Can someone explain to me New Zealand?

[idontknow54789]

Sorry for the ignorance/naivety here but can someone explain to me the reasonings behind such extreme lockdown measures in NZ? At the beginning of the pandemic they're approach was fully accepted but surely now with vaccines and omnicrom being a 'milder' form of covid they have to start setting sense? Is it about the health system? I understand there's a severe lack of ICU beds but is locking down so much really better for health? Can anyone explain it to me please?

[quote Porcupineintherough]@Sundayvibes people under 50 usually take a longer to die of COVID than 28 days. You need to search the figures of people who died be 4 and 12 weeks to find them.[/quote]
But most people in hospital will be tested regularly, so their death will be within 28 days of a positive test, if they still have Covid, even if it's not within 28 days of their first test.

On the other side of the coin is the number of people who were counted as dying of Covid as the requirement for the certifying doctor to actually visit them was removed under the Covid Act, even if there was no evidence that they actually had Covid at all. This caused a lot of problems for Care Homes who were carefully protecting their Covid-free status.

Both issues suggest that the figures aren't particularly reliable and excess deaths may be a more useful figure. They, of course, will include people who may have died as a result of effects of the pandemic and reactions to it, but didn't actually catch Covid.

[quote Porcupineintherough]@Sundayvibes people under 50 usually take a longer to die of COVID than 28 days. You need to search the figures of people who died be 4 and 12 weeks to find them.[/quote]
I’ll check the ons to how many people under the age of 50 died ‘ from ‘ covid alone…

@Sundayvibes

It’s available for everyone to view on the ONS website.

Life expectancy in the uk 81.20
Average age of covid ‘ related ‘ death in uk 82.60.
2% of deaths in people were under the age of 44.
Hopefully one day a full enquiry will take place into this virus and how how populations were scare mongered by media and governments

What?? Not sure what you meant but how I interpreted your comment is "covid mainly affected the old who were past their used by date anyway so it doesn't really matter. There was a smaller percentage of younger people who just happened to be collateral damage in the great purge but oh dear, never mind".

If that is what you are insinuating then that is probably the most callous, cold and un-empathetic comment I've ever read on MN. And if that is not what you meant then my apologies.

The fact is that NZ denied entry to many of its actual citizens, leaving them at the mercy of whoever would house them, because the MIQ is not fit for purpose.

And you would prefer the UK way? Leaving 180,000 people at the mercy of the SARS-COV-2 disease that killed them. Plus many more disabled with Long Covid.

SARS-COV-2 has disproportionately (but definitely not only) affected the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and certain minority ethnic communities.

You think it's ok to do what the UK does - leave these groups (plus the wider general public) at the mercy of a still new and evolving disease that kills (prematurely) and disables many?

Well said @iloathhousework

Not that 44/45 is old.

It is, however, the age of the parents of many school aged children. So lovely (not) for kids to lose a parent so young. Bereavement does wonders for the mental health...oh no, actually sorry got that one wrong. It doesn't.

And again. Long Covid.

@Tealightsandd having a different approach to letting in New Zealand citizens (for example having more MIQ or another way) without it being a lottery isn't handling it the UK way.

How the UK (and Europe/US) handled it is frankly immaterial and not at all relevant to the discussion around the way New Zealand has handled it.

Plus you keep saying and again Long Covid but it is a stark truth now that Omicron is in New Zealand the mitigations/measures you so love will merely control and spread out infections not remove it. So the risk is there.

The fact is that even China with its zero covid policy allowed citizens to enter without having to go into the lottery of few places.

Here's a couple of Long Covid victims. Sadly they are just a few out of many others.

www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health/i-thought-covid-mild-nearly-22868940?

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/girl-11-using-feeding-tube-26083404

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/12/long-covid-wife-suicide-give-others-hope

www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/article/long-covid-help-me-get-my-life-back

But again @Tealightsandd what relevance does that have to the fact the New Zealand system for allowing citizens to return was not up for purpose and relied on other countries allowing them to stay.

No one is on this thread denying long covid at all. But the fact remains that Omicron is out of the bag the mitigations available to use will simply control the spread rather than supress

The fact is that even China with its zero covid policy allowed citizens to enter without having to go into the lottery of few places.

If you want NZ to be more like China, you have to bear in mind that China's system of government and how its society is run was probably more set-up to implement pandemic borders in the first place.

Like I said yesterday, in a pandemic there are no ideal options. Only lesser of two evils - which is the choice NZ chose.

As it was an extraordinary emergency event, NZ had to quickly do something. Perhaps there could've been tweaks, I don't know, but what is certain is that under very pressurised circumstances NZ opted for the lesser of two evils approach.

And Squirrel and other New Zealanders on this thread (plus my own extended NZ family) have said, that it is slight hyperbole to talk of 'everyone being shut out'. Some have been unlucky, yes, (something many people who can't afford to ever travel long haul experienced way before the pandemic) but many others have travelled to and from NZ.

Again. The lesser of two evils. The number of people who wanted to travel to or from NZ (and have the money to afford long haul) who couldn't is significantly fewer than the huge numbers of people in countries like the UK who have been killed or disabled by SARS-COV-2.

There is no good option, but there is the lesser of two evils option.

@Tealightsandd

It's still not 180,000 even if you bold it !

mitigations available to use will simply control the spread rather than supress

Well that's what mitigation means. Mitigations reduce risks - in the case of SARS-COV-2, they reduce deaths and disablities.

Seat belts, child seats, and speeding limits do not stop all car deaths or injuries. That doesn't mean we should get rid of them. Because they do mitigate, eg., reduce the number.

Also, NZ waited until more of its population was vaccinated. They're well into the booster programme (with high take-up) - and, unlike the UK are doing 5-11 year olds.

And, yes, vaccines do help. No, they're not perfect, no 100% efficacy, and protection can start to wane after time - but like the experts including the WHO say, they do still make a lot of difference.

@CallItLoneliness

Well except that the Bellis case is not as simple as all of you are making out. Because apparently NZ ALSO needed to take her partner or she would have stayed in Afghanistan. Otherwise she could have gone to Australia. So no, it's not JUST about the border closures.

Bellis, like many other Kiwis, was denied access to her country of citizenship purely because the NZ government declined to take responsibility for their own citizens and instead expected the rest of the world to do it for them. This fact alone means NZ are all the way in the wrong.

If a situation had occurred where NZ did take responsibility for their own citizens instead of offloading, and she'd refused to come in without her partner, that's the point at which it becomes possible to argue that her exclusion isn't New Zealand's fault. Until then, no.

[quote Pootle40]@Tealightsandd

It's still not 180,000 even if you bold it ![/quote]
True. That figure doesn't include all the reinfection deaths that, until very recently weren't included in official UK reports (and still only get recorded if more than 90 days after the first). Plus of course all the deaths that occurred after the acute initial infection stage - from SARS-COV-2 damage but because the patient no longer tests positive, they will be recorded as heart attacks, strokes, sepsis, pneumonia, clots.

Yes it did need to quickly do something - TWO years ago. It opted for a lesser of two evils approach in March 2020.

And yes there are no ideal options but the fact remains it didnt try to tweak it at all. Because no New Zealand citizen should be shut out of their own country for the length of time they have. It is as simple as that.

Well we can't stop a pandemic...unless everywhere did what NZ did - in which case it wouldn't have lasted anything close to as long as two years.

By your argument of perfect not one single person impacted by the extraordinary circumstances of an ongoing pandemic, equally no UK citizen should have been unnecessarily killed or disabled.

Also if you think that no New Zealand citizen 'should be shut out of their own country for the length of time they have', I take it you will be or already have donated money to the NZealanders around the world who can't afford to travel back.

Way before the pandemic, that has been the circumstances for some.

Many people who live abroad (from NZ, or anywhere else) simply don't have the money to be able to travel - particularly long haul - every few years.

@Tealightsandd

Also if you think that no New Zealand citizen 'should be shut out of their own country for the length of time they have', I take it you will be or already have donated money to the NZealanders around the world who can't afford to travel back.

Way before the pandemic, that has been the circumstances for some.

Many people who live abroad (from NZ, or anywhere else) simply don't have the money to be able to travel - particularly long haul - every few years.

Due to my work and pro bono it's a virtual certainty that I've done a lot more to help Kiwis trapped in the UK than you have, but really that's a stupid argument either way. A person could be completely without the resources, time or skills that would allow them to be of any benefit to exiled New Zealanders, yet still be able to correctly point out that their own government has failed to allow them their basic citizenship rights and expected the rest of the world to do their job for them. What you actually mean here is that you find the arguments people are making inconvenient. There isn't a requirement to put in a certain amount of charitable hours before acknowledging that people are suffering.

Like I say. It's impossible pretty much not go have some people suffering in the extraordinary circumstances of a pandemic.

NZ simply opted for the least amount of suffering.

And again. If everywhere else had done the same as NZ, there would've been a hell of a lot less suffering all round. Because of course the pandemic would never have lasted two years (and counting).

NZ having opted for the least amount of suffering is merely what you think. And the only country where doing the same might've stopped us from being in our current position is China.

But either way, trying to suggest people can't say anything on the subject of New Zealand's refusal to accept responsibility for their own citizens unless they've got spare money to donate is awful.

And again. If everywhere else had done the same as NZ, there would've been a hell of a lot less suffering all round

It's absolutely idiotic to think that would have been possible. There are countries at war, countries dealing with extreme poverty, countries where shutting borders is an impossibility, countries where covid is the least of their health worries.

What a privileged little bubble you must live in to even entertain that thought.

NZ simply opted for the least amount of suffering.

Luckily for them, other countries were prepared to pick up the pieces and shelter their citizens when they turned their backs. Yes even Afghanistan under the Taliban. That's quite a thought.