Basil

You might want to check your information. The earliest PM public reference to Wigram was on 5 April, when she said their modelling suggested the country might have had *4000 cases* of Covid-19 were the country not in lockdown. You can hear a discussion of it here: https://www.iranz.org.nz/multimedia/audio.html The *80,000 deaths* figure came from a totally different source: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120604818/new-model-shows-coronavirus-could-kill-80000-kiwis-without-lockdown https://cpb-ap-se2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.auckland.ac.nz/dist/d/75/files/2017/01/Supression-and-Mitigation-New-Zealand-TPM-006.pdf Bottom line: you're right about the scare-mongering, but wrong about the source.

Hang on Chief, you're shooting the wrong messenger. The Wigram simulations were/are actually relatively sane — they were predicting 4000 cases (if a lockdown hadn't been enacted) at a time when we had about 1100. Your real target should be the epidemiologists at Otago (and also Imperial College) who were predicting 8000-14000 deaths, based on a scenario where nobody took any remedial actions at all, i.e., no washing of hands, no distancing, no avoiding of crowds etc etc. The trouble with epidemiologists (and medicine generally) is that they assume people don't respond to information and incentives. John Cochrane is trying to inject some much-needed sanity into this: https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2020/05/an-sir-model-with-behavior.html As for Mardigras' contention that the lockdown will have no impact on economic activity, the kindest thing that can be said about it is that it's, well, comical. He appears to have repealed the laws of arithmetic.

Here's some advice Brodie : real researchers get their information from primary sources, idiots rely on what they read in the newspaper (they also confuse 'personnel costs' with 'personal expenses' — lol!) So I've attached the primary source. Assuming it isn't beyond your ken, you'll see that Personnel costs (i.e., wages and salaries) planned for 2019-20 are $211.4 mill while total expenditure is $837 million, i.e., the former is about 25% of the latter (yesterday's 29% was a typo). If you go to the 2018-19 annual report (which you can do for yourself), you'll see the actual ratio for that year was almost identical. So much for 40%. Plonk. Brodie idiot info.pdf

Fact check. In the 2019-20 CCC annual plan, personnel costs are $244,937 and total expenditure is $837,308, i.e., 29% not 40%. Dawn Baxendale's salary is $495,000, reduced to $446,000 for the next financial year. The CCC are unbelievably good at wasting money on adventure parks, cycleways and the like, but exaggerating in other areas just encourages it to ignore these real problems.

In fact, just as a broken watch is right twice a day, Brodie is more or less correct on this one (after taking out the histrionics). The original OU modeling work, predicting 9000-14000 deaths, was based on an assumption that individuals would do *nothing* to protect themselves, e.g., no washing of hands, no avoiding crowds etc etc. A useful academic benchmark, but hardly relevant to any sensible policy decisions. Nevertheless, being mathematically illiterate herself, it caused the PM to panic and order a complete lockdown. That lockdown 'works' by dramatically reducing the number of contacts between infected and uninfected people. But it also reduces the growth in immunity. As a result, we have a tiger by the tail — any attempt to come out of lockdown, especially because of the apparently large number of asymptomatic carriers, will drive contacts right back up again and we'll be back where we started. But every day we stay in lockdown has massive social, economic and mortality costs of its own (something most epidemiologists seem unable to comprehend) — a classic Catch-22. Here's a simple illustration of the problem. The current NZ statistical value of a life is about $4.5 million. Divide that by life expectancy of 82 years to get a value of each year-life saved of about $55000. So if the level 4 lockdown causes just a single one-off 10% drop in GDP (i.e., $33 billion) and the typical person dying of covid-19 would otherwise have lived an extra 4 years (very optimistic), that means 'break-even' point requires the lockdown to save 150,000 lives that would otherwise have been lost due to covid-19. Not even the most frothing-at-the-mouth epidemiologist has been predicting that! It's true that some intervention was probably needed to reduce the high risk from super-spreading activities. But level 2 would have achieved that, at far lower cost. Rather than asking "which businesses are essential?", the question that should have been asked was "which businesses are too risky to stay open?" They should have been shut and everybody else allowed to carry on. Instead, we opted for a sledgehammer over a scalpel and most likely killed the patient.

That would indeed be interesting. Sadly, thanks to fellow bird-brainers, we're not going to get the opportunity to find out for at least 4 weeks.

It would appear so, judging by this from a self-appointed ambassador for the racing industry: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12318755 The fool doesn't understand the difference between (i) the risk of contracting CD-19 and (ii) the potential consequences, conditional on contracting it. And he thinks he knows what's good for everybody. With friends like this, racing definitely doesn't need enemies.

You're wasting your time Gammalite. With a few honourable exceptions, the knuckle draggers on here — particularly the teenage girl who specialises in all sorts of malicious insinuations about everyone else but then turns feral when her current crush is criticised for anti-social behaviour — loathe the All Stars with a passion, never missing an opportunity to put the boot in. After Saturday night I thought the bitchiness would be out in full force, and checking in today I can see I'm not wrong!

Thought I'd have a quick peek to see if anything sensible was being discussed on Cup eve, but it seems to be just the same old misinformation. In fact, the R1 (3200 trot) stake 20 years ago was $14939, which (according to the RBNZ inflation calculator) is equivalent to $22737 in 2019 dollars. So the race stake has actually increased by 10% in real terms. If you're going to moan, at least try to get some basic facts right first.

"I have no idea" is the one accurate bit in this post. Regardless of any so-called "legend" status, McKee was, by his own admission, extremely careless, and so was extremely lucky only to get hit with the fine he did. Anybody claiming otherwise is motivated by something other than facts. Respect is earned, not a divine right.

Sadly, I have to disagree. Having just finished trawling through the now-closed 'political' thread , I've come to the conclusion that harness racing is, after all, doomed (and for reasons that have nothing to do with the All Stars, who are actually its great shining light). To characterise that thread as depressing would be a masterclass in understatement. The views of some (most?) contributors can only be described (politely) as disturbing, and exactly replicate those of the justifiably-'egged' Fraser Anning. Engagement with such people is futile. Kundera's analogy is apt: "Imagine you meet a madman who claims we are all fish. Are you going to argue with him? Are you going to undress and show him that you don't have fins?" Not unless wasting your own time is high on your list of priorities. Thank you and good night.

And they say travel broadens the mind...

Either Brodie doesn't understand what multiculturalism is or he's revealing his true colours. Sadly, from the way he keeps digging himself in, it seems more likely to be the latter. Basically, he appears to want to be completely segregated from everyone who isn't exactly like himself. And that two wrongs make a right.

Ranga might be right about you being new to this game Brodie, as you seem to have a strange understanding of the mathematics of odds-setting. To clarify, so long as the odds are set efficiently (which all the evidence suggests they are), the probability of a 6x$1.20 multi coming in is exactly the same as the probability of latching on to a single $3 winner. Actually, according to the favourite-longshot bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favourite-longshot_bias), the multi might even be a little more likely.

So much for that — a $5 winner in one race and a $41 shot in the other! There's always "value" Brodie old chap, you just need to know where and how to look for it.?

The irony of repeatedly accusing others of "passive aggressive bullshit" appears to be lost on Dunc...

Yes, but the example I asked you to consider was ABs vs Wales, not Italy or Fiji. Don't do a Brodie on me and answer a different question.?

Are you sure about this Happy, or are you just playing devil's advocate? Domination that's the result of a monopoly is undoubtedly something to be abhorred, but domination that reflects underlying excellence, which in turn forces others to lift their standards or exit stage right, is something to be admired. For a day out with the kids, or a day on the punt (cue Brodie!), I can see how "a day at the Nelson trots" might well be an attractive option. But for any serious race-goer, who wants to see the breed perform as close to its maximum potential as possible, surely it's no contest with Cup and Jewels Days? After all, Wales haven't beaten NZ at rugby since 1953, but there wouldn't be too many of us who'd forego watching their next matchup in order to take in the Eketahuna 3rds vs the Pahiatua 2nds, regardless of how "unknown" the result of the latter might be.

Crikey Dunc (back under yet another name I see), a simple "I misspoke" would have sufficed.

This point of view raises what has long been a puzzling question to me — when did 'elite' become a dirty word? I saw it creep in during 30 years in academia, and all it achieved was a debasing of standards. Personally, I associate 'elite' with 'excellence', and believe it's something that should be celebrated, not denigrated.

So much for Brodie's plan to relocate the All Stars to Australia. It's more likely that, as with other troublesome kiwi imports, the Aussies will simply extradite them straight back here. In any event, the magnitude of the All Stars' performance in winning four races, including three features, on Australia's main harness racing day can't be over-stated. It's one thing to dominate at home when you're sleeping in your own bed and your horses are all in a familiar environment, but it's a totally different thing to do the same when you're 2000km from home with horses that in some cases have just arrived and you're flying back and forth. And with the partial exception of All U Need Is Faith, they didn't just win — they bolted in! There may be differing points of view as regards the net benefit to NZ racing of having a dominant stable like the All Stars, but surely there can be no disagreement that they're absolute masters when it comes to training, driving and placing horses.

The sample sizes are very small though, so it's impossible to conclude anything really. If they maintained these sorts of ROIs over, say, a 6 month period, that would certainly be impressive. But I doubt that will happen (tipping on every race is just too hard).

Manning got 2 weeks. It should have been 2 years.

I don't know whether it was cool or not, but Noodlum, of course, was almost certainly the most "famous" horse name in NZ for a very long time. Personally though, I always liked the story — probably apocryphal — about a horse called Old Fellow (or some such) immortalised in commentary by Lachie Marshall: "And Old Fellow is trying to push through a gap on the inside." Indeed!

For the avoidance of all doubt, I did the obvious thing and asked SAFE whether Brodie was telling porkies: Hi SAFE A quick (hopefully) question. A couple of claims have recently been made on a racing forum about SAFE’s attitude towards the use of the whip in harness racing: “S.A.F.E. We’re not even damn interested in the harness whip, they said have said that!” “A lady from SAFE stated that the harness whip was not on S.A.F.Es agenda!” Could you please confirm or deny the truth of these statements. Thanks and cheers, Basil to which they replied Hi Basil Thank you for getting in touch with your query about racing. SAFE is opposed to the use of whips in horse racing, including harness racing. Australia banned the use of whips in harness racing in September 2017, due to animal welfare concerns. Horses are gentle, social animals and whips used in any horse racing event cause them harm. It’s unacceptable to allow the use of this painful practice for the purposes of ‘entertainment’. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Kind regards, Paris Waterworth Supporter Engagement Assistant Wellington Volunteer Coordinator PO Box 28110 Kelburn Wellington 6150 04 472 9311 | safe.org.nz No doubt Brodie will continue to deny it, but the truth is now there for everybody possessing an IQ greater than that of a retarded whitebait to see. QED.