The grim virus math that will forgive Jacinda

By
Martyn Bradbury
-
27
2629

We are all frightened.

We are all anxious, depressed, angry.

When we read about the latest mistake or loophole at the border we erupt.

The word ‘unprecedented’ is finally not hyperbole.

But the stats are the final proof, and despite mistakes and unforeseen changes of a live event currently in motion, NZ has been blessed by luck, the world’s biggest moat and a supernova leadership masterclass from Jacinda.

- Sponsor Promotion -

The political loyalty Jacinda’s leadership has generated will be fortified by a grim virus math that will forgive Jacinda of those media highlighted mistakes.

It took 6 months to reach 10million coronavirus cases.

Then just 43 days to double that tally to 20million.

And now just 20 days to hit 25million.

It’s currently over 26 400 000.

Projections for American Deaths by January 1st is 410 000!

The current death rate is 186 000.

Whatever mistakes and lapses in quarantine security by Labour will be seen in the context of the shadow of that mountain of dead.

We don’t know how lucky we are is finally post satire.

An outward looking society will see what is happening globally and count their blessings they are here.

 

Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice going into this pandemic and 2020 election – please donate here.

If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media.

27 COMMENTS

  1. Yes Martyn;
    Now Jacinda needs to correct the current low amount of tests.

    Each person needs several repeat tests.

    Since several tests are needed for a ‘single person’, we have not made allowance yet so far so we are only counting single tests done so far.

    This error makes the total number of test done to date to be low if we count multiple tests on each person.

    Remember on 16th March the ‘World Heath Organisation’ (WHO) warned the world governments to “test, test, test” https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2020/mar/16/test-test-test-who-calls-for-more-coronavirus-testing-video

    As you said the numbers will forgive Jacinda so she needs to make sure the testing is increased markedly to show at least 50% of our population is multiple tested and that will require a total number of tests done to be at least around 4 million and so far only one million tests have been completed or only one forth the number needed.

  2. I think you are hitting the right spot with this Martyn, and I mean the correct spot, just not the PR spot.
    A problem though is trying to keep the economy from collapsing, and also poor people from collapsing and despairing. We are running up a large debt as a country. Money is a created trading record with values and methods set internationally. This debt is being created in a low inflation template that served investors and lenders. We now need to loosen the bounds of the template to provide for growth and continuing jobs – employment, and affordable debt and income to cover living expenses for working people. The type of enforced austerity the economists have been running was holding us back from having a balanced economy, to favour the purchase of capital assets with plentiful credit at low interest.

    Now is the time for the inflation rate to be allowed to rise; the Reserve Bank to loosen the belt and enable working people some relief from the low wage austerity forced on only them. There will still be profits for those in the accretion game. (Note: this is not the same as the wealth creators game.)
    https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key-graphs/key-graph-inflation
    Under the current Policy Targets Agreement (PTA) the Reserve Bank is required to keep annual increases in the CPI between 1 and 3 percent on average over the medium term, with a focus on keeping future average inflation near the 2 percent target midpoint.
    From the graph in the link it can be seen that we were around only 1% inflation from about 2013 to 2018 – far too long with austerity related problems that could have been offset within the band requirement and the mid-point of 2%.
    With this long acceptance ny NZ financial authorities of depressing effects on inflation for the sake of economic purity, but forgetting it all relates to human activity just not intellectually-bound lines and figures, we can see that we need now to have a higher mid-point to aim at say 3.5% in a band also set higher at 2-4.5%.

    This will mean that the debt burden will decrease, the economy will increase allowing the debt to be repaid faster, and more borrowing when needed will not be the subject of dismay and doom. So you well-paid blokes and blokesses get your fingers tapping to show the advantages of this, and how it can be presented to the gnomes of treasure whom the Treasury serves in reality, not us.

    • Why are you advocating faster devaluation of the money in our pockets or bank accounts?

      With term deposit rates at an all-time low, and still falling, savers now get next-to-nothing for money in the bank.

      You are suggesting people who do have some meagre saving lose the value those savings faster than is already happening.

  4. Personally I think you are frightened, anxious and depressed as you fear the economy crashing.
    And your way of life disintegrating.
    Not so much the virus. I don’t believe there is that level of anxiety warranted.
    A blog as esteemed as this should be evaluating how we can use this upheaval to move to a better place, a fairer more sustainable society where we value what is important to our existence and the world we live in, and not just the status quo that promulgates unfettered consumption.

  5. The USA deaths per capita from covid19 are now 190 times higher than China and climbing..
    Yet the USA had warning and China had none.
    China dealt to the virus in population dense cities.

    China has shown how to do it. Their lesson should not be ignored.
    If we had gone harder our case numbers would have been lower and the 100 days extended..

    Instead of giving billions to the banks we should have resourced more testing and medical staff as well as accelerating out strategy and infrastructure to implement it.

    This virus is not going to go away and the economics lay in dealing to it.
    Forget the herd immunity claptrap.

  6. What got me more interested in politics than ever was the divisive carnage National created in their 9 excruciating long years and the diabolical treatment / abuse, name butchering, ridiculing and ,misrepresenting that Ardern has been relentlessly subjected to by National and their despicable and divisive trolls.

    As a result, I found the link below link surprising this morning, especially when you consider the author who previously had Ardern convicted for allegedly covering up a farcical example of sexual abuse. The site is also infamous for running an all day every day crusade against Ardern…masquerading as news

    That aside, everything Vance states in this article is 100% accurate, timely and appropriate.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/122658284/shes-not-a-doll-so-dont-call-the-prime-minister-cindy

    “No-one dared abbreviate Margaret Thatcher’s Christian name to her face.

    Her staff called their formidable boss Mrs Thatcher, or sometimes Mrs T when she was not present.

    True friends, or those pretending an intimacy, called her Margaret.

    But it was Labour party rivals who demonised her as “Maggie Thatcher, Milk Snatcher”, when she ended the provision of free milk for school children in the 1970s.

    The tabloid press adopted the condescending diminutive Maggie and it stuck until she died in 2013.

    Baroness Thatcher hated it. She was a breakthrough female politician, but couldn’t escape from patronising, gender politics.

    Like Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s critics have adopted an over-familiar cutesy name.

    But, just like when a stranger uses the endearments love or darlin,’ it’s not meant with affection.

    Last week ‘Cindy’ was trending on Twitter, a backlash against confused Government messaging on Covid-19 testing. It crops up on comment boards and social media, even Judith Collins’ husband David Wong-Tung shared a Facebook meme that suggests we “Unite against CINDY-20”.

    Its use is condescending and paternalistic. Ardern’s friends and family do not call her Cindy. In fact, she’d rather no-one did, telling the New York Times in 2018: “I just hate the nickname Cindy.”

    I hate it too, because it is a putdown that is meant to belittle her.

    MORE FROM
    ANDREA VANCE • SENIOR JOURNALIST
    andrea.vance@stuff.co.nz
    Plenty of male politicians are known by their first name: Winston, Donald, Boris. There’s nothing sexist in calling a female politician by her first name: Jacinda is unique and memorable.

    For Hillary, there was another Clinton who had served in high office and her Christian name avoided confusion.

    Helen is all too common – she was known to the public as Clark. Or by her full name, sometimes Aunty Helen.

    But changing, (to the maddening Jacinta) or shortening someone’s name is not inconsequential. It sends a message of disrespect.

    Sir John Key was never Johnnie. Sir Bill English was not called Billie. No Jimmy Bolger, Robbie Muldoon or Mikey Moore?

    So why do Ardern’s critics use this infantilisation?

    Because no matter what she achieves, handles, or leads, they want to sneer and remind her that she is still just a girl.

    It could be worse: harassment, threats and violent rhetoric against women in leadership positions is all too common. (And she gets those too).

    But most women – and it happens most often to women by men – hate pet names from outside their friends or family.

    The informality signals that a woman’s name, her title and therefore her credentials are not meaningful.

    This shorthand appellation is an insidious way of diminishing Ardern’s power and agency.

    But the misogynistic jab says more about the (mostly) men using it, than it does Ardern.

    If sexist name-calling is all they’ve got, then she has already won the argument.

    Criticism, voicing your opinion, even disliking a leader is all fine, and welcome, in a healthy political system.

    But don’t scold and derogate the prime minister like she’s a little girl.

    If you think she’s wrong, hold her failures to the same standards as men.

    And her name isn’t difficult: try to get it right. You might find people take you more seriously.

Comments are closed.