I should've put in a link to all the WHO daily situation reports, as it was those (and their day to day change) that informed government responses of what was coming www.who.int/emergencies/... at least for those countries where the Prime Minister wasn't actively visiting covid cases & shaking hands

Yep. Deceptive campaigns (rather than sincere expressions) should call into question the validity of the source _and_ what they are promoting, because of that deception (while bad ideas are still bad ideas even if sincere)

I think, based on my surveys weeks ago, is if you are getting near to 6 months since you last told it you had a vaccination, it starts asking if you have had another as you can under current settings. As I haven't tested +ve covid, I don't know if it does similar 6 months after infection.

It is a really fine line using "these foreigners" in defence of a liberal society, and I try to stay on "the values being expressed are not values common in this society" side. But it is hard work, and I acknowledge people need to take their moments of schadenfreude in the face of fascist grifting

... and broader things like _all_ people having human rights. But you aren't obliged to accept all ideas, regardless of where they are being promoted from. So in this case, while there is an implicit focus on the grift, these are bad values that would be bad even without the deception and grift

Sorry, I didn't do anything on the specific referendum campaigning.

17 strikes and you’re out. 💀

After being interrogated by eight to ten judges from memory.

Here is NZ's government response timeline www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/defaul... a lot was happening in prep (and the difference any one bit of preparation would make was not known at the time). What this timeline also misses is the whole of society things- NZ epidemiologists talking to Taiwanese ones etc

But it was also a very open question of how much could societies do with the time available, which should be something this pandemic informs planning for a future event of unknown lethality, unknown rate of spread, and unknown time to vaccination being available.

From here, the general view was that, given current information like the WHO situation report of the 3rd of March
www.who.int/docs/default...
- it could be bad once local spread became established
- it looked like limiting spread could buy time to improve understanding and subsequent action

Thank you. Today I learned.

Here is where I am just not placing what book Whitcombe is referring to. Could you give my memory a jog?