On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 23:40:26 -0000 (UTC), TonyCrash I understand that. Yes free speech survived but it was suppressed to a degree. The degree to which it was suppressed varied according to need.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Some halfwit posted that "there was no suppression of speech relating to any >>part of the
Covid response".
Presumably referring to New Zealand. He/she/they quickly ran away - as do >>halfwits all over the world.
What absolute garbage. Of course there was suppression of speech.
During lockdown we could not attend meetings, we could not visit a coffee >>shop
and chat with friends, colleagues etc. We could not go to work. We could not >>visit dying relatives in hospital.
The list goes on and on. That is suppression of speech, whether deliberate or >>not is irrelevant.
No doubt such a halfwit would say we could telephone, email etc. That is not >>speech, and that is not freedom.
There are some who believe the lockdown was in fact deliberately aimed at >>reducing freedom of speech, a conspiracy theory? Maybe!
The restrictions imposed on us during the era of Covid-induced
lockdowns were simply a repeat of what was done during earlier
outbreaks of infectious and life-threatening diseases. It was
difficult for us all to deal with because the previous such pandemic >('Spanish' influenza post WW1)was just over a century ago, so not
within living memory. There was also a Polio epidemic however if I
recall correctly residential lockdowns were not used for this.
There certainly were severe restrictions on freedom of association
starting in early 2020 because we were confined to our own homes for
long periods. Compared to previous pandemics, we had a considerable
number of ways to mitigate that isolation - with entertainment and >communication options not available during the previous pandemic. This
gives the lie to free speech being suppressed. The ability to speak
out was not limited universally, just that there were limited venues
and the narrative around the 'podium of truth'. These attempts to
shape public debate failed, hence free speech survived.
The key learning from the Covid outbreak, to me, is that lockdowns
have limited effect at controlling disease but a major impact on the
economy and society. We should not employ lockdowns unless the
disease that is involved has a much higher case fatality rate (Google
this) than Covid does. We should also be very careful to formulate >restrictions of association (such as limiting the size and extent of >gatherings) that are relative to the case fatality rate, rather than a
repeat of a traditional controls.
--
Crash McBash
Some halfwit posted that "there was no suppression of speech relating to any >part of the
Covid response".
Presumably referring to New Zealand. He/she/they quickly ran away - as do >halfwits all over the world.
What absolute garbage. Of course there was suppression of speech.
During lockdown we could not attend meetings, we could not visit a coffee shop >and chat with friends, colleagues etc. We could not go to work. We could not >visit dying relatives in hospital.
The list goes on and on. That is suppression of speech, whether deliberate or >not is irrelevant.
No doubt such a halfwit would say we could telephone, email etc. That is not >speech, and that is not freedom.
There are some who believe the lockdown was in fact deliberately aimed at >reducing freedom of speech, a conspiracy theory? Maybe!
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 23:40:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Some halfwit posted that "there was no suppression of speech relating to any >>part of the
Covid response".
Presumably referring to New Zealand. He/she/they quickly ran away - as do >>halfwits all over the world.
What absolute garbage. Of course there was suppression of speech.
During lockdown we could not attend meetings, we could not visit a coffee shop
and chat with friends, colleagues etc. We could not go to work. We could not >>visit dying relatives in hospital.
The list goes on and on. That is suppression of speech, whether deliberate or >>not is irrelevant.
No doubt such a halfwit would say we could telephone, email etc. That is not >>speech, and that is not freedom.
There are some who believe the lockdown was in fact deliberately aimed at >>reducing freedom of speech, a conspiracy theory? Maybe!
The restrictions imposed on us during the era of Covid-induced
lockdowns were simply a repeat of what was done during earlier
outbreaks of infectious and life-threatening diseases.
difficult for us all to deal with because the previous such pandemic ('Spanish' influenza post WW1)was just over a century ago, so not
within living memory. There was also a Polio epidemic however if I
recall correctly residential lockdowns were not used for this.
There certainly were severe restrictions on freedom of association
starting in early 2020 because we were confined to our own homes for
long periods. Compared to previous pandemics, we had a considerable
number of ways to mitigate that isolation - with entertainment and communication options not available during the previous pandemic. This
gives the lie to free speech being suppressed.
The ability to speak
out was not limited universally, just that there were limited venues
and the narrative around the 'podium of truth'. These attempts to
shape public debate failed, hence free speech survived.
The key learning from the Covid outbreak, to me, is that lockdowns
have limited effect at controlling disease but a major impact on the
economy and society. We should not employ lockdowns unless the
disease that is involved has a much higher case fatality rate (Google
this) than Covid does. We should also be very careful to formulate restrictions of association (such as limiting the size and extent of gatherings) that are relative to the case fatality rate, rather than a
repeat of a traditional controls.
On 2025-06-02, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 23:40:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Some halfwit posted that "there was no suppression of speech relating to any >>>part of the
Covid response".
Presumably referring to New Zealand. He/she/they quickly ran away - as do >>>halfwits all over the world.
What absolute garbage. Of course there was suppression of speech.
During lockdown we could not attend meetings, we could not visit a coffee shop
and chat with friends, colleagues etc. We could not go to work. We could not >>>visit dying relatives in hospital.
The list goes on and on. That is suppression of speech, whether deliberate or
not is irrelevant.
No doubt such a halfwit would say we could telephone, email etc. That is not >>>speech, and that is not freedom.
There are some who believe the lockdown was in fact deliberately aimed at >>>reducing freedom of speech, a conspiracy theory? Maybe!
The restrictions imposed on us during the era of Covid-induced
lockdowns were simply a repeat of what was done during earlier
outbreaks of infectious and life-threatening diseases.
I would argue that it was the Chinese narrative, they had been so sucssesful >it was taken on abaord with out a second thought. Never mind considering the >China is not the west.
difficult for us all to deal with because the previous such pandemic
('Spanish' influenza post WW1)was just over a century ago, so not
within living memory. There was also a Polio epidemic however if I
recall correctly residential lockdowns were not used for this.
There certainly were severe restrictions on freedom of association
starting in early 2020 because we were confined to our own homes for
long periods. Compared to previous pandemics, we had a considerable
number of ways to mitigate that isolation - with entertainment and
communication options not available during the previous pandemic. This
gives the lie to free speech being suppressed.
However, and the point is that a veiew even suggesting the Government's >narrative as responded to with all the power of the Government. No
discussion was allowed. This was supression of free speech. The doctors, and >other medical people who questione the narrative had their opinion simply >removed from the "debate".
Remember Ivermectin, no not suitable for humans as it is used on horses.
This dispite it having been approved fot human use as an anti viral which
was found/invented by two Japanese who got the nobel prize for doing so.
The ability to speak
out was not limited universally, just that there were limited venues
and the narrative around the 'podium of truth'. These attempts to
shape public debate failed, hence free speech survived.
The key learning from the Covid outbreak, to me, is that lockdowns
have limited effect at controlling disease but a major impact on the
economy and society. We should not employ lockdowns unless the
disease that is involved has a much higher case fatality rate (Google
this) than Covid does. We should also be very careful to formulate
restrictions of association (such as limiting the size and extent of
gatherings) that are relative to the case fatality rate, rather than a
repeat of a traditional controls.
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 23:40:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Some halfwit posted that "there was no suppression of speech relating to any >>part of the
Covid response".
Presumably referring to New Zealand. He/she/they quickly ran away - as do >>halfwits all over the world.
What absolute garbage. Of course there was suppression of speech.
During lockdown we could not attend meetings, we could not visit a coffee shop
and chat with friends, colleagues etc. We could not go to work. We could not >>visit dying relatives in hospital.
The list goes on and on. That is suppression of speech, whether deliberate or >>not is irrelevant.
No doubt such a halfwit would say we could telephone, email etc. That is not >>speech, and that is not freedom.
There are some who believe the lockdown was in fact deliberately aimed at >>reducing freedom of speech, a conspiracy theory? Maybe!
The restrictions imposed on us during the era of Covid-induced
lockdowns were simply a repeat of what was done during earlier
outbreaks of infectious and life-threatening diseases. It was
difficult for us all to deal with because the previous such pandemic >('Spanish' influenza post WW1)was just over a century ago, so not
within living memory. There was also a Polio epidemic however if I
recall correctly residential lockdowns were not used for this.
There certainly were severe restrictions on freedom of association
starting in early 2020 because we were confined to our own homes for
long periods. Compared to previous pandemics, we had a considerable
number of ways to mitigate that isolation - with entertainment and >communication options not available during the previous pandemic. This
gives the lie to free speech being suppressed. The ability to speak
out was not limited universally, just that there were limited venues
and the narrative around the 'podium of truth'. These attempts to
shape public debate failed, hence free speech survived.
The key learning from the Covid outbreak, to me, is that lockdowns
have limited effect at controlling disease but a major impact on the
economy and society. We should not employ lockdowns unless the
disease that is involved has a much higher case fatality rate (Google
this) than Covid does. We should also be very careful to formulate >restrictions of association (such as limiting the size and extent of >gatherings) that are relative to the case fatality rate, rather than a
repeat of a traditional controls.
On Mon, 02 Jun 2025 13:20:49 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 23:40:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Some halfwit posted that "there was no suppression of speech relating to any >>>part of the
Covid response".
Presumably referring to New Zealand. He/she/they quickly ran away - as do >>>halfwits all over the world.
What absolute garbage. Of course there was suppression of speech.
During lockdown we could not attend meetings, we could not visit a coffee >>>shop
and chat with friends, colleagues etc. We could not go to work. We could not >>>visit dying relatives in hospital.
The list goes on and on. That is suppression of speech, whether deliberate >>>or
not is irrelevant.
No doubt such a halfwit would say we could telephone, email etc. That is not >>>speech, and that is not freedom.
There are some who believe the lockdown was in fact deliberately aimed at >>>reducing freedom of speech, a conspiracy theory? Maybe!
The restrictions imposed on us during the era of Covid-induced
lockdowns were simply a repeat of what was done during earlier
outbreaks of infectious and life-threatening diseases. It was
difficult for us all to deal with because the previous such pandemic >>('Spanish' influenza post WW1)was just over a century ago, so not
within living memory. There was also a Polio epidemic however if I
recall correctly residential lockdowns were not used for this.
There is a list of pandemics here: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics_and_pandemics
for New Zealand, the 1918 influenza pandemic was very significant: >https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/influenza-pandemic-1918
"In two months New Zealand lost about half as many people to influenza
as it had in the whole of the First World War. No other event has
killed so many New Zealanders in such a short time."
HIV|AIDS was less significant in New Zealand than overseas
New Zealand had relatively short notice of the Covid pandemic, but in
that period the government was able to see the steps taken in China
and Taiwan, and to see that limiting travel would be a major way to
limit infection - it was clear that there was at that time no
preventative medications, and that transmission was likely to be
through the air or direct contact. Air travel was less desirable than >shipping - the risk of infection through the air was higher, but total >stoppage of travel was relatively brief, due to the need for imports
and exports.
Subsequently tracking was developed from scratch, and it became clear
that gatherings with close enough contact to spread through breath
were most dangerous, and that the elderly were more prone to infection
than children and young adults. Church gatherings were discouraged
largely by the leaders of those churches once the danger became known; >supermarkets limited numbers in stores and encouraged distancing in
queues to enter. There was anger over a story of prostitutes traveling
from Auckland to clients further away and spreading infection.
Many stayed in their homes except for essential travel, but many
continued to exercise - either individually or by household.
The government gave loans / grants to ensure that New Zealand
businesses were able to continue to pay workers - this can now be seen
to have been possibly too generous and to widely given - even The NZ >Taxpayers Union applied and received money - they subsequently
voluntarily repaid it - but as the pandemic came to an end New Zealand >recovered previous GDP levels more quickly than nearly every other
developed country - the abuse of that scheme has however meant that
even now the government is still collecting some money back from
businesses that were less than honest in their applications.
Regular reporting helped identify increases and reductions in new
cases, and where they were located. The same happened in Australia,
where different states adopted different policies - Western Australia
and Queensland were closes to the low infection and death rates of New >Zealand - New South Wales which followed policies closer to those
advocated by the National Party here, did less well.
Later comparisons of deaths compared with pre-covid death rates
indicated that had New Zealand adopted the same policies as the United
States or the UK, we would have had around 22,000 more deaths.
As far as communications were concerned, the development of >video-conferencing, largely through the Zoom programme was a
revolution for many, enabling a lot more people to work from home, and
for other groups to "meet" face to face.
For none of that time were there any restrictions on talking about
either Covid or the response - there were open discussions by
politicians through electronic media, and a few physical meetings of >parliament when that became possible. There were some that opposed >vaccinations - and many of those remained unvaccinated. (During the
protests at parliament there was a spike in hospital admissions for
Covid), and there were problems reaching some populations for
vaccination (especially in the far north). Opposition politicians, and
their 'adviser' organisations such as the Taxpayers Union, Free Speech
Union/ NZ Initiative made no complaints about suppression of opinions >relating to Covid or the government response. Some decided not to be >vaccinated and suffered no disadvantages from that, other than a
higher risk of infection. There were some groups that were required to
accept vaccination - that has for a long time applied to armed forces
and foreign affairs employees and many heath workers, but some
companies made it difficult for staff to work in groups once
restrictions were eased (I knew of a construction firm that put
unvaccinated workers together in one work group).
You keep posting that but it is absolutely irrelevant because it is a comparison. The important measure is what absolute effect there was (ie an empirical measurement) - and the restrictions did measurable harm. There has never been any evidence that the harm was worth it.
There certainly were severe restrictions on freedom of association
starting in early 2020 because we were confined to our own homes for
long periods. Compared to previous pandemics, we had a considerable
number of ways to mitigate that isolation - with entertainment and >>communication options not available during the previous pandemic. This >>gives the lie to free speech being suppressed. The ability to speak
out was not limited universally, just that there were limited venues
and the narrative around the 'podium of truth'. These attempts to
shape public debate failed, hence free speech survived.
A good summary; thank you Crash
The key learning from the Covid outbreak, to me, is that lockdowns
have limited effect at controlling disease but a major impact on the >>economy and society. We should not employ lockdowns unless the
disease that is involved has a much higher case fatality rate (Google
this) than Covid does. We should also be very careful to formulate >>restrictions of association (such as limiting the size and extent of >>gatherings) that are relative to the case fatality rate, rather than a >>repeat of a traditional controls.
We know that our case fatality rate for New Zealand was very low by
world standards; and the discouragement of group gatherings was based
on verified tracking of infections, which had a direct (but not
totally predictable) correlation with deaths.
We now have a situation where there is another variant heading ourOnce more you are not providing any empiracl measurement - just poke and hope.
way; water testing shows that infections are higher than those
reported. We can be thankful that despite some strong
'anti-vaccination' views being expressed, the current government has
largely continued to provide vaccinations against the latest variants,
and to be fair to the majority of the government, this has been
largely supported by Government MPs with only a few extremists
speaking against it.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2025 13:20:49 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:You keep posting that but it is absolutely irrelevant because it is a >comparison. The important measure is what absolute effect there was (ie an >empirical measurement) - and the restrictions did measurable harm. There has >never been any evidence that the harm was worth it.
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 23:40:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Some halfwit posted that "there was no suppression of speech relating to any
part of the
Covid response".
Presumably referring to New Zealand. He/she/they quickly ran away - as do >>>>halfwits all over the world.
What absolute garbage. Of course there was suppression of speech.
During lockdown we could not attend meetings, we could not visit a coffee >>>>shop
and chat with friends, colleagues etc. We could not go to work. We could not
visit dying relatives in hospital.
The list goes on and on. That is suppression of speech, whether deliberate >>>>or
not is irrelevant.
No doubt such a halfwit would say we could telephone, email etc. That is not
speech, and that is not freedom.
There are some who believe the lockdown was in fact deliberately aimed at >>>>reducing freedom of speech, a conspiracy theory? Maybe!
The restrictions imposed on us during the era of Covid-induced
lockdowns were simply a repeat of what was done during earlier
outbreaks of infectious and life-threatening diseases. It was
difficult for us all to deal with because the previous such pandemic >>>('Spanish' influenza post WW1)was just over a century ago, so not
within living memory. There was also a Polio epidemic however if I >>>recall correctly residential lockdowns were not used for this.
There is a list of pandemics here: >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics_and_pandemics
for New Zealand, the 1918 influenza pandemic was very significant: >>https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/influenza-pandemic-1918
"In two months New Zealand lost about half as many people to influenza
as it had in the whole of the First World War. No other event has
killed so many New Zealanders in such a short time."
HIV|AIDS was less significant in New Zealand than overseas
New Zealand had relatively short notice of the Covid pandemic, but in
that period the government was able to see the steps taken in China
and Taiwan, and to see that limiting travel would be a major way to
limit infection - it was clear that there was at that time no
preventative medications, and that transmission was likely to be
through the air or direct contact. Air travel was less desirable than >>shipping - the risk of infection through the air was higher, but total >>stoppage of travel was relatively brief, due to the need for imports
and exports.
Subsequently tracking was developed from scratch, and it became clear
that gatherings with close enough contact to spread through breath
were most dangerous, and that the elderly were more prone to infection
than children and young adults. Church gatherings were discouraged
largely by the leaders of those churches once the danger became known; >>supermarkets limited numbers in stores and encouraged distancing in
queues to enter. There was anger over a story of prostitutes traveling
from Auckland to clients further away and spreading infection.
Many stayed in their homes except for essential travel, but many
continued to exercise - either individually or by household.
The government gave loans / grants to ensure that New Zealand
businesses were able to continue to pay workers - this can now be seen
to have been possibly too generous and to widely given - even The NZ >>Taxpayers Union applied and received money - they subsequently
voluntarily repaid it - but as the pandemic came to an end New Zealand >>recovered previous GDP levels more quickly than nearly every other >>developed country - the abuse of that scheme has however meant that
even now the government is still collecting some money back from
businesses that were less than honest in their applications.
Regular reporting helped identify increases and reductions in new
cases, and where they were located. The same happened in Australia,
where different states adopted different policies - Western Australia
and Queensland were closes to the low infection and death rates of New >>Zealand - New South Wales which followed policies closer to those
advocated by the National Party here, did less well.
Later comparisons of deaths compared with pre-covid death rates
indicated that had New Zealand adopted the same policies as the United >>States or the UK, we would have had around 22,000 more deaths.
As far as communications were concerned, the development of >>video-conferencing, largely through the Zoom programme was a
revolution for many, enabling a lot more people to work from home, and
for other groups to "meet" face to face.
For none of that time were there any restrictions on talking about
either Covid or the response - there were open discussions by
politicians through electronic media, and a few physical meetings of >>parliament when that became possible. There were some that opposed >>vaccinations - and many of those remained unvaccinated. (During the >>protests at parliament there was a spike in hospital admissions for
Covid), and there were problems reaching some populations for
vaccination (especially in the far north). Opposition politicians, and >>their 'adviser' organisations such as the Taxpayers Union, Free Speech >>Union/ NZ Initiative made no complaints about suppression of opinions >>relating to Covid or the government response. Some decided not to be >>vaccinated and suffered no disadvantages from that, other than a
higher risk of infection. There were some groups that were required to >>accept vaccination - that has for a long time applied to armed forces
and foreign affairs employees and many heath workers, but some
companies made it difficult for staff to work in groups once
restrictions were eased (I knew of a construction firm that put >>unvaccinated workers together in one work group).
There certainly were severe restrictions on freedom of association >>>starting in early 2020 because we were confined to our own homes for
long periods. Compared to previous pandemics, we had a considerable >>>number of ways to mitigate that isolation - with entertainment and >>>communication options not available during the previous pandemic. This >>>gives the lie to free speech being suppressed. The ability to speak
out was not limited universally, just that there were limited venues
and the narrative around the 'podium of truth'. These attempts to
shape public debate failed, hence free speech survived.
A good summary; thank you Crash
The key learning from the Covid outbreak, to me, is that lockdowns
have limited effect at controlling disease but a major impact on the >>>economy and society. We should not employ lockdowns unless the
disease that is involved has a much higher case fatality rate (Google >>>this) than Covid does. We should also be very careful to formulate >>>restrictions of association (such as limiting the size and extent of >>>gatherings) that are relative to the case fatality rate, rather than a >>>repeat of a traditional controls.
We know that our case fatality rate for New Zealand was very low by
world standards; and the discouragement of group gatherings was based
on verified tracking of infections, which had a direct (but not
totally predictable) correlation with deaths.
We now have a situation where there is another variant heading ourOnce more you are not providing any empiracl measurement - just poke and hope.
way; water testing shows that infections are higher than those
reported. We can be thankful that despite some strong
'anti-vaccination' views being expressed, the current government has >>largely continued to provide vaccinations against the latest variants,
and to be fair to the majority of the government, this has been
largely supported by Government MPs with only a few extremists
speaking against it.
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 07:14:25 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2025 13:20:49 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:You keep posting that but it is absolutely irrelevant because it is a >>comparison. The important measure is what absolute effect there was (ie an >>empirical measurement) - and the restrictions did measurable harm. There has >>never been any evidence that the harm was worth it.
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 23:40:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Some halfwit posted that "there was no suppression of speech relating to >>>>>any
part of the
Covid response".
Presumably referring to New Zealand. He/she/they quickly ran away - as do >>>>>halfwits all over the world.
What absolute garbage. Of course there was suppression of speech.
During lockdown we could not attend meetings, we could not visit a coffee >>>>>shop
and chat with friends, colleagues etc. We could not go to work. We could >>>>>not
visit dying relatives in hospital.
The list goes on and on. That is suppression of speech, whether deliberate >>>>>or
not is irrelevant.
No doubt such a halfwit would say we could telephone, email etc. That is >>>>>not
speech, and that is not freedom.
There are some who believe the lockdown was in fact deliberately aimed at >>>>>reducing freedom of speech, a conspiracy theory? Maybe!
The restrictions imposed on us during the era of Covid-induced >>>>lockdowns were simply a repeat of what was done during earlier >>>>outbreaks of infectious and life-threatening diseases. It was >>>>difficult for us all to deal with because the previous such pandemic >>>>('Spanish' influenza post WW1)was just over a century ago, so not >>>>within living memory. There was also a Polio epidemic however if I >>>>recall correctly residential lockdowns were not used for this.
There is a list of pandemics here: >>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics_and_pandemics
for New Zealand, the 1918 influenza pandemic was very significant: >>>https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/influenza-pandemic-1918
"In two months New Zealand lost about half as many people to influenza
as it had in the whole of the First World War. No other event has
killed so many New Zealanders in such a short time."
HIV|AIDS was less significant in New Zealand than overseas
New Zealand had relatively short notice of the Covid pandemic, but in >>>that period the government was able to see the steps taken in China
and Taiwan, and to see that limiting travel would be a major way to
limit infection - it was clear that there was at that time no >>>preventative medications, and that transmission was likely to be
through the air or direct contact. Air travel was less desirable than >>>shipping - the risk of infection through the air was higher, but total >>>stoppage of travel was relatively brief, due to the need for imports
and exports.
Subsequently tracking was developed from scratch, and it became clear >>>that gatherings with close enough contact to spread through breath
were most dangerous, and that the elderly were more prone to infection >>>than children and young adults. Church gatherings were discouraged >>>largely by the leaders of those churches once the danger became known; >>>supermarkets limited numbers in stores and encouraged distancing in >>>queues to enter. There was anger over a story of prostitutes traveling >>>from Auckland to clients further away and spreading infection.
Many stayed in their homes except for essential travel, but many >>>continued to exercise - either individually or by household.
The government gave loans / grants to ensure that New Zealand
businesses were able to continue to pay workers - this can now be seen
to have been possibly too generous and to widely given - even The NZ >>>Taxpayers Union applied and received money - they subsequently >>>voluntarily repaid it - but as the pandemic came to an end New Zealand >>>recovered previous GDP levels more quickly than nearly every other >>>developed country - the abuse of that scheme has however meant that
even now the government is still collecting some money back from >>>businesses that were less than honest in their applications.
Regular reporting helped identify increases and reductions in new
cases, and where they were located. The same happened in Australia,
where different states adopted different policies - Western Australia
and Queensland were closes to the low infection and death rates of New >>>Zealand - New South Wales which followed policies closer to those >>>advocated by the National Party here, did less well.
Later comparisons of deaths compared with pre-covid death rates
indicated that had New Zealand adopted the same policies as the United >>>States or the UK, we would have had around 22,000 more deaths.
As far as communications were concerned, the development of >>>video-conferencing, largely through the Zoom programme was a
revolution for many, enabling a lot more people to work from home, and >>>for other groups to "meet" face to face.
For none of that time were there any restrictions on talking about
either Covid or the response - there were open discussions by
politicians through electronic media, and a few physical meetings of >>>parliament when that became possible. There were some that opposed >>>vaccinations - and many of those remained unvaccinated. (During the >>>protests at parliament there was a spike in hospital admissions for >>>Covid), and there were problems reaching some populations for
vaccination (especially in the far north). Opposition politicians, and >>>their 'adviser' organisations such as the Taxpayers Union, Free Speech >>>Union/ NZ Initiative made no complaints about suppression of opinions >>>relating to Covid or the government response. Some decided not to be >>>vaccinated and suffered no disadvantages from that, other than a
higher risk of infection. There were some groups that were required to >>>accept vaccination - that has for a long time applied to armed forces
and foreign affairs employees and many heath workers, but some
companies made it difficult for staff to work in groups once
restrictions were eased (I knew of a construction firm that put >>>unvaccinated workers together in one work group).
There certainly were severe restrictions on freedom of association >>>>starting in early 2020 because we were confined to our own homes for >>>>long periods. Compared to previous pandemics, we had a considerable >>>>number of ways to mitigate that isolation - with entertainment and >>>>communication options not available during the previous pandemic. This >>>>gives the lie to free speech being suppressed. The ability to speak >>>>out was not limited universally, just that there were limited venues >>>>and the narrative around the 'podium of truth'. These attempts to >>>>shape public debate failed, hence free speech survived.
A good summary; thank you Crash
The key learning from the Covid outbreak, to me, is that lockdowns
have limited effect at controlling disease but a major impact on the >>>>economy and society. We should not employ lockdowns unless the
disease that is involved has a much higher case fatality rate (Google >>>>this) than Covid does. We should also be very careful to formulate >>>>restrictions of association (such as limiting the size and extent of >>>>gatherings) that are relative to the case fatality rate, rather than a >>>>repeat of a traditional controls.
We know that our case fatality rate for New Zealand was very low by
world standards; and the discouragement of group gatherings was based
on verified tracking of infections, which had a direct (but not
totally predictable) correlation with deaths.
So specify the measurable harm you are referring to . . . .
We now have a situation where there is another variant heading ourOnce more you are not providing any empiracl measurement - just poke and hope.
way; water testing shows that infections are higher than those
reported. We can be thankful that despite some strong
'anti-vaccination' views being expressed, the current government has >>>largely continued to provide vaccinations against the latest variants, >>>and to be fair to the majority of the government, this has been
largely supported by Government MPs with only a few extremists
speaking against it.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 07:14:25 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2025 13:20:49 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:You keep posting that but it is absolutely irrelevant because it is a >>>comparison. The important measure is what absolute effect there was (ie an >>>empirical measurement) - and the restrictions did measurable harm. There has >>>never been any evidence that the harm was worth it.
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 23:40:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Some halfwit posted that "there was no suppression of speech relating to >>>>>>any
part of the
Covid response".
Presumably referring to New Zealand. He/she/they quickly ran away - as do >>>>>>halfwits all over the world.
What absolute garbage. Of course there was suppression of speech.
During lockdown we could not attend meetings, we could not visit a coffee >>>>>>shop
and chat with friends, colleagues etc. We could not go to work. We could >>>>>>not
visit dying relatives in hospital.
The list goes on and on. That is suppression of speech, whether deliberate
or
not is irrelevant.
No doubt such a halfwit would say we could telephone, email etc. That is >>>>>>not
speech, and that is not freedom.
There are some who believe the lockdown was in fact deliberately aimed at >>>>>>reducing freedom of speech, a conspiracy theory? Maybe!
The restrictions imposed on us during the era of Covid-induced >>>>>lockdowns were simply a repeat of what was done during earlier >>>>>outbreaks of infectious and life-threatening diseases. It was >>>>>difficult for us all to deal with because the previous such pandemic >>>>>('Spanish' influenza post WW1)was just over a century ago, so not >>>>>within living memory. There was also a Polio epidemic however if I >>>>>recall correctly residential lockdowns were not used for this.
There is a list of pandemics here: >>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics_and_pandemics
for New Zealand, the 1918 influenza pandemic was very significant: >>>>https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/influenza-pandemic-1918
"In two months New Zealand lost about half as many people to influenza >>>>as it had in the whole of the First World War. No other event has >>>>killed so many New Zealanders in such a short time."
HIV|AIDS was less significant in New Zealand than overseas
New Zealand had relatively short notice of the Covid pandemic, but in >>>>that period the government was able to see the steps taken in China
and Taiwan, and to see that limiting travel would be a major way to >>>>limit infection - it was clear that there was at that time no >>>>preventative medications, and that transmission was likely to be >>>>through the air or direct contact. Air travel was less desirable than >>>>shipping - the risk of infection through the air was higher, but total >>>>stoppage of travel was relatively brief, due to the need for imports >>>>and exports.
Subsequently tracking was developed from scratch, and it became clear >>>>that gatherings with close enough contact to spread through breath
were most dangerous, and that the elderly were more prone to infection >>>>than children and young adults. Church gatherings were discouraged >>>>largely by the leaders of those churches once the danger became known; >>>>supermarkets limited numbers in stores and encouraged distancing in >>>>queues to enter. There was anger over a story of prostitutes traveling >>>>from Auckland to clients further away and spreading infection.
Many stayed in their homes except for essential travel, but many >>>>continued to exercise - either individually or by household.
The government gave loans / grants to ensure that New Zealand >>>>businesses were able to continue to pay workers - this can now be seen >>>>to have been possibly too generous and to widely given - even The NZ >>>>Taxpayers Union applied and received money - they subsequently >>>>voluntarily repaid it - but as the pandemic came to an end New Zealand >>>>recovered previous GDP levels more quickly than nearly every other >>>>developed country - the abuse of that scheme has however meant that >>>>even now the government is still collecting some money back from >>>>businesses that were less than honest in their applications.
Regular reporting helped identify increases and reductions in new >>>>cases, and where they were located. The same happened in Australia, >>>>where different states adopted different policies - Western Australia >>>>and Queensland were closes to the low infection and death rates of New >>>>Zealand - New South Wales which followed policies closer to those >>>>advocated by the National Party here, did less well.
Later comparisons of deaths compared with pre-covid death rates >>>>indicated that had New Zealand adopted the same policies as the United >>>>States or the UK, we would have had around 22,000 more deaths.
As far as communications were concerned, the development of >>>>video-conferencing, largely through the Zoom programme was a
revolution for many, enabling a lot more people to work from home, and >>>>for other groups to "meet" face to face.
For none of that time were there any restrictions on talking about >>>>either Covid or the response - there were open discussions by >>>>politicians through electronic media, and a few physical meetings of >>>>parliament when that became possible. There were some that opposed >>>>vaccinations - and many of those remained unvaccinated. (During the >>>>protests at parliament there was a spike in hospital admissions for >>>>Covid), and there were problems reaching some populations for >>>>vaccination (especially in the far north). Opposition politicians, and >>>>their 'adviser' organisations such as the Taxpayers Union, Free Speech >>>>Union/ NZ Initiative made no complaints about suppression of opinions >>>>relating to Covid or the government response. Some decided not to be >>>>vaccinated and suffered no disadvantages from that, other than a
higher risk of infection. There were some groups that were required to >>>>accept vaccination - that has for a long time applied to armed forces >>>>and foreign affairs employees and many heath workers, but some >>>>companies made it difficult for staff to work in groups once >>>>restrictions were eased (I knew of a construction firm that put >>>>unvaccinated workers together in one work group).
There certainly were severe restrictions on freedom of association >>>>>starting in early 2020 because we were confined to our own homes for >>>>>long periods. Compared to previous pandemics, we had a considerable >>>>>number of ways to mitigate that isolation - with entertainment and >>>>>communication options not available during the previous pandemic. This >>>>>gives the lie to free speech being suppressed. The ability to speak >>>>>out was not limited universally, just that there were limited venues >>>>>and the narrative around the 'podium of truth'. These attempts to >>>>>shape public debate failed, hence free speech survived.
A good summary; thank you Crash
The key learning from the Covid outbreak, to me, is that lockdowns >>>>>have limited effect at controlling disease but a major impact on the >>>>>economy and society. We should not employ lockdowns unless the >>>>>disease that is involved has a much higher case fatality rate (Google >>>>>this) than Covid does. We should also be very careful to formulate >>>>>restrictions of association (such as limiting the size and extent of >>>>>gatherings) that are relative to the case fatality rate, rather than a >>>>>repeat of a traditional controls.
We know that our case fatality rate for New Zealand was very low by >>>>world standards; and the discouragement of group gatherings was based >>>>on verified tracking of infections, which had a direct (but not
totally predictable) correlation with deaths.
So specify the measurable harm you are referring to . . . .
You keep saying we did well. You provide the evidence of that.
Your post your responsibility.
Comparing us to other countries does not, in any way, prove that we did it >well. You show that.
In a timely report, Ardern has agreed that we could/should have done it better >- just listen to the news sometime today.
We now have a situation where there is another variant heading ourOnce more you are not providing any empiracl measurement - just poke and hope.
way; water testing shows that infections are higher than those >>>>reported. We can be thankful that despite some strong >>>>'anti-vaccination' views being expressed, the current government has >>>>largely continued to provide vaccinations against the latest variants, >>>>and to be fair to the majority of the government, this has been
largely supported by Government MPs with only a few extremists
speaking against it.
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 00:23:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou can have your stutter treated but essentially it needs you to fix it yourself but as a reminder of what this topic is - You keep saying we did well. You provide the evidence of that.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 07:14:25 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2025 13:20:49 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:You keep posting that but it is absolutely irrelevant because it is a >>>>comparison. The important measure is what absolute effect there was (ie an >>>>empirical measurement) - and the restrictions did measurable harm. There >>>>has
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 23:40:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Some halfwit posted that "there was no suppression of speech relating to >>>>>>>any
part of the
Covid response".
Presumably referring to New Zealand. He/she/they quickly ran away - as >>>>>>>do
halfwits all over the world.
What absolute garbage. Of course there was suppression of speech. >>>>>>>
During lockdown we could not attend meetings, we could not visit a >>>>>>>coffee
shop
and chat with friends, colleagues etc. We could not go to work. We could >>>>>>>not
visit dying relatives in hospital.
The list goes on and on. That is suppression of speech, whether >>>>>>>deliberate
or
not is irrelevant.
No doubt such a halfwit would say we could telephone, email etc. That is >>>>>>>not
speech, and that is not freedom.
There are some who believe the lockdown was in fact deliberately aimed >>>>>>>at
reducing freedom of speech, a conspiracy theory? Maybe!
The restrictions imposed on us during the era of Covid-induced >>>>>>lockdowns were simply a repeat of what was done during earlier >>>>>>outbreaks of infectious and life-threatening diseases. It was >>>>>>difficult for us all to deal with because the previous such pandemic >>>>>>('Spanish' influenza post WW1)was just over a century ago, so not >>>>>>within living memory. There was also a Polio epidemic however if I >>>>>>recall correctly residential lockdowns were not used for this.
There is a list of pandemics here: >>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics_and_pandemics
for New Zealand, the 1918 influenza pandemic was very significant: >>>>>https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/influenza-pandemic-1918
"In two months New Zealand lost about half as many people to influenza >>>>>as it had in the whole of the First World War. No other event has >>>>>killed so many New Zealanders in such a short time."
HIV|AIDS was less significant in New Zealand than overseas
New Zealand had relatively short notice of the Covid pandemic, but in >>>>>that period the government was able to see the steps taken in China >>>>>and Taiwan, and to see that limiting travel would be a major way to >>>>>limit infection - it was clear that there was at that time no >>>>>preventative medications, and that transmission was likely to be >>>>>through the air or direct contact. Air travel was less desirable than >>>>>shipping - the risk of infection through the air was higher, but total >>>>>stoppage of travel was relatively brief, due to the need for imports >>>>>and exports.
Subsequently tracking was developed from scratch, and it became clear >>>>>that gatherings with close enough contact to spread through breath >>>>>were most dangerous, and that the elderly were more prone to infection >>>>>than children and young adults. Church gatherings were discouraged >>>>>largely by the leaders of those churches once the danger became known; >>>>>supermarkets limited numbers in stores and encouraged distancing in >>>>>queues to enter. There was anger over a story of prostitutes traveling >>>>>from Auckland to clients further away and spreading infection.
Many stayed in their homes except for essential travel, but many >>>>>continued to exercise - either individually or by household.
The government gave loans / grants to ensure that New Zealand >>>>>businesses were able to continue to pay workers - this can now be seen >>>>>to have been possibly too generous and to widely given - even The NZ >>>>>Taxpayers Union applied and received money - they subsequently >>>>>voluntarily repaid it - but as the pandemic came to an end New Zealand >>>>>recovered previous GDP levels more quickly than nearly every other >>>>>developed country - the abuse of that scheme has however meant that >>>>>even now the government is still collecting some money back from >>>>>businesses that were less than honest in their applications.
Regular reporting helped identify increases and reductions in new >>>>>cases, and where they were located. The same happened in Australia, >>>>>where different states adopted different policies - Western Australia >>>>>and Queensland were closes to the low infection and death rates of New >>>>>Zealand - New South Wales which followed policies closer to those >>>>>advocated by the National Party here, did less well.
Later comparisons of deaths compared with pre-covid death rates >>>>>indicated that had New Zealand adopted the same policies as the United >>>>>States or the UK, we would have had around 22,000 more deaths.
As far as communications were concerned, the development of >>>>>video-conferencing, largely through the Zoom programme was a >>>>>revolution for many, enabling a lot more people to work from home, and >>>>>for other groups to "meet" face to face.
For none of that time were there any restrictions on talking about >>>>>either Covid or the response - there were open discussions by >>>>>politicians through electronic media, and a few physical meetings of >>>>>parliament when that became possible. There were some that opposed >>>>>vaccinations - and many of those remained unvaccinated. (During the >>>>>protests at parliament there was a spike in hospital admissions for >>>>>Covid), and there were problems reaching some populations for >>>>>vaccination (especially in the far north). Opposition politicians, and >>>>>their 'adviser' organisations such as the Taxpayers Union, Free Speech >>>>>Union/ NZ Initiative made no complaints about suppression of opinions >>>>>relating to Covid or the government response. Some decided not to be >>>>>vaccinated and suffered no disadvantages from that, other than a >>>>>higher risk of infection. There were some groups that were required to >>>>>accept vaccination - that has for a long time applied to armed forces >>>>>and foreign affairs employees and many heath workers, but some >>>>>companies made it difficult for staff to work in groups once >>>>>restrictions were eased (I knew of a construction firm that put >>>>>unvaccinated workers together in one work group).
There certainly were severe restrictions on freedom of association >>>>>>starting in early 2020 because we were confined to our own homes for >>>>>>long periods. Compared to previous pandemics, we had a considerable >>>>>>number of ways to mitigate that isolation - with entertainment and >>>>>>communication options not available during the previous pandemic. This >>>>>>gives the lie to free speech being suppressed. The ability to speak >>>>>>out was not limited universally, just that there were limited venues >>>>>>and the narrative around the 'podium of truth'. These attempts to >>>>>>shape public debate failed, hence free speech survived.
A good summary; thank you Crash
The key learning from the Covid outbreak, to me, is that lockdowns >>>>>>have limited effect at controlling disease but a major impact on the >>>>>>economy and society. We should not employ lockdowns unless the >>>>>>disease that is involved has a much higher case fatality rate (Google >>>>>>this) than Covid does. We should also be very careful to formulate >>>>>>restrictions of association (such as limiting the size and extent of >>>>>>gatherings) that are relative to the case fatality rate, rather than a >>>>>>repeat of a traditional controls.
We know that our case fatality rate for New Zealand was very low by >>>>>world standards; and the discouragement of group gatherings was based >>>>>on verified tracking of infections, which had a direct (but not >>>>>totally predictable) correlation with deaths.
never been any evidence that the harm was worth it.
So specify the measurable harm you are referring to . . . .
You keep saying we did well. You provide the evidence of that.
Your post your responsibility.
Comparing us to other countries does not, in any way, prove that we did it >>well. You show that.
In a timely report, Ardern has agreed that we could/should have done it >>better
- just listen to the news sometime today.
So specify the measurable harm you are referring to . . . .
We now have a situation where there is another variant heading our >>>>>way; water testing shows that infections are higher than those >>>>>reported. We can be thankful that despite some strong >>>>>'anti-vaccination' views being expressed, the current government has >>>>>largely continued to provide vaccinations against the latest variants, >>>>>and to be fair to the majority of the government, this has been >>>>>largely supported by Government MPs with only a few extremists >>>>>speaking against it.Once more you are not providing any empiracl measurement - just poke and >>>>hope.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 00:23:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou can have your stutter treated but essentially it needs you to fix it >yourself but as a reminder of what this topic is - You keep saying we did well.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 07:14:25 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2025 13:20:49 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:You keep posting that but it is absolutely irrelevant because it is a >>>>>comparison. The important measure is what absolute effect there was (ie an >>>>>empirical measurement) - and the restrictions did measurable harm. There >>>>>has
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 23:40:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Some halfwit posted that "there was no suppression of speech relating to
any
part of the
Covid response".
Presumably referring to New Zealand. He/she/they quickly ran away - as >>>>>>>>do
halfwits all over the world.
What absolute garbage. Of course there was suppression of speech. >>>>>>>>
During lockdown we could not attend meetings, we could not visit a >>>>>>>>coffee
shop
and chat with friends, colleagues etc. We could not go to work. We could
not
visit dying relatives in hospital.
The list goes on and on. That is suppression of speech, whether >>>>>>>>deliberate
or
not is irrelevant.
No doubt such a halfwit would say we could telephone, email etc. That is
not
speech, and that is not freedom.
There are some who believe the lockdown was in fact deliberately aimed >>>>>>>>at
reducing freedom of speech, a conspiracy theory? Maybe!
The restrictions imposed on us during the era of Covid-induced >>>>>>>lockdowns were simply a repeat of what was done during earlier >>>>>>>outbreaks of infectious and life-threatening diseases. It was >>>>>>>difficult for us all to deal with because the previous such pandemic >>>>>>>('Spanish' influenza post WW1)was just over a century ago, so not >>>>>>>within living memory. There was also a Polio epidemic however if I >>>>>>>recall correctly residential lockdowns were not used for this.
There is a list of pandemics here: >>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics_and_pandemics
for New Zealand, the 1918 influenza pandemic was very significant: >>>>>>https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/influenza-pandemic-1918
"In two months New Zealand lost about half as many people to influenza >>>>>>as it had in the whole of the First World War. No other event has >>>>>>killed so many New Zealanders in such a short time."
HIV|AIDS was less significant in New Zealand than overseas
New Zealand had relatively short notice of the Covid pandemic, but in >>>>>>that period the government was able to see the steps taken in China >>>>>>and Taiwan, and to see that limiting travel would be a major way to >>>>>>limit infection - it was clear that there was at that time no >>>>>>preventative medications, and that transmission was likely to be >>>>>>through the air or direct contact. Air travel was less desirable than >>>>>>shipping - the risk of infection through the air was higher, but total >>>>>>stoppage of travel was relatively brief, due to the need for imports >>>>>>and exports.
Subsequently tracking was developed from scratch, and it became clear >>>>>>that gatherings with close enough contact to spread through breath >>>>>>were most dangerous, and that the elderly were more prone to infection >>>>>>than children and young adults. Church gatherings were discouraged >>>>>>largely by the leaders of those churches once the danger became known; >>>>>>supermarkets limited numbers in stores and encouraged distancing in >>>>>>queues to enter. There was anger over a story of prostitutes traveling >>>>>>from Auckland to clients further away and spreading infection.
Many stayed in their homes except for essential travel, but many >>>>>>continued to exercise - either individually or by household.
The government gave loans / grants to ensure that New Zealand >>>>>>businesses were able to continue to pay workers - this can now be seen >>>>>>to have been possibly too generous and to widely given - even The NZ >>>>>>Taxpayers Union applied and received money - they subsequently >>>>>>voluntarily repaid it - but as the pandemic came to an end New Zealand >>>>>>recovered previous GDP levels more quickly than nearly every other >>>>>>developed country - the abuse of that scheme has however meant that >>>>>>even now the government is still collecting some money back from >>>>>>businesses that were less than honest in their applications.
Regular reporting helped identify increases and reductions in new >>>>>>cases, and where they were located. The same happened in Australia, >>>>>>where different states adopted different policies - Western Australia >>>>>>and Queensland were closes to the low infection and death rates of New >>>>>>Zealand - New South Wales which followed policies closer to those >>>>>>advocated by the National Party here, did less well.
Later comparisons of deaths compared with pre-covid death rates >>>>>>indicated that had New Zealand adopted the same policies as the United >>>>>>States or the UK, we would have had around 22,000 more deaths.
As far as communications were concerned, the development of >>>>>>video-conferencing, largely through the Zoom programme was a >>>>>>revolution for many, enabling a lot more people to work from home, and >>>>>>for other groups to "meet" face to face.
For none of that time were there any restrictions on talking about >>>>>>either Covid or the response - there were open discussions by >>>>>>politicians through electronic media, and a few physical meetings of >>>>>>parliament when that became possible. There were some that opposed >>>>>>vaccinations - and many of those remained unvaccinated. (During the >>>>>>protests at parliament there was a spike in hospital admissions for >>>>>>Covid), and there were problems reaching some populations for >>>>>>vaccination (especially in the far north). Opposition politicians, and >>>>>>their 'adviser' organisations such as the Taxpayers Union, Free Speech >>>>>>Union/ NZ Initiative made no complaints about suppression of opinions >>>>>>relating to Covid or the government response. Some decided not to be >>>>>>vaccinated and suffered no disadvantages from that, other than a >>>>>>higher risk of infection. There were some groups that were required to >>>>>>accept vaccination - that has for a long time applied to armed forces >>>>>>and foreign affairs employees and many heath workers, but some >>>>>>companies made it difficult for staff to work in groups once >>>>>>restrictions were eased (I knew of a construction firm that put >>>>>>unvaccinated workers together in one work group).
There certainly were severe restrictions on freedom of association >>>>>>>starting in early 2020 because we were confined to our own homes for >>>>>>>long periods. Compared to previous pandemics, we had a considerable >>>>>>>number of ways to mitigate that isolation - with entertainment and >>>>>>>communication options not available during the previous pandemic. This >>>>>>>gives the lie to free speech being suppressed. The ability to speak >>>>>>>out was not limited universally, just that there were limited venues >>>>>>>and the narrative around the 'podium of truth'. These attempts to >>>>>>>shape public debate failed, hence free speech survived.
A good summary; thank you Crash
The key learning from the Covid outbreak, to me, is that lockdowns >>>>>>>have limited effect at controlling disease but a major impact on the >>>>>>>economy and society. We should not employ lockdowns unless the >>>>>>>disease that is involved has a much higher case fatality rate (Google >>>>>>>this) than Covid does. We should also be very careful to formulate >>>>>>>restrictions of association (such as limiting the size and extent of >>>>>>>gatherings) that are relative to the case fatality rate, rather than a >>>>>>>repeat of a traditional controls.
We know that our case fatality rate for New Zealand was very low by >>>>>>world standards; and the discouragement of group gatherings was based >>>>>>on verified tracking of infections, which had a direct (but not >>>>>>totally predictable) correlation with deaths.
never been any evidence that the harm was worth it.
So specify the measurable harm you are referring to . . . .
You provide the evidence of that.
Your post your responsibility.
Comparing us to other countries does not, in any way, prove that we did it >well. You show that.
In a timely report, Ardern has agreed that we could/should have done it better >- just listen to the news sometime today.
You keep saying we did well. You provide the evidence of that.
Your post your responsibility.
Comparing us to other countries does not, in any way, prove that we did it >>>well. You show that.
In a timely report, Ardern has agreed that we could/should have done it >>>better
- just listen to the news sometime today.
So specify the measurable harm you are referring to . . . .
We now have a situation where there is another variant heading our >>>>>>way; water testing shows that infections are higher than those >>>>>>reported. We can be thankful that despite some strong >>>>>>'anti-vaccination' views being expressed, the current government has >>>>>>largely continued to provide vaccinations against the latest variants, >>>>>>and to be fair to the majority of the government, this has been >>>>>>largely supported by Government MPs with only a few extremists >>>>>>speaking against it.Once more you are not providing any empiracl measurement - just poke and >>>>>hope.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You are as slow as she is. Neither of you have shown that we did it well. Doing it better than others is irrelevant.
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 02:23:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 00:23:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou can have your stutter treated but essentially it needs you to fix it >>yourself but as a reminder of what this topic is - You keep saying we did >>well.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 07:14:25 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2025 13:20:49 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:You keep posting that but it is absolutely irrelevant because it is a >>>>>>comparison. The important measure is what absolute effect there was (ie >>>>>>an
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 23:40:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Some halfwit posted that "there was no suppression of speech relating >>>>>>>>>to
any
part of the
Covid response".
Presumably referring to New Zealand. He/she/they quickly ran away - as >>>>>>>>>do
halfwits all over the world.
What absolute garbage. Of course there was suppression of speech. >>>>>>>>>
During lockdown we could not attend meetings, we could not visit a >>>>>>>>>coffee
shop
and chat with friends, colleagues etc. We could not go to work. We >>>>>>>>>could
not
visit dying relatives in hospital.
The list goes on and on. That is suppression of speech, whether >>>>>>>>>deliberate
or
not is irrelevant.
No doubt such a halfwit would say we could telephone, email etc. That >>>>>>>>>is
not
speech, and that is not freedom.
There are some who believe the lockdown was in fact deliberately aimed >>>>>>>>>at
reducing freedom of speech, a conspiracy theory? Maybe!
The restrictions imposed on us during the era of Covid-induced >>>>>>>>lockdowns were simply a repeat of what was done during earlier >>>>>>>>outbreaks of infectious and life-threatening diseases. It was >>>>>>>>difficult for us all to deal with because the previous such pandemic >>>>>>>>('Spanish' influenza post WW1)was just over a century ago, so not >>>>>>>>within living memory. There was also a Polio epidemic however if I >>>>>>>>recall correctly residential lockdowns were not used for this.
There is a list of pandemics here: >>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics_and_pandemics
for New Zealand, the 1918 influenza pandemic was very significant: >>>>>>>https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/influenza-pandemic-1918
"In two months New Zealand lost about half as many people to influenza >>>>>>>as it had in the whole of the First World War. No other event has >>>>>>>killed so many New Zealanders in such a short time."
HIV|AIDS was less significant in New Zealand than overseas
New Zealand had relatively short notice of the Covid pandemic, but in >>>>>>>that period the government was able to see the steps taken in China >>>>>>>and Taiwan, and to see that limiting travel would be a major way to >>>>>>>limit infection - it was clear that there was at that time no >>>>>>>preventative medications, and that transmission was likely to be >>>>>>>through the air or direct contact. Air travel was less desirable than >>>>>>>shipping - the risk of infection through the air was higher, but total >>>>>>>stoppage of travel was relatively brief, due to the need for imports >>>>>>>and exports.
Subsequently tracking was developed from scratch, and it became clear >>>>>>>that gatherings with close enough contact to spread through breath >>>>>>>were most dangerous, and that the elderly were more prone to infection >>>>>>>than children and young adults. Church gatherings were discouraged >>>>>>>largely by the leaders of those churches once the danger became known; >>>>>>>supermarkets limited numbers in stores and encouraged distancing in >>>>>>>queues to enter. There was anger over a story of prostitutes traveling >>>>>>>from Auckland to clients further away and spreading infection.
Many stayed in their homes except for essential travel, but many >>>>>>>continued to exercise - either individually or by household.
The government gave loans / grants to ensure that New Zealand >>>>>>>businesses were able to continue to pay workers - this can now be seen >>>>>>>to have been possibly too generous and to widely given - even The NZ >>>>>>>Taxpayers Union applied and received money - they subsequently >>>>>>>voluntarily repaid it - but as the pandemic came to an end New Zealand >>>>>>>recovered previous GDP levels more quickly than nearly every other >>>>>>>developed country - the abuse of that scheme has however meant that >>>>>>>even now the government is still collecting some money back from >>>>>>>businesses that were less than honest in their applications.
Regular reporting helped identify increases and reductions in new >>>>>>>cases, and where they were located. The same happened in Australia, >>>>>>>where different states adopted different policies - Western Australia >>>>>>>and Queensland were closes to the low infection and death rates of New >>>>>>>Zealand - New South Wales which followed policies closer to those >>>>>>>advocated by the National Party here, did less well.
Later comparisons of deaths compared with pre-covid death rates >>>>>>>indicated that had New Zealand adopted the same policies as the United >>>>>>>States or the UK, we would have had around 22,000 more deaths.
As far as communications were concerned, the development of >>>>>>>video-conferencing, largely through the Zoom programme was a >>>>>>>revolution for many, enabling a lot more people to work from home, and >>>>>>>for other groups to "meet" face to face.
For none of that time were there any restrictions on talking about >>>>>>>either Covid or the response - there were open discussions by >>>>>>>politicians through electronic media, and a few physical meetings of >>>>>>>parliament when that became possible. There were some that opposed >>>>>>>vaccinations - and many of those remained unvaccinated. (During the >>>>>>>protests at parliament there was a spike in hospital admissions for >>>>>>>Covid), and there were problems reaching some populations for >>>>>>>vaccination (especially in the far north). Opposition politicians, and >>>>>>>their 'adviser' organisations such as the Taxpayers Union, Free Speech >>>>>>>Union/ NZ Initiative made no complaints about suppression of opinions >>>>>>>relating to Covid or the government response. Some decided not to be >>>>>>>vaccinated and suffered no disadvantages from that, other than a >>>>>>>higher risk of infection. There were some groups that were required to >>>>>>>accept vaccination - that has for a long time applied to armed forces >>>>>>>and foreign affairs employees and many heath workers, but some >>>>>>>companies made it difficult for staff to work in groups once >>>>>>>restrictions were eased (I knew of a construction firm that put >>>>>>>unvaccinated workers together in one work group).
There certainly were severe restrictions on freedom of association >>>>>>>>starting in early 2020 because we were confined to our own homes for >>>>>>>>long periods. Compared to previous pandemics, we had a considerable >>>>>>>>number of ways to mitigate that isolation - with entertainment and >>>>>>>>communication options not available during the previous pandemic. This >>>>>>>>gives the lie to free speech being suppressed. The ability to speak >>>>>>>>out was not limited universally, just that there were limited venues >>>>>>>>and the narrative around the 'podium of truth'. These attempts to >>>>>>>>shape public debate failed, hence free speech survived.
A good summary; thank you Crash
The key learning from the Covid outbreak, to me, is that lockdowns >>>>>>>>have limited effect at controlling disease but a major impact on the >>>>>>>>economy and society. We should not employ lockdowns unless the >>>>>>>>disease that is involved has a much higher case fatality rate (Google >>>>>>>>this) than Covid does. We should also be very careful to formulate >>>>>>>>restrictions of association (such as limiting the size and extent of >>>>>>>>gatherings) that are relative to the case fatality rate, rather than a >>>>>>>>repeat of a traditional controls.
We know that our case fatality rate for New Zealand was very low by >>>>>>>world standards; and the discouragement of group gatherings was based >>>>>>>on verified tracking of infections, which had a direct (but not >>>>>>>totally predictable) correlation with deaths.
empirical measurement) - and the restrictions did measurable harm. There >>>>>>has
never been any evidence that the harm was worth it.
So specify the measurable harm you are referring to . . . .
You provide the evidence of that.
Your post your responsibility.
Comparing us to other countries does not, in any way, prove that we did it >>well. You show that.
In a timely report, Ardern has agreed that we could/should have done it >>better
- just listen to the news sometime today.
You keep saying we did well. You provide the evidence of that.
Your post your responsibility.
Comparing us to other countries does not, in any way, prove that we did it >>>>well. You show that.
In a timely report, Ardern has agreed that we could/should have done it >>>>better
- just listen to the news sometime today.
I did, and she spoke well. As she pointed out, we saved around 20,000
lives compared with other countries -I had compared with the USA which
gave 22,000, but the reality is that had the then government not taken
the actions they did, we would have done as well - yes we did well.
She also said that there have been problems arising from other issues,Political rhetoric.
such as the very limited mandates, and the reality of the stress
involved in the pandemic that caused problems later; and Ardern
pointed out that most countries are experiencing those problems, but
she was not prepared to argue with the identification of those issues
- it is up to the current and future governments to ensure that we
learn from those experiences and hopefully do some things better in
the event of another pandemic.
So we come to your statement "The important measure is what absoluteNo you little child. You have never shown that we did it well. If you were any dumber you would not be breathing.
effect there was (ie an empirical measurement) - and the restrictions
did measurable harm. There has never been any evidence that the harm
was worth it."
Your statement, your responsibility, Tony.
So what measurable harm were you referring to, Tony, and how did youKeep to the questions I asked and then and only then I might help you.
measure it?
So specify the measurable harm you are referring to . . . .
We now have a situation where there is another variant heading our >>>>>>>way; water testing shows that infections are higher than those >>>>>>>reported. We can be thankful that despite some strong >>>>>>>'anti-vaccination' views being expressed, the current government has >>>>>>>largely continued to provide vaccinations against the latest variants, >>>>>>>and to be fair to the majority of the government, this has been >>>>>>>largely supported by Government MPs with only a few extremists >>>>>>>speaking against it.Once more you are not providing any empiracl measurement - just poke and >>>>>>hope.
You keep saying we did well. You provide the evidence of that.The New Zealand actions compared with those of other countries saved
Your post your responsibility.If you think it was just a game, then we killed 20,000 less that the
Comparing us to other countries does not, in any way, prove that we did it >well. You show that.
In a timely report, Ardern has agreed that we could/should have done it better >- just listen to the news sometime today.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You are as slow as she is. Neither of you have shown that we did it well. Doing
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 02:23:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 00:23:55 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou can have your stutter treated but essentially it needs you to fix it >>>yourself but as a reminder of what this topic is - You keep saying we did >>>well.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 07:14:25 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2025 13:20:49 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:You keep posting that but it is absolutely irrelevant because it is a >>>>>>>comparison. The important measure is what absolute effect there was (ie >>>>>>>an
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 23:40:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:There is a list of pandemics here: >>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics_and_pandemics
Some halfwit posted that "there was no suppression of speech relating >>>>>>>>>>to
any
part of the
Covid response".
Presumably referring to New Zealand. He/she/they quickly ran away - as
do
halfwits all over the world.
What absolute garbage. Of course there was suppression of speech. >>>>>>>>>>
During lockdown we could not attend meetings, we could not visit a >>>>>>>>>>coffee
shop
and chat with friends, colleagues etc. We could not go to work. We >>>>>>>>>>could
not
visit dying relatives in hospital.
The list goes on and on. That is suppression of speech, whether >>>>>>>>>>deliberate
or
not is irrelevant.
No doubt such a halfwit would say we could telephone, email etc. That >>>>>>>>>>is
not
speech, and that is not freedom.
There are some who believe the lockdown was in fact deliberately aimed
at
reducing freedom of speech, a conspiracy theory? Maybe!
The restrictions imposed on us during the era of Covid-induced >>>>>>>>>lockdowns were simply a repeat of what was done during earlier >>>>>>>>>outbreaks of infectious and life-threatening diseases. It was >>>>>>>>>difficult for us all to deal with because the previous such pandemic >>>>>>>>>('Spanish' influenza post WW1)was just over a century ago, so not >>>>>>>>>within living memory. There was also a Polio epidemic however if I >>>>>>>>>recall correctly residential lockdowns were not used for this. >>>>>>>>
for New Zealand, the 1918 influenza pandemic was very significant: >>>>>>>>https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/influenza-pandemic-1918
"In two months New Zealand lost about half as many people to influenza >>>>>>>>as it had in the whole of the First World War. No other event has >>>>>>>>killed so many New Zealanders in such a short time."
HIV|AIDS was less significant in New Zealand than overseas
New Zealand had relatively short notice of the Covid pandemic, but in >>>>>>>>that period the government was able to see the steps taken in China >>>>>>>>and Taiwan, and to see that limiting travel would be a major way to >>>>>>>>limit infection - it was clear that there was at that time no >>>>>>>>preventative medications, and that transmission was likely to be >>>>>>>>through the air or direct contact. Air travel was less desirable than >>>>>>>>shipping - the risk of infection through the air was higher, but total >>>>>>>>stoppage of travel was relatively brief, due to the need for imports >>>>>>>>and exports.
Subsequently tracking was developed from scratch, and it became clear >>>>>>>>that gatherings with close enough contact to spread through breath >>>>>>>>were most dangerous, and that the elderly were more prone to infection >>>>>>>>than children and young adults. Church gatherings were discouraged >>>>>>>>largely by the leaders of those churches once the danger became known; >>>>>>>>supermarkets limited numbers in stores and encouraged distancing in >>>>>>>>queues to enter. There was anger over a story of prostitutes traveling >>>>>>>>from Auckland to clients further away and spreading infection.
Many stayed in their homes except for essential travel, but many >>>>>>>>continued to exercise - either individually or by household.
The government gave loans / grants to ensure that New Zealand >>>>>>>>businesses were able to continue to pay workers - this can now be seen >>>>>>>>to have been possibly too generous and to widely given - even The NZ >>>>>>>>Taxpayers Union applied and received money - they subsequently >>>>>>>>voluntarily repaid it - but as the pandemic came to an end New Zealand >>>>>>>>recovered previous GDP levels more quickly than nearly every other >>>>>>>>developed country - the abuse of that scheme has however meant that >>>>>>>>even now the government is still collecting some money back from >>>>>>>>businesses that were less than honest in their applications.
Regular reporting helped identify increases and reductions in new >>>>>>>>cases, and where they were located. The same happened in Australia, >>>>>>>>where different states adopted different policies - Western Australia >>>>>>>>and Queensland were closes to the low infection and death rates of New >>>>>>>>Zealand - New South Wales which followed policies closer to those >>>>>>>>advocated by the National Party here, did less well.
Later comparisons of deaths compared with pre-covid death rates >>>>>>>>indicated that had New Zealand adopted the same policies as the United >>>>>>>>States or the UK, we would have had around 22,000 more deaths.
As far as communications were concerned, the development of >>>>>>>>video-conferencing, largely through the Zoom programme was a >>>>>>>>revolution for many, enabling a lot more people to work from home, and >>>>>>>>for other groups to "meet" face to face.
For none of that time were there any restrictions on talking about >>>>>>>>either Covid or the response - there were open discussions by >>>>>>>>politicians through electronic media, and a few physical meetings of >>>>>>>>parliament when that became possible. There were some that opposed >>>>>>>>vaccinations - and many of those remained unvaccinated. (During the >>>>>>>>protests at parliament there was a spike in hospital admissions for >>>>>>>>Covid), and there were problems reaching some populations for >>>>>>>>vaccination (especially in the far north). Opposition politicians, and >>>>>>>>their 'adviser' organisations such as the Taxpayers Union, Free Speech >>>>>>>>Union/ NZ Initiative made no complaints about suppression of opinions >>>>>>>>relating to Covid or the government response. Some decided not to be >>>>>>>>vaccinated and suffered no disadvantages from that, other than a >>>>>>>>higher risk of infection. There were some groups that were required to >>>>>>>>accept vaccination - that has for a long time applied to armed forces >>>>>>>>and foreign affairs employees and many heath workers, but some >>>>>>>>companies made it difficult for staff to work in groups once >>>>>>>>restrictions were eased (I knew of a construction firm that put >>>>>>>>unvaccinated workers together in one work group).
There certainly were severe restrictions on freedom of association >>>>>>>>>starting in early 2020 because we were confined to our own homes for >>>>>>>>>long periods. Compared to previous pandemics, we had a considerable >>>>>>>>>number of ways to mitigate that isolation - with entertainment and >>>>>>>>>communication options not available during the previous pandemic. This >>>>>>>>>gives the lie to free speech being suppressed. The ability to speak >>>>>>>>>out was not limited universally, just that there were limited venues >>>>>>>>>and the narrative around the 'podium of truth'. These attempts to >>>>>>>>>shape public debate failed, hence free speech survived.
A good summary; thank you Crash
The key learning from the Covid outbreak, to me, is that lockdowns >>>>>>>>>have limited effect at controlling disease but a major impact on the >>>>>>>>>economy and society. We should not employ lockdowns unless the >>>>>>>>>disease that is involved has a much higher case fatality rate (Google >>>>>>>>>this) than Covid does. We should also be very careful to formulate >>>>>>>>>restrictions of association (such as limiting the size and extent of >>>>>>>>>gatherings) that are relative to the case fatality rate, rather than a >>>>>>>>>repeat of a traditional controls.
We know that our case fatality rate for New Zealand was very low by >>>>>>>>world standards; and the discouragement of group gatherings was based >>>>>>>>on verified tracking of infections, which had a direct (but not >>>>>>>>totally predictable) correlation with deaths.
empirical measurement) - and the restrictions did measurable harm. There >>>>>>>has
never been any evidence that the harm was worth it.
So specify the measurable harm you are referring to . . . .
You provide the evidence of that.
Your post your responsibility.
Comparing us to other countries does not, in any way, prove that we did it >>>well. You show that.
In a timely report, Ardern has agreed that we could/should have done it >>>better
- just listen to the news sometime today.
You keep saying we did well. You provide the evidence of that.
Your post your responsibility.
Comparing us to other countries does not, in any way, prove that we did it >>>>>well. You show that.
In a timely report, Ardern has agreed that we could/should have done it >>>>>better
- just listen to the news sometime today.
I did, and she spoke well. As she pointed out, we saved around 20,000
lives compared with other countries -I had compared with the USA which
gave 22,000, but the reality is that had the then government not taken
the actions they did, we would have done as well - yes we did well.
it better than others is irrelevant.
It is like saying that someone wjo has murdered one person is better than >someone who has murdered two. It is relative, not empirical.
Political rhetoric.
She also said that there have been problems arising from other issues,
such as the very limited mandates, and the reality of the stress
involved in the pandemic that caused problems later; and Ardern
pointed out that most countries are experiencing those problems, but
she was not prepared to argue with the identification of those issues
- it is up to the current and future governments to ensure that we
learn from those experiences and hopefully do some things better in
the event of another pandemic.
No you little child. You have never shown that we did it well. If you were any >dumber you would not be breathing.
So we come to your statement
Your statement, your responsibility, Tony. "The important measure is what absolute
effect there was (ie an empirical measurement) - and the restrictions
did measurable harm. There has never been any evidence that the harm
was worth it."
Keep to the questions I asked and then and only then I might help you.
So what measurable harm were you referring to, Tony, and how did you >>measure it?
So specify the measurable harm you are referring to . . . .
We now have a situation where there is another variant heading our >>>>>>>>way; water testing shows that infections are higher than those >>>>>>>>reported. We can be thankful that despite some strong >>>>>>>>'anti-vaccination' views being expressed, the current government has >>>>>>>>largely continued to provide vaccinations against the latest variants, >>>>>>>>and to be fair to the majority of the government, this has been >>>>>>>>largely supported by Government MPs with only a few extremists >>>>>>>>speaking against it.Once more you are not providing any empiracl measurement - just poke and >>>>>>>hope.
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 07:08:59 -0000 (UTC), TonyI didn't say it was a failure. Why do you tell lies?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
You keep saying we did well. You provide the evidence of that.The New Zealand actions compared with those of other countries saved
New Zealand around 20,000 more deaths. Do you really think that is a
failure, Tony?
Who said it was a game? Are you drunk?Your post your responsibility.If you think it was just a game, then we killed 20,000 less that the >equivalent group of 5 million in other countries. If you were in the
Comparing us to other countries does not, in any way, prove that we did it >>well. You show that.
USA, would it be reasonable to ask why New Zealand lost so many fewer
lives?
If it was a competition for the lowest rate of deaths, New Zealand wasWho said it was a competition, it certainly isn't. But you seem to think it is - comparative measurements are competitive measurements.
better than any of our major trading partners.
Your statement: "The important measure is what absolute effect thereYes I wrote that - well done.
was (ie an empirical measurement) - and the restrictions did
measurable harm. There has never been any evidence that the harm
was worth it."
So what was the "measurable harm," Tony? Was it as bad as 20,000Your deliberate attempt to distract and change the suject will not work.
more deaths would have been? Where is your evidence, Tony? Your
statement, your responsibility.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 499 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 53:43:07 |
| Calls: | 9,839 |
| Files: | 13,764 |
| Messages: | 6,194,480 |
| Posted today: | 1 |