Are we doing all we can at our airport borders?
MUCH has been said about the impact of four million tourists and the ability of our infrastructure to handle the impact of these numbers on our lives in New Zealand. The impact is most obvious in places like Wanaka but some apply to us all.
One that I have not seen discussed, and which concerns me, is the additional exposure to the spread of infection brought by four million visitors.
What additional infrastructure and checks have been put in place at our airports in recognition of this risk? Are health checks at airports adequate? I would be inclined to think not, given that recent data seems to indicate that we failed to prevent the spread of measles from New Zealand to Samoa.
Now we have an outbreak of a Sarslike viral pneumonia originating in Wuhan, China. It has probably already spread to Hong Kong. Both Hong Kong and Singapore are on alert. This includes measures such as thermal imaging at sites of entry to Hong Kong (ODT, 6.1.20).
New Zealand would seem to be another country at the top of the list of those most likely to be affected. Are we on alert with special measures in place like Hong Kong and Singapore? What measures do we have in place to prevent the spread of this latest infection to New Zealand?
It would be good to have reassurance from our health and immigration authorities that we have the infrastructure and procedures in place at our airports to minimise the risk of infection due to our greatly increased numbers of tourists, and that we have the most rigorous procedures possible.
Do we, for example, have thermal imagers in place at our airports such as are being used in Hong Kong? Are we doing all that is possible in this important area of tourismrelated infrastructure?
John Highton
Dunedin
Referendum year
YOUR ‘‘some clear thinking’’ editorial (ODT, 6.1.20) correctly points out that 2020 will be an important year for us in terms of social change and that we face complexities over voter choice relating to the referenda on euthanasia and cannabis.
You state that ‘‘If approved, it will come down to the safeguards built into both Bills to make them work safely within a strict framework and ensure no gradual creeping towards loosened regulations.’’
My concern here is that proposed safeguards might seem a way to control creep, but the data from other jurisdictions, particularly in regard to euthanasia, show that no safeguards have ever protected from either abuse or creep.
Another concern is that the law is a powerful educator of the public conscience and even in passing these laws we are diminishing the value or safety of human life.
Putting Andrew Little in charge of fully informing us is a lot like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse, methinks.
Chris O’Brien
Christchurch
Endangered frog
WITH regard to the possibility of the endangered Archey’s frog being affected by chytrid fungus (ODT, 8.1.20), there is one other factor of possible significance.
Herpetologist Bruce Waldman found Archey’s frogs to be locally abundant in 1992, but becoming hard to find by 1995. There were several aerial drops of 1080 in the area of the frog populations in 19941995.
A histology laboratory at Canterbury University found the chytrid fungus to be almost nonexistent in 31 dead Archey’s frogs.
Waldman set up a successful breeding programme for Archey’s frogs when he was based at Canterbury University, which was removed by the Department of Conservation.
Waldman has since left New Zealand, perhaps because scientists who find the effects of 1080 to be deleterious on endemic fauna may also discover a correlation of adverse effects on their career prospects with such discoveries. Malcolm MoncriefSpittle
Dunedin .....................................
BIBLE READING: There is no Holy One like the Lord, no one besides you. — 1 Samuel 2.2.