Jump to content

Boating now heavily restricted


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Tamure said:

Coastguard, the volunteer firefighters of the gulf.  No disrespect to the solid crew among them but TBH most of them seem to be there for the cosplay and beers given how effing useless they are at towing yachts.  

Had reason for them to tow us up the tamaki river to our mooring once,water pump failure and where was the spare impeller,at home by mistake,left the old one onboard.Out going tide with no wind.Any way they towed us up on a short tow to almost our mooring and the barged us to the mooring ,did it in a complete seamanship manner,no issues what so ever. For a VOLUNTEER coast guard and I have no problem paying them to do what they do .$115 is fair and reasonable. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sabre said:

The YNZ link on Deep purples post previous page is worth a read

Yeah I did real it. Before I made that post too. What did I miss (genuine question Sabre, interested in the discussion and open to having my mind changed)?

My take away from the YNZ release was, that YNZ have only considered and advocated for the sport of yacht racing,  no mention of cruising was given. Which is sad. My local club is a boating club,  not just racing. YNZ insist on all members, non racing yachts and launches included, paying the YNZ levy. They say they do advocacy work on behalf of these members. Although until recently pointed out the them, their mission statement was much like this press release, no mention of launches or cruising at all, and bias toward high performance and dinghy racing, rather than keel boats or general sailing. They also didn’t have a whole lot of examples of work done for that particular group of fee paying members that I saw. This would have been a prime opportunity for them provide an example of what they say they do, even though it would again, not likely change the outcome of no boating, at least those members might feel they had a voice representing their interests. This has been an issue for my local club and several others for quite a while now. Those members see the YNZ fee on their membership bill, and say, ‘I’m not a yacht’, or ‘I do not race’, I get nothing, why should I pay. Somewhat hard to argue....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mattm said:

 They say they do advocacy work on behalf of these members.

That's a line they roll out a lot. Over the last few years YNZ's average expenditure on advocacy is 0.21% of all their expenditure. They spent 0.19% on Audit fees over the same period.

YNZ's 'constituents' are the Yacht Clubs not us individual boaters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

meanwhile pressure by hunters appears to have paid off

Last week the ban was described as an "error" by the Robertson, as the Government came under pressure to allow the activity.

Hunting had been deemed risky and was banned under the lockdown, and according to Government advice issued last week, the outdoor activity would remain banned.But the Government reconsidered.

On Thursday, Robertson said Cabinet had agreed hunting on private land would be allowed under Alert Level 3, so long as hunters stayed within their region and stuck to their bubble.

Last week the ban was described as an "error" by the Robertson, as the Government came under pressure to allow the activity.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/121209323/coronavirus-level-3-ban-on-hunting-lifted

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Deep Purple said:

First weekend of lockdown a worker of a client I manage went hunting with the owners son. Elbow broken in 2 places, several days in hospital

 A neighbour took his teenagers to the local mountain bike park first week of lockdown ....his daughter went over the bars and was out Cold , ambulance was called and not very impressed with the clear breach of rules . 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Monaco's yacht owners have been banned from taking out their superyachts
As Monaco, like the rest of the world, deals with the coronavirus pandemic, its wealthy residents have been mandated to stay in their homes except for essential activities - and cruising on a multimillion-dollar superyacht is not considered essential, even in Monaco.

Monaco's government has temporarily banned all leisure boating activities and barred entry to cruise ships. Port Hercules now requires yachts larger than 78 feet to fill out a mandatory Declaration of Health before entering the port.

Raphael Sauleau, the CEO of Fraser Yachts, a yacht brokerage with offices in Monaco, told Business Insider that residents fully support the lockdown.

"Many captains and crew remain on board yachts, so on lockdown but in good spirits, keeping the yachts (and themselves) in good shape and preparing for the eventual rollback of restrictions which is currently set to start in Monaco in May," Sauleau said. "Yachts sound their horns each night to thank the frontline and essential workers."

www.businessinsider.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s my response to Fish’s post yesterday evening.  My apologies to all in advance.

On 22/04/2020 at 9:18 PM, Fish said:

Agree the govt has form for changing its mind on a whim, but in this context I don't have a problem with it. They are having to make decisions with massive ramifications very quickly and on limited facts. The corollary of what you are saying, is you would want the govt to get every detail perfect before announcing a decision. This happens often in local govt, is called paralysis by analysis. It is where nothing ever gets decided, nothing ever gets done, and the can is kicked down the road while the problem persists. In this context (covid 19) any decision is better than none. Is the decision perfect? No, but even half right is 50% more than nothing.

As for the sport and recreation thing, that is not a priority at L3. The economy and our health are. There are things I want to buy (and a few things I need to buy) and while I can phone the shops, they aren't allowed to sell it to me. Hopefully that can happen at L3.

 

With respect, you put up a series of straw man arguments in this paragraph but I’ll just respond to the one that is actually related to my original post,

The corollary of what I wrote is not what you posit.  Rather, the decision of what “recreation should look like” was left largely to SportNZ who in turn, we are told by YNZ (whom I have no reason to doubt) have ben consulting with sporting bodies and produced this (SNZ on WCV). Now I’m not interested in the details so much as the fact that this government bureaucracy (SNZ), that, let’s be honest, has had nothing more pressing to do in the 3 ½ weeks leading up to it’s release can then simply change its content “on a whim” when that “whim” is nothing more than a response to MSM and social media – as borne out today regarding “hunting”.  As far as I’m concerned that demonstrates that the decision making is driven by politics and not by logic which was my original point.  If health or the economy rather than recreation are still the “priority” in L3 then I would happily argue there should be no change to the current limits on recreation, by definition.  And so again, and change is political rather than logical.  You might not have a problem with that or disagree with my view – that’s your right.

As to “In this context (covid 19) any decision is better than none. Is the decision perfect? No, but even half right is 50% more than nothing.” – I really don’t know what to say other than, just “wow!” 

On 22/04/2020 at 9:18 PM, Fish said:

All going well, L3 will only last 2 weeks, and we can get back to it. But this constant bitching about what we can't do recreation wise at L3 is starting to get really boring. Recreation will come at L2, in the mean time there are a few of us that would like to secure our jobs and knock off this virus, so it doesn't keep coming back every couple of months for the next 5 years. As a note, the estimated time to achieve herd immunity is 5 years in many countries, so you'd have flare ups and lock downs with no notice ongoing for years, with all the associated damage and cost to the economy. There is an underlying reason why its is the least cost option long term to stay locked down now.

Just interested, can any of you guys calling for looser requirements explain the concept of exponential growth? I'd really like to know if you understand that?

With respect, most of what you’ve written is not borne out by experience or data.  I don’t know where you get “5 years from” for the dreaded “herd immunity” but the one country that has completely bucked the trend, Sweden, expects to have “it” in weeks  - see here (Sweden herd immunity). I would encourage anyone with ½ an hour to watch the embedded interview.  For BP’s benefit, the man being interviewed is Prof. Johan Giesek, arguably one the most respected epidemiologists on the planet – he humbly lists is credentials at the beginning.  It’s sobering, but factualy true.  Some countries make take longer but I'm sure you'll agree that is manufactured.

And so I put it to you that our current plan in all likelihood will be one of the most costly options we could have taken and it will only take us longer to get there.  Unless of course we isolate ourselves from the rest until someone develops a vaccine, which for a coronavirusehas happened, never in modern history (see SARS and MERS).  Now you might not agree with this assertion, that's your right but as Prof. Giesek suggests, "let's talk about this again in a year".  But the thing with "exponentials", in reference to naturally occuring growth systems, is they tend to be useful in describing the initial growth,  and end decay, the bit in the middle tends to be linear, with time (just the fourth dimensio of space).  Someone should remind Prof. Hendy of that, unless he does know but has deliberately chosen to leave this off his clarvoyancy, err sorry, prediction models.

So I would appreciate it very much if you could cite your sources for the “herd immunity in 5 years” and that what we are doing is the “least cost option”.  Happy for you to private post – thanks.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ScottiE said:

 

 

Thanks for your post ScottiE, you have clearly put thought and time into it. I don't have as much time to make a thorough reply, but I wanted to acknowledge your post and keep the thread moving.

The first aspect, "What should recreation look like", my underlying point here is that recreation is not important at the moment. Basic exercise and mental health is, but the primary focus is control of the pandemic and the economy. I don't disagree with you regards Sports NZ, more so that I don't think the govt, i.e. the key decision makers, should be wasting any time (meetings, reading reports etc) considering recreation. I want them to focus on health and business. In that regard, I think Sport NZ should stay home and watch Netflix.

The corollary of what I wrote is not what you posit.  Rather, the decision of what “recreation should look like” was left largely to SportNZ who in turn, we are told by YNZ (whom I have no reason to doubt) have ben consulting with sporting bodies and produced this (SNZ on WCV). Now I’m not interested in the details so much as the fact that this government bureaucracy (SNZ), that, let’s be honest, has had nothing more pressing to do in the 3 ½ weeks leading up to it’s release can then simply change its content “on a whim” when that “whim” is nothing more than a response to MSM and social media – as borne out today regarding “hunting”.  As far as I’m concerned that demonstrates that the decision making is driven by politics and not by logic which was my original point.

I agree there is a high degree of politics at play here. Again, in this context I don't have a problem with that. The core of our political system is that politicians should listen to the people and facilitate doing what they want. If people want to go hunting, can give a reasoned arguement as to why, and how they can do it safely, then I think it is appropriate for the political system to facilitate that. This is actually an example of bureaucrats listening to people and being flexible. There can be an extension of this logic to demand why YNZ doesn't do the same for us. I'm not convinced that all boaties want YNZ to take that position, the majority may be happy that YNZ's position is to support the lockdown, and not tie up the govt's time argueing otherwise. I'm sure there is a range of views on here about that, and its worthy of a thread by itself. The point of if you think allowing hunting is a good idea or not is another discussion altogether.

As to “In this context (covid 19) any decision is better than none. Is the decision perfect? No, but even half right is 50% more than nothing.” – I really don’t know what to say other than, just “wow!”

Yes, I firmly believe a half right decision made quickly (in this context) is better than no decision. I have seen the example of no decision ever being made so many times in reality, and it leads to worse outcomes. Generally this is why commercial / business is more agile and adaptive than local govt and govt departments.

With respect, most of what you’ve written is not borne out by experience or data.  I don’t know where you get “5 years from” for the dreaded “herd immunity” but the one country that has completely bucked the trend, Sweden, expects to have “it” in weeks  - see here (Sweden herd immunity). I would encourage anyone with ½ an hour to watch the embedded interview.  For BP’s benefit, the man being interviewed is Prof. Johan Giesek, arguably one the most respected epidemiologists on the planet – he humbly lists is credentials at the beginning.  It’s sobering, but factualy true.  Some countries make take longer but I'm sure you'll agree that is manufactured.

So the data issue. My over arching philosophy here is you can't rely on data to inform all and every decision. It has a part to play, but you need to be pragmatic at the same time. And I'll refute your statement that experience does not bear out the 5 year reoccurring aspect. One of the key issues with this pandemic is it is novel. It is new, and no-one has experience of a pandemic of this scale. By the time the data provides a clear picture, it will be too late. There are all sorts of anomalies around the place, apparently Vietnam hasn't had a death, Sweden may be great, I haven't looked into Sweden. The US is bitching that China aren't reporting their deaths, while the US are, or maybe Trump fucked up. You can't resolve that argument by looking at the data.

My source for the 5 year statement is my mate Al. He's fairly smart, and he's been doing some thorough internet reading ... ;-)

My key point on the 5 year statement, is that these viruses keep on coming back in waves. You stamp it out, everyone relaxes, we all go sailing, then there is another outbreak. Maybe 6 months later, maybe 2 years later who knows? Those repeat outbreaks are devastating for businesses etc, everyone has used up there reserves getting through the first one and have nothing left in the war chest.

What is the evidence to support my statement? Any pandemic that wasn't completely eradicated first go.  SARS, MERS etc, got shut down quickly. But take the 1918 Spanish flu, the second wave was far more devastating than the worst. How many years did that roll around the world for? It wasn't a short term thing.

The 1956 Asian flu in NZ. How many years did that roll around for? My mother's mother died of it in 1959, so I'd say 3 years at a minimum.

Going forward, I seriously hope we get to Level 2 after the two weeks at L3. Mainly because there are businesses seriously chocking out there. I am now more concerned about the economy than the virus. We have had very low positive tests the last few days, if we can get the contact tracing sorted, hopefully we can open up again. A side effect of going L2 will be that we can go sailing again :-) The desire to go sailing isn't the driver there, its not central to the decision.

As for the vaccine, if they can't make a vaccine for the common cold (also a virus), how do they propose making one for Covid 19? Just cause its called C19 doesn't mean it wont mutate and split into different strains, just like the common cold....

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ScottiE said:

 

And so I put it to you that our current plan in all likelihood will be one of the most costly options we could have taken and it will only take us longer to get there.  Unless of course we isolate ourselves from the rest until someone develops a vaccine, which for a coronavirusehas happened, never in modern history (see SARS and MERS). 

 

This is particularly relevant. Are we going to exist in our own bubble of 4.? million, with incredibly difficult travel both in & out of NZ, and do almost no business with the rest of the world?

While I don't pretend to have the answers to how we should do this, the future looks pretty bleak for our economy? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bad Kitty said:

This is particularly relevant. Are we going to exist in our own bubble of 4.? million, with incredibly difficult travel both in & out of NZ, and do almost no business with the rest of the world?

While I don't pretend to have the answers to how we should do this, the future looks pretty bleak for our economy? 

If we stick to the "zero tolerance" for Wuhan coronavirus in NZ as the PM pivoted to earlier this week, then we have no choice but to exist in our bubble for the foreseeable future.  There will be little exceptions around the fringe - you might be able to take the boat to the Cook Is. for example (mandatory Boating reference), or other Pacific nations that have also implemented the self-imprisonment policy, but there will be no ducking across to LA, or NY for a week's R&R, no quick business trips to HK, KL etc etc.  Nothing unless you are willing to go into mandatory, monitored self-isolation on return. 

However, despite one of our largest industies (tourism and hospo) being decimated and likely to remain so for some time,  we do have a significant export industry which will need to be allowed to expand.  The stupid restrictions on mining etc should be relaxed (they won't while this current govt. is in "power").  Our construction industry will also pick up and carry on pretty much as before by the time where in L2 or 1.  So we are in better shape than a lot of other countries. 

But we're all going to get this virus (15% of greater NY already have had it) eventually. It will be a bit like a nasty year of influenza and perhaps 0.1% of the pop will die - 5000 people - maybe more maybe less (again watch this).  We might spread that over a year or three and our current PM can then think she's operated in a manner that's "kind" rather than "weak".  I wish I could draw cartoons - picture a gorrila (NZ not JA, that would be unkind!) having locked himself in his cage, thrown away the key, with a pile of sugar cane just out of reach.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, ScottiE said:

But we're all going to get this virus (15% of greater NY already have had it) eventually. It will be a bit like a nasty year of influenza and perhaps 0.1% of the pop will die - 5000 people - maybe more maybe less (again watch this).  We might spread that over a year or three and our current PM can then think she's operated in a manner that's "kind" rather than "weak".  I wish I could draw cartoons - picture a gorrila (NZ not JA, that would be unkind!) having locked himself in his cage, thrown away the key, with a pile of sugar cane just out of reach.

I just want to clarify, what is it you are advocating we do?

The way I read your post, are you advocating a 'let it run, survival of the fittest strategy'?

But I don't want to jump to conclusions. Apologies, no references to marine in my post. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this elsewhere but it sort of covers your question:

A vaccine like what everyone wants is pretty much hypothetical, safe with high effectiveness, rarely happened before why should this be any different?

Current Flu vaccines barely register as effective, certainly not enough to let loose a deadly virus on, and there have been a number of safety issues along the way.

Other recent vaccine experiments have had some questionable results, HPV, SARS.

I would like to see a bit more narrative on treatments as an effective measure too in the absence off a miracle vaccine. There are a number of drugs that seem to help people get through the illness, I think this is realistically going to have to be an acceptable way forward to opening borders.

These sort of viruses tend to mutate to become less deadly, it helps their own survival. Just another flu may not be far off the mark in the long run ( definitely not yet, don't take this the wrong way)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BOIGuy said:

Everything is about COVID now whether you like it or not

Yes but only it’s boating-related Covid discussion then talk about it here. If it’s not please don’t and take it to Smalltalk. I’m being very polite / kind in my request!

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fish said:

I just want to clarify, what is it you are advocating we do?

The way I read your post, are you advocating a 'let it run, survival of the fittest strategy'?

But I don't want to jump to conclusions. Apologies, no references to marine in my post. 

No - its a fair question.  It's clearly absolutely vital to protect the vulnerable as much as they themselves will permit (we live with a state funded hospital system so there caveats with that). Yet another person has died in Chch overnight from the Rosewood rest home - that's 10 deaths from that one facility out of country total of 17!  So in that respect we do what ever it takes to look after vulnerable people as much as we can.  If that means state funded holidays or boat trips (see it can be done!), boat trips to holidays on islands, etc etc then so be it. Boating and the sea is a great therapy (have I done enough to pass the moderators!). Close monitoring etc etc.  All these measures come at a significan cost but will pale in comparison the money we are currently borrowing.

But here's the other problem, and I'll use my own personal circumstances to illustrate.  My father lives in similar facility to Rosewood, he and his fellow residents will fall to this in much the same way.  However until I get this virus, once or twice and develop sufficient anti-bodies, there is no way I'll be able to see Dad again, despite being his EPoA - that's just a fact.  It is irrational because I can tell you that the one thing that people like my father need the most, is the one thing they are being deprived of and that is company and personal contact with people they recognise for comfort.  This goes for anyone with a disability, those with cerabal palsy who visit our office building daily but now can't, or those who are blind who can't get into the institue across the road.  The human cost to the vulnerable is just immense.

Remember this also, the "let it run, survival of the fitest strategy" is exactly what we do, every year with respect to influenza, with no idea whether this year's influenza will kill 500, 1000, 2000.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...