What can't be seen right now

RNZ reports Ashley Bloomfield said today the number of new Covid 19 cases appears to be leveling off now.

If we come out of the lock down with just one death we will be told, and we will be tempted to think, that the lock down was a roaring success.


But if  unemployment has shot up to around 12 percent

If the country's debt has gone from around 20 to 35 percent

If GDP has shrunk by 30 percent

If harm from domestic violence, gambling, and binge drinking has increased

If the suicide rate climbs

If rates of death from cancers rises


Is that a roaring success?

Yes, some of the negative picture I have painted would have happened anyway as a result of what other countries did. But our own actions compounded the harm.

The End of Winston

As I mow the lawns listening to the racing coming in from Caulfield and Randwick and eight other Australian venues; and as I reflect on the millions of speculation dollars flowing across the Tasman into the Aussie industry as our racecourses lay dormant,  I am slightly warmed by the prospect of the end of Winston, at last.

His industry backers now have no reason to fund him.The Deputy Prime Minister, the great Saviour of the racing industry, couldn't persuade the PM to do what the Australians managed. He is redundant.

Finally waking up

This is a pretty good analysis of what is happening and published as the major opinion piece in today's Dompost.

New Zealand's so-called universal healthcare system is actually rationed healthcare. The government gives it a certain amount of money each year and district health boards ration the care in various ways based on how sick people are, or through waiting lists. Pharmac – the  state's drug buyer – is the same. If the cost-benefit ratio for a drug isn't high enough, it isn't funded and people die.
These decisions are made all the time – the difference is that these are not acute cases happening all at once, but around the country, all the time. Unless waiting lists get particularly long for some procedures, no-one seems to mind too much. The point is not that we should not care that people die, but that we should have some perspective.

"We can't survive without business"

And a very sad column from Listener writer Joanne Black on the demise of the Listener in particular, a great New Zealand institution. She concludes, "I remain more afraid of the economic fallout of New Zealand's response to Covid-19 than I am of the virus itself."

At the mercy of governments

Governments around the world are making the rules up as they go along.  Their commands are arbitrary and inconsistent.

The latest 'lock-down' to be announced:

All Tasmanians will need to stay at home for the next four weeks under new requirements from the state government to fight coronavirus spread... Gutwein said order would be in place for a month from Tuesday and reviewed over that time. Premier Peter Gutwein said people would need to be at home unless they were going to work, school, getting exercise or essential supplies, or providing or receiving medical or compassionate care.

Remember that? Going to work?

Questions

Each morning I wake up and the questions start immediately.

1/ Is hysteria even more contagious than covid-19?

2/ Why have people who didn't trust the government's policy response to climate change science (not settled) trusted their response to coronavirus? Eg Peter Williams.

3/ Is this the end of globalization?

4/ Will we return to the days of a command economy where we do a whole lot of stuff that we can never do efficiently and pay for the folly of it?

5/ Why is the Prime Minister on peak time telly talking about the price of cauliflowers?

6/ How is the world going to respond to the next virus?

7/ When a retrospective cost/benefit analysis is conducted into the lock-down will all of the people who died from other conditions or diseases because they couldn't get necessary treatment be included?

8/ Will New Zealand's obsession with retirement homes and voluntary mass segregation of the elderly turn out to be a godsend?

9/ With fewer than 20 hospitalized cases, is the unprecedented stress being reported by staff mainly about trying to keep out family members of non-covid cases and their response?

10/ What is the plan?

Two more voices in the wilderness

Donald S. Siegel is foundation professor and director at the School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University (Donald.Siegel.1@asu.edu). Robert M. Sauer is professor of economics at Royal Holloway, University of London (Robert.Sauer@rhul.ac.uk).

"...we call on all business owners and citizens who care about economic liberty and personal freedom to rise up and demand that politicians lift all bans on commerce. Let us get back to work!"

More

Sir Bob calls the lockdown "madness"

Read his brief column here.

I mused as I walked along the beach this morning in thick fog (unable to see the ferries and aeroplanes that aren't there) that pre-Covid19 the world was hysterical about climate change with increasing calls being made for population reduction policies. Now the panic is to save lives at ANY cost.

More 'informed' skepticism

Another alternative view for you. A NZ epidemiologist who doesn't equivocate . He concludes:

"It is important that the public health response matches the threat posed to our health. It is important we keep abreast of developments, such as tests of immunity, so that we can return to normality quickly.
We don't want to squash a flea with a sledgehammer and bring the house down. I believe that other countries, such as Sweden, are steering a more sensible course through this turbulent time."

In a similar vein, I watched most of this yesterday. More rates than you can shake a stick at. The friend who sent it to me, an economist, wrote:

The arithmetic is accurate.
As a benchmark, it's estimated the "Spanish flu" virus of 1918 infected up to one-third of the total global population, and on average killed up to 5% of those it infected (i.e. up to about 2% of the total global population), over the course of several years.  See  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
Without a miracle and instant mass vaccine (not likely to arrive), the coronavirus pandemic will end when the global population has developed sufficient "herd immunity", and not until then.  It seems unlikely that any particular national population can isolate itself from that reality for long. So we certainly are incurring vast economic and social cost for an uncertain benefit (if any).
And if your immune system doesn't save you, it's unlikely any "health system" will.…
Off to the gym!

"PETER HITCHENS: ... this Great Panic is foolish, yet our freedom is still broken and our economy crippled"

An alternative view for you. I was alerted to a Daily Mail column by Peter Hitchens on the Mike Hosking show.

Excerpt:

"Now, if you want a scientist who does not support Government policy, the most impressive of these is Prof Sucharit Bhakdi. If you desire experts, he is one.

He is an infectious medicine specialist, one of the most highly cited medical research scientists in Germany. He was head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology at the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, one of Germany’s most distinguished seats of learning.

In a recent interview he had many uncomplimentary things to say about the shutdown policy being pursued by so many countries (there is a link on my blog to the interview, and a transcription).

But perhaps the most powerful was his reply to the suggestion that the closedown of society would save lives. He argued the contrary, saying this policy was ‘grotesque, absurd and very dangerous’.

He warned: ‘Our elderly citizens have every right to make efforts not to belong to the 2,200 [in Germany] who daily embark on their last journey. Social contacts and social events, theatre and music, travel and holiday recreation, sports and hobbies all help to prolong their stay on Earth. The life expectancy of millions is being shortened.’

He also gave this warning: ‘The horrifying impact on the world economy threatens the existence of countless people.

‘The consequences for medical care are profound. Already services to patients who are in need are reduced, operations cancelled, practices empty, hospital personnel dwindling.

‘All this will impact profoundly on our whole society.

‘I can only say that all these measures are leading to self-destruction and collective suicide because of nothing but a spook.’"

Coronavirus and multi-generational households

Italy and Spain are experiencing high numbers of deaths particularly because they have high levels of multi-generational households. It is more common for the elderly live with the young.

In NZ there is limited publicly available data about multi-generational families.

The graph below has been constructed by people who probably paid for it:

Based on that trend New Zealand now has around a quarter million individuals living in three or more generation extended family households.

US versus NZ unemployment benefits

According to RNZ:

The number of Americans filing claims for unemployment benefits surged to a record of more than 3 million last week as strict measures to contain the coronavirus pandemic brought the country to a sudden halt.

That's less than 1 percent of the US population.

Source

The total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending March 7 was 2,006,363, a decrease of 80,856 from the previous week. There were 2,039,322 persons claiming benefits in all programs in the comparable week in 2019. 

In New Zealand, before the pandemic, there were 147,000 jobseekers claiming benefits - 3% of our population.

Yes there are all sorts of barriers to even claiming an unemployment benefit in the US, and over 3 million new claims in a week is extraordinary but some context is always useful and interesting.

We won't know here until later in April how our numbers are faring (unless a non-normal announcement is made). And then the numbers on Jobseeker will have to be set alongside the numbers on wage subsidies to provide a real measure of compensated 'unemployment'.

What we do know is that MSD is struggling to deal with the level of inquiry and application from individuals. People are reporting wait times of over two hours which is impossible to accommodate for some mobile phone users.

Arbitrary and unjustified closure of businesses

A small community.

A smallish supermarket, a dairy, a butcher, a green grocer and a bottle store.

Now only the first two have state permission to continue to trade.

The butcher and green grocer have existed under the same owners for a long time. They know their clients - many elderly - very well. They deliver to them. They chat, are on first name basis. They have occupied their premises long-term and serve a community function beyond their brief. They provide an essential service.

In the time they have traded, the supermarket has changed hands 3 or 4 times. The current owners do not know the community to the same extent.

Under Covid 19 Level 4 powers, all of the trading ability has been stolen from 3 and gifted to 2.

Why?

With two open, people will continue to come to the village and shop. The supermarket will require more staff  increasing potential exposure between staff and customer, thereby nullifying the decrease in potential exposure between butcher, greengrocer and customer. The supermarket presents far more opportunity to touch produce and surfaces than the butcher and greengrocer where you ask for what you want.

This is another authoritarian ruling that is ill-founded and illogical.

(And I can't find a link but it seemed that Katherine Rich from the Food and Grocery Council was today hinting that the supermarkets may soon be able to supply liquor for delivery. A full hand.)

Coronavirus edicts

1/ Don't 'panic' buy, or stock up.

Better to go frequently to the supermarket for what you need so as to ... minimise contact?

MORE CONTACT

2/ Don't take your families in people-carriers to one of the many New Zealand beaches or reserves where it is eminently possible to find a quiet spot to hang out with your 'bubble' humans and animals privately.

Please stay home within the confines of your compressed, crowded house.

MOST POLICE TIME IS SPENT ON FAMILY VIOLENCE CALL OUTS

3/ Do not indulge in any truly solitary pursuits like hunting or fishing from your dinghy because you may have a mishap and require emergency services like the police.

They won't be available because they will be employed at checkpoints making sure that you don't go on any solitary pursuits

... or distracted by family violence call outs.


Before you go off at me for not 'getting with the programme', I am following directions unfailingly. Most people are at this stage.

But as pressure builds, illogical and inconsistent edicts will bring this endeavour down very quickly.

Australia doubles benefit rates

Australia will double benefit rates to deal with coronavirus:

Source

People newly made redundant will have financial commitments well beyond the prior Newstart Allowance (but wasn't that always the case for individuals before this crisis?)

To meet these needs, and as a result, everybody on a benefit pre-March 20 has it doubled. 

It's only for 6 months ...

BUT what will the reaction be when benefits are halved??

Stuff from a small town in New Zealand

From the hinterland, the back blocks of rural heartland, one of my favourite commentators and artists Mark Wahlberg has started a blog Inside Pahiatua looking Out. We aren't overly blessed with views directly from and about small towns in New Zealand. Especially not of this nature. Linking to it in 'blogs I read'.

It is desirable to close the margin between benefit and employment income

Oh wait. Did I get that right?

Here's a quote I used recently when opposing the linking of benefits to wage inflation:

 "...it is desirable to create a margin between being dependent on a benefit and being in employment....
The Labour Party isn’t the party that says living on a benefit is a preferred lifestyle. Its position has always been that the benefit system is a safety net for those who are unavoidably unable to participate in employment. From its history, the Labour Party has always been about people in employment."
Michael Cullen, 2008

Yes NZ is facing an economic crisis. But I fear government response will make it worse.

Wage subsidies come with the proviso that the employer pays the employee a minimum of 80 percent of his existing wages. So the employee will be taking a 20 percent cut in income.

At the same time the beneficiary will be getting an 11-17 percent increase in the Jobseeker rate (plus any annual increase for wage inflation and the winter energy payment).

Lifting benefits when wages are heading south seems particularly foolhardy. I am seriously worried that we may see a repeat of the early nineties when benefit dependency reached 16 percent and large numbers of  unemployed never worked again with many migrating to sickness and invalid benefits.

God forbid.

Greens: "It doesn't matter why you can't work..."

In the permissive tradition made famous by Metiria Turei, Greens co-leader Marama Davidson says: "It doesn't matter why you can't work - you should be able to immediately receive support." She wants stand-down periods permanently abolished and benefit rates increased substantially. This is in response to the coronavirus. But their desire for a sanction-free, no-questions-asked benefit system is well known.

It is staggering how pervasive welfare has become since its very first inception as the stringently policed old-age pension. A prospective recipient had to make application to a magistrate with proof of age, citizenship and good character. The names of those granted a pension were published in daily newspapers.

Until the 1960s clauses remained in benefit legislation to the effect that the applicant had to be sober and of good character and must not have caused their own incapacity to work. These disappeared as gate-keeping became increasingly difficult and society adopted a more 'progressive' attitude to need.

From then numbers exploded.

While Davidson is effectively saying it doesn't matter if you make yourself unemployable, actually she is only giving voice to the current state of affairs anyway. Thousands of  addicts, and criminals - past and present -  have their livelihoods paid for by the law-abiding. Thousands of parents chose to rely on the taxpayer instead of a partner to raise their children. Thousands of individuals have become inter-generational dependents as a result.

Are we a better country for the Green's (current political manifestation) brand of liberalism and non-judgementalism?

We may be. But if I was going to bat for children I'd say 'no'.

(It is one thing to extend kindness and care working one-on-one with beneficiaries and prisoners. A personal relationship includes personal knowledge about circumstances. But it does not follow that a society should apply a blanket approach of unquestioning and uncritical 'compassion'.)

Labour's lack of consistent philosophy

These are extremely unusual times. 'Stay calm and carry on' is my preferred mode of action.

A side effect of this flux is the exposure of Labour's lack of a core, consistent approach to assistance.

Under Finance Minister, Bill English, National was developing a highly targeted approach to need. Actuarial analysis was used to find who the most economically vulnerable and potentially costly were and efforts concentrated accordingly.

Along comes Labour and puts up election bribes like:

- Fees Free first year

- Best Start

- Energy Winter Payment

Each of these was cash assistance regardless of assets or income.Not once did they explain why they were prepared to give money to people who didn't need it.

Now Grant Robertson (who I rate in that party) is talking about the government's targeted response. He stresses how careful the government must be to meet only genuine and urgent need. Quite rightly.

But square it please.

Increase in Asian mothers greater than all other groups combined

The matter of falling fertility caught my attention last year when I produced this paper for Family First.

NZ's fertility rate had dropped to an all-time low (like many other developed countries) in 2018. The 2019 data is now available and the birth rate has increased slightly to 1.75.

Predictably most of the increase is to mothers 30 and over. The increase in births by ethnicity is charted below. There were almost twice as many more Asian mothers than all the others combined. (1,203 versus 678)

Important note from data: "Each birth is included in every ethnic group specified. For this reason, some births are counted more than once and responses sum to more than the total number of births."

Birth data does not use a hierarchical system whereby Maori gets prioritised when there are multiple ethnicities. Here I have used 'mothers' as opposed to 'children' because mothers state fewer ethnicities than they do for their child, understandably. Mothers sum to 68,007 whereas children sum to 77,505. Total births for the year on the other hand is given as 59,637.