Thursday's Covid-19 update: 13 new community cases. Bloomfield wants vaccination rate 'at or above' 90%

Ministry of Health reports 13 new community Covid-19 cases, all in Auckland, health officials following up with truck driver with Covid who traveled south from Auckland

16th Sep 21, 1:00pm by Gareth Vaughan

There are 13 new community Covid-19 cases, the Ministry of Health says, with all of them in Auckland.

Director General of Health Ashley Bloomfield says of the 996 total cases in the current outbreak, 460 people have now recovered. Of these 15 are in Wellington and the rest in Auckland.

Bloomfield says all but one of Thursday's 13 cases have already been linked to known cases. The one who hasn't is someone who turned up at Middlemore Hospital's emergency department and was tested there. Bloomfield says there are plans to start using antigen tests at Middlemore.

Another is a truck driver who has traveled outside Auckland. He's being interviewed by Ministry of Health officials to ascertain whether there have been exposure events outside Auckland.

He traveled to Hamilton, Cambridge and Tauranga. However Bloomfield says it's not known yet whether this was during his infectious period. Thus it's also not known yet whether there were any exposure events.

There were 9,100 Covid-19 tests conducted in Auckland over the past 24 hours. Five of Wednesday's 14 cases were infectious in the community.

A total of 62,782 vaccines were administered nationwide on Wednesday, with 39,775 first does, and 23,007 second doses.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says New Zealand has now reached three million first doses, which is 70% of the eligible population. Ardern says there's capacity to get 80% of eligible Aucklanders their first dose by the end of the week.

Bloomfield says evidence from countries with high vaccination rates is that Covid-19 is becoming a pandemic of the unvaccinated. He says it's "mission critical" to get as many eligible New Zealanders as possible vaccinated, and "New Zealanders need to take up that opportunity."

"We need to be at or above 90%," Bloomfield says.

Meanwhile, Ardern says Cabinet has decided not to make any changes to Covid-19 Alert Level 1. She says if Auckland moves to Level 3 on Monday Cabinet anticipates lifting gathering size limits in the rest of the country to 100 from 50, implying the rest of NZ will remain at Level 2.

The Ministry of Health issued the following update on Thursday evening.

Media release

16 September 2021

The Ministry of Health is providing an update on two of the cases who tested positive for COVID-19 today currently being investigated by public health staff.

Truck driver

Auckland Regional Public Health has now completed its initial interview with the truck driver who returned a positive test result as confirmed earlier today. This case has been linked to the existing outbreak.

A small number of exposure events are in the process of being worked through by public health staff. Any that are locations of interest will be listed on the Ministry of Health website. We anticipate the first of a handful of Auckland locations, expected to be supermarkets and dairies, to be published this evening. Where we can readily identify contacts, these exposure events will not be listed.

There are four other household contacts who are in self-isolation and are being tested.

Middlemore patient

The patient who tested positive at Middlemore hospital on Wednesday evening has also been interviewed, and is now in isolation at home awaiting transfer to MIQ.

The individual is in a household where no other cases have been identified at this stage. All household members are in isolation and we continue to look for links to other cases.

The other five previous cases identified through exposure events at Middlemore hospital have all been linked to the outbreak on further investigation.

More information on both these cases will be available tomorrow.

Below is the Ministry of Health's 1pm press release.

13 community cases of COVID-19; three border cases and two historical cases in managed isolation

16 September

Cases
Number of new community cases	13
Number of new cases identified at the border	Five (two of these cases are historical)
Location of new cases	Auckland
Location of community cases (total)	Auckland 979 (445 of whom have recovered); Wellington 17 (15 of whom have recovered)
Number of community cases (total)	996 (in current community outbreak)
Cases infectious in the community	Five (42%) of yesterday’s cases have exposure events
Cases in isolation throughout the period they were infectious	7 (58%) of yesterday’s cases
Cases epidemiologically linked	10 of today’s cases
Cases to be epidemiologically linked	Three of today’s cases
Cases epidemiologically linked (total)	966 (in current cluster) (10 unlinked from past fortnight)
Number of sub-clusters	Nine epidemiologically linked subclusters. The three largest subclusters are the Māngere church group: 381; and Birkdale social network cluster: 77; secondary community transmission associated with the Māngere church group 164. There are ten epidemiologically unlinked subclusters.
Cases in hospital	19 (total): North Shore (3); Auckland (6); Middlemore (10)
Cases in ICU or HDU	Four
Confirmed cases (total)	3,643 since pandemic began
Historical cases, since 1 Jan 2021 (total)	149 out of 1,825 since 1 Jan 2021
Contacts
Number of active contacts being managed (total)	963
Percentage who have received an outbound call from contact tracers (to confirm testing and isolation requirements)	95%
Percentage with at least one test result	90%
Locations of interest
Locations of interest (total)	129 (as at 10am 16 September)
Tests
Number of tests (total)	3,190,907
Number of tests total (last 24 hours)	17,578
Tests rolling average (last 7 days)	13,000
Tests in Auckland (last 24 hours)	9,100
Testing centres in Auckland	22
Wastewater
Wastewater detections	A follow up sample has been collected from Snells Beach, following the reported detection yesterday, with results expected in the coming days
COVID-19 vaccine update
Vaccines administered to date (total)	4,507,944; 1^st doses: 2,978,105; 2^nd doses: 1,529,839
Vaccines administered yesterday (total)	62,782; 1^stdoses: 39,775; 2^nd doses: 23,007
Māori	1^stdoses: 278,614; 2^nd doses: 133,830
Pacific Peoples	1^stdoses:180,003; 2^nd doses: 92,498
NZ COVID-19 tracer
Registered users (total)	3,222,022
Poster scans (total)	361,367,341
Manual diary entries (total)	16,366,712
Poster scans in 24 hours to midday yesterday 2,458,985

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

124 Comments

by sharetrader | 16th Sep 21, 1:14pm 1631754863

about time with the antigen tests especially as you enter the hospital

by Lanthanide | 16th Sep 21, 1:22pm 1631755376

Yes, long overdue.

by tothepoint | 16th Sep 21, 2:15pm 1631758521

Get vaccinated!

TTP

by Foxglove. | 16th Sep 21, 1:28pm 1631755736

Coming into the countdown for level 3 for Auckland, which if these daily numbers stat consistent must then happen because nothing will have altered from the time the PM gave that indication. However will it be understood in Auckland that the reduction to level 3 does not actually introduce a lot of difference to level 4. In other words some may unwittingly believe they can do more than they should be doing?

by donny11 | 16th Sep 21, 1:35pm 1631756111

Depends how you interpret our PM‘s deliberate ambiguity. If they are down to 3 or 4 cases a day by next Monday. I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to push on another week at level 4 to fully eliminate the outbreak.

by Nifty1 | 16th Sep 21, 1:39pm 1631756340

Yeah 'we've come this far, we can push through 1 more week - the country loves you Auckland. Kia kaha and pat yourselves on the back'

by donny11 | 16th Sep 21, 1:49pm 1631756969

I guess the problem is now is that if you give up Auckland will be “living with covid”. The rest of NZ will be at following “elimination”. How long will Auckland be required to be isolated from the rest of NZ？ Guess it will be that way till someone takes the boat down to thames and it spreads through NZ from there.

This is playing out like some C level, Hollywood dystopian thriller.

by Nifty1 | 16th Sep 21, 1:54pm 1631757267

Boat? Nah just this- One of today's cases is a truck driver who crossed the Auckland boundary. Locations of interest are still being determined

by Lanthanide | 16th Sep 21, 1:56pm 1631757397

Locations of interest are still being determined

Of which there may not be any. A location of interest is only published when they aren't sure of how many people or who may have come into contact with a case.

If a truck driver only visited 3 sites and they know exactly who they interacted with those sites, then no need to publish any locations of interest, since those are for notifying the public at large to self-identify if they were at the affected location at the time specified.

by Nifty1 | 16th Sep 21, 2:00pm 1631757638

They travelled to Hamilton, Cambridge and Tauranga. They don't know if they were infectious at this time.

The truck driver works stocking supermarkets.

What could go wrong?

by sharetrader | 16th Sep 21, 2:06pm 1631757972

he would have been well away from the guys unloading the truck, even so they will now be required to be tested and isolate until result comes back, he is less likely to spread it than someone wandering around the aisle in the local supermarket

by Lanthanide | 16th Sep 21, 2:19pm 1631758768

What could go wrong?

Potentially, a lot.

In practice, if all rules were followed, the risk of bad outcomes should be very very low.

by Nifty1 | 16th Sep 21, 2:36pm 1631759797

Yeah as we've seen this week, the rules aren't always followed and there has been a relaxed approach from government to negate this - I.e. testing. You can only imagine what someone might get up to when they're free from the constraints of Auckland...

by Foxglove. | 16th Sep 21, 2:44pm 1631760248

As someone pointed out here last week NZ only came out of level 4 in last years first lockdown after quite a number of days at zero. Given that we are warned that Delta is a much highly transmissible virus, the government must be going to take more than a calculated risk to start moving down levels when there are in fact new cases arriving in the community daily. Obviously expertise and efficiency in testing and tracing has advanced a lot, one would hope. But nevertheless this is quite a change of strategy and raises the question that the government may be bending to political expediency.

by Lanthanide | 16th Sep 21, 3:16pm 1631762218

I recall questions at the time about whether we would need to have 0 cases in order to move to lower alert levels and the answer was no, what mattered is if the outbreak was under control and ring-fenced.

But it's possible that was for going from 3 to 2, or in some of the other shorter lockdowns we had, eg the Americold one in August.

by Lanthanide | 16th Sep 21, 1:22pm 1631755357

Jacinda's confirmed level 1 alert settings remain as they are without any changes, however the country as a whole will not go to level 1 as long as Auckland is in level 3 or 4.

Also signalled that the rest of the country is likely to go to a more relaxed level 2 next week, allowing up to 100 people at venues, including hospitality. To be confirmed on Monday.

by Nifty1 | 16th Sep 21, 1:51pm 1631757102

What a joke, this is going to drag on and on...blunders all over the show.

by lowercase capitalist | 16th Sep 21, 2:01pm 1631757686

What blunders are you referring to?

by WestieAJ | 16th Sep 21, 2:17pm 1631758633

Allowing the Labour controlled council and Labour government joint venture. The City Rail Link. To modify the public walkway access to the Huawei Centre (home to 60 businesses and a cafe) so that it passed directly next to Crowne Plaza MIQ exercise area. With only 2m high plywood fence to separate. Whilst knowing that Delta variant is an aerosol transmitted virus.

by house hunter | 16th Sep 21, 3:08pm 1631761703

Having MIQ in the middle of cities?

by Lanthanide | 16th Sep 21, 3:18pm 1631762324

That's not a blunder. Having MIQs in remote locations would make them very expensive and difficult to operate, just due to staffing issues. MIQs are really a very labour-intensive operation.

Requiring MIQs to be out of cities would likely mean we'd have a much smaller MIQ capacity than what we have now, which is already regarded as not being nearly enough to meet demand.

by WestieAJ | 16th Sep 21, 3:30pm 1631763058

But the walkway? A stroke of genius.

by Zen20 | 16th Sep 21, 3:37pm 1631763443

Hindsight is genius

by WestieAJ | 16th Sep 21, 3:44pm 1631763882

Following your own regulations on fencing and seperation of general public from MIQ areas dosent require genius. Just the ability to read and understand why its a good idea. The verbal gymnastics required from the Minister to not admit you f'd up is borderline genius.

by Foxglove. | 16th Sep 21, 3:53pm 1631764401

I am not at all fond of this minister, but even I have to admit he can’t be everywhere. The fact is that this government has remained loyal to the MoH, despite a series of serious blunders from day one, and this is because to do otherwise would undermine public confidence in said ministry. Just remember governments and ministers come and go but the bureaucrats don’t. That’s why they have interchangeable suits in their wardrobes.

by WestieAJ | 16th Sep 21, 4:22pm 1631766140

When the minister actively covers up for them it's different. He stood at the podium of truth and said that Crowne Plaza had passed all MIQ audits.

But it later comes out that the last audit was in June and the Newsroom report said the Walkway alterations to accomodate the CRL work were done in early July. In the same podium session he espoused the stringent fencing regulations for MIQ areas. Which from the photos shown in the media. The Crowne Plaza exercise area in July clearly did not comply with.

by Foxglove. | 16th Sep 21, 5:22pm 1631769765

He can’t help himself. For instance answering why border staff were not able to be saliva tested he instinctively lied, saying they don’t want them. Even worse during the melt down of the Christchurch DHB asked why he ignored an independently audited analysis evidencing a shortfall of funding of around $85mill he stated not according to his advice. Well yes technically true but the advice was dud and it was his duty to check it. Because once the hospital had lost its very good team of top executive, resigning because they couldn’t see how they could do their job as a result of his decision, the government promptly coughed up the dough. Absolutely devious and useless and arrogant to boot in my opinion.How is a hospital expected to care for any of us if they are denied the resources to do it with.

by HouseMouse | 16th Sep 21, 3:55pm 1631764527

Garbage. It was always idiotic. I always avoided that spot like the plague.

by Lanthanide | 16th Sep 21, 3:45pm 1631763903

Yes I'd call that a blunder. Although they haven't actually determined if that was the cause of the outbreak.

by WestieAJ | 16th Sep 21, 4:14pm 1631765699

They zeroed in on the Crowne Plaza almost straight away via genome sequencing. Only one possible MIQ case matched the sequence. Then at pretty much the same time a family of 3 from the same hotel floor as index case tested positive day 12. No Crowne Plaza workers tested positive. All those people from the inside lobby at the same time as index case arrival were found and tested negative. The infected family remained at Crowne Plaza for 12 days and "apparently" only used the exercise area once in those 12 days. On a weekday that would have coincided with city lunch hour. Many Elliot St lunch spots were on the initial locations of interest list. Suggesting worker/workers from that area had tested positive. Had any of them used that walkway? I don't think the government really want to find out the source for this outbreak.

by HouseMouse | 16th Sep 21, 3:54pm 1631764455

Thanks Jacinda!

Labour is clearly heavenly and perfect in your eyes!

by Lanthanide | 16th Sep 21, 4:24pm 1631766270

Um, no, and if you look at my comments on this post alone, you will see several critical of the government.

by HouseMouse | 16th Sep 21, 7:22pm 1631776979

A welcome change. Has head office issued a decree that Labour needs to start showing a bit more humility, otherwise the ongoing arrogance might hurt you in the polls?

by Lanthanide | 16th Sep 21, 7:46pm 1631778371

Not sure why your referring to "me" as being Labour. I'm a person, not a political party, and not a member of any political party, not employed by one, nor employed by the government.

It's also not a change at all. I happily criticise the government when I think they're due criticism. There just isn't a whole lot to criticise about our world leading COVID response.

by Foxglove. | 16th Sep 21, 8:45pm 1631781912

To quote PDK, BOLLOCKS! There is actually quite a lot to criticise if able to view it from a neutral perspective. Why an assurance to our people that we were at the front of the vaccine queue, when we weren’t. Why if NZ was not advanced in that queue, was an alternative vaccine not considered. Why did the government repeatedly claim NZ didn’t need to be so positioned because it had no cases whereas in fact MIQ was more than capable of leaking a case on any given day. Why was and still is, testing of water effluent haphazard. Why was little planning done in advance to enlist the expertise of GPs and pharmacies to vaccinate given that they have been entrusted with the flu vaccine since the 1960s. Why did mobile and arena mass vaccinations take so long to get underway. Why did the government not think to communicate with and enlist the social expertise of ethnicities and take the vaccine out through then rather than expecting the mountain to come to Mohammed. Why did the government only start recruiting personnel to start thinking about such vaccination processes until about March this year. Why did the government allow the bubble to open with Australia when they knew that there was a strain of covid, since called Delta, raging at a 150,000 new cases daily in India at that time. Why did it take Delta to arrive for the government to only then realise to accelerate vaccinations and why then did that acceleration threaten to exhaust the vaccine supplies on hand. Why was NZ incapable of availing the clear benefits of saliva testing. Why did it take absolutely ages to firstly regularly and completely test then secondly vaccinate frontline border workers. By exactly what capacity has this government enhanced our hospital services in anticipation of an influx of covid admissions.

by Lanthanide | 16th Sep 21, 9:36pm 1631784961

Why an assurance to our people that we were at the front of the vaccine queue, when we weren’t.

We were. We signed multiple pre-purchase agreements for multiple vaccines towards the end of 2020. When it came to actually taking delivery, Pfizer had their own system for determining which countries received vaccines when. NZ, with a small population on the bottom of the world that had eliminated COVID domestically, was not a priority.

Why if NZ was not advanced in that queue, was an alternative vaccine not considered.

The government decided to go with Pfizer because we had a big enough purchase agreement to cover the whole country, and the mRNA vaccines were shown to be the best amongst the vaccines at the time.

IMO in light of delta it would have been better to go with a multi-vaccine approach as we could have gotten more vaccines sooner rather than waiting on Pfizer. But at the time the decision was made, delta had not yet emerged as the primary variant of concern around the world and we weren't aware of how much more virulent it was (that didn't happen until April-May when it exploded in India). Note that the other vaccines still aren't as effective as Pfizer anyway.

Why was and still is, testing of water effluent haphazard.

I don't know why, but I agree it should be better and have left several comments on this site saying as such.

Why was little planning done in advance to enlist the expertise of GPs and pharmacies to vaccinate given that they have been entrusted with the flu vaccine since the 1960s.

Agreed, this should have been handled better than it was.

Why did mobile and arena mass vaccinations take so long to get underway.

Due to supply issues, which we've already covered.

Why did the government not think to communicate with and enlist the social expertise of ethnicities and take the vaccine out through then rather than expecting the mountain to come to Mohammed.

They had been, but not to the extent required. The Maori and Pacifica vaccination rate for 65+ is actually pretty good, and in some cases higher than populations outside those groups.

Why did the government allow the bubble to open with Australia when they knew that there was a strain of covid, since called Delta, raging at a 150,000 new cases daily in India at that time.

Because of immense pressure put on them to open the bubble from the media, the public, and also Australia. The bubble would have been open sooner but Australia did a rapid u-turn on their planning, initially they ruled out a state-by-state approach and insisted on a federal one, but then just as it looked like we'd come to an agreement, went back to a state-by-state system instead.

The NZ government also trusted the Australian government(s) that an elimination approach was going to be used in Australia. Turns out that NSW was never really serious about that, and that's what has landed us in the crap.

Why did it take Delta to arrive for the government to only then realise to accelerate vaccinations and why then did that acceleration threaten to exhaust the vaccine supplies on hand.

They didn't have the supply, already covered. It's not clear that we could have arranged purchase agreements for the pfizer vaccine with other countries sooner than we did. Denmark and Spain have only relatively recently gotten their vaccination levels to where they want them, to the extent that they had vaccines available to sell to us. The government has been talking with Pfizer constantly for updates to vaccine deliveries; presumably they had also been asking Pfizer about opportunities to bring forward supply during this time.

Why was NZ incapable of availing the clear benefits of saliva testing.

Agreed, and I have said several times on interest.co.nz that saliva testing should have been available for months now.

Why did it take absolutely ages to firstly regularly and completely test then secondly vaccinate frontline border workers.

Vaccine supply was limited, as already stated. Frontline border testing has been ongoing regularly this whole year - we did have a COVID breakout earlier in the year from a frontline worker that repeatedly lied about getting tested; not sure why the system was set up in such a way that that could happen.

By exactly what capacity has this government enhanced our hospital services in anticipation of an influx of covid admissions.

I don't have the details on that, but this isn't a criticism, it's simply a question.

by Foxglove. | 16th Sep 21, 9:35pm 1631784952

Handily, read in the weekend somewhere someone’s post, something like the government was as a team that because it was in the lead at half time thought they had won the match. And because of that they didn’t even think to think about the second half. There it is.

by npc | 17th Sep 21, 8:18am 1631823531

Locking down the country is a lot more expensive I assure you. But hey, lefties are very rarely capable of second-order thinking.

by davef | 16th Sep 21, 2:03pm 1631757801

Level 2.25 ?

by WestieAJ | 16th Sep 21, 2:08pm 1631758092

Since the tracers are linking everyone and the case numbers are now well down. Tell us everyday exactly where/how the previous days cases caught Covid19. Only then will we know our chances of eliminating from Auckland and New Zealand.

by tim52 | 16th Sep 21, 2:14pm 1631758489

There is growing awareness amongst our health experts that Pfizer is not fit for purpose:

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/covid-19/451589/health-experts-say-talk-of-v…

Dr Jemma Geoghegan:

The data out of the UK suggests that 95 percent of the population have some level of immunity to the virus, either through vaccination or past infection. They're still experiencing around 150 deaths a day from this coronavirus and this is during summer.

Professor Nick Wilson:

It was why some changes to behaviour were likely to remain for the foreseeable future, with only the development of a vaccine that provided sterilising immunity allowing for a return to 2019 normality, he said.

"It may be we're in the long haul for keeping the elimination strategy until we have a sterilising vaccine - it's completely effective, like measles vaccine, and you get no transmission. [Paragraphs below] None of the current crop of vaccines fit that bill.

Based on the article we wont be giving up on elimination anytime soon.

by theoutlawtorn | 16th Sep 21, 2:21pm 1631758917

Or the medical field gets it's A into G and finds some more treatment protocols.

Or the general population starts to really improve their own personal health.

Or the health system gets a major upgrade.

by tim52 | 16th Sep 21, 4:07pm 1631765237

All of these are significantly more difficult politically than vaccination but there are small signs of progress in that we have so far managed to avoid signing up for the Pfizer booster.

by False economies | 16th Sep 21, 7:46pm 1631778412

They're still experiencing around 150 deaths a day from this coronavirus and this is during summer.

And something like 90+ % of those are unvaccinated

EDIT make that 99% https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/uk/300407103/more-than-99-per-cent-of-covid-deaths-in-england-this-year-were-not-fully-vaccinated

That hardly maks the pfizer vaccine unfit for purpose (the uk used th AZ vaccine a lot too...)

EDIt 2 that 99% article is slightly misleading, although the original data does show that death rates are much lower for fully vaccinated people. See comments below...

by tim52 | 16th Sep 21, 5:24pm 1631769859

I will leave it as a exercise to you to work out what's wrong with that data. The way its being presented is just disinformation. Big Jim and I made a start on it in yesterdays morning news. Hint: look at the dates involved and then look at dates the 2nd shot was rolled in the UK.

Are you suggesting that the UK would have about 3000 deaths a day if it was not for the vaccines? The have previously peaked at 1200 (smoothed) with significantly higher case counts.

Have a look at current Scottish hospitalization (starting table 16):

https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/9199/21-09-15-covid19-publicati…

You can also look the deaths but bear in mind it uses a similar starting date to stuff's data. But you can guesstimate an offset using stuffs data. The Rio Times has their own summary.

by False economies | 16th Sep 21, 5:40pm 1631770843

To be honest i can't be bothered doing "an exercise" right now.

But my point stands. Saying the pfizer vaccine is not fit for purpose is clearly tosh

by tim52 | 16th Sep 21, 6:00pm 1631772059

Those 2 experts just said it was not fit. The Rio Times gets to the point faster but you wont believe them if you start there, I'm not sure I do but I have seen the analysis elsewhere.

That data includes a large chuck of the winter wave (no one was double vaxed) and very little of delta, but you should go though it your self.

by False economies | 16th Sep 21, 5:56pm 1631771812

Here's the link to the original data, scroll to the graph in section 4 (a little "exercise" for you) and compare the ASMRs for vaccinated and unvaccinated in june july etc...

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween2januaryand2july2021#age-standardised-mortality-rates-for-deaths-involving-covid-19-by-vaccination-status-over-time

Note this is from the UK ONS. You'd think theyd know a thing or two about stats...but if you and bigjim know better...who are we to argue?

by tim52 | 16th Sep 21, 6:20pm 1631773205

Its staring at you right there in the link, "between2januaryand2july". I am not arguing with the numbers they got just they are extremely biased towards the previous wave where no one was double vaxed.

by False economies | 16th Sep 21, 7:17pm 1631776673

I get what you're saying, and you're right, including deaths before the vaccinations took off seems odd, but if you look at that graph in section 4 the ASMR from july onwards (well after 2nd doses had been given) is way lower for fully vaccinated. Which backs up my original point saying that the pfizer vaccine is unfit for purpose is simply not true.

by tim52 | 16th Sep 21, 8:11pm 1631779884

The data ends on the 2nd July and June was very early in the wave, small sample size and less evenly distributed though the population. The biggest issue here is its within 3 months of the majority of the 2nd vaccinations well inside the vaccines established effective period. I don't really want to get too much into that here but that's why everyone is talking about boosters.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations

We have later data from Scotland which covers the last two and half months:

https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/9199/21-09-15-covid19-publicati…

Starting with table 16 we can see that it looks roughly 60-80% effective against hospitalization and you can carry on from there.

You may not want to open the other link I had, that's not ASMR.

by False economies | 16th Sep 21, 7:53pm 1631778799

I've edited my original comment to agree the 99% article is misleading. However, the data DOES clearly show that ASMRs (age standardised mortality rates, which is what ONS were looking at) are way lower for fully vaccinated people. That article was originally in the Telegrpah UK so assume it was them that came up with the dodgy stats.

by TheFuzz | 16th Sep 21, 4:39pm 1631767189

“Pfizer not fit for purpose”

Might be a bit of a leap.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/13/fully-vaccinated-people-a…

by Chinaman1 | 16th Sep 21, 2:32pm 1631759576

Poll numbers looking good enough to get akl to level 3 on Wednesday

by C_T_20 | 16th Sep 21, 2:48pm 1631760522

Has anyone in the media consistently challenged the overuse of the word ‘vaccine’, or the recently changed definitions of the word itself as shown below?

CDC’s old “vaccine” definition:

“a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease”

CDC’s new “vaccine” defiinition:

“a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases”

Likewise, Merriam-Webster’s old “vaccine” definition:

“a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease”

Merriam-Webster’s new “vaccine” definition:

“a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body’s immune response against a specific infectious disease”

Does the majority of sane people not find it really scary that such a major change to the definition of this word is made so easily and quickly with literally no challenge from any quarters?

by Foxglove. | 16th Sep 21, 3:08pm 1631761728

As an aside, your post this morning seemed to indicate you were about to retire hurt from the relentless barrage of Lanthanide’s short pitched deliveries? This is usually a good forum here, don’t give up on it. It takes all sides to make it so. You just need to identify the ground on which each identity stands, and thus the agenda.

by C_T_20 | 16th Sep 21, 5:57pm 1631771842

It is quite entertaining to see the post below yours...

by Lanthanide | 16th Sep 21, 3:23pm 1631762627

Another No True Scotsman argument.

Really the key thing that makes something a vaccine is that you administer it to a person in advance of them becoming infected by the illness, often times months, years, or decades ahead of the potential exposure. The vaccine trains the body to counteract the illness. This is different from medications that are given to people after they become infected by an illness to help them recover from it.

How effective the vaccine actually is at protecting individuals shouldn't really be part of the definition of vaccine.

Have you been complaining that the flu vaccine that is given each year is not really a vaccine, because it doesn't provide immunity to the flu? Or are you only now complaining about the use of the word vaccine in reference to COVID vaccines because you have some sort of agenda in doing so, ie you are anti-vax or somehow annoyed at the success of this government's COVID response so are finding things to complain about instead of being thankful you live in this country?

by C_T_20 | 16th Sep 21, 6:59pm 1631775565

I have not been complaining about the flu vaccine because nobody is advocating for it to become mandatory by officially public policy, or advocating for it to become a de-facto requirement via Health & Safety or other regulations! There is an obviously big difference.

A bit of bed time reading for everyone

Critical scientific analysis

For your information. I have a 12 year old daughter who has been vaccinated with old fashioned vaccines such as the MMR, Polio, and perhaps one other I can't recall right now. That was in my personal opinion a reasonable option to take at the time. I have refused so far to follow the public health initiative of one other vaccine that is supposedly administered to girls at age 12 because I have not yet had the time to research it thoroughly myself. As an example though, the GP I asked a few years back about the MMR and one other vaccine's side effects got really flustered and short. Then proceeds to hand me a tiny leaflet that explains less than one of the websites from ministry fo health does about it. In the end, I asked her again, what information has she studied other than the basic official leaflet advice from the ministry of health? And the answer was a mumbling nothing. Why would a health professional get so defensive? In any given field, people get flustered when they have no real answers or knowledge about a specific subject, despite the fact they are supposed to be the professional we go to get answers from, right?? So forgive me when I, and plenty of others, have insufficient confidence in our health system as a whole to provide in the best possible way for my family. I also grew up in Europe with a health system the envy of many other European countries. I do know what is possible.

I leave it at that as bit of background as to why people like myself hate to be called anti vaxxers or conspiracy theorists. Simply because we don't just follow guidelines from bureaucrats without raising questions until we are satisfied that it is worth following that advice for myself or a member of my family. I just wish more people would stand up for their critical thinking. Instead we get relentless repetition of government policy everywhere, regardless of all the opposing information being available easily.

Your post above in reply to my original post about definitions of the word vaccine makes no sense. I didn't make any arguments! I just display one of the many readily apparent attempts by offical organisations to deflect critical examination of their advice relating to mass vaccination. You certainly are trying to make it an argument where none exists...

by Lanthanide | 16th Sep 21, 7:55pm 1631778947

I have not been complaining about the flu vaccine because nobody is advocating for it to become mandatory by officially public policy, or advocating for it to become a de-facto requirement via Health & Safety or other regulations!

No one is advocating either of those things for the COVID vaccine in New Zealand.

Why would a health professional get so defensive?

GPs aren't actually experts. They follow public health advice as a matter of policy. I'm not at all surprised by the response you got.

Just like how most teachers know very little or nothing about ADHD, dyslexia, or other common learning disorders that children present with.

I just wish more people would stand up for their critical thinking.

Most critical thinkers understand the benefits of vaccines.

I didn't make any arguments! I just display one of the many readily apparent attempts by offical organisations to deflect critical examination of their advice relating to mass vaccination.

Er, no, they were using a bad definition of what a vaccine is. It's good they corrected themselves.

Wouldn't you prefer scientific organisations to correct mistakes in their material?

by C_T_20 | 16th Sep 21, 8:27pm 1631780870

I have not called a GP an ‘expert’, nor have I expressed any opinions that would infer they are! I did say they are health ‘professionals’. By that I understand that I could expect a GP to have a better understanding of the scientific information available than I do. Therefore they should be able to offer a better and more detailed explanation of bullet point info pushed by MoH.

What are your credentials to assess if definitions of the word ‘vaccine’ was bad previously?

by Lanthanide | 16th Sep 21, 9:31pm 1631784709

By that I understand that I could expect a GP to have a better understanding of the scientific information available than I do.

And like I said, they aren't experts. They don't study vaccines and immonology. They follow public health advice, which is basically "vaccine = good".

You have unrealistic expectations of the ability of a random GP to answer detailed questions off the top of their head, since that's not their job. That's why the ministry provides the detailed information available elsewhere for people who are interested to read.

Other GPs might have been able to do a better job. Your one didn't. Oh well, good thing they're not the sole source of information available to you about vaccinations in NZ.

What are your credentials to assess if definitions of the word ‘vaccine’ was bad previously?

Because there are many vaccines that have existed for a long time that do no confer immunity. The flu vaccine is an obvious one, but also the vaccine for whooping cough, and I'm sure there are others. Therefore having a definition that says "vaccine = confers immunity" when there have been many things called vaccines for decades that have not done that, clearly shows the definition is wrong.

Quibbling over language is really desperate, btw. It doesn't somehow change what the COVID vaccine does, or make it less effective.

by C_T_20 | 17th Sep 21, 12:00am 1631793602

Quibbling over language is really desperate, btw.

LOL, yet, it is exactly what you do in every one of your posts…

by npc | 17th Sep 21, 8:21am 1631823705

“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

by Carlos67 | 16th Sep 21, 3:08pm 1631761736

The blowtorch is being turned up on Labour for a drop to level 3 next week. Bottom line is that it shouldn't happen unless they are basically giving up on the elimination strategy. Been saying for a while now you cannot beat Delta, we simply didn't have the necessary MIQ setup to keep it out. Once it got into the community we were screwed. Level 4 simply cannot be followed to the degree required by the general public and it shouldn't have got out in the first place. Better start paying those doctors and nurses the money they deserve.

by WestieAJ | 16th Sep 21, 3:40pm 1631763647

How much immunity will those 1 dose vaccinated have by next week. Not much. But the focus group said this has to be the last week at level 4 and that's what matters. Level 3 is not that different anyway. Hospo is still dead meat. No events no gatherings. Level 3 will probably be another month at least. If we leave one active case at level 2 it will be exponential growth . Look to Melbourne for a blueprint. They thought they had it beaten and then they didn't. They finally had to admit they never had a chance against Delta in the first place.

by HouseMouse | 16th Sep 21, 4:00pm 1631764838

I have said it before, in my opinion there should be no more level 4 or 3 lockdowns.

But if the government insists that we do, then we must all accept that billions should be thrown at the businesses most affected.

It's simply not fair just to shrug our shoulders and say 'too bad that hospo businesses go bust'

by Albert2020 | 16th Sep 21, 6:12pm 1631772727

They never had a chance cos Sydney never gave them that chance. Completely different when you have central government control rather than state governments running opposite strategies

by Nifty1 | 16th Sep 21, 3:19pm 1631762373

All under control...

Man charged after posting video about leaving Auckland to get McDonald's

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/126403766/covid19-man…

The stories keep on coming out of people being let out of Auckland & with no tests.

She'll be right mate...

by bw | 16th Sep 21, 4:14pm 1631765661

If enough law-breaking can be rustled up, then a General Amnesty can be fairly given to them all; which will include the horse-rider and his bunny, of course. (Quelle surprise!)

by MPV | 16th Sep 21, 3:58pm 1631764729

Genuine Question (So please don't unhelpfully flame... only genuinely constructive answers accepted!).

I'm yet to see any explanation of the claim of that the vaccine is 'safe', when long-term studies have not been possible.

Short-term safety - I can understand such a claim having (potential) validity after a few months in the field. (Though short-term safety is also disputable - I don't want to get into that right now).

My question here concerns only the claim with respect to long-term.

Some potential known areas of possible long-term concern - which warrant further investigation include the notion that the vaccine accumulates at a 20-fold concentration in ovaries, and spike induced opening of the blood-brain barrier - thereby allowing through toxins, and other concerns. I don't claim that these are statistically significant concerns - maybe they are or aren't. Maybe the rat studies don't translate to humans. Simply (to my knowledge at least) they are unknown (due to no long-term data possible).

And of course there may well be other as-of-yet unknown further areas of long-term concern.

Many people seem perplexed that others are vaccine hesitant. And wonder what it will take.

This is what it will take (for me at least): Explain adequately how the conclusion, in the absence of possible long-term evidence(s), that long-term safety is claimed. And across these multiple concerns.

by Lanthanide | 16th Sep 21, 4:29pm 1631766555

which warrant further investigation include the notion that the vaccine accumulates at a 20-fold concentration in ovaries

When you say "vaccine" I assume you are referring to the mRNA vaccines? RNA is normally recycled by the body on a continual basis. Within 72 hours, the vast majority of the injected mRNA will be destroyed and excreted from the body.

If you have any evidence that the mRNA stays present within the body generally, or the ovaries specifically, for longer than ~72 hours, present it.

and spike induced opening of the blood-brain barrier

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

And of course there may well be other as-of-yet unknown further areas of long-term concern.

I posted this article a day or two ago: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/vaccines-are-highly-…-

Also this one says pretty much the same thing, but not as detailed: https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19-vaccine-wo…

by MPV | 16th Sep 21, 4:57pm 1631768239

I don't have such evidence regarding the mRNA elimination from the body.

Only the 2nd of the two links worked.

After reading the 2nd: Fair enough, I guess - sort of.

The conclusion of long-term safety is (from that article) entirely inference rather than evidence (inferred from experiences of related technologies etc). That's not to say its not an unreasonable inference.

Informed consent, however, would be being explicit around how this conclusion of 'safe' is reached. i.e the word 'Inferred' should appear wherever the word 'Safe' appears.

Admittedly, however, that will severely limit the vaccine uptake in the population.

by sparrow | 16th Sep 21, 4:38pm 1631767101

The question is, what is your plan? since the borders won't remain closed for ever and eventually everyone will catch Covid. (Remembering of course that as well as the immediate risk of illness and death from respiratory failure, no one knows what long term effects Covid causes either.)

Could be that while you're waiting 10 years for a long-term safety study on the vaccine that you succumb to the virus.

by JimboJones | 16th Sep 21, 6:46pm 1631774769

No one really knows the long term effects of getting Covid either. We are aware of some “long Covid” cases, hard to know what the stats are on that.

I’m not even sure we know the long term effects of most of the medications prescribed today. Depends on what you call long term I guess.

I tend to think that someone who has trust in modern medicine and vax is probably going to live longer than someone who avoids it awaiting long term proof. But there is a risk either way.

by kiwi_overseas | 16th Sep 21, 4:14pm 1631765647

Where I currently reside the effective double vaccination rate is about 87% (2x vaccinated or had covid). The daily cases are still circa 300 per day (NZ equivalent) with 1 death per day (NZ equivalent ) but also a much younger population profile which means the NZ fatality rate will be higher at a similar vaccination rate.

So even at 90% vaccination rate NZ is probably looking at 2-4 fatalities a day.

by Lanthanide | 16th Sep 21, 4:34pm 1631766861

Is that vaccination rate from mRNA vaccines only, or a mixture, since others have been shown to be less effective against COVID?

Also I have recently learned that long COVID may occur in up to 15-20% of people who have COVID, eg they report at least one lingering symptom 28 or more days after the initial infection. The estimates vary wildly as there's not yet an agreed upon standard / cause of action for what induces long COVID, so studies are all using their own definitions and assessing data in different ways.

I've also seen an estimate that vaccination can cut the long-COVID rate in half. Which leaves a worrying ~10% of people infected by COVID still getting long COVID.

IMO that's a far greater worry for NZ than the deaths, which as many on interest.co.nz like to say repeatedly, are highly skewed towards the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions. But long COVID is much more prevalent amongst the population at large - even people who only report mild symptoms can end up with long COVID.

by JimboJones | 16th Sep 21, 6:55pm 1631775324

2-4 a day is probably “acceptable”. 2-4 times the road toll but not so many young lives lost. And if you exclude anti vaxers who have made their own choice, it will probably be similar to the road toll and less than the current flu toll.

by TonyBarnett | 16th Sep 21, 4:42pm 1631767376

When will NZ achieve full vaccination of 90% for people aged 12+?

This is very unlikely to be achieved before June 2022 & may not be possible unless there are incentives or further legislation to mandate a requirement to be vaccinated for work etc.

The number of anti-vaxers, those with concerns about children being vaccinated, general hesistancy & those unable to have vaccines for health reasons will probably always be over 10%.

NZ needs to focus on urgently building up its nursing capacity & need to train up its nurses & anyone in with medical expertise to deal with Delta patients because overseas experience shows that almost every country has struggled to provide adequate medical care.

Given that NZ is very unlikely to be vaccinated to 90% & anything less is likely to overwhelm the health system when the inevitable wider outbreak gets away on NZ, the government is just living on hope. Hope that a wider outbreak does not occur.

The government has signalled a loosening of restrictions in Auckland next week when it will probably go to Level 3 but if it does it will just be living on hope that Level 3 conditions will mop up the remaining cases.

There is still a realistic chance it won’t & Delta will get away. If it does it will mean months of lockdown as our poor vaccination rates mean that even at 60%, 70% or 80% fully vaccinated our health system will be completely overloaded. Here’s hoping this doesn’t occur too early but at some point it will.

by Foxglove. | 16th Sep 21, 5:03pm 1631768625

Yes this scenario has long been on the horizon hasn’t it. What is staggering is that no identity in our media or our parliament’s opposition has been prepared to formulate these questions to the government. ie, 1) what is the model for the level of vaccination NZ’s population requires to reach in order to prevent the hospital services being overwhelmed by covid. 2) Given that you have declared vaccination will complete by December, what is your plan then if this vaccination level has not been reached.

by sparrow | 16th Sep 21, 4:59pm 1631768399

I would far rather any extra investment into the health system doesn't get wasted on treating people too stupid to get a Covid vaccine. Pharmac could certainly do with a large infusion of funds.

by Lanthanide | 16th Sep 21, 5:11pm 1631769080

When will NZ achieve full vaccination of 90% for people aged 12+?

Why would you think that? We are already, today, at 70% of the eligible pop having received 1 dose. The majority of these people will go on to get their 2nd dose.

Including bookings for vaccines, we're at 78%. Today.

By the end of the year it is easy to imagine we will be at 85% of 12+ pop having received 1 dose, with the mobile vaccination busses already being put in to service to increase vaccination rates amongst those groups that have problems accessing the vaccine.

It's a bit harder to predict how 2nd dose numbers will evolve, as they could stall. But I think it's more reasonable to think we'd be at 90%+ of 12+ eligible recipients by the end of March 2022.

by Mrs The Point | 16th Sep 21, 6:37pm 1631774240

I've got a dollar that says we don't get to 90% by March 2022. By my guestimation there is around 20% of population who don't want a bar of the vaccine. So getting much over 80% will be impossible.

by kpnuts | 16th Sep 21, 8:08pm 1631779709

i will take that dollar -- we were nowhere in terms of vaccinations until Delta hit then woosh --- sure it will tail off again --- but then once we are living with it -- which will be sooner rather than later -- 10-20 deaths a day mainly Maori sadly who are least likely to be vaccinated and most likely to hold out -- will start changing their mind Tangi after Tangi - if you look at the Pacifika vaccination numbers for 1st dose they are only slightly lower than the total --around 7% which i would suggest clearly indicates how the impact of this outbreak on Pacifika has motivated their leaders to push a pro vaccine message - especially the normally resistant churches to great effect !

by Mrs The Point | 16th Sep 21, 11:49pm 1631792980

Be interesting to watch, no western country anywhere near 90% yet and plenty of Covid in most of them.

by npc | 17th Sep 21, 11:09am 1631833752

The vaccination rate will look high and healthy then drop off a cliff when there are no more willing participants.

I also thinking 90% is unlikely, just judging from those in my wider circle. I think 15-20% are reluctant. Might get that down a bit if non-mRNA vaccines are made available.

There's a hard core of about 10% that simply will not comply. From what I've seen there are those that understand the science and stats and conclude "I'll probably be fine anyway", then some hippy organic types that won't have any vaccine, then the anti-government-prepper-conspiracy crew.

by K.W. | 17th Sep 21, 6:17pm 1631859432

After 6 months from your last shot, you are just as unvaccinated as those who never got them. So the 90% will never be reached, because every month a whole cohort of vaccinated people roll off to become unvaccinated again, and you need to restart the count. Of course, if everyone pretends that being vaccinated will still provide protection 6-12 months on, then no problem. We all just ignore the deaths. Or you can get on the booster merry go round like Israel, UK and the US and get revaccinated every 6 months and hope like heck that the side effects from the vaccine don't accumulate and become more severe each time you get a shot.

by Carlos67 | 16th Sep 21, 6:22pm 1631773379

Spot on Tony. Also there is obviously no word on how long level 3 will go on for in Auckland and basically its like level 4 anyway so expect what ? another month of level 3 ? Remember it was 1 case in the community and it was instant level 4, how long do you think level 3 will be in existence before another community case turns up ?

by HouseMouse | 16th Sep 21, 7:25pm 1631777123

Yes 90% isn't realistic. At a push 85% might be possible, still hard.

They just don't want to back down do they.

by fat pat | 16th Sep 21, 6:34pm 1631774052

Sweden currently has a vaccination rate of 61% and yet their covid pandemic has been over for some time. They never masked or destroyed their economy by locking down. They have widespread natural immunity and it's served them well. Singapore on the other hand has a vaccination rate of over 80% and they're in trouble with a lot of covid cases. You know that data that gets rammed down our throats on a daily basis about non-vaccinated people being in hospital - well a new study shows that's fake. Half of the people supposedly in hospital are mild covid cases that probably didnt even realise they had covid. They came to hospital for something else. Read about it below. Dont worrry though Ashley Bloomfield said he's going to solve the covid problem with Tocilizumab and Remdesivir, two very expensive medications which have been shown in multiple clinical trials to be useless. Meanwhile, inexpensive medications that actually work like ivermectin, zinc, vitamin D3 are being shunned and people are discouraged from taking them. What an upside down world New Zealanders are living in.

https://ycharts.com/indicators/sweden_coronavirus_full_vaccination_rate

https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/life-has-not-improved-much-we-hoped-…

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/new-study-suggests-almost-half-all-co…

by Carlos67 | 16th Sep 21, 6:29pm 1631773784

Well Fat Pat a second case has just turned up to hospital here for something else, got tested and is Covid positive. You have to suspect there is a large number of people in the community that have it and don't even know it. It would great to be know the total case numbers and the breakdown by how many even got hospitalised. We will of course never know the true numbers there is simply to many asymptomatic people that never even knew they had it.

by fat pat | 16th Sep 21, 7:21pm 1631776880

That sounds pretty logical to me. I wonder if we'll see an uptick in the rates glandular fever caused by the Epstein–Barr virus (EBV). A new study showed that covid causes reactivation of EBV which is probably the real explanation for long-covid.

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/10/6/763/htm

My own experience; My partner's colleague came back from a skiing trip in Ischgl in March last year and tested positive. The colleague kept working and so everyone got it with symptoms of mild fever, diarrhea. My partner got covid toes which is pretty unusual. Most of us were never tested because the symptoms were so mild. A lot of those people went on to get vaccinated so they'll have natural immunity masquerading as vaccinated "immunity". We know three people who have reactivated mononucleosis which is also really unusual, so that paper was quite interesting to see.

by sharetrader | 16th Sep 21, 6:41pm 1631774475

and because of that they did economically worse than there close neighbours

Sweden's Anti-Lockdown Strategy Didn't Work, Led to Higher Death Rate (businessinsider.com)

by fat pat | 17th Sep 21, 11:37pm 1631878634

What a joke - Dire predictions from the SIR modeling never came to pass, and now they're writing sulky articles on how many theoretical lives could have been saved if the covid zealots had gotten their way.

Here’s the reality check

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/why-does-no-one-ever-talk-about-swed…

by HouseMouse | 16th Sep 21, 7:26pm 1631777174

Oh those self centered, libertarian nordics!

Not.

by AJ123 | 16th Sep 21, 7:19pm 1631776769

The 'Delta strain' is the vaccine.

by Lanthanide | 16th Sep 21, 9:30pm 1631784644

Vaccines aren't supposed to cause illness and death. Ones that do at even very low rates are withdrawn from distribution.

by Nifty1 | 16th Sep 21, 10:03pm 1631786623

We don't hear alot about the side effects of the vaccine and the adverse reactions. Clearly it's making some people unwell. https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/safety-report-26.asp#aefi

by sunchap | 16th Sep 21, 10:59pm 1631789991

VAERS and the EU adverse reaction system have reported 6,000 local vaccine deaths each. VAERS is 30 years old and run by the CDC and therefore very accurate.

Clearly, the vaccines are very dangerous and the genetically strengthened spike protein is causing massive neurological and heart problems. Bloomfield is a disgrace for releasing this untested poison on to Kiwis.

by Lanthanide | 17th Sep 21, 6:36am 1631817369

They're not "very accurate" at all.

They're simply an early signal for potential issues from the vaccines, that's all.

Anti vaxxers absolutely love to misinterpret the anecdata available on VAERS and draw all sorts of totally unwarranted conclusions, as you have just done, but ignore the conclusions drawn by the experts who look at the same data.

The VAERS page itself says this on its disclaimer page

While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

The disclaimer page is actually quite a bit longer. This is just the key part that you and all the other armchair experts either didn't read, didn't understand, or just ignored.

by printer8 | 17th Sep 21, 6:47am 1631818050

Suncap

Link your data to a reputable site or take your pathetic misinformation elsewhere.

by Nifty1 | 17th Sep 21, 7:48am 1631821724

Vaccines aren't supposed to cause illness and death. Ones that do at even very low rates are withdrawn from distribution...

It's disingenuous to say the above, all vaccines are known to have potential side effects. Your comments aren't in line with what's being reported https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/safety-report-26.asp#aefi

It's interesting that many can't have a balanced discussion on this....

by Lanthanide | 17th Sep 21, 8:44am 1631825057

Not at all. I chose my words carefully.

The side effects rate from the Pfizer vaccine are lower than "very low". You also need to take into account the health and pre existing conditions of who is receiving the vaccine.

No one is claiming the vaccine is totally risk free. It's just far far far less risky than catching COVID without any vaccine.

by Nifty1 | 17th Sep 21, 8:52am 1631825552

The side effects rate from the Pfizer vaccine are lower than "very low"

What's classified as "very low" and "lower than very low"...

You also need to take into account the health and pre existing conditions of who is receiving the vaccine.

Are you taking this into account for those getting ill from covid?

No one is claiming the vaccine is totally risk free. It's just far far far less risky than catching COVID without any vaccine.

What's classified as "far far far less risky"

I chose my words carefully

by Lanthanide | 17th Sep 21, 9:43am 1631828589

What's classified as "very low" and "lower than very low"...

The level of side effects from COVID vaccines have resulted in a brief pause in the rollout of the astra zeneca, followed by adjusted eligibility criteria for that vaccine in many countries. There haven't been any significant adjustments for the other vaccines used in western countries, although the UK appear to only be giving 1 dose for 12-15 year olds of Pfizer, which will be at least in part due to the high rates of infection on COVID they had in that country amongst that age group already.

If the side effects were of higher incidence, there would have been other restrictions put on the vaccines. That's axiomatic.

Are you taking this into account for those getting ill from covid?

Um, yes?

What's classified as "far far far less risky"

The reported rate of moderate to severe side effects from the vaccine vs the reported rate of moderate to severe side-effects and symptoms from COVID. The former happens far far far less than the latter.

by NZChinese | 16th Sep 21, 11:03pm 1631790232

I think the government needs to help (and convince) our fellow Maori and Pacific NZers to get jabbed, if they want to achieve a 90% vaccination rate.

by sunchap | 17th Sep 21, 9:03am 1631826180

There has been decades of peer reviewed research indicating that VAERS data, and hence NZ CARM data, is under reported by at least 90% as GP's do not like "filling in forms", particularly when medical associations will cancel your registration for saying vaccines are unsafe. NZ deaths from vaccines probably therefore total 400.

A New York ICU doctor has stated that 30% of her patients are vaccine injuries:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/covid-whistleblower-wu-flu-fra…

by printer8 | 17th Sep 21, 9:42am 1631828520

Sunchap

Stop being so gullible and peddling misinformation.

Dr Mollie James prescribes Ivermectin to her patients.

https://www.audible.com/pd/Ep-943-An-ICU-Doctor-Warns-of-the-Emergency-Need-for-Early-Outpatient-Treatment-Guest-Dr-Mollie-James-Podcast/B09DT58SY5

Show a bit of maturity and intelligence and start reading and posting information from some credible sites rather than those pushing conspiracy theories.

by C_T_20 | 17th Sep 21, 10:46am 1631832363

I note that you seem to only be critical of posters who show links to info that doesn’t suit your beliefs or narrative. I have not seen you address the lack of links to “acceptable” sources in posts of many others here who push the official party and MoH propaganda lines! It is really obvious in any thread that deals with Covid topics who is capable of a balanced discussion that allows points of different opinions and links to info without resorting to the typical calling of ‘misinformation’…

by printer8 | 17th Sep 21, 11:03am 1631833423

CT

Do I really need to draw your attention to it - try reading FDA and CDC for credible proven science backed information.

There is not credible and balanced discussion when Ivermectin is pushed as an appropriate alternative when there has been no clinical trials and even the manufacturer warns against it.

by C_T_20 | 17th Sep 21, 11:49am 1631836192

You are showing clearly your bias and hippocritical stance with your last comment. You cite the CDC and FDA who both have simply changed definitions of word vaccine. This has been done only in response to criticism about their approval of so-called vaccines that have not gone through the typical longer term trials to test for longer term side effects and issues potentially being caused by them. If you call that credible, ‘science backed’ information you simply regurgitate the many government mandated official lines of communication.

Next, you call Ivermectin a non-tested medication and therfore not acceptable as a potential treatment. That is no different than the insufficiently tested so-called ‘vaccines’ you and others so heavily defend and perhaps even advocate mandatory use.

You are no better than anyone else and therefore not in a position to credibly point the finger at other people’s posts. End of story!

by Lanthanide | 17th Sep 21, 12:26pm 1631838385

This has been done only in response to criticism about their approval of so-called vaccines that have not gone through the typical longer term trials to test for longer term side effects and issues potentially being caused by them

No, it's been done because they had the wrong definition of vaccine.

Next, you call Ivermectin a non-tested medication and therfore not acceptable as a potential treatment.

Because it is.

That is no different than the insufficiently tested so-called ‘vaccines’ you and others so heavily defend

COVID vaccines have passed phase 3 trials showing high efficacy at preventing serious illness and death from COVID-19. Ivermectin has not. The manufacturer of ivermectin recommends against it's use for treating COVID-19. The manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines recommend the use of their vaccines for protection against COVID-19.

You're simply lying by saying they are the same.

and perhaps even advocate mandatory use.

No one is advocating mandatory use of COVID-19 vaccines in NZ. Instead, people are being very strongly encouraged to take them. At present such encouragements have not had tangible rewards. At present, such encouragements have not had tangible penalties imposed for those who fail to take the vaccine. Both of those things may change in future, but neither constitute a mandate to take a vaccine.

by Carlos67 | 17th Sep 21, 10:50am 1631832608

Even if we get to 80% vaccination rate you will no longer need to get vaccinated. Each to their own, I'm not taking it. What the government cannot do is work out your personal risk profile. You need to do your own honest assessment that includes body fat (NOT BMI), fitness, etc. Its no different to that 2 page bit of paper you fill out when you sign up at a new doctor, they want your entire medical history and its a big bonus if any of your direct family relatives have already had Covid and how they did or didn't cope with it. Genetics has by far and away the biggest effect, thats why you cannot simply compare a European country to an Asian country, you don't seriously think we are all exactly the same , Bundle it up and use your own critical thinking for the final conclusion.

by fat pat | 17th Sep 21, 6:39pm 1631860747

agreed. Not to mention the fact that many people like myself have already had covid, but they can't prove it because the antibody response is short lived. I consider my personal risk from vaccination to be far greater than any risk from covid. Every person should make their own risk assessment. Id' add natural immunity, age, body fat, cardiovascular health, diet & immune function vitamin levels to the risk factor list. Nobody should be forced or coerced by the government to have something injected into their body, let alone something experimental.

by stuart786786 | 17th Sep 21, 10:04am 1631829885

90% as their health system is not up to standard and is already under pressure even without coronavirus and the reason we will be shut down from rest of the world more than other developed country.

Border closures / Lockdowns are more to cover their failure in health system as going future one has to live with virus and have to trust vaccination at the same time boost up the health system - What has government to boost up hospital/health system.

by Dale Smith | 17th Sep 21, 11:05am 1631833547

We are actually beyond the point of this being right or wrong, or degrees between these two points.

We now need to understand how we are treated as part of a group, ie a herd. A herd of 5 million or at least 90 plus % of the herd as compliant to getting vaccinated.

And I'm not talking about those outliers at both ends of the spectrum, ie the true 'Govt. is always wrong' types or the true 'anything the Govt. says we will do' types.

It's the great middle mass of us that is the problem.

To get to whatever % they want the population to be vaccinated, they have to dissuade us from any other possible solution, as to do otherwise would give people reason to try and avoid a Covid infection, and by default getting vaccinated AS A FIRST PRIORITY, and therefore delay the time needed to get to that % of vaccination.

We know having comorbidity makes a huge difference to catching or how you react to an infection (outliers aside), you would think that anything that would be done to reduce these risk factors would be being done first.

That is why they won't mention anything you could do as an individual to reduce your chances of getting infected, or reducing the severity of getting affected that is not controllable by them.

So no suggesting you eat healthily, exercise, lose weight, don't smoke, take certain vitamins, etc., or 'God forbid,' that any other existing drug on the market might help reduce infection or severity.

In fact, a few unnecessary infections, ICU cases, and even deaths are all needed to motivate US ALL in getting to the set target.

The sayings: 'By hook or by crook,' 'the end justifies the means,' and 'the first casualty in a war is the truth.' are all sayings for a reason.

Welcome to the naked face of leading a herd.

by C_T_20 | 17th Sep 21, 11:53am 1631836381

What do you think of the opinion of someone highly qualified to comment and offering an evaluation of the course taken by so many fearful politicians?

https://nulluslocussinegenio.com/2021/09/13/why-mass-vaccinations-prolong-and-make-epidemics-deadlier-real-vaccine-expert-calls-out-flawed-government-pandemic-strategy/

by Dale Smith | 17th Sep 21, 5:16pm 1631855800

This is a very good example. At face value, you would think that this is valuable information and that it would be looked into, discussed and acted on if the facts were shown to be true.

But as I said in my previous comment opening sentence, it's too late for all that, and there is two reasons for that.

1) The way we ALL think, for example, you need a new car, so you out and compare amongst many to get one at the best type and price. Once you commit and buy it, you stop looking. And the reason you stop looking is that there is no further need because you have purchased (pretty obvious) but secondly, you will go out of your way to avoid any further comparison for fear of finding out you have bought a lemon, or it is on sale at 20% less the next day. This helps us live with our decisions, ie we ignore any new evidence because it may make us regret our choice.

2) The way Govts. think, and the best analogy is the Scorpion and the Frog fable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog and as described, the French sociologist Jean-Claude Passeron saw the scorpion as a metaphor for Machiavellian politicians who delude themselves by their unconscious tendency to rationalize their ill-conceived plans, and thereby lead themselves and their followers to ruin.

But it also is a metaphor for the gullibility of followers to want to believe their leaders (even when they sound rational) when all historic events suggest they cannot be trusted.

by Lanthanide | 17th Sep 21, 12:15pm 1631837739

We know having comorbidity makes a huge difference to catching or how you react to an infection (outliers aside), you would think that anything that would be done to reduce these risk factors would be being done first.

For the majority of comorbidities there's little to nothing that can be done for them once you have them. These include:

being old
chronic lung disease such as cystic fibrosis, bronchiectasis, chronic obstructive respiratory disease and emphysema, severe asthma that needs multiple medications and medical care
serious heart conditions such as congestive heart failure
hypertension that isn’t well controlled
diabetes that isn’t well controlled
chronic kidney disease
liver disease.

Smoking and obesity are the ones not on the above list that are most easy to tackle, but most people can't stop smoking cold-turkey and the recommended safe maximum weight loss per week is 1kg, and that's actually fairly difficult to maintain for durations of over 10 weeks.

While you could work on quitting smoking and losing weight over the next several months, if you were to get COVID next month, it is unlikely that there's anything you could do between now and then to substantially reduce your risk of serious illness, except to get a vaccine.

Welcome to the naked face of leading a herd.

Welcome to the reality of health care. People know that being obese is bad. People know that smoking is bad. People know that drinking a lot can lead to the health conditions in my first list. They do it anyway. Adding yet another reason onto the list of why these things are bad - you might get COVID-19 and suffer from severe illness - is hardly going to be motivating for the people who already are not motivated to look after their health.

Many humans make bad decisions and are frankly irrational. But we live in a society where they are free to do that. The government's job is to deal with the population we have and do what it can to improve their health outcomes. It would be nice if we had a population with low incidence of these co-morbidities, but we have to live in the reality we are in, not the reality we would prefer.

Even if it's very difficult to motivate these people to look after their own health, we can easily motivate these people to get a free, safe, and effective vaccine. So we do, and now mobile busses and walk-in vaccination sites are making the vaccine more accessible than ever.

by Dale Smith | 17th Sep 21, 4:16pm 1631852175

Being old is not a comorbidity.

But you missed the main point, they won't even suggest anyone strengthen their immune response by other means (and get vaccinated) because they don't want you to think there is any other solution than the one they are promoting.

All Covid has done is highlighted how Govt.s try to lead the herd.

For some reason the scene in a 'Few Good Men.' comes to mind:

NZ Public playing LT Kaffee "I want the truth!"

Govt. playing Col. Jessup "You can't handle the truth!"

And we know how that ended.

by fat pat | 18th Sep 21, 7:19am 1631906377

There’s no justification for strategically bad decisions at the government level. I find Ashley Bloomfield’s comments around Vitamin C, D3, ivermectin, remdesivir, and tocilizumab completely wrong in every instance. They guy's obviously a smart cookie when you look at his cv, and I think his wife is a doctor. It just doesnt make any sense.

by Dale Smith | 18th Sep 21, 9:51am 1631915484

It all makes sense if you look at it in light of my above comments, that is my point. The moment people think there is any other solution like Vitamin C, D3, ivermectin, remdesivir, and tocilizumab, then they won't get to their targeted vaccination number.

Having made the decision to go with a total elimination strategy until everyone is vaccinated, then by hook or by crook, that is their total focus, at the expense of anything else.

by fat pat | 18th Sep 21, 10:44am 1631918664

I read your comment however, he's advocating remdesivir, and tocilizumab. Two very expensive and almost useless medications.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-coronavirus-delta-outbreak-the-t…

by Dale Smith | 18th Sep 21, 2:11pm 1631931070

Being in the position he is, in a Govt. Bureaucracy, he obviously has become institutionalized. No one could get to his position without being so.

This has nothing to do with him being intelligent, or not.

None of what I'm saying is to defend the system or disagree with what you have said. I'm just making an impartial observation of how the system works.