Covid Stupidity, is not new. The portmanteau ‘covidity’ appeared early on in relation to some of the less sensible suggestions and actions of Government.

Now, we really are under pressure to decide on the sanity of the administration with Jacinda’s latest … unrestrained use of authority in dictating her whim with regard to mask-wearing.

I could have just said arbitrary but our circumstances suggest we may need a slightly more forthright approach here.

It’s been clearly stated that wearing a mask serves no purpose in stopping the spread of Covid if you do not have symptoms. If you do have symptoms it reduces the possibility of another person, including one wearing a mask from contracting the disease through your inconsideration.

Something along the lines of putting your hand over your mouth when coughing or sneezing.

Perhaps the rationale is, if we all wear masks we will not create a new prejudice, a Covid prejudice or will maintain some degree of ideological equality.

I prefer to retain my right to a greater choice here, my freedom of choice, and the opportunity to avoid a person wearing a mask because they are either infectious or stupid.

So, I also notice that drug companies will not supply vaccine without immunity from side effects. Quite simply they are not prepared to surrender their civil security to comply with political pressure. Why should they. Vaccine would normally be supplied on the basis of scientific study not for the benefit of political demands.

On the same basis why would I comply with a political demand that surrenders my civil security and increases the possibility of my exposure to Covid transmission because I cannot identify someone going to or home from the doctor because they think they might have Covid.

I’m sorry, this arbitrary compliance to the whim of Jacindarella and her fairytale thinking doesn’t suit me and I would like to think it’s not suiting any other sane person left in the population.


Ardern’s Covid Failure

Approaches to preventing or mitigating the impact of COVID-19 have varied markedly between nations.

We have seen plenty of media on the bad cases, some media on alternatives, but unless I’ve missed something New Zealand is always portrayed as being the world class model of success.

I was interested to see now comparisons turning up between Taiwan and New Zealand.

Taiwan reported a lower COVID-19 incidence rate (20.7 cases per million) compared with NZ (278.0 per million).

Extensive public health infrastructure established in Taiwan pre-COVID-19 enabled a fast coordinated response, particularly with early screening, effective methods for isolation/quarantine, digital technologies for identifying potential cases and mass mask use.

This timely and vigorous response allowed Taiwan to avoid the national lockdown used by New Zealand.

Many of Taiwan’s pandemic control components could potentially be adopted by other jurisdictions and their approach is recognized and recommended ahead of New Zealand’s to other jurisdictions.

Masks have been contentious and putting that aside it is the rapid initial response that New Zealand didn’t take that’s made the difference between us and Taiwan.

By comparison Taiwan is a high density population Island with 23 million people.

What needs to be stressed though is the negligible financial impact and negligible affect on daily life. Possibly even masks being a placebo in reality allowing people to negotiate fear and to go on with business as normal.

Even though we have been internationally successful to date in dealing with Covid it is Taiwan’s approach that is world class not ours.

We got by on good luck rather than good management and it can now be clearly stated that Ardern’s hesitation (if we recall) to the very last minute because of the mosque event cost us dearly.

There were strong repeated calls to act early that Ardern ignored and we should have and could have been as well off as Taiwan.

The damage rests on Ardern’s head.

The Mallard Affair

I am disgusted in the media approach and the quality of the response to the Mallard Affair, that for many months now has both embarrassed and undermined Parliament.  
I’m disgusted in my own industry, on this occasion, for the quality of the reporting of the incident, yesterday. 
I’m deeply saddened and disappointed on a personal level at what has happened to the institution of Parliament, brought about by the way our Prime minister has allowed this incident to continue and the manner in which she has responded.  
A brief history. 
[After labelling a parliamentary staffer a rapist, Speaker Mallard later admitted he had realised he was wrong within 24 hours of the incident. 
However, he waited 18 months, at a cost of $330,000 in legal costs before admitting his error.
He then changed the rules of Parliament to have these costs paid by the taxpayer and extended that privilege to any other incompetent MP following in his footsteps.  
He waited until the last day that Parliament was sitting to make his error public and issue an apology. 
That was the same day the Royal Commission into the mosque shootings delivered its report.
Ardern had finished her media interviews for the year and didn’t make herself available for this very ‘unimportant occasion’.]
Yesterday, Chris Bishop as Shadow Leader of The House, attempted to have a confidence motion debated to have Mallard removed as Speaker. 
The argument was based solely on his primary mistake leaving aside the manner in which he has altered the constitutional arrangement of Parliament.  
The challenge was shouted down by Labour MPs. The debate could and should have been allowed as the Speaker is and should be treated as independent.  
Only Mallard himself, then could have ruled the debate out or handed the chair to his deputy to remove himself from the conflict of interest. 
This was said to be an ‘against-all-odds-motion’ with the overwhelming Labour majority able to stamp out the debate rather than have the debate and be placed in the position of acknowledging the seriousness of the occasion and the obvious response of a vote of no confidence in Mallard to defend the integrity of the Speaker’s chair.
Mallard-Must-Go, as has been the accompanying hash tag for all these months to date has no reason to change. 
The affair is not over, though The employment dispute for the man at the centre of Mallard’s allegations remains unsettled as does the suppression case where our judiciary rightly refused to rubber stamp that application for Mallard’s ongoing convenience. 
At least the judiciary are treating this with the seriousness it deserves and not aligning themselves with the joke it has become.  
Why should they, when many months ago astute overseas media announced that democracy was at risk in New Zealand.  
Why would the judiciary want to be brought down to the same level that Parliament  has descended to on this occasion when as the judge noted, this amounts to a question of ‘Open Justice’. 
What many people might not have caught on to though was the significance of Waititi’s tie prank in The House yesterday. 
Speaker Trevor Mallard telling Māori Party co-leader Rawiri Waititi he will not call him in the House while he is not wearing a tie and that he must wear one tomorrow. Waititi replied saying he was wearing “Māori business attire” incl his taonga. 
Was this the ultimate embarrassment? You have the power to change the conventions of Parliament for your own convenience but you won’t change them for mine. 
Instead, you kick the Māori-Boy out of Parliament. 
This has come about as a result of the Prime minister’s incompetence and failure to act. The position of Speaker is both corrupted and in disrepute. 
The constitutional integrity of Parliament has been undermined and Mallard has not only been shown for what he is but how he has disposed of the authority of the Prime minister.