The Lemon Fool

This is getting very close to "my opinion is as valid as your facts".

John

redsturgeon wrote:I will be interested to see what the plans are for July 19th.

Will they be dropping the need for self isolation and test and trace?

The reason I ask is that in my city the number of places having shut down in the last few days is getting out of hand. These include nurseries, pubs, restaurants, coffee shops and hairdressers.

We can open up and reduce mitigations as much as we like but if the current test and trace regulations stay in force then we can look forward to lock down by default as cases rise.

John

The government seems to have addressed our (your and my) concerns - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57733276 , or at least it's addressed my concern to my satisfaction at this time.

Covid: Self-isolation to be scrapped for double-jabbed and children in England

[ Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57733276 ]

Not until 16th August for some reason though. I wonder why that is? Maybe that's the point when they expect sufficient 2nd vaccine doses to have "bedded in" such that some target percentage of the adult population is considered to have full double-dose vaccine efficacy? On July 19th, 4 weeks before the 16 August policy change, that percentage should already be somewhere between 62.1% and 64.0% of the adult population (62.1% if you assume 21 days for full efficacy and 64.0% if you assume 14 days). At the moment second doses are going up about 0.2 - 0.3% of the adult population per day so if an average of 0.25% increase per day is maintained those extra 4 weeks between 19th July and 16th August should add 7% to those totals for a total of 69.1% - 71.0% of the adult population fully protected by their vaccines.

That delay before implementing the new policy seems prudent, maybe even erring on an abundance of caution, and might well result in some increasingly social disruption (hospitality, entertainment etc) as cases grow between now and 16th August. I suspect that effect might get somewhat diminished though if people start jumping the gun and, knowing that in a few weeks they wouldn't have to self-isolate anyway, might become more likely to ignore a self-isolation request coming in from their Covid-19 tracing app. As long as you don't tell anyone no one can know about such an alert anyway.

- Julian

Just listened to Boris...that's all clear now then...

We will be dropping most of the lockdown regulations on July 19th but it is up to everyone to operate with extreme caution since Chris Witty says that we will save lives by not going too fast.

John

redsturgeon wrote:Just listened to Boris...that's all clear now then...

We will be dropping most of the lockdown regulations on July 19th but it is up to everyone to operate with extreme caution since Chris Witty says that we will save lives by not going too fast.

But that was always the plan i.e. to replace a one-size-fits-all centralised mandate with a reliance on individual prudence and judgement.

Lootman wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:Just listened to Boris...that's all clear now then...

We will be dropping most of the lockdown regulations on July 19th but it is up to everyone to operate with extreme caution since Chris Witty says that we will save lives by not going too fast.

But that was always the plan i.e. to replace a one-size-fits-all centralised mandate with a reliance on individual prudence and judgement.

Interesting use of the word 'plan'. From the press conference, it sounds that Whitty thinks current levels of mask-wearing should remain. From Monday, legal restrictions on mask-wearing disappear (presumably not in hospital operating theatres, but who knows!). So the Great British public in its infinite wisdom will decide the optimum level of mask-wearing, and will of course be held responsible for the consequences.

If the public really can be trusted to do exactly the right thing, why have the government introduced all the Covid-related laws over the past year and a bit? Maybe we should also remove road and traffic restrictions and see how that works out? More freedom, smaller government, happy days!

zico wrote:

Lootman wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:Just listened to Boris...that's all clear now then...

We will be dropping most of the lockdown regulations on July 19th but it is up to everyone to operate with extreme caution since Chris Witty says that we will save lives by not going too fast.

But that was always the plan i.e. to replace a one-size-fits-all centralised mandate with a reliance on individual prudence and judgement.

Interesting use of the word 'plan'. From the press conference, it sounds that Whitty thinks current levels of mask-wearing should remain. From Monday, legal restrictions on mask-wearing disappear (presumably not in hospital operating theatres, but who knows!). So the Great British public in its infinite wisdom will decide the optimum level of mask-wearing, and will of course be held responsible for the consequences.

If the public really can be trusted to do exactly the right thing, why have the government introduced all the Covid-related laws over the past year and a bit? Maybe we should also remove road and traffic restrictions and see how that works out? More freedom, smaller government, happy days!

It is more about the fact that not everyone is the same, nor subject to the same risks. Being able to customise your response to suit your own situation is the essence of choice. So for example if the speed limit is 50, you are free to choose to drive at 40 if that makes you feel safer,

Lootman wrote:

zico wrote:

Lootman wrote:But that was always the plan i.e. to replace a one-size-fits-all centralised mandate with a reliance on individual prudence and judgement.

Interesting use of the word 'plan'. From the press conference, it sounds that Whitty thinks current levels of mask-wearing should remain. From Monday, legal restrictions on mask-wearing disappear (presumably not in hospital operating theatres, but who knows!). So the Great British public in its infinite wisdom will decide the optimum level of mask-wearing, and will of course be held responsible for the consequences.

If the public really can be trusted to do exactly the right thing, why have the government introduced all the Covid-related laws over the past year and a bit? Maybe we should also remove road and traffic restrictions and see how that works out? More freedom, smaller government, happy days!

It is more about the fact that not everyone is the same, nor subject to the same risks. Being able to customise your response to suit your own situation is the essence of choice. So for example if the speed limit is 50, you are free to choose to drive at 40 if that makes you feel safer,

And if you feel that you wish to drive at 60 mph in that same speed limit...not your choice.

If you wish to smoke indoors in a restaurant, not your choice.

If you wish to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, not your choice.

If you wish to smoke marijuana in the UK, not your choice.

If you do not wish to wear a mask to protect others in a crowded indoor space...your choice.

OK I get it now, we are all different and individual freedom is important...sometimes. Very logical.

John

redsturgeon wrote:If you do not wish to wear a mask to protect others in a crowded indoor space...your choice.

But that makes you very selfish and inconsiderate of others (IMHO)

pje16 wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:If you do not wish to wear a mask to protect others in a crowded indoor space...your choice.

But that makes you very selfish and inconsiderate of others (IMHO)

Indeed.

Lootman wrote:

zico wrote:

Lootman wrote:But that was always the plan i.e. to replace a one-size-fits-all centralised mandate with a reliance on individual prudence and judgement.

Interesting use of the word 'plan'. From the press conference, it sounds that Whitty thinks current levels of mask-wearing should remain. From Monday, legal restrictions on mask-wearing disappear (presumably not in hospital operating theatres, but who knows!). So the Great British public in its infinite wisdom will decide the optimum level of mask-wearing, and will of course be held responsible for the consequences.

If the public really can be trusted to do exactly the right thing, why have the government introduced all the Covid-related laws over the past year and a bit? Maybe we should also remove road and traffic restrictions and see how that works out? More freedom, smaller government, happy days!

It is more about the fact that not everyone is the same, nor subject to the same risks. Being able to customise your response to suit your own situation is the essence of choice. So for example if the speed limit is 50, you are free to choose to drive at 40 if that makes you feel safer,

And therein lies the fundamental misunderstanding. I don't care if you're a super healthy 18 year old with no pre-existing conditions or a 90 year old obese male with diabetes, COPD and hypertension. If you are infected and sit next to me on the bus then you risk infecting me and other people on the bus regardless of your own risk profile, a risk that you wearing a mask will at least reduce albeit not eliminate entirely.

Your analogy opens up an obvious follow-up. Someone might want to drive at 40MPH if they feel safer but I'm such a good driver that if I ever got onto a race track with Lewis Hamilton I'd beat him easily, with only one hand on the wheel and texting my mates at the same time, so I'm going to drive at 100MPH down narrow lanes, past schools, and wherever else I want - and with a few beers inside me just to get a bit of a buzz going. FREEDOM!!!!!

- Julian

To continue driving analogies, being required to wear a mask is not equivalent to being required to wear seatbelt or helmet, it's more like being required to be sober when driving.

Scott.

Julian wrote:

Lootman wrote:

zico wrote:Interesting use of the word 'plan'. From the press conference, it sounds that Whitty thinks current levels of mask-wearing should remain. From Monday, legal restrictions on mask-wearing disappear (presumably not in hospital operating theatres, but who knows!). So the Great British public in its infinite wisdom will decide the optimum level of mask-wearing, and will of course be held responsible for the consequences.

If the public really can be trusted to do exactly the right thing, why have the government introduced all the Covid-related laws over the past year and a bit? Maybe we should also remove road and traffic restrictions and see how that works out? More freedom, smaller government, happy days!

It is more about the fact that not everyone is the same, nor subject to the same risks. Being able to customise your response to suit your own situation is the essence of choice. So for example if the speed limit is 50, you are free to choose to drive at 40 if that makes you feel safer,

And therein lies the fundamental misunderstanding. I don't care if you're a super healthy 18 year old with no pre-existing conditions or a 90 year old obese male with diabetes, COPD and hypertension. If you are infected and sit next to me on the bus then you risk infecting me and other people on the bus regardless of your own risk profile, a risk that you wearing a mask will at least reduce albeit not eliminate entirely.

Your analogy opens up an obvious follow-up. Someone might want to drive at 40MPH if they feel safer but I'm such a good driver that if I ever got onto a race track with Lewis Hamilton I'd beat him easily, with only one hand on the wheel and texting my mates at the same time, so I'm going to drive at 100MPH down narrow lanes, past schools, and wherever else I want - and with a few beers inside me just to get a bit of a buzz going. FREEDOM!!!!!

No, it is you who misunderstands. If you are paranoid then never leave your home. Then whether or not I wear a mask is irrelevent.

Lootman wrote:No, it is you who misunderstands. If you are paranoid then never leave your home. Then whether or not I wear a mask is irrelevent.

Paranoia? That sounds like you are think there is no increased risk, people are just scared of nothing.
Both weekly hospitalisations and deaths are three times higher than they were a month ago.

murraypaul wrote:

Lootman wrote:No, it is you who misunderstands. If you are paranoid then never leave your home. Then whether or not I wear a mask is irrelevent.

Paranoia? That sounds like you are think there is no increased risk, people are just scared of nothing.
Both weekly hospitalisations and deaths are three times higher than they were a month ago.

Neither, my point was more that the increased numbers are from a very low base with a vaccinated population. So the tactics that were relevent a year ago make no sense now.

Lootman wrote:It is more about the fact that not everyone is the same, nor subject to the same risks. Being able to customise your response to suit your own situation is the essence of choice. So for example if the speed limit is 50, you are free to choose to drive at 40 if that makes you feel safer,

Err... Misses the point! (You really are hung up on this 'individual choice' thingamagoo!)

Unfortunately, pandemics just kind of ARE social diseases (in the literal sense), they are NOT individual choice kind of things.

With your car analogy, I and others may well feel "safer" at 40 mph, but will we feel or BE "safer" from those who "choose" 50 mph, or from those who "choose" +60 mph?

Lootman wrote:No, it is you who misunderstands. If you are paranoid then never leave your home. Then whether or not I wear a mask is irrelevent.

Again! Yes it is... because I (and or others) might be "paranoid" due to all you 'free thinkers' going around without masks, during a pandemic.

Unfortunately, Lootman, some aspects of reality are, by their very nature, 'socialistic'! A pandemic is surely one prime example of this. I get that this is problematical for you.

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote:No, it is you who misunderstands. If you are paranoid then never leave your home. Then whether or not I wear a mask is irrelevent.

Again! Yes it is... because I (and or others) might be "paranoid" due to all you 'free thinkers' going around without masks, during a pandemic.

Unfortunately, Lootman, some aspects of reality are, by their very nature, 'socialistic'! A pandemic is surely one prime example of this. I get that this is problematical for you.

One more time. If you do not like others being maskless then avoid them. How do the rest of us avoid people like you mandating your values on us?

Lootman wrote:One more time. If you do not like others being maskless then avoid them. How do the rest of us avoid people like you mandating your values on us?

One more time. What of people like you "mandating your values" on us?

AGAIN! - It's a pandemic, a highly infectious pathogen. It is NOT a free choice:

"Excuse me Sir! Would you like to be infected with an infectious disease?" "Err... No, not today thanks - another time, perhaps?"

How do we "avoid" people like you, without having our freedom infringed?

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote:One more time. If you do not like others being maskless then avoid them. How do the rest of us avoid people like you mandating your values on us?

One more time. What of people like you "mandating your values" on us?

AGAIN! - It's a pandemic, a highly infectious pathogen. It is NOT a free choice:

"Excuse me Sir! Would you like to be infected with an infectious disease?" "Err... No, not today thanks - another time, perhaps?"

How do we "avoid" people like you, without having our freedom infringed?

Yes, I get that you want to control me but you do not want me to control you.

Funny thing is that I fight for your right to live the way you wish to, but you cannot say the same thing.

Lootman wrote:Yes, I get that you want to control me but you do not want me to control you.

Funny thing is that I fight for your right to live the way you wish to, but you cannot say the same thing.

You see, that's the mistake. Right there.

Not all situations are neatly symmetrical. A pandemic is a good example of an asymmetrical situation. There are many others.