The Mike Hosking Breakfast

The prospect of a vaccine to shield Americans from coronavirus infection emerged as a point of contention in the White House race as President Donald Trump accused Democrats of “disparaging” for political gain a vaccine he repeatedly has said could be available before the election.
“It's so dangerous for our country, what they say, but the vaccine will be very safe and very effective,” the president pledged Monday at a White House news conference.
Trump leveled the accusation a day after Sen. Kamala Harris, the Democrats' vice presidential candidate, said she “would not trust his word” on getting the vaccine. “I would trust the word of public health experts and scientists, but not Donald Trump,” Harris said.
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden amplified Harris' comments Monday after he was asked if he would get a vaccine for COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. Biden said he would take a vaccine but wants to see what the scientists have to say, too.
Biden said Trump has said “so many things that aren't true, I'm worried if we do have a really good vaccine, people are going to be reluctant to take it. So he's undermining public confidence."
Still, the former vice president said: “If I could get a vaccine tomorrow I’d do it, if it would cost me the election I’d do it. We need a vaccine and we need it now.”
The back-and-forth over a coronavirus vaccine played out as three of the candidates fanned out across the country on Labor Day, the traditional start of the two-month sprint to the election. Harris and Vice President Mike Pence campaigned in Wisconsin and Biden went to Pennsylvania. Trump added the news conference to a schedule that originally was blank.
Harris, a California Democrat, said in a CNN interview broadcast Sunday that she would not trust a coronavirus vaccine if one were ready at the end of the year because “there's very little that we can trust that ... comes out of Donald Trump's mouth.” She argued that scientists would be “muzzled” because Trump is focused on getting reelected.
Trump dismissed her comments as “reckless anti-vaccine rhetoric" designed to detract from the effort to quickly ready a vaccine for a disease that has killed about 190,000 Americans and infected more than 6 million others, according to a count by Johns Hopkins University.
“She's talking about disparaging a vaccine so that people don't think the achievement was a great achievement,” Trump said, answering reporters' questions as he stood at a lectern placed at the front door of the White House on the Pennsylvania Avenue side of the mansion.
“They'll say anything,” he said.
Trump returned to that line of attack during a rally Tuesday in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Claiming a vaccine was “only a question of weeks” away, he berated Biden and Harris: "Instead of saying, ‘That’s a great thing, we’re going to save lives,’ They’re trying to disparage it. They’re trying to make it politics.”
Trump insisted Monday he hasn't said a vaccine could be ready before November, although he has said so repeatedly. He then proceeded to say what he had just denied ever saying.
“What I said is by the end of the year, but I think it could even be sooner that that,” he said about a vaccine. “It could be during the month of October, actually could be before November.”
Under a program Trump calls “Operation Warp Speed,” the goal is to have 300 million doses of a coronavirus vaccine in stock by January. He has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on what amounts to a huge gamble since vaccine development usually takes years.
Concerns exist about political influence over development of a vaccine, and whether one produced under this process will be safe and effective.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government’s top infectious-disease expert and a member of the White House coronavirus task force, told CNN last week that it is unlikely but “not impossible” that a...

Parents are being told to check their kids are okay, in case they've seen a distressing video circulating on social media.
The clip appears to show a man dying by suicide and is being hidden in other videos of kittens and puppies, for example.
Mental Health Foundation chief executive, Shaun Robinson, told Mike Hosking some children may have seen it without knowing what they were looking at.
“Parents should see how their kids are, and check if they've seen something that's upset them and offer support at this time.”
Robinson says the video could cause harm if it finds people already struggling with mental health.
He says for people who are at risk of attempting suicide, anything that speaks to that feeling and amplifies it, ramps up the risk. 
Where to get help
If it is an emergency and you feel like you or someone else is at risk, call 111.

Lifeline: 0800 543 354, available 24/7• Suicide Crisis Helpline: 0508 828 865 (0508 TAUTOKO), available 24/7• Youth services: (06) 3555 906• Youthline: 0800 376 633• Kidsline: 0800 543 754, available 24/7• Whatsup: 0800 942 8787, available 1pm to 11pm• Depression helpline: 0800 111 757, available 24/7• Rainbow Youth: (09) 376 4155• Helpline: 1737

A workplace drug-testing service says legalising cannabis won't be all sunshine and roses.
The Ministry of Justice has commissioned BERL to carry out two reports to inform the development of the Cannabis Bill.
They found legalisation could generate more than a billion dollars in tax.
Drug Detection Agency chief executive Kirk Hardy told Mike Hosking there's a lot of negatives too.
"If you look at Colorado - they're spending $4.50 in societal harm for every dollar they get in tax revenue.   
Hardy told Mike Hosking the report shows more than 400 dispensaries - and it could make the drug too widely accessible.
"It be more than all the KFCs, Burger Kings and McDonalds combined."
LISTEN ABOVE

Having had a bunch of kids go through NCEA in the past couple of years, I can tell you it's not my way of education.
I could see when it was introduced it offered the seed of a decent idea. It offered more choice, it offered a more varied pathway through school, but it came unquestionably at the expense of quality.
It is too easy to get. It doesn't deal, despite its options and choices, in any great way with the real world, work, and future work available. It is soft in its approach with its merit, achieved, and excellence grades.
It lets you off, if you want to be let off with complete choice by year 13. The libertarian side of me thinks is no bad thing until, of course, it is a bad thing given it's kids making those choices and half the time no matter how bright they are, they still don't have a clue about life and the big picture.
So, all in all, NCEA has weakened education, weakened the kids experience, increased the gap between high school and university, and generally been based on lowering standards so more people are perceived to have got through.
Now, and yes, it's an unusual year, but they are literally making it up as they go along. We have yet another adjustment for Covid.
They had one during the first lockdown, they’ve added another for the second. Once again, like NCEA itself, you get the logic. But what about the outcome? One credit free for every five, unless you're in Auckland where it's one free for every four credits.
It's not steak knives, it's education, it’s a qualification. For employers and universities, these will be known as the Covid numbers. It will be the year in which everyone will know that whatever your mark, it's not really merit based, it's government based.
The fact they are already letting kids into university with no University Entrance should be worrying enough, but now they're handing out freebies for being stuck at home.
Here's a lesson in life, we've all been stuck at home to a greater or lesser degree, and we've all had to get on with it. Two of our kids have spent the better part of their university year at home. One is in another country, working online but getting on with it. Labs went by the wayside, but they still got on with it. They still sat exams, and they still had to pass.
Covid and it's many inconveniences can't be a scapegoat for slackness, laziness, and excuses. It can't be a reason to be second best.
And yet, in a country of increasing mediocrity, mediocrity gets an achieved, if not a merit.

The general election is just around the corner, but many New Zealanders understand very little about the basics of who they are voting for and how they can get them elected.
A third of New Zealanders don't know which political parties are in Parliament, and less than half know how a party can get into power under MMP, a new report shows.
In some ways, that knowledge gap may not seem to matter. Despite a relatively poor understanding of civics and politics, the report says New Zealand fares well in nearly every international indicator and study.
But this lack of basic knowledge does matter, the report published by the New Zealand Initiative says.
"Being a political junkie should not be a prerequisite for voting," said the organisation's chief economist Eric Crampton.



"But it is hard to vote well if you don't know the basics. There has been a lot of emphasis on a civic duty to vote, but too little attention to the importance of casting an informed ballot," he said.
If a voter did not know what parties were in Parliament, it was difficult to reward or punish them for good or bad outcomes, Crampton said.
"Suppose you looked out the window and you really like how things have turned out here. Do you credit Labour for that? Or do you credit their coalition partners?"
That also applied to various levels of government, which was one of the most poorly understood issues in the survey.
"Voters tend to take a hammer across the whole system and blame everything for it, which kind of means that nobody is to blame for it," Crampton said.
The relatively poor understanding of politics and civics in New Zealand could partly be blamed on it not a dedicated subject in schools.

NZI chief economist Eric Crampton said voters who didn't understand the political system were unable to reward or punish the right politicians, parties or parts of government. Photo / Supplied
Yet overseas experience had found it was not enough to just have compulsory classes. Political knowledge in the United States was also relatively poor despite decades of dedicated instruction.
The New Zealand Initiative said it had no "magic bullets" to improve civics knowledge in New Zealand, but it proposed a few ideas.
Strengthened civics instruction could be introduced in a few schools and students could be tested two years later to check whether their knowledge had improved. Schools would also have to check whether that additional teaching came at the expense of other important subjects.
There were also some "off the wall" suggestions in the report. Basic civics questions and answers could be printed in daily newspapers, and the Electoral Commission could randomly call voters and reward them with a $10,000 prize for getting them right.
There could also be a $100 spot prize at polling booths for people who complete a civics quiz correctly.
"Getting some correction about what the basics are before people go and cast the main ballot - that could be helpful," Crampton said.
The proposal to improve civics education raises questions about how a more educated populace might vote. A study in the US found that knowing more about the political system did not change people's personal political views. So it would probably not favour any party in particular.
The NZ Election Survey found that Green Party voters appeared to know the most about the political system. That was because there was a link between people with higher education levels and civics knowledge - and the Greens disproportionately won voters from higher education levels.
The New Zealand Initative findings were based on a survey of 1000 New Zealanders and were supplemented by the NZ Election Survey.

There is doubt as to whether New Zealanders could cope with much more income tax.
Labour's expected to announce its tax policy in Wellington this morning.
Tax advisory expert Robin Oliver told Mike Hosking it's easy to spend a billion dollars, but to raise that amount through taxes is very hard.
He says we need to step back and make a fair assessment of where we're at.
Oliver says we need to take a look at what expenditure the Government can reduce, then decide on the tax position, and how much debt we can live with.
"You'd have to increase the tax rate to 36 percent for anyone earning more than $70,000, which is a big increase for average households."
Oliver says the Government needs to look at what expenditure it can reduce, then decide on the tax position, and how much debt we can live with.
LISTEN ABOVE

THE BEST BITS IN A SILLIER PACKAGE (from Wednesday's Mike Hosking Breakfast) You Haven't Earned It, But Have it Anyway/How it All Works/Payback Time/Terrible TV/Covid Debt Explained

text by Luke McGee, CNN
When Boris Johnson first took over as British Prime Minister, many in his Conservative Party couldn't believe their luck. After years of watching Theresa May's government rub out red line after red line on Brexit, the man who led the triumphant march to freedom in 2016 was in charge.
Barely a year on, a decent chunk of that optimism has turned to frustration and agitation. Despite the fact Johnson has taken the UK out of the European Union and won a landslide election victory, there is fear the Prime Minister's desire to end the Brexit story on a personal note of triumph is clouding his thinking.
In recent weeks, talks on a future trade deal between London and Brussels have been uneasy. Both sides are indicating that negotiations are going nowhere and that the other is making unacceptable demands. Both have made clear that unless things change the time to walk away could come soon, meaning a no-deal crash out of the transition period on December 31.
In prepared remarks sent out prior to a speech Johnson is expected to give ahead of round 8 of EU negotiations which start on Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that unless there was an agreement by October 15, the UK would walk away. "There is no sense in thinking about timelines that go beyond that point. If we can't agree by then, then I do not see that there will be a free trade agreement between us, and we should both accept that and move on," said Johnson.
Also on Monday the Financial Times reported that sections of a market bill slated for publication Wednesday, were expected to "eliminate the legal force of parts of the withdrawal agreement," the framework treaty that sets the terms of the UK's departure from the EU, according to three sources familiar with the plans. Johnson hailed it as a "great deal" when it was signed last October -- but there are aspects of it, relating particularly to Northern Ireland, that have always rankled with Eurosceptics in his party and some have been lobbying recently for him to repudiate it, at least in part.
EU officials were spooked by the story, and Downing Street moved quickly to reassure Brussels. A UK government official told reporters on Monday that the "government is completely committed, as it always has been, to implementing the NI (Northern Ireland) Protocol in good faith."
Yet some Eurosceptics are concerned that Johnson's strong words are laying the ground for concessions to get a last-minute deal that he can claim as a great victory, avoiding the economic fallout of a no-deal cliff edge. Others worry that recent ruptures are theatre, designed to make any agreement appear such a feat of diplomacy it eclipses any concessions.
There is some basis for this fear. Johnson's previous deal with the EU came after months of declaring that he would either renegotiate May's deal or leave the EU without one. The clock ticked as no progress was made on the former; the latter seemed inevitable. Suddenly, a deal was reached in Brussels just 14 days before the no-deal deadline -- a deal that looked an awful lot like the one struck by May that many Eurosceptics, including Johnson, hated and voted against.
Johnson's moveable position on Brexit mattered less at the time, as this deal only covered how the UK would leave the EU, not the more permanent future relationship. The fact Johnson held his nerve and stood up to Brussels was enough evidence for many Euroskeptics that he'd do the same later on.
But the world is different now. It's no secret that Johnson's has had a difficult 2020 to date. His government's handling of the coronavirus pandemic has been criticized on numerous fronts. The UK is both the coronavirus capital of Europe and the country that's suffered the deepest Covid recession of any major economy. He's been forced to make a series of embarrassing U-turns in the face of pressure from politicians across the divide. A big victory for the government before the...

It's a tough time for hospitality businesses all around the world.
So what's it like running top shelf, gourmet restaurants in this Covid world?
Yotam Ottolenghi owns six top restaurants and delis in London.
And his latest cookbook, Flavour - is out now.
Yotam Ottolenghi joined Mike Hosking to talk about his new book.
LISTEN ABOVE

Spectators will be allowed at the French Open this month despite the growing number of coronavirus cases in the country, organisers said on Monday.
They unveiled the health protocols for the clay-court grand slam, which will take place at Roland Garros in western Paris from Sept. 27 after being postponed from its May start due to the pandemic.
“Since the international circuit restarted, Roland Garros will be the first tournament with the privilege of hosting an audience," French Tennis Federation president Bernard Giudicelli said.
Serena Williams and Maria Sakkari, after their spectator-free U.S. Open match on Monday, questioned how the French can open the doors to fans but the players have to be in a bubble. The French are restricting the players to two hotels.
“If there are fans, then we should be able to stay elsewhere, then,” Williams said. “Yeah, that’s interesting, because there is no private housing but there's fans.”
Williams was OK with fans in attendance, but wanted to know more from French Open organizers about “how we will be protected.”
Sakkari agreed.
“To have fans and have us in a bubble? For me, it doesn’t really make sense,” Sakkari said. "For me, it was a shocking announcement to have fans.”
In accordance with the latest government guidelines capping attendance to 5,000 people in regions such as Paris, the federation has scaled down its plans.
The federation wanted to welcome 50% to 60% of capacity, the equivalent of about 20,000 fans per day. Instead, Roland Garros will be divided into three zones based on the three main courts, with 5,000 people each for the Philippe Chatrier and Suzanne Lenglen courts. The zone surrounding the third biggest court will host a maximum of 1,500 spectators a day.
Wearing a mask on site will be mandatory, while all accredited people at the tournament will have to pass virus tests to be admitted in the Roland Garros bubble.
Tournament director Guy Forget said all players will be tested upon their arrival in the French capital city. They will be authorized to play if they return a negative test and will undergo a second test 72 hours later. Players will then be tested every five days as long as they remain in the draw, and will have to stay in the two hotels booked by organizers.
Organizers also decided to give more money to the early losers, in a gesture of solidarity toward the players who have been the hardest hit financially by the crisis.
“The prize money for first-round losers will thus increase by 30% compared to last year, to 60,000 euros ($71,000)," they said in a statement. “A major effort has also been made on the qualifications, with an allocation up 27% compared to 2019. The first-round losers in qualifications will receive a 10,000 euros ($11,800) check."
French officials have confirmed more than 30,000 deaths from COVID-19 while the number of new daily cases surpassed 8,000 last Friday.