What is reasonable for the government to impose on people in the fight against coronavirus.

[Treesofwood]

Most people seem to agree it is reasonable to

1. Prevent people from seeing people they love.
2. Prevent people from going to school.
3. Prevent people from going to the theatre.
4. Force people to wear cloth over most of their face even if they don't want to in public.
5. Stop people from hugging.
6. Stop people from working.
7. Stop children from playing with their friends in the park.
8. Force people who are well into self isolation for two weeks.
9. Ban people from having sex with people they don't live with.

10. Stop (just) adult children from going back to their family home from university.

I would have never believed someone who told me a year ago that these laws/"guidance" would be in place.

There are some things that it is not seen as reasonable for the government to do, despite the fact it would save lives.

But I would argue that most of the things above would have been laughed off as ridiculous in 2019. After all we don't live in a police state.

Where will it end? How much further down the line will we go. How many more things will we lose? Bodily autonomy? It will definitely head that way if some MPs have their way.

I’m shocked at how easily people have accepted things. That it’s ok to jail people for
going to Tesco? We barely jail people for raping!!!

That I can only meet my mother in a pub and not in my house? (Scotland). That my kids now have no dental or routine health care.

It’s absolutely staggering.

@GetOffYourHighHorse

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/05/paris-bars-to-close-for-two-weeks-as-city-moves-to-maximum-covid-alert

Civil liberties taken in Paris too! They're maybe all in cahoots with Vallance and Whitty.

'You cannot eliminate this virus - why do you think we can?'

Control it then. Just Google infectious disieases and how to control transmission, I tnink you need to read up on it tbh. Popping on a ferry from a high risk area to a low risk/no current cases area is not the way to do it.

You do think you can eliminate it.

You also over-estimate how much we can control it

Like I said, you have a case of wonky locus of control and that is why you consistently fail to see any problem in these draconian measures.

'Like I said, you have a case of wonky locus of control and that is why you consistently fail to see any problem in these draconian measures.'

Did you actually see the Paris link? They are closing bars! imagine the uproar with pissheads if they did that here. Sad for businesses of course but its always the poor me customers we hear about

'you consistently fail to see any problem in these draconian measures.'

The first correct thing you've said. I would swap 'draconian' for 'necessary' however but there you go.

@GetOffYourHighHorse

'Like I said, you have a case of wonky locus of control and that is why you consistently fail to see any problem in these draconian measures.'

Did you actually see the Paris link? They are closing bars! imagine the uproar with pissheads if they did that here. Sad for businesses of course but its always the poor me customers we hear about

'you consistently fail to see any problem in these draconian measures.'

The first correct thing you've said. I would swap 'draconian' for 'necessary' however but there you go.

It is obviously hard to find common ground because we clearly have such opposing stances on this.

Yes, Paris may be basically doing what we are probably going to do in a few weeks. So what?

Do I agree to do it here, just because the French are doing it? Not necessarily no.

I don't think we are having a proper national debate about the intricacies of the data we now have on Covid, 7 months in.

Questions that are not answered IMO are:

• Do lockdowns actually help? If so, is that balanced against the harm that they cause effectively? We have all sorts of data on the harm that lockdowns cause emerging, so we can calculate this balance more efficiently. Also, we have data, such as the attached that seem to show that lockdowns do not have a significant impact on the transmission rate anyway? We need to be very clear that the data supports further lockdowns (and existing ones) It may feel like it helps, but that is not enough.

• Basing our policy on cases is really treacherous. The PCR testing is almost universally questioned by the scientists as being an accurate reflection of actual cases. This needs to be bottomed out - if we are basing public policy on the case data, it needs to be accurate. So the levels of cycling that are acceptable in the PCR test - what are they? We currently go to ~45 when a lot of scientists are saying that we should not be going beyond 35 because it will be picking up old fragments of virus and not even neessarily Covid-19. This needs to be categorically correct before we base public policy on it. I can't see how anyone could dispute this?

• We need to look at the modeling with the T Cell immunity in mind. Studies are showing that it is possible up to 50% of the population have immunity to the virus because of the T Cell immunity. This has clear implications on how far and wide the virus could actually spread. We do not have a government position on this, even a discussion, and that is unacceptable. Again, these things need to be clear before these measures are implemented.

Draconian just means severe, so that's nothing to quibble about - these are severe measures. Whether they are necessary or not, is a different question, as above.

Also, I have seen many business owners describing the loss of their livelihoods and it is not only sad, it must be justifiable and I hope you can see that when you engage in such conversations.

'Draconian just means severe, so that's nothing to quibble about - these are severe measures. Whether they are necessary or not, is a different question, as above.'

How is it severe??? It isn't solitary confinement, shops are open, schools are open, restaurants and pubs are open. You really do need to try and be a glass half full person. Must be exhausting to live with such misery.

'Do lockdowns actually help? If so, is that balanced against the harm that they cause effectively? We have all sorts of data on the harm that lockdowns cause emerging, so we can calculate this balance more efficiently'

Well if we hadn't had lockdown in March then the hospitals would have been overwhelmed as we indeed saw in Italy in Spain!! So in that respect they work. You seem to think that others believe lockdown cures covid. No, it just keeps it under control a bit. Having to be out the pub by 10pm is by no stretch of the imagination 'lockdown'.

Seemingly a fair few agree with locking people in their housing if someone in the building tests positive. If those people are students, noone else. So, the same situation occuring in a block of flats, would not result in locking down the whole block, that would be ridiculous and unfair as it should be only those who had contact with the person wh tested positive. In student accomodation though, of course, shut the whole building, physically prevent them from leaving, they probably broke the rules anyway .

And I have to say, the amount of people I would have previously considered intelligent, friends in some cases (!) who were shouting for total lockdown, actually advocating for army to patrol the streets was INSANE. Such people seem to have chilled a bit now, but were accusing people of murder for going to the chemist and stuff. Fit 20 year olds who convinced themselves (via the press) that they would die the second they stepped foot out of the door, many of whom are meant to be back at work now but are signed off with anxiety and still thinking just breathing air outside will kill them..weird.

I find mandated face coverings quite amusing. I am not saying they don't help here. But given a year back, loads were shouting about how face coverings at all should be illegal? Same people will now scream at people who cannot wear one!

Hamstersarse - if you waited to do all those things, the epidemic may have grown too big to control by the time you debate all points.

Maybe if we had opened up and restarted things more slowly, we would be in less of a mess with less damage to the economy.

Places that acted fast, decisively to shut things down and gradually re-opened have had greater success in controlling numbers - aus, nz, s Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong kong

The government are losing us. There's no way on earth that families are not going to visit each other over Christmas. The local lockdowns aren't working.
People have had enough.

Johnson is relying on goodwill and patience, which we had in abundance in March. October and still in the same position? People are giving up.
Between him using fear and uncertainty to control the masses, and tweedledee + tweedledum making a hash of the figures in the briefings; there's no wonder the public is losing faith.
I wouldn't trust any of those wankers as far as I could throw them.

@NRatched

I find mandated face coverings quite amusing. I am not saying they don't help here. But given a year back, loads were shouting about how face coverings at all should be illegal? Same people will now scream at people who cannot wear one!

That's semantics though. A mask to hide your face while you rob a petrol station? Probably best to veto them. A mask to cover your face to save lives? Perhaps they're OK. 70-80% effective in reducing spread sounds like a pretty good odds to me tbf.

I find the hyperbole amusing too.
I'm not in the UK but just imagine everyone all SCREAMING at each other willy nilly all day as they wear a mask/don't wear a mask/lie about their contact details etc.

That's semantics though. A mask to hide your face while you rob a petrol station?

Except it wasn't about robbing petrol stations. It was burkhas and such that people were wanting banned.

As for screaming..only the once but Dh had some random woman screaming in his face the second day masks became mandatory, despite him having an exemption, and actually being one of the rare ones who managed to get a doctors note about said exemption, before that idea seemed to get shut down (which honestly may have helped the 'people taking the mick with masks' thing somewhat). She didn't want to know though, he was apparently literally killing her

Though, he was nowhere near her of course, and she actually came over to shout inches from his face, thus putting herself and him at risk, instead of keeping the required distance. Got quite the audience, that did. One of the most embarassing moments of my life, even though I was just 'there' and not involved as such

@GetOffYourHighHorse

'Draconian just means severe, so that's nothing to quibble about - these are severe measures. Whether they are necessary or not, is a different question, as above.'

How is it severe??? It isn't solitary confinement, shops are open, schools are open, restaurants and pubs are open. You really do need to try and be a glass half full person. Must be exhausting to live with such misery.

You do project a lot

Severe for example, is elderly people not being able to see their families for 7 months.

Amnesty International have already described that as a violation to human rights

But I get the impression you don't care much for human rights so long as you don't get Covid

@GetOffYourHighHorse

Have a look at this video twitter.com/darrengrimes_/status/1313112496316837888 and the stories that are being told on the thread. Severe is a word I would use, yes.

@NRatched I suspect some on this site would be perfectly okay with it if it was a social housing block.

[quote HeIenaDove]@NRatched I suspect some on this site would be perfectly okay with it if it was a social housing block.[/quote]
Quite possibly. The attitude I see from a fair few towards the lower paid/unemployed is quite vile sometimes. The change in attitude toward UC is welcome though, even though its only because many are now potentially looking at having to claim. Its gone from 'should be cut, they all smoke and drink all the time and have huge TVs' to 'noone can live on that, needs to be way more'. While I get that attitude is only changing as people think of their own situation, its still welcome if it might possibly change things longterm for those less fortunate.

YY @NRatched Totally agree. Sorry your DH had that appalling experience. And her coming close to do it shows her need to bully way outweighed her fear of Covid.

@HeIenaDove

YY *@NRatched* Totally agree. Sorry your DH had that appalling experience. And her coming close to do it shows her need to bully way outweighed her fear of Covid.

Luckily its only been the once for him. But it seems others who go out more frequently are having more issues with people coming into their personal space to berate them. When it seems, those who don't wear masks for whatever reason..are more aware of social distancing. And honestly, I suspect distancing works better than masks anyway, though that IS just personal opinion and obviously it would be better, if possible, to do both. And before anyone writes me off as an anti masker, I both wear a mask everywhere thats asked, and distance as much as possible. And carry sanitizer everywhere, though I did this pre pandemic as I am emetephobic so a bit more wary of germs than others

'But I get the impression you don't care much for human rights so long as you don't get Covid'

I'm not in any of the high risk groups so no, I'm not worried about myself thanks.

I care about those most at risk who people like you seem to think aren't that important. 'Civil liberties' ie going to the pub after 10pm and meeting more than 6 people are far more important than protecting others.

If I was unable to care for a relative who needed it and they had to be in a home I would be happy to ring, zoom, whatever if it meant they were being protected. People have to compromise in a crisis. In fact I bet the older generation could teach the younger whiners how to cope tbh.

@hamstersarse

The below illustrates that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Questions that are not answered IMO are:

• 'Do lockdowns actually help? If so, is that balanced against the harm that they cause effectively? We have all sorts of data on the harm that lockdowns cause emerging, so we can calculate this balance more efficiently. Also, we have data, such as the attached that seem to show that lockdowns do not have a significant impact on the transmission rate anyway? We need to be very clear that the data supports further lockdowns (and existing ones) It may feel like it helps, but that is not enough.'

Well, I think that it is clear that lockdowns do help. The r number went from about 2.5-3 pre lockdown to 0.7, and in some areas, 0.4 during lockdown. Cases and deaths also decreased significantly.

• 'Basing our policy on cases is really treacherous. The PCR testing is almost universally questioned by the scientists as being an accurate reflection of actual cases. This needs to be bottomed out - if we are basing public policy on the case data, it needs to be accurate. So the levels of cycling that are acceptable in the PCR test - what are they? We currently go to ~45 when a lot of scientists are saying that we should not be going beyond 35 because it will be picking up old fragments of virus and not even neessarily Covid-19. This needs to be categorically correct before we base public policy on it. I can't see how anyone could dispute this?'

Cases clearly have to be a major basis of policy, unless the disease changes, as they statistically lead to hospitalisations. You are questioning the number of cases based on PCR accuracy. However, the government looks at a range of estimates for infection, including the Joinzoe app, which is a survey of actual symptoms. That is currently predicting 264,000 people with symptomatic Covid in the UK. They are not actually as stupid as you think they are

• We need to look at the modeling with the T Cell immunity in mind. Studies are showing that it is possible up to 50% of the population have immunity to the virus because of the T Cell immunity. This has clear implications on how far and wide the virus could actually spread. We do not have a government position on this, even a discussion, and that is unacceptable. Again, these things need to be clear before these measures are implemented.

The implications of the above would be clearly seen within the rate of increase of infections and the estimated r number. If 50% of the population had immunity, then the r number would be half pre lockdown WITH NO ADDITIONAL MEASURES. That is clearly not the case

'We do not have a government position on this, even a discussion, and that is unacceptable. Again, these things need to be clear before these measures are implemented.'

There is a continuous discussion going on and an adjustment of measures based on the input of both scientists and economists. We can never have total clarity about the impact of a brand new virus. Measures need to be implemented on a best guess and risk minimisation basis (both health and economic).

This is Matt Hancock’s concerning response to a very reasonable question put to him in the Commons. It appears he does not have to answer to anyone.

twitter.com/aiannucci/status/1312671073440235520?s=21

Severe for example, is elderly people not being able to see their families for 7 months.

Amnesty International have already described that as a violation to human rights

I believe Amnesty also said discharging untested patients from hospital was an infringement of their human rights. This is definitely something to be cross with Govt for.