Protesters at Jacinda Ardern’s wedding ‘not there to cause disruption’ - letters to the editor

A letter writer defends the rights of protesters at Jacinda Ardern and Clarke Gayford's recent wedding at Craggy Range. Photo / George Heard

OPINION:

In response to Wyn Drabble’s opinion piece on the protesters at Jacinda’s wedding, who he claimed were tasteless and misguided, I’d like to explain why I disagree.

The people behind the placards were a small group of mainly health professionals of various disciplines, all of whom are deeply upset at the deaths and injuries that occurred as a result of mandating the vaccine. They did not see their attendance as a protest as such, and were definitely not there to cause disruption.

They believed their signage and attendance was appropriate, especially a sign detailing the case of Rory Nairn, a young man who had been engaged to be married.

His life was brought to an end by the mandated shot, as confirmed by a coroner. He will never experience his own wedding, but they wanted him to attend Jacinda’s in the hope that his sacrifice will be remembered.

Mr Drabble was particularly incensed by a man holding a sign that said “Lest we forget ... the jab mandates”.

Drabble believed the use of that “hallowed Anzac phrase” was inappropriate. I believe the opposite. Rory’s and other lives are our fallen soldiers in the war on Covid. They deserve acknowledgement and respect.

(abridged)

Kaye Burnside

Napier

Could AI be the antidote to the growing problems of doctor and specialist shortages?

Commenting on the article “It’s a brave new AI world” in Monday’s HBT, it seems to me the real opportunity for AI lies with the provision of medical services.

Typically, a visit to the doctor involves a listing of symptoms from which the doctor diagnoses the problem as best they can, before prescribing whatever cure their training and knowledge dictates.

Alternatively, if the problem is beyond the doctor’s own expertise, then a referral to a more expert practitioner, “the specialist”, is actioned.

AI can do all of this. Log in from your own computer, describe your symptoms, following various AI-driven prompts, and an algorithm will provide an accurate diagnosis together with the latest in antidotes and cures. Accessing a vast database of worldwide medical knowledge far greater than any individual doctor can possess.

AI then sends a prescription to the pharmacist and hey presto, it’s all done.

A great percentage of grassroots medical services could be actioned this way. The perfect antidote to the growing problems of doctor and specialist shortages in NZ.

Of course, we’ll still need the surgeons to perform physical operations. Until AI-driven robotics take over that too.

A brave new world indeed.

John Denton

Eskdale

Ratepayers need to stand up and let HBRC know their feelings about proposal

Care for the health of waterways and coastal erosion, flood protection, air quality, parks, public transport, etc.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is tasked with these and other responsibilities.

But we must draw the line with the suggested plan by the HBRC to move from only Land Value to Capital Value rating – land plus improvements, buildings included.

This is where we strongly disagree with John Warren (January 20) who misses the point. Does he not see the HBRC is wrong by imposing Capital Value (an unfair tax, because the Napier City Council already rates properties on their Capital Value?).

In effect, this is a double-whammy on ratepayers!

John Warren also says more expensive properties should pay more for this move. Really? It is hard enough to keep up with rising costs.

Ratepayers, stand up and let the HBRC know your feelings and reject the proposal.

Please HBRC stick to your usual remit and scrub this proposal.

Algy Rudzevecuis

Bluff Hill

Please explain expensive runway work

The headline on January 19, page 5 reads: ‘Customs approves two Napier carriers - but this doesn’t mean Hawke’s Bay will host New Zealand’s newest international airport’.

Wasn’t that the whole idea of the protracted campaign, by a small number of individuals (some years ago), to have the airport runway length increased?

To provide the local region with an international airport (at least as far as the East Coast of Australia was concerned). To allow the local region “real, jet aircraft” for domestic flights (the main runway was, at the time, already capable of accommodating the “real jet aircraft” in Air NZ’s fleet, and Air NZ had, even earlier, operated their original B737-100 aircraft in/out of the airport).

And, of much more importance to the region, “consultants” (unnamed), had estimated a $41 million revenue bonus to “the region” from having the runway length increased.

Well, the runway length was increased, the international operations didn’t happen, the domestic legs in “real jet aircraft” didn’t happen (thank goodness, with regard to preserving the splendid frequency we currently experience), the $41m “bonus” to the region didn’t happen, and the (unnamed) (professional?) “consultants” presumably got paid by the ratepayers.

Did anyone benefit? Yes, a few high net-worth individuals from the USA, with interests in the local region and their own private aircraft, were (presumably) grateful for the increased runway length allowing them to depart direct to Hawaii (for refueling) rather than having to make an extra stop in Auckland. Thank you, local ratepayers.

This sad, expensive and successful, “lengthen the runway and they will come” deserves a review and perhaps an explanation.

D B Smith

Napier