Time to cut the over-70s some slack

While it is essential that we are aware of the risks Covid-19 presents for older people, it’s important to consider the effect this is likely to have on the over-70s, who are constantly being targeted as the ones to watch because they are ‘‘the most vulnerable group’’.

We are reminded of this every minute of every hour of every day by the media as if the whole of New Zealand is relying on this age group to behave themselves properly and the rest of the country will then be safe.

Although very sadly there have been deaths in some rest homes, these have been people who usually have very serious underlying conditions. It does not reflect the majority of over-70s, who are still very active and full of life as the social creatures and community members they naturally are.

It is time to get some balance. In reality, the total number of those affected to date in New Zealand by Covid-19 is 1450. Only approximately 100 of these are in the over-70s age group.

Acknowledging that this age group is very mindful of doing the right thing, like washing hands, being two metres apart, taking walks only in the local area and avoiding the supermarket if at all possible, sends a positive signal instead of creating unnecessary fear.

We are led to believe that reaching level three will allow older people to extend their bubble because of concerns about them being lonely and isolated. So let’s cut them some slack and trust them. Barbara Docherty, Johnsonville

There seems to be doubting by some of the wisdom of the Government’s ‘‘go early and go hard’’ Covid-19 policies.

Ireland, like New Zealand, is a First World developed country with a modern public health system and about five million people. It went into a rigorous lockdown at about the same time as we did.

However, Covid-19 had clearly made inroads into its population before the lockdown that it had not yet made into ours. As a result, Ireland has unfortunately had over 16,000 confirmed cases and over 730 deaths, with the numbers of deaths often exceeding 40 a day.

By comparison, New Zealand has fewer than 1500 cases and 16 deaths. The Government’s rapid and rational actions have helped us all dodge a massive bullet. Brendon Bonner, Island Bay

Allen Heath’s argument (Letters, April 23) that the Sars-Cov-2 virus cannot be eliminated is entirely circular, because he starts from the premise that ‘‘it is now permanently and globally prevalent’’. Nothing in science supports that claim.

Simple maths tells us that the only requirement for eliminating this virus from a defined population, such as New Zealand, is for the rate of recovery from infection, plus the rate of deaths among those infected, to exceed the rate of new infections. New Zealand has already been meeting that target, and the number of active infections is now only a few hundreds.

If we continue on the current path, require everyone entering our country to be quarantined, and seek out and treat any remaining infected individuals, in due course the number of new infections will be less than one, and shortly after that the virus will have been eliminated from our population.

As the number of new infections drops, the costs of imposing quarantine and treating those already infected will steadily decline and the morale of our medical professionals should soar. I look forward to seeing it happen.

Bill Sutton, Napier

‘‘Hard and early’’ is the constant selfpromotion to counter the fact the Government got it wrong. If it had taken any credence to historic lessons it would have acted with speed and hard-closed the border as soon as it knew the virus had escaped China. But our Government dallied until there was no other option,

forcing us into unnecessary economic chaos, unprecedented restriction of freedom and sad, lonely deaths. Certainly, the cost is unprecedented. Thank goodness the lockdown and late border closure are working.

Taiwan got it right and the impact there is seriously low. Its border control started on January 21, the day of its first case.

Pandemic is not new to New Zealand. The government got it wrong in 1918 and wrong again this time, with that hindsight. There is no excuse for repeated mistakes.

In January I read an article that questioned the ability of the prime minister and her Government to make hard decisions. It’s a valid question.

In this case it should have been a clear decision, albeit one with extreme consequences, but the coalition dithered because of the various conflicting agendas so the ticking clock made the decision for them.

Let’s see if the people hold them to account at the election.

Randall Hughes, Waikanae

Why do we need a convention centre? What on earth is a town hall for – apart from being the best concert venue in town? No luxury projects please until the Town Hall and the library are fixed.

And if it is then decided that we really must have a convention centre, please let it not be the sort of monstrosity shown in the illustrations that have so far been published.

John Mills, Ngaio

I couldn’t agree more with Peter Baker (Letters, April 21) that we are in the state of an emergency of fear.

I see no good reason to continue with this nationwide lockdown and would suggest those who do fear catching the virus continue to isolate themselves while the rest of us can continue with our lives and livelihoods.

They don’t need the Government to tell them to do that. They can actually do it all by themselves to keep themselves as safe as they perceive their need to be.

Shelley Macrae, Manakau

One of the main reasons generals are used to protect us from external threat is because their brief is to protect the country. Then, after subduing the threat, they hand it back to the politicians, having achieved the fewest casualties possible.

In the case of Covid-19 there will be two types of casualties: those who die from the virus and those who find themselves destitute because action taken to kill the virus has also killed their jobs. Unlike past pandemics, the ratio of those who die from the virus to those who contract the disease and survive is in the region of

3 per cent.

This means that in New Zealand the numbers of those who die are likely to be in the hundreds while the casualties that live will be in the hundreds of thousands.

Currently politicians have concentrated on keeping people alive and fed.

A general would have accepted a level of collateral casualties, mainly the old, and endeavoured to keep the overall level of casualties to a minimum by ensuring there was a balance between keeping people alive as opposed to sentencing many more to a living financial hell. Barrington Prince, Waikanae

Re Bridges had valid points (Editorial, April 23), Simon Bridges has politicised the Covid-19 pandemic since day one. And he has been justifiably panned on many occasions for doing so – including by his party faithful.

Expressing that people shouldn’t shoot the messenger is valid, but Bridges isn’t debating whether we should have extended level four, but the reason why the extension was necessary. This equates to undeniable political posturing which justifies shooting the messenger.

Paul Bailey, Wellington

Mikaela Wilkes (April 21) digs down into the possible increase in domestic electricity usage during lockdown and mentions off-peak hours.

As electricity charges have been market driven since Max Bradford had his evil way, I’m surprised that the hibernation of many commercial concerns has not caused a significant drop in demand, which should have meant a drop in prices. Unless market forces only flow one way?

Keith Simes, Hastings