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.

@user1477391263

Plus, I've never encountered anyone who says 'we could just keep masks' and actually belives we should 'just' do that. Invariably they'll slip in 'and social distancing too', as though a measure which makes normal life impossible in so many ways were a trivial thing.

THIS. I don't actually mind wearing masks indoors, but they do seem to be a bit of a "thin edge of the wedge" if you know what I mean.

What about people who are getting on with life, but take care to give you lots of space to get past on the pavement if they can? Isn't that generally speaking a good thing?

Good posts @GoldenOmber

Good posts, @herecomesthsun

My db (nhs worker) is currently isolating for ten days because someone he lives with has tested positive. Loads of hospital staff off even though they don't have it. They will do away with testing soon probably - it's causing more problems than it's solving.
Someone on the covid board mentioned it would be very interesting to see how many people test in public v private sector. Don't underestimate how many people out there will be thoroughly enjoying their fully paid time at home (my db included)

I am a doctor currently at home because Dd & DH are positive. It is a fucking nightmare; organising multiple PCR tests, cooking for everyone (Covids banned from kitchen) cleaning and trying to conduct virtual consultations in a vaguely professional manner, call in to teams meetings, you get the picture. I would 3000X rather be in the hospital doing my job (which I happen to love) well. I find your post offensive especially given the last 18 months. I know noone in the NHS who hasn't given it their all and isn't still trying to do their best for the patients.

Anyone who thinks people are more likely to self isolate if they atom full pay and less likely to if they are not getting paid is living in cloud cuckoo lany

My db (nhs worker) is currently isolating for ten days because someone he lives with has tested positive. Loads of hospital staff off even though they don't have it. They will do away with testing soon probably - it's causing more problems than it's solving.
Someone on the covid board mentioned it would be very interesting to see how many people test in public v private sector. Don't underestimate how many people out there will be thoroughly enjoying their fully paid time at home (my db included)

I am a doctor currently at home because Dd & DH are positive. It is a fucking nightmare; organising multiple PCR tests, cooking for everyone (Covids banned from kitchen) cleaning and trying to conduct virtual consultations in a vaguely professional manner, call in to teams meetings, you get the picture. I would 3000X rather be in the hospital doing my job (which I happen to love) well. I find your post offensive especially given the last 18 months. I know noone in the NHS who hasn't given it their all and isn't still trying to do their best for the
I though self isolation ended in England at least for double jabbed yet many in here comment on it still being an issue. Not just above two quoted.
Maybe nit in Ebglabd or not double jabbed or us it different in NHS?

@Backofbeyond50

My db (nhs worker) is currently isolating for ten days because someone he lives with has tested positive. Loads of hospital staff off even though they don't have it. They will do away with testing soon probably - it's causing more problems than it's solving. Someone on the covid board mentioned it would be very interesting to see how many people test in public v private sector. Don't underestimate how many people out there will be thoroughly enjoying their fully paid time at home (my db included)

I am a doctor currently at home because Dd & DH are positive. It is a fucking nightmare; organising multiple PCR tests, cooking for everyone (Covids banned from kitchen) cleaning and trying to conduct virtual consultations in a vaguely professional manner, call in to teams meetings, you get the picture. I would 3000X rather be in the hospital doing my job (which I happen to love) well. I find your post offensive especially given the last 18 months. I know noone in the NHS who hasn't given it their all and isn't still trying to do their best for the
I though self isolation ended in England at least for double jabbed yet many in here comment on it still being an issue. Not just above two quoted.
Maybe nit in Ebglabd or not double jabbed or us it different in NHS?

NHS policy is different as obviously there are vulnerable people to think about. NHS staff still have to isolate if they live with a positive person.

I don’t think about SD anymore.

If other people want to of course it’s up to them.

But it isn't really a choice is it if others get in your face because they have stopped My dh is ECV and he had people right in his face way before restrictions were lifted. One impatient individual nearly knocked him over as he walks slowly as he barged past. Obviously not going to pass on COVID in that way but we all live together and one petdons decisions do affect others
Unless of course posters mean that if people want to retain SD for themselves personally they just stay the fuck home.

Thank you @Waxonwaxoff0. I thought it must be something like that.

my logic is, really, doing what we humanly can to get on with our lives, as best as we can in a pandemic.

Which is fine! But that’s exactly what everyone else is doing too. Drawing the line of ‘sensible actions’ so it includes all the things you fancy doing but not all the things you don’t want to do is a subjective choice you’re making, like everyone else. It doesn’t mean anyone drawing the line in a different place to you doesn’t care about others getting ill.

You are slightly increasing the risk of people getting infected by going out to eat. I am, too. You think it’s still worth that slight increase because you don’t want to sit at home like a hermit. I do, too. So does the person who goes out to eat weekly, or the person who goes clubbing every weekend but still takes an LFT before visiting their Nan in a nursing home.

Sorry @GoldenOmber but your attempts to gloss over the difference in people's behaviour really aren't convincing. Someone eating outside presents (and is subject to) a lower risk than someone eating inside. Someone wearing a mask presents (and is subject to) a lower risk than a non- mask wearer. You may consider that all these scenarios fall within the scope of "sensible behaviour". Others will (reasonably) disagree.

Someone eating outside presents (and is subject to) a lower risk than someone eating inside

Sure. And someone not eating out at all, indoors or out, presents a lower risk than either. I have no issues at all with people making their own decisions to strike this balance, whether they’re more or less risk-averse than mine.

What I do have an issue with is people deciding that the things they quite like doing are ‘sensible’, and the things they don’t personally feel comfortable doing are ‘not sensible’.

Like, as I mentioned previously, another thread where the OP wanted to go to a wedding including service and reception, but didn’t really care about singing in churches so felt that the government should ban that bit of weddings. But only that bit, not all the bits she did want to do herself.

What I do have an issue with is people deciding that the things they quite like doing are ‘sensible’, and the things they don’t personally feel comfortable doing are ‘not sensible’.

Is 'sensible' the new 'essential'?

For the past 19 months we've had folks lecturing others about 'selfish' 'non-essential' activities, which invariably were activities they themselves did not enjoy, and in many cases actively disapproved of.

What I do have an issue with is people deciding that the things they quite like doing are ‘sensible’, and the things they don’t personally feel comfortable doing are ‘not sensible’.

What if we said "less sensible" instead? Sure you would not object to that, given that you accept that the different behaviours present different risk levels?

More fundamentally, why is this an "issue" for you? There's a spectrum of behaviour with evidence suggesting a strong weighting towards the "sensible"/cautious end. Isn't it inevitable that judgments will be made? People routinely judge all sorts of lawful behaviour - rudeness, queue jumping, lying, affairs. Why would this be any different?

@CryingAtTheDiscotheque

Sorry *@GoldenOmber* but your attempts to gloss over the difference in people's behaviour really aren't convincing. Someone eating outside presents (and is subject to) a lower risk than someone eating inside. Someone wearing a mask presents (and is subject to) a lower risk than a non- mask wearer. You may consider that all these scenarios fall within the scope of "sensible behaviour". Others will (reasonably) disagree.

But each scenario already presents a very low risk. The difference between them is virtually immeasurable so it’s not worth getting worked up about.

What if we said "less sensible" instead?

So we would say “going out to eat but sitting in a gazebo for your meal is a Less Sensible behaviour”? I don’t think that would be a particularly helpful way to frame other people’s decision-making, but I suppose it highlights how we decide on ‘sensible’ based on what we want to do anyway.

Like everyone else, I make my own decisions about what I am and am not happy to do. But I would not set out all my own decisions as the ‘sensible’ ones and present them as demonstrating that I care more than others about risk to others. That is because I know my own decision-making is shaped not just by what I think the objective risk to others is, but by what I enjoy doing and what value I put on the activities I’m doing or not doing, and what ‘normal life’ looks like to me. I’m not going to pretend I don’t do that. I’m not going to say “I avoid nightclubs, which is the sensible option” when I never really wanted to go to nightclubs anyway.

Everyone is doing the same thing. Everyone is making value judgements about what’s ‘sensible’ based on what they like doing and what’s convenient for them. “Sensible” is subjective, it’s not purely a synonym for ‘cautious’.

@IcedPurple

What I do have an issue with is people deciding that the things they quite like doing are ‘sensible’, and the things they don’t personally feel comfortable doing are ‘not sensible’.

Is 'sensible' the new 'essential'?

For the past 19 months we've had folks lecturing others about 'selfish' 'non-essential' activities, which invariably were activities they themselves did not enjoy, and in many cases actively disapproved of.

Yes. Plus with added value judgements based on total failure to imagine anyone else not living in their circumstances. “Why do you need to go out to the pub to socialise? Why do you need to take your kids to the public park to run around after a football? Just socialise with your family who share your big comfortable house and exercise with the kids in your nice big garden, like I do!”

People routinely judge all sorts of lawful behaviour - rudeness, queue jumping, lying, affairs

So people going to pubs are in the same league as people who are rude, jump queues, lie and have affairs?

it highlights how we decide on ‘sensible’ based on what we want to do anyway.

No. Sitting in the gazebo is, objectively speaking, the less risky/more sensible behaviour. Ditto wearing masks.

Everyone is making value judgements about what’s ‘sensible’ based on what they like doing and what’s convenient for them.

No, I don't think that is correct. Many CEV people will now have less freedom than before restrictions are lifted, and their decisions aren't about what is "convenient" or what they "like doing" but about what is safe, in the context of others' behaviour.

@IcedPurple

What I do have an issue with is people deciding that the things they quite like doing are ‘sensible’, and the things they don’t personally feel comfortable doing are ‘not sensible’.

Is 'sensible' the new 'essential'?

For the past 19 months we've had folks lecturing others about 'selfish' 'non-essential' activities, which invariably were activities they themselves did not enjoy, and in many cases actively disapproved of.

Probably. It's essentially people trying to justify their own hypocrisy. Things I want to do and have decided are important and ok are sensible, essential, not sociopathic or whatever today's term is. It's the things I don't want to do and don't see as essential that are the problem. Sometimes it's eating out in gazebos, sometimes it's singing at church, sometimes it's a shop selling a thing the person speaking isn't bothered about buying. But the mindset is the same.

@QueenofKattegat

People routinely judge all sorts of lawful behaviour - rudeness, queue jumping, lying, affairs

So people going to pubs are in the same league as people who are rude, jump queues, lie and have affairs?

Er...no and that is not what I said! Simply making the broader point that lawfulness is not the exclusive criterion when judging human behaviour. "I'm allowed to" doesn't, in real life, provide a get out of jail free card! But I expect you understood that, really.

No. Sitting in the gazebo is, objectively speaking, the less risky/more sensible behaviour.

Really? It’s less risky than not going out to eat at all? Despite all the risks to having a busy kitchen full of people making and delivering food to your gazebo table?

Many CEV people will now have less freedom than before restrictions are lifted, and their decisions aren't about what is "convenient" or what they "like doing" but about what is safe, in the context of others' behaviour.

I’m not suggesting that people are only making decisions on the basis of what they like and what is convenient. Just that this is, always and inevitably, part of how we make decisions. Including for CEV people.

@GoldenOmber I meant that sitting in the gazebo is objectively less risky/sensible than sitting indoors. Ditto mask wearing. And where you have. range of possible behaviours, each presenting different levels of risk to others, judgment is bound to ensue. It's human nature.

I meant that sitting in the gazebo is objectively less risky/sensible than sitting indoors.

Yes, I know. But that’s what I mean about drawing the line of ‘sensible’ around things we already want to do. It’s objectively ‘less risky/sensible’ than not going out to eat at all. So is it an objectively Not Sensible thing to do?

And, to clarify, I don’t think there’s anything wrong in saying “disregarding things that don’t suit me, like avoiding eating out altogether, what’s the most sensible choice of all the actions that do suit me?” It’s a reasonable approach. It only becomes hypocritical if we pretend we’re not doing that first bit.