedies and and fatalities were piling up.

Disagree. I think the vast majority of the American public was totally onboard with the lockdown at the beginning of this whole saga as we were all scared. Whether or not the lockdown started on 3/17 vs 3/1 , I think the public would have gone along. The lockdown efforts lost their credibility when they dragged on much , much longer than the public was led to believe -- and when the goals changed for what they were trying to achieve.

 

[Old Hickory]

I think it’s interesting that many posts about New Zealand explain their success first by the size of the country, the fact it is an island, and that they have a relatively low population compared to many others, and only then mention that it was their early difficult decisions that resulted in this fantastic result.

No. No excuses.

Had we (ie. almost any other country) acted early, listened and acted based on our medical experts, with proper medical supplies and with full political support, we could also have made a significant difference, as well. Don’t fool yourselves.

As of today, the USA has 112,738 deaths. We could have made this number lower, had we simply acted earlier and with proper support. We may not have been New Zealand, but we certainly wouldn’t be where we are today.

Don't fool yourselves? <chuckle>

The only thing that would have made the number lower would have been China's honesty to what was happening there. Oh and experts said it was okay to break all the CDC guidelines if you were rioting/protesting. But don't dare go to church or a funeral.

"Expert" needs a new definition.

 

[Ken555]

Except that the medical advice changed almost daily, and even now there are inconsistencies on how to move forward. And many medical experts knew the path to follow, but they weren't on the briefing committee.

The medical advice was rather clear to me. Stay home, stay away from groups, etc. Early on it simply didn’t make sense to me that being in crowds was a good idea, so why was it okay for 100 people, or 50 people, to be together when spread was occurring? It was obvious that these announcements at the time were politically influenced, since the medical community couldn’t be certain that asymptomatic spread was happening at the time even though they thought so. And has been stated elsewhere, it is appropriate and expected for the medical community to change their advice as new information is learned, so blaming them for changing recommendations is expected and should not be a surprise.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Ken555]

While that is possible and could be true, I think the big problem would have been for everyone to get on board some two or three weeks earlier. As it is, many people resisted the idea of a lock down when they could clearly see the spread of the pandemic and its tragic results. Imagine the outcry, outrage, resistance, and protest that would have occurred before all the tragedies and and fatalities were piling up.

The numbers were clear. The spread was obvious. It’s simple math.

Had our leadership been on it from the beginning this would have been much less than it was. Over 100,000 people dead and the numbers keep climbing. This is unconscionable, and it seems we are becoming numb to the numbers and trying to convince ourselves it could have been worse so this isn’t at all that bad. No. It could have been less, and should have been less.

When Santa Clara County in California went on lockdown, the entire country should have done the same. How could the medical and political leaders of a single county be more able to respond to an impending disaster?

Yes, it would have been difficult. But all but a few political leaders took the advice of the medical community seriously early on, and the vast majority waited until it was obvious there’s a problem before acting in any serious way.

Why can’t we learn from others? We saw what happened in China and what was happening in Italy. It’s simple logic to assume that with continuing contact with people from these regions the virus would be here, too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Ken555]

Funny. Corona virus doesn't seem to be affecting looters and rioters. Nor do I see any lockdown enforcement of those doing the looting and rioting.

I think masks, social distancing and sheltering were beneficial. But, at least where I live, further control over people's lives is just a rouge for a deeper problem.

That's why I'm seeing why many of my friends are calling it the baloney virus, at this point.

We don’t yet know if the looters and protesters are infected, though there are already calls for them to get tested. The latest info is that being outside imparts a certain level of protection, but the cheering, singing, and close contact increase their risk. Since we know it takes ~2-3 weeks to show visible signs of infection, we simply won’t know the result yet. Also, we *still* don’t have enough testing in some areas, so we may never know.

As for your friends...well...it is unfortunate that they aren’t convinced to adjust their thinking since we have (as of today) 113,380 dead in the USA and 410,845 dead worldwide. If that doesn’t convince them to take it seriously, I doubt much will.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Ken555]

Don't fool yourselves?

The only thing that would have made the number lower would have been China's honesty to what was happening there. Oh and experts said it was okay to break all the CDC guidelines if you were rioting/protesting. But don't dare go to church or a funeral.

"Expert" needs a new definition.

So you think we had no control over our ability to respond quickly and consistently? Other countries did. They lowered their spread early, had proper testing, personal protection equipment, and kept the infection and death rates low. I don’t know how you can think we could not have done similarly.

It’s time for all of us to do use our critical thinking ability and realize this epidemic could have been much less impactful in the USA with just a few changes early on.

Please post links to support your statement re experts said it was okay to break guidelines if you were rioting/protesting.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Ken555]

[thank you Tapatalk...that’s two duplicates today]

 

[Ken555]

[hmm...duplicate]

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Please post links to support your statement re experts said it was okay to break guidelines if you were rioting/protesting.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

After months of pleading for social distancing, health officials support protests. Seattle Black Lives Matter warns of dangers

Infectious disease experts at the University of Washington say the protests are "vital to the national public health." The local branch of Black Lives Matter is being far more cautious, and has published a safety guide for protesters.

www.seattletimes.com

The Protesters Deserve the Truth About the Coronavirus

Public-health experts should strive to provide a neutral accounting of risk.

www.theatlantic.com

Open Letter.pdf

drive.google.com

The letter explicitly advocates that acceptable public health policies should be based on politics. And that anyone who exercises their right of assembly reasons other than BLM is part of the white nationalist movement.

Staying at home, social distancing, and public masking are effective at minimizing the spread of
COVID-19. To the extent possible, we support the application of these public health best practices during
demonstrations that call attention to the pervasive lethal force of white supremacy. However, as public health
advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital
to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States. We
can show that support by facilitating safest protesting practices without detracting from demonstrators’ ability to
gather and demand change. This should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings,
particularly protests against stay-home orders. Those actions not only oppose public health interventions, but
are also rooted in white nationalism and run contrary to respect for Black lives. Protests against systemic
racism, which fosters the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 on Black communities and also
perpetuates police violence, must be supported.

 

[Karen G]

Not much hope that further replies would be non-controversial and non-political. The end.