But I don’t think this is the thread for such a discussion, TBH. I’m not even sure this is the site.
Yes, I don’t have any other social media venues to express thoughts, but fair point.
There’s certainly some not particularly good arguments at present for an early end to lockdown but some of the arguments are worth considering, they are appear to be in good faith.
I support the lockdown and would support its extension if that is the best option.
I do though recall that Michael Baker was being dismissed as a mere agitator in the two weeks prior to the lockdown for advocating going sooner to lockdown rather than later.
Perhaps his medical background influenced that view - in comparison to other prominent scientists with a media presence who were arguing a slower paced response.
First hand experience of hospitals and real life infection control might be a factor in some differences of opinion.
I was interested in what he had to say, not in complete agreement, but a viewpoint worth hearing.
I’d be keen to see if there’s a broad difference of opinion among epidemiologists based on if they came through via a maths or medicine background.
Only a few percent of the population think the government has gone too far.
I think it’s possible to consider the demands for more action quicker are reasonable and to understand the government can’t act instantaneously.
Part of the delay process to some decisions has been to allow time to get public opinion onside.
I think the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition are playing their respective parts quite well.
The government has wanted to introduce quite draconian limits on individual freedom. What better support than the party of individual freedoms demanding it be done quicker.
Have had lots of disagreements with RB but he’s always been a voice of clarity. Much needed now. Will definitely support.
When i was young I spent quite a few years overseas. Deciding to come back I went to the NZ embassy in Paris. Sat down to wait and saw besides me a pile of Listeners.
For some reason that particular memory has always remained vivid.
I think there’s also the prospect of restricted access to drugs (including the legal ones) driving drug-seeking behaviour that increases transmission risks. We want to keep people stable, not throw them into withdrawal.
That would be true of opiates but not of P. There is no stable use of P as there can be with some other drugs such as marijuana and opiates. Less P use would result in freeing up resources in the acute health services which most likely will be placed under enormous pressure.
Yes, some unexpected consequences. Less meth consumption will free up resources in EDs and acute mental health units. As people high on meth pose significant risk to health professionals that’s one safety issue that should reduce dramatically.
Meth prices have skyrocketed.