I entirely agree that the ever changing rules and exceptions of that nature do not help in the least bit.

I must have read versions of 'they'd have died soon anyway' about 20 times in this thread. As per usual its the same one dimensional take which may well factor in a persons age and health, but ignores the fact that life expectancy is completely different for someone say aged 80 as it is when someone is born (since the generic 'life expectancy' in heavily skewed by year deaths). The average person alive aged 80 now has near a decade of life ahead of them. It would be nice if people took multiple reference points on board as part of a holistic view that extends beyond a propogandised push.

As for the economy, I full appreciate that the announcement of this second lockdown will no doubt have a devastating impact on many and that while there is a health case for it, there is also an economic case against. My thoughts just prior to this announcement were "Businesses closed but schools open might not even achieve the kind of drop the government is hoping for anyway, so that is a real concern if they're going to force the country and parts of the economy to shut down again. Maybe local lockdowns in especially hard hit areas is the best compromise to continue with, even though they appear to be eager to move beyond it. However and whenever we emerge from this, the virus and attempts to deal with it will have taken its pound of flesh in one way or another."

I don't envy the government as whatever approach they choose they'll get it in the neck from one group or another. I prefer to discuss these matters in a sense that takes various points on board. Problem being that a few on here hold a more 'echo chamber' and 'off the shelf' outlook and if you highlight one perspective that they feel goes against their 'tribe', they ignore absolutely everything you've said other than the one line they disagree with.

The 'vices' angle is an interesting topic really as it highlights where a person's desire to live their own life and make unhealthy choices intersects with their obligation towards others.

Choosing to smoke, drink or have a poor diet is a personal choice that primarily impacts your own health. Covid though is a virus where an individual's denial or selfish behaviour can cause countless others to become infected. This in turn can result in serious or even grave consequences soon after in the case of the elderly or vulnerable. A better analogy might be to say that it's absolutely fine to drink and drive (as some may well frequently 'get away with it', but fundamentally it takes liberties with other peoples safety).

It could be said that smoking can directly impact others health over time too, which is precisely why most nations have laws regarding smoking in pubs, shops, public transport. Even though the immediate risk to others is very small with smoking, it's understood that it's not acceptable to expose others to it. If people had a more community minded approach towards wearing good quality masks (as they do in Asian countries to very positive effect), hand washing and other sensible restrictions we're both proponents of we would likely be in a somewhat different place now. Instead some swan around infecting people and others are routinely critical of prudent and basic steps which support the good health of their fellow man. None of which helps us make good decisions with the regard to the balance between health and the economy. It's instead just noise and self indulgence that gets in the way.

Edited by BlueJay (31 Oct 2020 9.51pm)

Neither have I but that little weasel doesn’t stop.

COYP

Too many people in shops since masks became mandatory, and we had so many people say they may not make any more difference ut we should try it. And what happened with something introduced that may not make any difference? Let everyone go in as normal. Too many idiots thinking they’re doing the right thing.

COYP

One thing SAGE have been a bit clearer and logical on is the effects of the options on restrictions. Keeping schools open has a moderate impact on Covid infections whereas closing schools has a high impact on non Covid issues for pupils, families and their jobs. This is why schools stay open. I never really was on the side of being against closing pubs but not schools, if reducing the infections is of course the aim. But reducing infections by restrictions and lockdowns shouldn’t be the policy of a country that claims it has the welfare of everyone in mind rather than just saying it and putting a cloth on.

See, I’d be out there buying food for those who need it, and did so under lockdown and shielding. I can guarantee there’s sanctimonious tw@ts around that talk a good game but do little else.

Edited by Rudi Hedman (31 Oct 2020 10.45pm)

COYP