Will this level of cases now just be acceptable?

[Tuba437]

Just having a think to myself. We're now at around 30k cases a day in general. The 7 day average daily deaths is about 89 (this was for around 45-50k cases a day). We can assume that I a month or so deaths will be at around 60 a day.

Over a year that works out at about 21k worth of deaths. Will this just be the acceptable number. We know the vaccine doesn't stop the spread so I highly doubt were ever just going to get down to sub 5k cases a day again.

21k is considered a very mild flu death rate for the year. We have a new virus around now so more deaths a year are going to be a thing whether we like it or not.

I also think red list countries should only be for countries with worrying variants. If I don't have to isolate if my wife tests positive (just daily testing) then why on earth would I have to spend 1500 on a government hotel to quarantine as I've been to a country with a lower covid rate than us?

Sorry about the rant.

Why are you so cross about someone expressing a commonly held opinion that's different to yours/

@herecomesthsun,

That is a very blinkered perspective.

We should do the small things to allow everyone to live their lives as much as possible.

Masks in crowded indoor spaces is just common sense, as is social distance, within reason.

Businesses can decide how to play it. Those who are comfortable with no distance can go to restaurants where the tables are shoved together, those who want distance can choose restaurants with wider spaced tables.

OTOH, the idea that people won’t judge selfish behaviour is not reasonable. Why do you think it has never been ok to sneeze in someone’s face, and why has spitting always been frowned upon? Because, over years, we don’t want to be infected by others.

If everyone decides to behave as in 2019 this autumn, I strongly suspect we will get another lockdown. Apparently we are currently at 50% of normal contacts and infection is stable. If we ramp this up to 100%, we will be depressingly back in lockdown by November.

Stable infection we can live with, exponential increase always leads to too much demand on hospitals and a lockdown (or at least many more restrictions).

@TheKeatingFive

In which case you're free to feel comfortalbe in the extended gazebo. It just shouldn't be imposed on businesses

Exactly

We need to shift the thinking here. This is not some brief emergency period anymore, it’s the rest of our lives.

Giving people more choices is great, but dictating what others do so that you feel more ‘comfortable’ isn’t acceptable anymore.

So.. not dictating. At all.

I will just be voting. With my feet and my money.

Businesses that find a way to have safer dining etc are likely to have an easier time of it over a "difficult winter" - in my opinion.

As things stand, this isn't going to be mandated, but there is a very good business case for it.

@herecomesthsun

Why are you so cross about someone expressing a commonly held opinion that's different to yours/

Nobody's bothered about your opinion. You're just being obtuse. Nobody cares if you prefer to diine on riverside gazebos, or otherwise live your life in a way you consider 'sensible'.

If you belive all legally mandated social distancing rules should be abandoned, and individuals and businesses should be free to make their own choices, then we're in agreement.

[quote TheReluctantPhoenix]@herecomesthsun,

That is a very blinkered perspective.

We should do the small things to allow everyone to live their lives as much as possible.

Masks in crowded indoor spaces is just common sense, as is social distance, within reason.

Businesses can decide how to play it. Those who are comfortable with no distance can go to restaurants where the tables are shoved together, those who want distance can choose restaurants with wider spaced tables.

OTOH, the idea that people won’t judge selfish behaviour is not reasonable. Why do you think it has never been ok to sneeze in someone’s face, and why has spitting always been frowned upon? Because, over years, we don’t want to be infected by others.

If everyone decides to behave as in 2019 this autumn, I strongly suspect we will get another lockdown. Apparently we are currently at 50% of normal contacts and infection is stable. If we ramp this up to 100%, we will be depressingly back in lockdown by November.

Stable infection we can live with, exponential increase always leads to too much demand on hospitals and a lockdown (or at least many more restrictions).[/quote]
I entirely agree with that.

Are you agreeing with me here? Isn't this what I have been saying?

I see we're back to 'well, if it's just older people and those with underlying conditions that die, it's ok'. I'm not sure that... it is? My friend's sister died of Covid (of it, not with it) at the age of 42 a few months ago. Her only underlying condition was that she was very slightly overweight. Not a big old fattie like me, who I assume everyone would be fine with dying as my BMI is quite high (I am trying really hard to reduce it, to be clear) but just a little bit of extra weight - she was a size 12-14. No other underlying conditions. Nothing. So - is her death ok? Where is the line?

I'm not advocating for zero Covid, not at all. I'm desperate for things to get back to normal too. But we do have to be careful when we're casually deciding who is ok to die.

I will just be voting. With my feet and my money.

Great.

Everyone will be doing this and many won’t go with your idea of sensible. Trying to tell everyone that you are more so isn’t going to go down well.

Just do what you choose to and let others do same without any value attached to it.

Not dictating anything.

That really depends on how much accommodation you’re expecting from businesses. Eating outside is lovely in the summer and businesses tend to like to accommodate it. Winter is a different story.

But if you’re happy for your options to be quite limited, I guess that’s fine.

Ok to rephrase without using the word "sensible"

People who "want less infection to be circulating" will continue to do these things.

People who "don't think this would affect them much and don't care about infecting others" will be less bothered?

And of course, it is now up to the individual and not legally mandated.

But we do have to be careful when we're casually deciding who is ok to die.

Young people do, sadly die, from all kinds of causes, many of which we could do more to prevent.

Covid isn’t unusual in that regard.

Very happy for my options to be infected with coronavirus, flu and RSV to be a bit more limited thanks @TheKeatingFive

@herecomesthsun

Ok to rephrase without using the word "sensible"

People who "want less infection to be circulating" will continue to do these things.

People who "don't think this would affect them much and don't care about infecting others" will be less bothered?

And of course, it is now up to the individual and not legally mandated.

No not going with this

Still value judgements re caring or not caring

How about

• nothing is legally mandated people will behave on a spectrum and everyone is free to do so.

Points that make one sound better than the other not going with that

Very happy for my options to be infected with coronavirus, flu and RSV to be a bit more limited thanks

Knock yourself out

The elephant in the room however is that the difference in behaviour is related to people not wanting to be infected with covid/flu/RSV. And also not wanting a cocktail of these to infect others. However you want to put it.

Very happy to go to a party/ theatre etc otherwise if this wasn't a problem.

@herecomesthsun

Ok to rephrase without using the word "sensible"

People who "want less infection to be circulating" will continue to do these things.

People who "don't think this would affect them much and don't care about infecting others" will be less bothered?

And of course, it is now up to the individual and not legally mandated.

Ah, so the judgemental smuggery has finally come out.

Sooner or later it always does.

Next time I pass a riverside gazebo, I will think how morally superior all those folks are. And sensible. Very sensible.

@herecomesthsun

The elephant in the room however is that the difference in behaviour is related to people not wanting to be infected with covid/flu/RSV. And also not wanting a cocktail of these to infect others. However you want to put it.

Very happy to go to a party/ theatre etc otherwise if this wasn't a problem.

Not an elephant in the room at all.

I choose the risk over SD

So why is not wanting to infect people etc smug?

Why isn't it just... sensible?

@herecomesthsun

So why is not wanting to infect people etc smug?

Why isn't it just... sensible?

Just concentrate on your own view on your risk.

And let others do the same.

@herecomesthsun

So why is not wanting to infect people etc smug?

Why isn't it just... sensible?

Because I consider the risk of 'infecting people' to be low enough to be worth taking.

And because I don't just all human activities in the context of 'infecting people'. You might think that 'sensible' - not to mention oh so very morally superior - but I think it's a sad and dismal worldview.

So this is a discussion board on which it is permissible to consider the broader picture?

I'm not actually judging people morally you know, just trying to discuss useful ways forwards. Using, I think, fairly non judgemental language.

I'm sorry if I seem to have hit a nerve, guys.

@herecomesthsun

So why is not wanting to infect people etc smug?

Why isn't it just... sensible?

Odds are we are all going to catch it at some point. Obviously no one wants to deliberately infect anyone but Delta is so contagious that unless you isolate yourself permanently then there's always a risk of catching it no matter how "sensible" you are. I currently have Covid, caught off a work colleague and another work colleague has caught it too, she sits about 6m away from the rest of us and still caught it. Both of them are double vaxxed and I am single vaxxed.

Because I consider the risk of 'infecting people' to be low enough to be worth taking.

Well at least you acknowledge that your decisions inevitably involve a risk to others. Do you also acknowledge that other people's assessment of the magnitude of the risk that you pose to them may differ?

I think it’s not neutral language that’s the issue.

None of us need any value placed on our behaviour anymore - it’s actually what I appreciate most now.

@herecomesthsun

So why is not wanting to infect people etc smug?

Why isn't it just... sensible?

I don’t know. Why were you happy to eat out, gazebo or no gazebo, knowing that the people making your food for you were still producing it indoors in a busy restaurant kitchen?

Presumably the answer is “because that seemed like a fractionally small risk of increasing infection rates that didn’t outweigh my reasons for eating out”, which is entirely fair of you. But you’re making the same calculation everybody else is and drawing your line in a slightly different place to the next person, you’re not making Sensible choices vs their Reckless choices.

@MarshaBradyo,

Do you feel the same about all behaviours which affect others?

Are you entirely non judgmental about people who don’t recycle and just throw their rubbish anywhere, or don’t bother to service or MOT their cars as they have done ‘their own risk assessment’ and their car is ‘safe’?

We are not used to living with a circulating infectious disease with relatively high morbidity. Thankfully , vaccines have reduced this substantially, but have not eliminated it.

When pollution was not a problem, building a coal fired power station in central London seemed a great behaviour. Not so much any more. Threats change and the ethics around behaviour change.

You can do what you want within the law (and, in the UK, even the law is enforced slackly). However, in the same way as you might judge a litter lout, people will judge COVID louts.