Chief Stipe

He already has his head in another trough. Works at WellingtonNZ https://www.wellingtonnz.com/about-us/about-wellingtonnz/senior-leadership-team/ John Allen Chief Executive John is WellingtonNZ’s CEO, leading the charge in our ambition to make the Wellington region wildly famous. John is an experienced chief executive, having led New Zealand Post, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the New Zealand Racing Board. As a civic leader in the region, he is focused on supporting the region to prosper in the post-Covid world. “Wellington needs to be confident of our future, what will define it and how it will be delivered. To thrive we need a flourishing economy where more people can participate in its benefits. WellingtonNZ has a key role to play in paving the way for a prosperous future and attracting the talent, students, events and visitors and investment that will make that happen.” /assets/Anna-Calver-GM-Marketing-and-communications__FocusFillWzM2MCw0MDAsIngiLDExM10.jpg Anna Calver General Manager Marketing & Communications Anna leads an exceptionally creative team, ensuring that the world knows about everything New Zealand’s creative heart has to offer. From marketing campaigns, digital engagement, event promotion and media storytelling, Anna's team are experts on Wellington and help spread the region’s stories to the world. Anna is a brand storyteller. Prior to WellingtonNZ, Anna told stories locally and internationally for Google, ANZ, Diageo Great Britain, Cadbury, P&G, L’Óreal and Penfolds wine, and has extensive experience in events promotion and sponsorship leverage. She loves sharing Wellington’s wild side. “Wellington is wild. It’s wildly creative, wildly entrepreneurial, wildly interesting. It’s also a place filled with people who care deeply and think progressively. It’s our mission to shine a light on all the region’s best bits. From what it’s like to visit, study, do business and work – we want to show the world this is a place where everyone belongs.” /assets/Warrick_Dent__FocusFillWzM2MCw0MDAsIngiLDIwXQ.jpeg Warrick Dent General Manager Events & Experiences Warrick heads up the team that helps to deliver an unrivalled business, performance, sports and major events programme for Wellington. WellingtonNZ's Events & Experiences business unit brings together the Major Events and Venues Wellington teams to support some of Wellington's most wildly popular events, and manage and operate some of the city's most iconic venues. Prior to moving to Wellington, Warrick lived in Hong Kong heading up Rugby Events Asia, the agency behind the Hong Kong Sevens, and is an expert in how to make events commercially viable and deliver an economic impact for a region. “Events and live experiences are a major part of what makes a destination an exciting place to be – whether as a visitor, student or resident. Wellington is the perfect stage for events – compact, easy to get around and full of the talent that can deliver exceptional experiences.” /assets/Elements/Images/David-Perks_General-Manager-RDDA__FocusFillWzM2MCw0MDAsIngiLDVd.jpg David Perks General Manager Regional Development, Destination and Attraction David leads WellingtonNZ's large business-to-business support team, spanning business support, research and development grants, screen permitting and industry support, tourism, destination development, Wellington's convention bureau and regional development projects. His team is committed to growing Wellington's regional economy and advancing the prosperity of its businesses and people. Originally from the UK, David loves Wellington for being able to be running on a trail one minute and enjoying a coffee at a local café the next. With a background in tourism, having managed hotels and Positively Wellington Tourism, David is focused on developing Wellington as a region so it’s a magnet for businesses, students, talent and visitors alike. “This region is packed with people and businesses doing interesting and innovative things. From gaming and film studios, to large technology and high-value manufacturing businesses, there is so much opportunity here. It’s our mission to support businesses to innovate and grow, creating more jobs so everyone in the region can thrive." /assets/Elements/Images/heidi-morton__FocusFillWzM2MCw0MDAsZmFsc2UsMF0.jpg Heidi Morton General Manager Business Services Heidi heads up the teams that deliver support services across WellingtonNZ in People & Culture, Health & Safety, Finance, and IT. Business Services also assist WellingtonNZ teams with Corporate Services, Legal, Board Secretariat and Risk work. A born and bred Wellingtonian with a varied career across the globe, Heidi ensures her teams are working as valued business partners and strives to make the mundane enjoyable. “We’re a team of people who are wildly passionate about Wellington and want to see this region succeed. WellingtonNZ has a wide and varied mandate and need to ensure we have the right people, capability and resources to deliver a positive impact for the region’s economy.”

It is interesting comparing the differences between Israel and Sweden at the moment. 60% of Israel's hospitalisations are Pzifer vaccinated. Yet Sweden has had no surge in hospitalisations. Deaths have averaged close to zero since mid-June. My hypothesis is that Israel was quick off the mark with vaccination using Pzifer but had next to no natural immunity in the community because of their strong lockdowns and border closures. Delta arrived at the same time as the Pzifer immunity was waning in the double jabbed. Whereas Sweden have had deployed 3 vaccines, starting vaccinating closer to Delta arrival but, most importantly, they had a much higher natural immunity because they had allowed the Alpha virus to circulate amongst the community through no lockdowns and minimal NPI's.

This is a link to his bio. https://faculty.rx.umaryland.edu/pdoshi/ He is relatively young but appears to be a smart cookie, a scientific method puritan and not afraid to express his opinions. In my opinion NZ's Baker and Wilson are lightweight frauds.

I just posted the entire article.

Maybe the Fixed Odds on the Electronic Football will be a winner? BTW what is Electronic Football?

August 23, 2021 By Peter Doshi Editor British Medical Journal The FDA should demand adequate, controlled studies with long term follow up, and make data publicly available, before granting full approval to covid-19 vaccines, says Peter Doshi On 28 July 2021, Pfizer and BioNTech posted updated results for their ongoing phase 3 covid-19 vaccine trial. The preprint came almost a year to the day after the historical trial commenced, and nearly four months since the companies announced vaccine efficacy estimates “up to six months.” But you won’t find 10 month follow-up data here. While the preprint is new, the results it contains aren’t particularly up to date. In fact, the paper is based on the same data cut-off date (13 March 2021) as the 1 April press release, and its topline efficacy result is identical: 91.3% (95% CI 89.0 to 93.2) vaccine efficacy against symptomatic covid-19 through “up to six months of follow-up.” The 20 page preprint matters because it represents the most detailed public account of the pivotal trial data Pfizer submitted in pursuit of the world’s first “full approval” of a coronavirus vaccine from the Food and Drug Administration. It deserves careful scrutiny. The elephant named “waning immunity” Since late last year, we’ve heard that Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines are “95% effective” with even greater efficacy against severe disease (“100% effective,” Moderna said). Whatever one thinks about the “95% effective” claims (my thoughts are here), even the most enthusiastic commentators have acknowledged that measuring vaccine efficacy two months after dosing says little about just how long vaccine-induced immunity will last. “We’re going to be looking very intently at the durability of protection,” Pfizer senior vice president William Gruber, an author on the recent preprint, told the FDA’s advisory committee last December. The concern, of course, was decreased efficacy over time. “Waning immunity” is a known problem for influenza vaccines, with some studies showing near zero effectiveness after just three months, meaning a vaccine taken early may ultimately provide no protection by the time “flu season” arrives some months later. If vaccine efficacy wanes over time, the crucial question becomes what level of effectiveness will the vaccine provide when a person is actually exposed to the virus? Unlike covid vaccines, influenza vaccine performance has always been judged over a full season, not a couple months. And so the recent reports from Israel’s Ministry of Health caught my eye. In early July, they reported that efficacy against infection and symptomatic disease “fell to 64%.” By late July it had fallen to 39% where Delta is the dominant strain. This is very low. For context, the FDA’s expectation is of “at least 50%” efficacy for any approvable vaccine. Now Israel, which almost exclusively used Pfizer vaccine, has begun administering a third “booster” dose to all adults over 40. And starting 20 September 2021, the US plans to follow suit for all “fully vaccinated” adults eight months past their second dose. Delta may not be responsible Enter Pfizer’s preprint. As an RCT reporting “up to six months of follow-up,” it is notable that evidence of waning immunity was already visible in the data by the 13 March 2021 data cut-off. “From its peak post-dose 2,” the study authors write, “observed VE [vaccine efficacy] declined.” From 96% to 90% (from two months to <4 months), then to 84% (95% CI 75 to 90) “from four months to the data cut-off,” which, by my calculation (see footnote at the end of the piece), was about one month later. But although this additional information was available to Pfizer in April, it was not published until the end of July. And it’s hard to imagine how the Delta variant could play a real role here, for 77% of trial participants were from the United States, where Delta was not established until months after data cut-off. Waning efficacy has the potential to be far more than a minor inconvenience; it can dramatically change the risk-benefit calculus. And whatever its cause—intrinsic properties of the vaccine, the circulation of new variants, some combination of the two, or something else—the bottom line is that vaccines need to be effective. Until new clinical trials demonstrate that boosters increase efficacy above 50%, without increasing serious adverse events, it is unclear whether the 2-dose series would even meet the FDA’s approval standard at six or nine months. The “six month” preprint based on the 7% of trial participants who remained blinded at six months The final efficacy timepoint reported in Pfizer’s preprint is “from four months to the data cut-off.” The confidence interval here is wider than earlier time points because only half of trial participants (53%) made it to the four month mark, and mean follow-up is around 4.4 months (see footnote). This all happened because starting last December, Pfizer allowed all trial participants to be formally unblinded, and placebo recipients to get vaccinated. By 13 March 2021 (data cut-off), 93% of trial participants (41,128 of 44,060; Fig 1) were unblinded, officially entering “open-label followup.” (Ditto for Moderna: by mid April, 98% of placebo recipients had been vaccinated.) Despite the reference to “six month safety and efficacy” in the preprint’s title, the paper only reports on vaccine efficacy “up to six months,” but not from six months. This is not semantics, as it turns out only 7% of trial participants actually reached six months of blinded follow-up (“8% of BNT162b2 recipients and 6% of placebo recipients had ≥6 months follow-up post-dose 2.”) So despite this preprint appearing a year after the trial began, it provides no data on vaccine efficacy past six months, which is the period Israel says vaccine efficacy has dropped to 39%. It is hard to imagine that the <10% of trial participants who remained blinded at six months (which presumably further dwindled after 13 March 2021) could constitute a reliable or valid sample to produce further findings. And the preprint does not report any demographic comparisons to justify future analyses. Severe disease With the US awash in news about rising cases of the Delta variant, including among the “fully vaccinated,” the vaccine’s efficacy profile is in question. But some medical commentators are delivering an upbeat message. Former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, who is on Pfizer’s board, said: “Remember, the original premise behind these vaccines were [sic] that they would substantially reduce the risk of death and severe disease and hospitalization. And that was the data that came out of the initial clinical trials.” Yet, the trials were not designed to study severe disease. In the data that supported Pfizer’s EUA, the company itself characterized the “severe covid-19” endpoint results as “preliminary evidence.” Hospital admission numbers were not reported, and zero covid-19 deaths occurred. In the preprint, high efficacy against “severe covid-19” is reported based on all follow-up time (one event in the vaccinated group vs 30 in placebo), but the number of hospital admissions is not reported so we don’t know which, if any, of these patients were ill enough to require hospital treatment. (In Moderna’s trial, data last year showed that 21 of 30 “severe covid-19” cases were not admitted to hospital; Table S14). And on preventing death from covid-19, there are too few data to draw conclusions—a total of three covid-19 related deaths (one on vaccine, two on placebo). There were 29 total deaths during blinded follow-up (15 in the vaccine arm; 14 in placebo). The crucial question, however, is whether the waning efficacy seen in the primary endpoint data also applies to the vaccine’s efficacy against severe disease. Unfortunately, Pfizer’s new preprint does not report the results in a way that allows for evaluating this question. Approval imminent without data transparency, or even an advisory committee meeting? Last December, with limited data, the FDA granted Pfizer’s vaccine an EUA, enabling access to all Americans who wanted one. It sent a clear message that the FDA could both address the enormous demand for vaccines without compromising on the science. A “full approval” could remain a high bar. But here we are, with FDA reportedly on the verge of granting a marketing license 13 months into the still ongoing, two year pivotal trial, with no reported data past 13 March 2021, unclear efficacy after six months due to unblinding, evidence of waning protection irrespective of the Delta variant, and limited reporting of safety data. (The preprint reports “decreased appetite, lethargy, asthenia, malaise, night sweats, and hyperhidrosis were new adverse events attributable to BNT162b2 not previously identified in earlier reports,” but provides no data tables showing the frequency of these, or other, adverse events.) It’s not helping matters that FDA now says it won’t convene its advisory committee to discuss the data ahead of approving Pfizer’s vaccine. (Last August, to address vaccine hesitancy, the agency had “committed to use an advisory committee composed of independent experts to ensure deliberations about authorization or licensure are transparent for the public.”) Prior to the preprint, my view, along with a group of around 30 clinicians, scientists, and patient advocates, was that there were simply too many open questions about all covid-19 vaccines to support approving any this year. The preprint has, unfortunately, addressed very few of those open questions, and has raised some new ones. I reiterate our call: “slow down and get the science right—there is no legitimate reason to hurry to grant a license to a coronavirus vaccine.” FDA should be demanding that the companies complete the two year follow-up, as originally planned (even without a placebo group, much can still be learned about safety). They should demand adequate, controlled studies using patient outcomes in the now substantial population of people who have recovered from covid. And regulators should bolster public trust by helping ensure that everyone can access the underlying data. Peter Doshi, senior editor, The BMJ. Competing interests: I helped organize the Coalition Advocating for Adequately Licensed Medicines (CAALM), which has formally petitioned the FDA to refrain from fully approving any covid-19 vaccine this year (docket FDA-2021-P-0786). A full list of competing interests is available here. Provenance: commissioned; externally peer-reviewed. Footnote: Calculations in this article are as follows. “About 1 month” past month 4 is based on the final row of Fig 2 in the preprint: 1030/12670*12 = 0.98 months (vaccine group) and 895/11802*12 = 0.91 months (placebo group). “53%” is based on Fig 2: (12670+11802)/(23040+23037). “4.4 months” is based on the average of 8412/22505*12 = 4.5 (vaccine) and 8124/22434*12 = 4.3 (placebo) in Fig 2.

I think the horse I backed was Getaway Doug.

The "record $170m distribution" isn't looking too good now is it. It was always pie in the sky anyway. Come in @JJ Flash!

Thanks Gammalite. I do recall backing a horse called Doug in NZ and winning but I thought he was older than 5. If he was foaled in 2015 isn't he 6? It says on the TAB NZ site he is 5 but you can't trust that for accuracy.

Vaccine Mandates and the "Great Reset" 36 COMMENTS TAGS Health 11 HOURS AGOPhilipp Bagus Pressure on the unvaccinated grows. While the vaccinated in some countries are getting back some of their freedoms taken away by the covid interventions, the unvaccinated are not so well off. They are being targeted for discrimination. Access to public spaces and traveling is being made more difficult for them. In some countries there is even mandatory vaccination for some professions. But why is the vaccination campaign so important to governments that they are increasing the pressure to such an extent? And who has an interest in the global vaccination campaign? To answer these questions, it is necessary to analyze the prevalent vaccination narrative and ask who benefits from it. In doing so, the alliance of interests between the state, the media, the pharmaceutical industry, and supranational institutions must be addressed. Let us start with the pharmaceutical industry. It has an obvious economic interest in the vaccination campaign. It makes enormous profits from widespread vaccination. What about the state? In the covid-19 crisis, politicians have systematically amplified fear and hysteria. This was no accident and is unsurprising, for the state builds its raison d'être on the argument that it protects the population from internal and external dangers. The state is built upon fear. The narrative is that without the help of the state, the citizen would be defenseless against hunger, poverty, accidents, war, terrorism, disease, natural disasters, and pandemics. It is, therefore, in the state's interest to instill fear of possible dangers, which it then pretends to resolve, expanding its power in the process. A relatively recent example is the restriction of civil liberties in the US in response to the threat of terrorism after the 9-11 attacks and the second Iraq war. Similarly, it was in the interest of governments to purposefully instill fear and portray covid-19 as a unique killer virus in order to expand state power to an extent unknown in peacetime at the expense of citizens' fundamental rights. When the corona crisis started and not much was known about the virus's potential danger politicians were faced with an asymmetric payoff. If politicians underestimate a danger and do not react, they are held responsible for the underestimation. They lose elections and power. Especially if they can be blamed for deaths. Photos of mass burials aside, the consequences of underestimating danger and failing to act are politically fatal. In contrast, overestimating the danger and taking decisive action are politically much more attractive. If it really is an unprecedented threat, politicians are celebrated for their tough measures such as lockdowns. And politicians can always argue that without their decisive action, there would indeed have been a disaster. If the measures ultimately turn out to have been exaggerated because the hazard was not so great after all, the possible negative consequences of the measures are not as directly associated with the politicians as the photos of mass burials, because these consequences are more indirect and long term. The indirect and long-term health costs of lockdowns include suicides, depression, alcoholism, stress-related illnesses, earlier deaths from canceled surgeries and screenings, and a generally lower standard of living. However, these costs are not directly associated with the drastic interventions and blamed on the policy. Many of these consequences will occur after the next elections or even later and are not visible. For instance, we cannot observe to what extent a higher standard of living would have increased life expectancy. And if someone dies six years from now from alcoholism or depression developed in the wake of lockdowns, most people probably will not make the lockdown politicians responsible, and if they do, these politicians will possibly already be out of office. Thus, it is in the interest of politicians to overestimate a threat and overreact. In order to justify and defend the harsh measures such as lockdowns that are so attractive to politicians, it is necessary to stir up fear. When politicians stoked fear and hysteria during the covid-19 crisis, implementing highly restrictive measures such as lockdowns, the damage to the economy and social fabric was immense. Yet a society cannot be cannot be locked down forever, as the costs keep rising. At some point, it must exit lockdown and return to some normality. However, how can one at the same time stir up fear of the threat of a killer virus and return to normalcy? The way out is vaccination. With to the vaccination campaign the state can stage itself as the savior from the great danger. The state organizes vaccination for its citizens and gives the vaccinations to the citizens for "free." Without this "vaccination rescue" and in a permanent lockdown, the negative economic and social consequences of the restrictions on civil rights would be so great that resentment among the population would continue to grow and ultimately unrest would threaten. So, sooner or later, the lockdown must be ended. If, however, the state authorities were to back out of the lockdowns and restrictions without further explanation and imply that the danger was not so great after all and that the restrictions were an exaggeration and a mistake, they would lose a great deal of support and trust among the population. Consequently, from a governmental perspective, a good and face-saving "exit scenario" from the most severe restrictions is needed, and the vaccination campaign provides it. Through state-provided vaccination, the state can continue to hold on to the narrative of the great threat and still get out of the lockdown. At the same time, it can pass itself off as a savior that is making somewhat more normality possibly through vaccination. To do this, it is necessary that as large a proportion of the population as possible also get vaccinated, because if only a fraction of the population gets vaccinated, the vaccination campaign cannot be sold as a necessary step toward opening up. Thus, it is in the state's interest to get a major part of the population vaccinated. If this strategy works, the state will have set a precedent, expanded its power, and also made citizens more dependent. Citizens will believe that the state has rescued them from a mortal predicament and that they will need its help in the future. In return, they will be willing to give up some of their liberties permanently. The announcement that a state-organized annual vaccination booster is needed will perpetuate the citizens' dependence. The mass media have fallen in line and actively support the vaccination narrative. The state and mass media are closely linked. Framing by the leading media and targeting the population have a long tradition. Already in 1928 Edward Bernays advocated the intelligent manipulation of the masses in his classic book Propaganda. In modern states, the mass media help to construct popular approval for political measures such as in the case of covid-19. The mass media's support of the state is due to several reasons. Some media are directly owned by the state, others are highly regulated or require state licenses. Furthermore, media houses are staffed with graduates from state educational institutions. In addition, especially in times of crisis, a good connection to the government offers advantages and privileged access to information. The willingness to carry the state's fear narrative also comes from the fact that negative news and the exaggeration of dangers bring attention. In the corona crisis, the one-sided media coverage that proliferated through social media and muted critical voices contributed to fear and panic and created great psychological stress among the population. However, it is not only negative news that is attractive to the media; the narrative of the state rescuing the population from a major crisis also sells well. Thus, the vaccination narrative plays into the hands of the mass media. In addition to nation-states, the media, and pharmaceutical companies, supranational organizations also have an interest in ensuring that the world's population is vaccinated. Supranational organizations are actively pursuing an agenda in which global vaccination campaigns play an important role. These organizations include the World Economic Forum (WEF), the United Nations (UN), the EU, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Health Organization (WHO), which are closely interconnected. Some of these organizations have set as their goal a great reset, or a great transformation. In the areas of pandemic and climate protection, gender, migration, and the financial system, these organizations want to find coordinated answers for the benefit of all people worldwide. They emphasize shared responsibility and global solidarity. The central control of vaccination, climate change, and financial and migration flows bears the hallmarks of a new world order. For example, the theme of the 2019 annual meeting of the WEF was "Globalization 4.0: Shaping a New Global Architecture in the Age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution." Another example of supranational planning is the UN's "Global Compact for Migration." At the national level, these radical ideas are supported, as shown by the German Advisory Council on Global Change's Welt im Wandel – Gesellschaftsvertrag für eine Große Transformation (World in transition: Social contract for a great transformation) policy paper. Raymond Unger (2021, pp. 84–89) sees this drive for supranational planning as part of a culture war envisioned by Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse. A global management of opinion and outrage is combined with scenes of fear and horror, especially in the fields of climate change and corona, to establish a new socialist world order. In fact, the WHO, the IMF, and the UN are led by former communists. The WEF is financed by global companies, including the pharmaceutical industry and the big tech companies. The WEF, for its part, significantly finances the UN's 2030 Agenda. The WHO is also significantly funded by pharmaceutical companies and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which spearheads global vaccination campaigns. During the covid-19 crisis, the pharmaceutical industry also exerted its influence on the WHO. And the IMF only aided nation-states if they complied with WHO recommendations. These interconnected supranational organizations see the covid-19 crisis as an opportunity to advance their agendas. The UN policy paper Shared Responsibility, Global Solidarity: Responding to the Socio-economic Impacts of COVID-19 views covid-19 as a turning point for modern society. The intention is to seize the opportunity and act in a globally coordinated manner. The major tech companies support these agendas. They are also members of the WEF and censored disagreeable information related to covid-19 on their platforms (Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook), just like the mass media. Videos critical of vaccination are particularly quickly deleted on YouTube. The title of a keynote speech by IMF director Kristalina Georgieva, "From Great Lockdown to Great Transformation" also underscores the idea that supranational organizations want to use the corona crisis for their agendas. Klaus Schwab, founder of the WEF, argues that the covid-19 crisis represents a "rare opportunity" to "lay new foundations for our economic and social systems." In COVID-19: The Great Reset, coauthored with Thierry Malleret, Schwab speaks of a defining moment and claims a new world will emerge. According to Schwab, it is time for a fundamental reform of capitalism. Thus, the globally coordinated vaccination program can be interpreted as a building block in a supranational strategy of a great reset. Global vaccination structures are being established that can be used for subsequent global vaccination campaigns. From the perspective of advocates of a great reset, globally coordinated covid-19 vaccination underscores the need for global structures and organizations that can then be used for other global purposes, such as effectively combating "climate change" and pushing for a great reset. In short, the state, the media, the pharmaceutical industry, and supranational organizations are closely intertwined and have a common interest in the vaccination narrative. From this perspective, the mounting pressure on the vaccine-free is unsurprising. Author: Contact Philipp Bagus Philipp Bagus is professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. He is a Fellow of the Mises Institute, an IREF scholar, and the author of numerous books including In Defense of Deflation and The Tragedy of the Euro, and is coauthor of Blind Robbery!, Small States. Big Possibilities.: Small States Are Simply Better!, and Deep Freeze: Iceland's Economic Collapse.

Arguably the Pzifer vaccine isn't a vaccine. We should be doing what Sweden did protect the at risk and now vaccimate the at risk but allow the virus to circulate amongst those that are not at risk. Why vaccinate a child who has next to no risk from the virus it will gain longer and more effective immunity from infection?

Spending a long time in front of the mirror today @JJ Flash - the joys of lockdown.

Ok so Matthews has a Cocaine habit. But where are the horse positives?

Notice how Cindy is MIA when the news is bad? Even when you have 30 PR people working for you it takes time to write the pulpit speeches.

So they were caught using Cocaine? Any horses returned a positive?

It's all good. I've signed up to Ngati Pakeha and reading the official Covid site I can take my boat up the harbour and go fishing. Quote: You are allowed to leave home to exercise Māori customary rights to fishing and food gathering if it is at an outdoor location in your local area that is easy to access (including by vehicle).

He said 30. Official result 62. Good luck posting that on Comic Dogs and Molly's forum.

The horses can travel humans can't. So for example if you have a horse trained in Ruakaka and it is racing at Te Rapa then you can send it down and someone else will need to look after it at Te Rapa. But that assumes that Te Rapa is at Level 3 Ashburton can't go ahead at Level 4 but can at Level 3.

Can someone explain - if masks are so effective at preventing infection how come your glasses fog up when wearing them?

It's not Fake News Thomarse @Thomass. Molly said on Hosking's ZB show this morning that he predicted 30 cases. The official figure was 62.

Oh dear Molly wrong by 100% 62 new cases! NOT 30!

To make it clear I'm NOT an anti-vaxxer. I just don't believe the mass vaccination of the population is necessary nor prudent. I am ANTI vaccinating young adults and children. Especially with a vaccine that doesn't seem very effective with stopping infections. If you are Covid-19 vulnerable i.e. have specific comorbidities then it is advisable to get vaccinated. If you are an Adult and past breeding then sure go get it.

The second virologist ironically was first trained as a Vet. His views are emotive and extreme but there is a link within that part of the article that critiques what he said. The conclusion is that he has some valid points and may well be proven correct. I hope his most emotive claim that the mRNA vaccines are going to lead to a disaster for humanity where a more virulent and dangerous variant will emerge because of vaccine selective pressure. The theory being that because these vaccines do not prevent infection which most vaccines in history do and because they focus on only one small part of the virus the virus well evolve and escape variant.

Molly promoting vaccination is not really a good advert for vaccination .

FUNNY THING WHAT HAPPENS WITH CONSULTATION It was good to see everybody working off the same page when the future of Eagle Farm was discussed last week. The profile of the surface is to be changed after next year’s Winter carnival with kikuyu grass to replace the couch and loam to be added to the sand base. Mistakes happen when some believe their own publicity and start telling experts what is wrong and what needs fixing. Congratulations finally to Racing Queensland for recognising the problems and it seems everybody is now happy with what is planned for the future. Let’s hope Eagle Farm returns to its former glory – Queensland racing needs it.