"...if you are worried about stupidity in high places, your best solution would be to get rid of high places."
Eamonn Butler, Adam Smith Institute
Saturday, May 09, 2020
Friday, May 08, 2020
Weirdos
I know I should be sleuthing for serious stuff but it's Friday night and I really can't be bothered. This whole lock down debacle has made me realise the government is a law unto itself. If the necessary legislation doesn't exist in the here-and-now, it can be conjured up retrospectively.
But I did have a half-hearted look at the papers dumped today. Being a visual person, shortly into my perusal I was caught by the signatures:
Ashley's signature is terribly, incredibly elegant and David's is a dog's breakfast and looks like ... well I won't say what immediately springs to mind.
But it recalls my thoughts today (and every day) listening to the press conference addresses with the requisite Maori greetings. "How many times do they rehearse the phrases to get the pronunciation right?"
Similarly, now I wonder, how many times have they practiced their signatures - or variations of - to get those just right? I mean, look at them.
Weirdos.
(Disclaimer: The only time I ever practiced a signature was when trying to forge my mother's on absentee explanations at college.)
But I did have a half-hearted look at the papers dumped today. Being a visual person, shortly into my perusal I was caught by the signatures:
But it recalls my thoughts today (and every day) listening to the press conference addresses with the requisite Maori greetings. "How many times do they rehearse the phrases to get the pronunciation right?"
Similarly, now I wonder, how many times have they practiced their signatures - or variations of - to get those just right? I mean, look at them.
Weirdos.
(Disclaimer: The only time I ever practiced a signature was when trying to forge my mother's on absentee explanations at college.)
Spurious comparison
Here's what Grant Robertson said at noon today:
He said 40,000 people had signed up for the jobseeker benefit since 20 March.
Robertson said the increased number of people on the benefit represented 0.8 percent of the country's total population.
"For comparison, in the United States, they have had new jobless claims relating to Covid-19 of 33 million, or 10 percent of their population."
The elephant in the room is the wage subsidy. Yes NZ has fortunately not had a huge call on the jobseeker benefit yet because of the 1.7 million wage subsidies being paid out.
Which totally muddies the picture.
Even when the subsidy ceases there will be a lag while WINZ makes covid-response collateral use any redundancy, sick and annual leave payments before 'commencement day' begins.
I don't even know why Robertson brought it up. Just another instance of treating us like numpties.
Update. I checked out the rule re redundancy payments before I wrote this post. Now it would appear that WINZ has been acting unlawfully in taking redundancy payments into account. Good sleuthing on someone's part.
Individualisation of benefits not imminent
A Stuff ("trustworthy, accurate and reliable news") headline reads:
Government considering change to benefit access rules
A spokeswoman for Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni said entitlement to most benefits and social assistance was reliant on the "couple" unit of assessment.
“Moving to an individual unit of entitlement would be very complex however it is something that is in our medium to long-term work programme.”
Despite the headline which infers something that might happen shortly in response to the pandemic, I doubt there's any immediacy regarding individualising benefits.
In 2018 economist and social policy advisor Michael Fletcher was commissioned by Superu to investigate individualising entitlements in New Zealand’s benefit system. Fletcher cites investigations as far back as the Royal Commission on Social Policy 1988 which concluded, “…a rapid move to individual entitlement would mean a very large increase in government expenditure…”
Fletcher goes on to model changes that “… suggest the cost of individualising all entitlements would be in the order of $1.5 billion to $2 billion.” But he also cites forthcoming work from Anderson and Chapple that estimates individualisation would cost several billion dollars per annum.
On the one hand, compared to what has been spent on wage subsidies to date, "several billion" might seem palatable. Bear in mind though that those estimates are based on 'normal' levels of benefit uptake. Not during a recession or depression.
To make this change in the near future could only be achieved by more borrowing.
(BTW I cannot leave this article without a further comment. Geoff Simmons from the TOP party says,"“Relationships aren't life-long like they were in the 70s and 80s when these rules were designed. I don't know many people who even have joint bank accounts any more.” What a sad observation. I really don't give a monkeys if people want to flip in and out of relationships. That's their business. But very little thought is given to the effect this has on their children...a whole other topic for another day.)
Thursday, May 07, 2020
Who cares?
The years stolen from this baby would probably exceed all of the years left to those who've died from Covid 19.
Oh well. Who cares?
Wednesday, May 06, 2020
Hold your nose
Help me out here. Below is a selection of passages from Bomber Bradbury's blog. Now I know Martyn likes to use hyperbole and stir people up but surely, he can't really believe what he writes? Perhaps it's a case of saying it enough will make it true.
Employing as much objectivity as I can muster, among my small circle of immediate friends and family - and whose views I know - support or otherwise for the PM is 50/50. I listen to talkback most days, especially when out walking dogs, and again my sense is that the country is split. There maybe a gender bias operating also, with males tending to not support the PM more than females. Of course there is another younger generation I don't know much about.
But if Bomber is right the silent majority must all be as enthralled as he is. What do you find in your circles?
Warning. Hold your nose.
"Voters who have voted Blue their entire lives have been bewildered by Jacinda’s competence and are considering voting Labour in gratitude..."
"Jacinda’s extraordinary leadership not only through this plague but through the White Supremacist Terror attack and the volcanic eruption (all the while being new mother) have lifted her to legacy level."
"We are seeing a political leader who has every chance of being Prime Minister for 4 terms."
"Jacinda has won the vast majority of New Zealanders over. She asked for lockdown sacrifice and the nation obliged, there is a real sense of pride and gratitude in her leadership that builds an electoral loyalty."
Employing as much objectivity as I can muster, among my small circle of immediate friends and family - and whose views I know - support or otherwise for the PM is 50/50. I listen to talkback most days, especially when out walking dogs, and again my sense is that the country is split. There maybe a gender bias operating also, with males tending to not support the PM more than females. Of course there is another younger generation I don't know much about.
But if Bomber is right the silent majority must all be as enthralled as he is. What do you find in your circles?
Warning. Hold your nose.
"Voters who have voted Blue their entire lives have been bewildered by Jacinda’s competence and are considering voting Labour in gratitude..."
"Jacinda’s extraordinary leadership not only through this plague but through the White Supremacist Terror attack and the volcanic eruption (all the while being new mother) have lifted her to legacy level."
"We are seeing a political leader who has every chance of being Prime Minister for 4 terms."
"Jacinda has won the vast majority of New Zealanders over. She asked for lockdown sacrifice and the nation obliged, there is a real sense of pride and gratitude in her leadership that builds an electoral loyalty."
Tuesday, May 05, 2020
Covid 19 in context
Here's another viewpoint on Covid 19 from a retired English professor.
"Robert Watson: A comparison of the relative magnitude of ‘COVID-19’ and ‘All other causes’ of deaths per 1,000 for age and sex cohorts
The analysis indicates that:
(i) whilst COVID-19 is most certainly a new cause of death, its victims are predominantly older men (75+) and very elderly women (80+); as both these cohorts are already very small (particularly so in the case of males) and also suffer from very high rates of death from all other causes, COVID-19 deaths only make up a small minority of the deaths (many of which would have occurred anyway within a few months); hence, it seems highly unlikely that COVID-19 will result in a long-term increase in death rates even amongst these vulnerable age cohorts.
(ii) Covid-19 does not kill off young people at all or even the middle aged to any significant extent; indeed, the pattern of deaths largely replicates existing patterns of deaths from all other causes; moreover, COVID-19 actually marginally reinforces the existing pattern of early male death rates
and the very high death rates experienced by the very elderly of both sexes;
(iii) as a new ‘killer’ disease, COVID-19 has the benign characteristic of choosing its victims from the already elderly, i.e., it is best seen as reinforcing the natural order of death; essentially, is there an alternative age cohort that one would rather this new disease decimates?; COVID-19 really would be a human life game-changer if it drew its victims from the young and/or otherwise healthy people in their prime of life!
(iv) If the blither being put about in the media that ‘every life saved is worth it’ really is to be taken seriously, then it is clear that we ought to forget about COVID-19 and instead throw vast medical resources at trying to reduce the existing massive premature slaughter of males in their 40s, 50s and 60s."
Hat tip Rodney Hide
"Robert Watson: A comparison of the relative magnitude of ‘COVID-19’ and ‘All other causes’ of deaths per 1,000 for age and sex cohorts
The analysis indicates that:
(i) whilst COVID-19 is most certainly a new cause of death, its victims are predominantly older men (75+) and very elderly women (80+); as both these cohorts are already very small (particularly so in the case of males) and also suffer from very high rates of death from all other causes, COVID-19 deaths only make up a small minority of the deaths (many of which would have occurred anyway within a few months); hence, it seems highly unlikely that COVID-19 will result in a long-term increase in death rates even amongst these vulnerable age cohorts.
(ii) Covid-19 does not kill off young people at all or even the middle aged to any significant extent; indeed, the pattern of deaths largely replicates existing patterns of deaths from all other causes; moreover, COVID-19 actually marginally reinforces the existing pattern of early male death rates
and the very high death rates experienced by the very elderly of both sexes;
(iii) as a new ‘killer’ disease, COVID-19 has the benign characteristic of choosing its victims from the already elderly, i.e., it is best seen as reinforcing the natural order of death; essentially, is there an alternative age cohort that one would rather this new disease decimates?; COVID-19 really would be a human life game-changer if it drew its victims from the young and/or otherwise healthy people in their prime of life!
(iv) If the blither being put about in the media that ‘every life saved is worth it’ really is to be taken seriously, then it is clear that we ought to forget about COVID-19 and instead throw vast medical resources at trying to reduce the existing massive premature slaughter of males in their 40s, 50s and 60s."
Hat tip Rodney Hide
Sunday, May 03, 2020
PM's patronising accolades are misguided
The police are running around ordering people off Christchurch beaches. Their message: "If you're not exercising, clear out." So you can skip on a beach but not sit on it.
It's a revolting and indefensible state of affairs.
But it set me off again on trying to get my head around another consideration.
Many New Zealanders are not law-abiding. Think the size of the black economy. Or that some don't bother to register a birth. Or that substantial numbers lie about their family circumstances to qualify for a benefit. Or the extent of still-illegal cannabis use. Just a few examples I can substantiate for any readers who think I make stuff up.
Despite the PM's patronising and puke-making accolades for our en masse efforts, do YOU honestly believe the level 4 lock down was dutifully observed across the country?
I don't. Not for a minute.
Yet the Covid incidence reduced anyway.
Which explains why Australia's far less intrusive and stringent lock down measures achieved similar results.
It's a revolting and indefensible state of affairs.
But it set me off again on trying to get my head around another consideration.
Many New Zealanders are not law-abiding. Think the size of the black economy. Or that some don't bother to register a birth. Or that substantial numbers lie about their family circumstances to qualify for a benefit. Or the extent of still-illegal cannabis use. Just a few examples I can substantiate for any readers who think I make stuff up.
Despite the PM's patronising and puke-making accolades for our en masse efforts, do YOU honestly believe the level 4 lock down was dutifully observed across the country?
I don't. Not for a minute.
Yet the Covid incidence reduced anyway.
Which explains why Australia's far less intrusive and stringent lock down measures achieved similar results.
Birthdays during the debacle
We've had three April birthdays during the debacle.
My dear Mum turned 88. Yesterday we were at last able to play a few games of Scrabble in her and dad's house at the village she now calls Stalag Summerset. My son turned 26 and was happily at home (choosing more space over his small flat for the duration). And my beloved Limmey turned 2.
I was slightly hesitant about taking on a newborn but she has grown quite painlessly into a charming young adult.
My dear Mum turned 88. Yesterday we were at last able to play a few games of Scrabble in her and dad's house at the village she now calls Stalag Summerset. My son turned 26 and was happily at home (choosing more space over his small flat for the duration). And my beloved Limmey turned 2.
I was slightly hesitant about taking on a newborn but she has grown quite painlessly into a charming young adult.
Friday, May 01, 2020
Wednesday, April 29, 2020
Don Brash: Have we been conned?
Have we been conned? (originally published in elocal April 2020)
Perhaps it is dangerous to write about such a fast-moving situation as the Covid-19 pandemic when what I write may not be published for 10 days or more, but at time of writing my strong impression is that the public believe that the Government has done a remarkably good job of suppressing, perhaps even eliminating, the spread of Covid-19 in New Zealand, and that they deserve warm applause.
I believe the public has been conned.
To begin with, in common with most of the countries in Europe and North America but quite unlike the countries of East Asia, the New Zealand Government was very slow to take the virus seriously. Despite the Ministry of Health issuing a statement in late January talking of the extremely serious threat posed by the disease, the Government did little or nothing to prepare for its arrival on our shores for more than a month.
By contrast, and perhaps because they had had experience of the SARS epidemic some years ago, countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong swung swiftly into action with far-reaching testing and tracing. As a result, for example, Taiwan – geographically and economically much closer to the source of the virus in China than New Zealand – has vastly few total Covid- 19 cases than New Zealand has had. Indeed, on a per capita basis, New Zealand has had some 17 times as many cases as Taiwan has had.
As late as the middle of March, there had been no suggestion that the very large public ceremony to mark the anniversary of the Christchurch massacre would be cancelled, even though a crowded public event would have been the perfect way of spreading the virus.
On 17 March, the Minister of Finance announced what he called a “$12.1 billion support for New Zealanders and business”. Some of that was well targeted – including an extra $500 million for the health sector and a substantial wage subsidy to help businesses retain staff. Other parts were very poorly targeted, including a permanent increase in benefit levels and a change in the depreciation rules around commercial buildings. And the Government made it clear that they intended that a further increase in the minimum wage would still take place on 1 April, making it certain that whatever impact the virus had on employment would be made worse by a significant increase in the cost of employing people.
On 23 March, the Prime Minister announced that two days later the country was moving into an Alert Level 4 lockdown for four weeks. We had to do this, we were told, because otherwise “tens of thousands” of New Zealanders would die from the disease and our hospital system – especially the availability of ICU hospital beds – would be overwhelmed. Yes, there would an economic cost it was acknowledged, but faced with a choice between saving lives and worrying about dollars, the Prime Minister was clear that she placed a higher value on lives saved than on dollars.
Has it worked? Superficially yes. The number of new cases yesterday (I’m writing on 18 April) was just eight, only 14 people were in hospital, and only three were in ICU beds. Only 11 people have died from the virus. Perhaps we could even look forward to the day when New Zealand has no cases of Covid- 19, and we can all get back to work, though with our international borders permanently closed, or at least closed until an effective vaccine is discovered and deployed.
But very serious questions must be asked.
First, it is now clear that “tens of thousands of deaths” were never likely. Yes, some of the projections made by epidemiologists at Otago University suggested that deaths could rise to between 8,600 and 14,400 – not exactly “tens of thousands” but certainly a very large number – but those numbers assumed that the Ministry of Health would abandon its trace, test and isolate strategy. As Ian Harrison of Tailrisk Economics has noted, the same model “configured with effective tracing and isolation, and some other plausible assumptions, generated about 160 deaths” 1. And given that we have had 1,409 identified cases at this stage, and only 11 deaths as a result, it appears that the fatality rate is not much over 1% (I’m allowing for a few more deaths from those who, at time of writing, had contracted the disease but had not yet recovered).
Second, it also seems clear that Australia has had fewer cases of Covid-19 than New Zealand has had, on a per capita basis, despite having a much more relaxed attitude to “lock-down”.
Third, without exception all those who have died of Covid-19 in New Zealand are people who were over 70 (and most were over 80), all with one or more other serious “health issues”. While clearly overseas experience confirms that younger people can die of Covid-19, it appears that in other countries too those who have succumbed to the virus have overwhelmingly been over 70, and overwhelmingly people with other health issues. At no time has our hospital system even looked like being overwhelmed, and typically no more than three or four ICU beds have been occupied at one time – of the several hundred ICU beds which either are, or could quickly be, available.
More serious still is the fact that the Prime Minister seems to think that by locking the economy down tightly she is showing that she cares more about lives than about dollars. If she imagines for a single moment that locking the economy down tightly has no effect on lives lost she is even less well informed than I had imagined. We all know that four weeks of isolation in our respective bubbles has seen a marked spike in domestic violence. We can guess that seeing a business that one has spent years or decades building up destroyed in the course of a few weeks has led to an increase in suicide. And suddenly being unable to bring home a wage or salary will be having a similarly devastating effect on the mental health and lives of many tens of thousands of employees.
Professor John Gibson, one of New Zealand’s leading academic economists, has drawn attention to the fact that life expectancy is to some extent a function of real GDP per capita. He has noted in a recent paper that “if real per capita GDP in New Zealand falls by 10% due to the lockdown and other effects associated with Covid-19, life expectancy would be predicted to fall by 1.4 years” 2. Of course, not all the fall in real GDP per capita is a result of the lockdown: earnings from international tourism, and the education of foreign students, were going to fall precipitously, almost no matter how severe our cdomestic lockdown had been.
But there can be little doubt that severely locking down much of the economy will have cost a great many lives, and very probably many more than the lives clost to Covid-19 to date. As the Prime Minister must surely know, every time cthe Government decides to spend money on improving road safety, or cincreasing the Pharmac budget, or increasing the school lunch programme, they are implicitly (and often explicitly) calculating how many dollars they are willing to spend to save a life. I strongly suspect that in adopting perhaps the strictest lockdown regime in the world, the government has cost more lives than it has saved.
Don Brash
April 2020
Perhaps it is dangerous to write about such a fast-moving situation as the Covid-19 pandemic when what I write may not be published for 10 days or more, but at time of writing my strong impression is that the public believe that the Government has done a remarkably good job of suppressing, perhaps even eliminating, the spread of Covid-19 in New Zealand, and that they deserve warm applause.
I believe the public has been conned.
To begin with, in common with most of the countries in Europe and North America but quite unlike the countries of East Asia, the New Zealand Government was very slow to take the virus seriously. Despite the Ministry of Health issuing a statement in late January talking of the extremely serious threat posed by the disease, the Government did little or nothing to prepare for its arrival on our shores for more than a month.
By contrast, and perhaps because they had had experience of the SARS epidemic some years ago, countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong swung swiftly into action with far-reaching testing and tracing. As a result, for example, Taiwan – geographically and economically much closer to the source of the virus in China than New Zealand – has vastly few total Covid- 19 cases than New Zealand has had. Indeed, on a per capita basis, New Zealand has had some 17 times as many cases as Taiwan has had.
As late as the middle of March, there had been no suggestion that the very large public ceremony to mark the anniversary of the Christchurch massacre would be cancelled, even though a crowded public event would have been the perfect way of spreading the virus.
On 17 March, the Minister of Finance announced what he called a “$12.1 billion support for New Zealanders and business”. Some of that was well targeted – including an extra $500 million for the health sector and a substantial wage subsidy to help businesses retain staff. Other parts were very poorly targeted, including a permanent increase in benefit levels and a change in the depreciation rules around commercial buildings. And the Government made it clear that they intended that a further increase in the minimum wage would still take place on 1 April, making it certain that whatever impact the virus had on employment would be made worse by a significant increase in the cost of employing people.
On 23 March, the Prime Minister announced that two days later the country was moving into an Alert Level 4 lockdown for four weeks. We had to do this, we were told, because otherwise “tens of thousands” of New Zealanders would die from the disease and our hospital system – especially the availability of ICU hospital beds – would be overwhelmed. Yes, there would an economic cost it was acknowledged, but faced with a choice between saving lives and worrying about dollars, the Prime Minister was clear that she placed a higher value on lives saved than on dollars.
Has it worked? Superficially yes. The number of new cases yesterday (I’m writing on 18 April) was just eight, only 14 people were in hospital, and only three were in ICU beds. Only 11 people have died from the virus. Perhaps we could even look forward to the day when New Zealand has no cases of Covid- 19, and we can all get back to work, though with our international borders permanently closed, or at least closed until an effective vaccine is discovered and deployed.
But very serious questions must be asked.
First, it is now clear that “tens of thousands of deaths” were never likely. Yes, some of the projections made by epidemiologists at Otago University suggested that deaths could rise to between 8,600 and 14,400 – not exactly “tens of thousands” but certainly a very large number – but those numbers assumed that the Ministry of Health would abandon its trace, test and isolate strategy. As Ian Harrison of Tailrisk Economics has noted, the same model “configured with effective tracing and isolation, and some other plausible assumptions, generated about 160 deaths” 1. And given that we have had 1,409 identified cases at this stage, and only 11 deaths as a result, it appears that the fatality rate is not much over 1% (I’m allowing for a few more deaths from those who, at time of writing, had contracted the disease but had not yet recovered).
Second, it also seems clear that Australia has had fewer cases of Covid-19 than New Zealand has had, on a per capita basis, despite having a much more relaxed attitude to “lock-down”.
Third, without exception all those who have died of Covid-19 in New Zealand are people who were over 70 (and most were over 80), all with one or more other serious “health issues”. While clearly overseas experience confirms that younger people can die of Covid-19, it appears that in other countries too those who have succumbed to the virus have overwhelmingly been over 70, and overwhelmingly people with other health issues. At no time has our hospital system even looked like being overwhelmed, and typically no more than three or four ICU beds have been occupied at one time – of the several hundred ICU beds which either are, or could quickly be, available.
More serious still is the fact that the Prime Minister seems to think that by locking the economy down tightly she is showing that she cares more about lives than about dollars. If she imagines for a single moment that locking the economy down tightly has no effect on lives lost she is even less well informed than I had imagined. We all know that four weeks of isolation in our respective bubbles has seen a marked spike in domestic violence. We can guess that seeing a business that one has spent years or decades building up destroyed in the course of a few weeks has led to an increase in suicide. And suddenly being unable to bring home a wage or salary will be having a similarly devastating effect on the mental health and lives of many tens of thousands of employees.
Professor John Gibson, one of New Zealand’s leading academic economists, has drawn attention to the fact that life expectancy is to some extent a function of real GDP per capita. He has noted in a recent paper that “if real per capita GDP in New Zealand falls by 10% due to the lockdown and other effects associated with Covid-19, life expectancy would be predicted to fall by 1.4 years” 2. Of course, not all the fall in real GDP per capita is a result of the lockdown: earnings from international tourism, and the education of foreign students, were going to fall precipitously, almost no matter how severe our cdomestic lockdown had been.
But there can be little doubt that severely locking down much of the economy will have cost a great many lives, and very probably many more than the lives clost to Covid-19 to date. As the Prime Minister must surely know, every time cthe Government decides to spend money on improving road safety, or cincreasing the Pharmac budget, or increasing the school lunch programme, they are implicitly (and often explicitly) calculating how many dollars they are willing to spend to save a life. I strongly suspect that in adopting perhaps the strictest lockdown regime in the world, the government has cost more lives than it has saved.
Don Brash
April 2020
[1]The
Ministry of Health’s modeling of the impact of the Coronavirus on New Zealand:
A look behind the headlines, April 2020, Ian Harrison.
[2]
Quoted in Croaking
Cassandra, a blog by former
Reserve Bank economist Michael Reddell, on 16 April 2020.
Dancing on the grave of Radio Sport
I recently wrote a piece about the forced feminization of society.
Here's another blow for the boys. The death of Radio Sport, much to the delight of someone called Zoe George who, if the internet links are up-to-date, is paid by the state via RNZ.
She must have listened in to Radio Sport's farewell episode on Monday furiously scrawling her complaints, counting how many times sportswomen women weren't mentioned, taking offence at the blokiness and a derogatory mention of Paris Hilton (who I am sure subscribes to the adage '... any publicity is good publicity'), fulminating whilst formulating "Why Radio Sport missed the mark."
"Only four female voices were heard among the sea of middle-aged men on Monday's show."
She quotes a female journalist who worked there briefly saying, "Radio Sport was never able to shake that macho appeal."
Well here's a thought. Perhaps it didn't want to.
Just where can men be men anymore?
A commercial enterprise, Radio Sport doubtless died from the lack of sport, sponsorship, advertising etc. under lock down conditions. More Covid collateral.
But no. Along comes this publicly-funded person to tell us all that it failed, "missed the mark" because it refused to submit to feminization.
In conclusion she crows,"By taking all these blokes off the airwaves, the percentage of female sports journalists is higher than ever before."
Says it all really doesn't it?
Here's another blow for the boys. The death of Radio Sport, much to the delight of someone called Zoe George who, if the internet links are up-to-date, is paid by the state via RNZ.
She must have listened in to Radio Sport's farewell episode on Monday furiously scrawling her complaints, counting how many times sportswomen women weren't mentioned, taking offence at the blokiness and a derogatory mention of Paris Hilton (who I am sure subscribes to the adage '... any publicity is good publicity'), fulminating whilst formulating "Why Radio Sport missed the mark."
"Only four female voices were heard among the sea of middle-aged men on Monday's show."
She quotes a female journalist who worked there briefly saying, "Radio Sport was never able to shake that macho appeal."
Well here's a thought. Perhaps it didn't want to.
Just where can men be men anymore?
A commercial enterprise, Radio Sport doubtless died from the lack of sport, sponsorship, advertising etc. under lock down conditions. More Covid collateral.
But no. Along comes this publicly-funded person to tell us all that it failed, "missed the mark" because it refused to submit to feminization.
In conclusion she crows,"By taking all these blokes off the airwaves, the percentage of female sports journalists is higher than ever before."
Says it all really doesn't it?
Tuesday, April 28, 2020
Monday, April 27, 2020
Saturday, April 25, 2020
Why did the world go ballistic over Covid 19?
I keep trying to figure out why the world went ballistic over Covid 19.
There's been a string of scary viruses but international panic didn't ensue. Deadly influenza circulates but international panic didn't ensue.
Yes, first world societies have become increasingly risk averse and legislated to reflect that. Health and safety is a suffocating, saturating blanket which employs thousands directly and indirectly. Its tentacles reach further and wider.
But I think there's more. The world has been primed with hysteria over the spectre of rising seas, the extinction of species, and searing temperatures that will become frankly non survivable. In the very near future no less. The masses appear to believe these predictions based mostly on modelling, some manipulated imagery and an acceptance that the science was settled and the scientists infallible. We are collectively cowering and unable to control our destiny.
Then, along comes a new and unknown threat. Covid 19.
The threat pretty quickly magnifies with modelling. We are conditioned to trust modelling because modelling gave us all the climate change predictions which are now part of our wall paper. Our articles of faith.
So a critical mass is already scared witless. The media provides evidence of that daily.
BUT at last a threat we can exercise some control over. We can don our masks and keep our distance. Make lifestyle changes with immediate individual consequences if not collective. Quickly we are aided and abetted by the authorities. Perhaps most importantly, validated.
Lock down, Stay home, Stay safe.
What relief.
Trouble is, one man's relief is another man's aggravation.
There's been a string of scary viruses but international panic didn't ensue. Deadly influenza circulates but international panic didn't ensue.
Yes, first world societies have become increasingly risk averse and legislated to reflect that. Health and safety is a suffocating, saturating blanket which employs thousands directly and indirectly. Its tentacles reach further and wider.
But I think there's more. The world has been primed with hysteria over the spectre of rising seas, the extinction of species, and searing temperatures that will become frankly non survivable. In the very near future no less. The masses appear to believe these predictions based mostly on modelling, some manipulated imagery and an acceptance that the science was settled and the scientists infallible. We are collectively cowering and unable to control our destiny.
Then, along comes a new and unknown threat. Covid 19.
The threat pretty quickly magnifies with modelling. We are conditioned to trust modelling because modelling gave us all the climate change predictions which are now part of our wall paper. Our articles of faith.
So a critical mass is already scared witless. The media provides evidence of that daily.
BUT at last a threat we can exercise some control over. We can don our masks and keep our distance. Make lifestyle changes with immediate individual consequences if not collective. Quickly we are aided and abetted by the authorities. Perhaps most importantly, validated.
Lock down, Stay home, Stay safe.
What relief.
Trouble is, one man's relief is another man's aggravation.
"Millions of cases; small amount of death"
I spent an hour watching this and found it rather compelling.
Two practicing doctors - specializing in immunology and microbiology - who are trying persuade the governor of California to end their lock down. This is the press conference they called on Wednesday last week.
Two practicing doctors - specializing in immunology and microbiology - who are trying persuade the governor of California to end their lock down. This is the press conference they called on Wednesday last week.
"Acclaim for the PM boosts Labour in the polls – but voters may not be so kind as the recession bites"
A cut and paste from Point of Order:
"...is it a winning narrative first to exaggerate the catastrophic number of deaths likely from the coronvirus, striking panic into the population, and then to claim “We saved you”?
That narrative will not resonate with small business owners whose dreams have been shattered by the way the government has operated in the Covid-19 lockdown. Already many are convinced the government’s lockdown rules have been far too stringent, an over-reaction to academic modelling that was wildly inaccurate.
They are asking why NZ didn’t follow Australia’s example in allowing small and medium businesses to continue operating .
Then there is the problem with the word “kindness”. It worked very well for the Prime Minister as she steered the country through the threatened crisis. But how will that go if unemployment reaches 10% or more of the workforce?
The danger for the PM and her ministers is that hundreds of thousands of voters may come to believe they were hoodwinked into being confined in their cells for the duration.
That belief, if mixed with socialist policy solutions for the blitz on the economy subsequent to the pandemic, could prove a fatal political cocktail. The record shows the Ardern coalition carries too much deadweight in Cabinet when it comes to framing and implementing policy.
Peter Dunne summed it up neatly:
“Critical to this whole process of crisis management is there being an actual crisis to manage. That has been clearly the case in places like the US, Britain, Italy and Spain, for example, as the numbers of cases and deaths have been spiralling out of control and the public reaction has been one of desperate panic.
“While the potential impact for NZ was just as serious, the perverse consequence of acting early to avert the extent of the crisis has been that the extremes seen overseas have been averted. But an inevitable consequence is that some now question whether there was ever a crisis here in the first place”
What won’t escape voters is that the billions of dollars being spent by the government as a result of its decision to fight the pandemic in the way it did will have to be repaid, not just by the current generation of taxpayers but by future generations — and the prosperity which New Zealanders were enjoying just a few months ago may not return any time soon.
So, as voters approach the ballot box to cast their votes, will phrases like “ Be kind” and “we are all in this together” still be ringing in their ears?"
Complete article here
Personally I don't think there are any 'buts' or 'maybes' about it. It is one of the few comforting thoughts I have currently. She's gone come September ...
"...is it a winning narrative first to exaggerate the catastrophic number of deaths likely from the coronvirus, striking panic into the population, and then to claim “We saved you”?
That narrative will not resonate with small business owners whose dreams have been shattered by the way the government has operated in the Covid-19 lockdown. Already many are convinced the government’s lockdown rules have been far too stringent, an over-reaction to academic modelling that was wildly inaccurate.
They are asking why NZ didn’t follow Australia’s example in allowing small and medium businesses to continue operating .
Then there is the problem with the word “kindness”. It worked very well for the Prime Minister as she steered the country through the threatened crisis. But how will that go if unemployment reaches 10% or more of the workforce?
The danger for the PM and her ministers is that hundreds of thousands of voters may come to believe they were hoodwinked into being confined in their cells for the duration.
That belief, if mixed with socialist policy solutions for the blitz on the economy subsequent to the pandemic, could prove a fatal political cocktail. The record shows the Ardern coalition carries too much deadweight in Cabinet when it comes to framing and implementing policy.
Peter Dunne summed it up neatly:
“Critical to this whole process of crisis management is there being an actual crisis to manage. That has been clearly the case in places like the US, Britain, Italy and Spain, for example, as the numbers of cases and deaths have been spiralling out of control and the public reaction has been one of desperate panic.
“While the potential impact for NZ was just as serious, the perverse consequence of acting early to avert the extent of the crisis has been that the extremes seen overseas have been averted. But an inevitable consequence is that some now question whether there was ever a crisis here in the first place”
What won’t escape voters is that the billions of dollars being spent by the government as a result of its decision to fight the pandemic in the way it did will have to be repaid, not just by the current generation of taxpayers but by future generations — and the prosperity which New Zealanders were enjoying just a few months ago may not return any time soon.
So, as voters approach the ballot box to cast their votes, will phrases like “ Be kind” and “we are all in this together” still be ringing in their ears?"
Complete article here
Personally I don't think there are any 'buts' or 'maybes' about it. It is one of the few comforting thoughts I have currently. She's gone come September ...
Thursday, April 23, 2020
NZ - The little engine that couldn't
NZ has always been 'the little engine that could.' It's endearing imagery but also powerfully symbolic.
But thanks to our leadership and their reckless decision-making now compounded by dogmatic digging-in, we are fast becoming the little engine that couldn't.
Today exactly what many have predicted has begun. Pharmac backtracks on a cancer drug that could have saved 1,400 lives a year because, "it can no longer afford to make the investment." In a headlong rush to save the lives of an unknown but over-stated quantity, the lives of a known number will be lost.
The economy, our very lifeblood, was all but switched off with no advice from people whose job it is to understand and appreciate its criticality. I still can't work out why. Maybe Grant Robertson thought that NZ was in a relatively strong position debt-wise and he could take risks, enormous risks with it. But I am dismayed and disgusted by how many people think it's a mere matter of switch off - switch on. Just like that. Hence their patronising chiding of the rest of us to 'just be patient. 'It's only a few more days in your bubble'. Or worse, their snitching to the authorities.
Hell's bells. Have these idiots (many deriving their security from Super or a public service salary) really thought any further than the end of their twitchy noses? They seem incapable of joining the dots beyond just A to B. Austerity will come as a rude and rough shock and they will deserve it.
Everyone of us is a domino to some degree.
Many have all ready fallen over. Tragically, today it was lung cancer patient's turn
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have."
But thanks to our leadership and their reckless decision-making now compounded by dogmatic digging-in, we are fast becoming the little engine that couldn't.
Today exactly what many have predicted has begun. Pharmac backtracks on a cancer drug that could have saved 1,400 lives a year because, "it can no longer afford to make the investment." In a headlong rush to save the lives of an unknown but over-stated quantity, the lives of a known number will be lost.
The economy, our very lifeblood, was all but switched off with no advice from people whose job it is to understand and appreciate its criticality. I still can't work out why. Maybe Grant Robertson thought that NZ was in a relatively strong position debt-wise and he could take risks, enormous risks with it. But I am dismayed and disgusted by how many people think it's a mere matter of switch off - switch on. Just like that. Hence their patronising chiding of the rest of us to 'just be patient. 'It's only a few more days in your bubble'. Or worse, their snitching to the authorities.
Hell's bells. Have these idiots (many deriving their security from Super or a public service salary) really thought any further than the end of their twitchy noses? They seem incapable of joining the dots beyond just A to B. Austerity will come as a rude and rough shock and they will deserve it.
Everyone of us is a domino to some degree.
Many have all ready fallen over. Tragically, today it was lung cancer patient's turn
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have."
Monday, April 20, 2020
ANYONE FOR A PROTEST?
OK. People everywhere are banging away on their keyboards (especially on KiwiBlog) and that's fine. But all the angry frustrated commenting does is dissipate the anger and frustration.
The economy is dying in front of us.
The modelling that caused the move to level 4 has been subsequently discredited.
There is enough evidence now to convince that the cure IS worse than the disease.
Every day business cannot operate their prognosis worsens.
I would go and stand on the lawn at Parliament with a banner conveying any one of these messages (and there are more) but I'd be swiftly removed under the new laws the police have been given (though the sole climate change protester stayed there for weeks).
Three people made sense to me yesterday and none was the PM. Sir Ray Avery (we cannot eliminate Covid), Oliver Hartwich (the economy is getting sicker by the day - exponentially) and Ian Harrison (the modelling the govt relied on was flawed.)
We should be moving out of Level 4 right now and to 2 if not 1.
If you are in the Wellington area and feel like I do email me.
The economy is dying in front of us.
The modelling that caused the move to level 4 has been subsequently discredited.
There is enough evidence now to convince that the cure IS worse than the disease.
Every day business cannot operate their prognosis worsens.
I would go and stand on the lawn at Parliament with a banner conveying any one of these messages (and there are more) but I'd be swiftly removed under the new laws the police have been given (though the sole climate change protester stayed there for weeks).
Three people made sense to me yesterday and none was the PM. Sir Ray Avery (we cannot eliminate Covid), Oliver Hartwich (the economy is getting sicker by the day - exponentially) and Ian Harrison (the modelling the govt relied on was flawed.)
We should be moving out of Level 4 right now and to 2 if not 1.
If you are in the Wellington area and feel like I do email me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
