Is this how we get through the pandemic?

[servodude]

Then likely such a referendum would be as phony as the last one.

"Proper and sensibly informed" = phrased to skew the result to the outcome I personally prefer.

Well, obviously you know all about that.

Best thing about the COVID thing being over.....Pantomime season can start again

"Oh no it can't!"
"Sure it can... ...that's just your opinion!

All the "can't debate/so won't debate", "if you asked 50 other Fu**nuts they'd say the same as me" trite stuff can get recycled...again!

Can't wait... did anyone bring popcorn?

"Bring doon the cloot!"

-sd

[servodude]

So, you're saying that the 120k deaths for flu and pneumonia last year is the correct one for comparison?
In contrast to the figures presented by the folk whose figures they are?
What's your motive?

Note: I'm not really interested in hand waving or politics other than those that might drive folk to fibs and misrepresentation

-sd

The "folks whose figures they are" quote both. They are literally both there (with an explanation of what they mean on the link).

I have no motive here (do you?).

Use whatever figures you want, the higher or the lower. So long as there is consistency across time, and between them, that is what is important surely. For me the "dying with covid", or "having Covid on the death certificate" explanation is closer to the "involving" number. But use the lower if that is "better". There are 500ish people dying weekly "from" influenza/pneumonia, fairly consistently for many years. Covid is currently at 1,000 weekly, but has been much lower too since vaccinations have emerged.

Both causes of these deaths are tragic at the individual and personal level, but from a societal perspective the "preventable" influenza/pneumonia ones have been accepted as "normal", and will likely continue to be so. Covid deaths, be they at double the influenza/pneumonia ones, or half (depending on which column you take) are now also beginning to be seen by society as similarly "preventable" but "normal". If society is consistent in how it views deaths regardless of the specific cause, this might be considered the direction of travel on how Covid is going to be seen, relative to other large killers.

Can't you see you've taken the "other" column for the flu/pneumonia from the one the COVID figures are in?

It looks like you intended to deceive; if that's an accident fair enough

-sd

[dealtn]

So, you're saying that the 120k deaths for flu and pneumonia last year is the correct one for comparison?
In contrast to the figures presented by the folk whose figures they are?
What's your motive?

Note: I'm not really interested in hand waving or politics other than those that might drive folk to fibs and misrepresentation

-sd

The "folks whose figures they are" quote both. They are literally both there (with an explanation of what they mean on the link).

I have no motive here (do you?).

Use whatever figures you want, the higher or the lower. So long as there is consistency across time, and between them, that is what is important surely. For me the "dying with covid", or "having Covid on the death certificate" explanation is closer to the "involving" number. But use the lower if that is "better". There are 500ish people dying weekly "from" influenza/pneumonia, fairly consistently for many years. Covid is currently at 1,000 weekly, but has been much lower too since vaccinations have emerged.

Both causes of these deaths are tragic at the individual and personal level, but from a societal perspective the "preventable" influenza/pneumonia ones have been accepted as "normal", and will likely continue to be so. Covid deaths, be they at double the influenza/pneumonia ones, or half (depending on which column you take) are now also beginning to be seen by society as similarly "preventable" but "normal". If society is consistent in how it views deaths regardless of the specific cause, this might be considered the direction of travel on how Covid is going to be seen, relative to other large killers.

Can't you see you've taken the "other" column for the flu/pneumonia from the one the COVID figures are in?

It looks like you intended to deceive; if that's an accident fair enough

-sd

Can't you see I have explained why I chose that column, and also explained that I don't mind if the alternative column is used instead?

The argument is the same. The discussion is about how the public will be looking at Covid going forward.

If you think the public won't (or perhaps shouldn't) undertake a waning in the absorption of the data (of whatever description), and the adherence to politician's attempts to decide the degree of policy response, perhaps you can articulate that view as part of the discussion?

[Lootman]

Yesterday I took a 2 hour train journey. I would estimate that 20% of the passengers in my carriage were wearing face coverings. I did. On the tube adherence was better, maybe 60%.

Then to a nice restaurant in Shoreditch last night (150 quid for two nice) and not a single diner wore a face covering at any point. The servers did and it was annoying because it can be very hard to understand what the server is saying, especially if they wear a tight fabric mask rather than the blue throwaway ones. It got to be quite annoying when she had to explain the octopus dish three times before we could understand.

Anyway my point is that people are continuing to be more relaxed about Covid, 1,000 deaths a week or not. It is no longer seen as an existential threat, but merely as another one of life's little annoyances that has to be tolerated.

[XFool]

I suspect that if there were a referendum tomorrow on whether to accept 1,000 deaths a week as the price for our restored freedoms, then it would win.

Which is exactly why referenda aren't good ways to make policy. It's all about question framing. If the question was 'Shall we save 800 lives per week by vaccinating virtually all schoolkids and re-imposing mask-wearing on public transport, shops and workplaces' the answer would of course be yes.

Your referendum proposal conflates 'mild temporary inconveniences' with 'freedom' by pretending the only choice is between no restrictions and full lockdown with people not allowed to leave their homes.

We could tinker with the question wording for sure. But the idea is simple enough. Given a choice of 1,000 deaths a week perpetually and maintaining the current level of restrictions, or a much lower number of deaths than that with mask mandates etc., then the voters would choose the former.

I see... So this is a "referendum" where you get to frame the (phony) question AND already know the answer in advance? Hardly seems worth the expense of going ahead with it.

[dealtn]

Which is exactly why referenda aren't good ways to make policy. It's all about question framing. If the question was 'Shall we save 800 lives per week by vaccinating virtually all schoolkids and re-imposing mask-wearing on public transport, shops and workplaces' the answer would of course be yes.

Your referendum proposal conflates 'mild temporary inconveniences' with 'freedom' by pretending the only choice is between no restrictions and full lockdown with people not allowed to leave their homes.

We could tinker with the question wording for sure. But the idea is simple enough. Given a choice of 1,000 deaths a week perpetually and maintaining the current level of restrictions, or a much lower number of deaths than that with mask mandates etc., then the voters would choose the former.

I see... So this is a "referendum" where you get to frame the (phony) question AND already know the answer in advance? Hardly seems worth the expense of going ahead with it.

Let's have another then.

What question would you (hypothetically) pose to an electorate? Make it as neutral as you like. What answer do you think the public would give?

[XFool]

We could tinker with the question wording for sure. But the idea is simple enough. Given a choice of 1,000 deaths a week perpetually and maintaining the current level of restrictions, or a much lower number of deaths than that with mask mandates etc., then the voters would choose the former.

I see... So this is a "referendum" where you get to frame the (phony) question AND already know the answer in advance? Hardly seems worth the expense of going ahead with it.

Let's have another then.

What question would you (hypothetically) pose to an electorate? Make it as neutral as you like. What answer do you think the public would give?

You serious? We hold a referendum to decide on public health policy? I'd have thought the last one would have flagged up the issues. Plus, if we knew the answer why would we need the question?

Call me old fashioned, I thought that was what government was for.

[dealtn]

I see... So this is a "referendum" where you get to frame the (phony) question AND already know the answer in advance? Hardly seems worth the expense of going ahead with it.

Let's have another then.

What question would you (hypothetically) pose to an electorate? Make it as neutral as you like. What answer do you think the public would give?

You serious? We hold a referendum to decide on public health policy? Plus, if we knew the answer why would we need the question?

Call me old fashioned, I thought that was what government was for.

I don't think there should be a referendum.

Your objections previously to another poster's suggestion were framed around the question posed (and the expense of having one). I merely gave you the chance to configure a suitable alternative (given your objection to his).

I notice you have declined the opportunity, which suggests your original objections to their post may have been misaligned. Your objections now being it is for Government to decide. I don't disagree, and that is what much debate is about, their response(s) and the appropriateness, or not, of those.

I am serious about my thoughts on this subject, yes. Are you?

[XFool]

Let's have another then.

What question would you (hypothetically) pose to an electorate? Make it as neutral as you like. What answer do you think the public would give?

You serious? We hold a referendum to decide on public health policy? Plus, if we knew the answer why would we need the question?

Call me old fashioned, I thought that was what government was for.

I don't think there should be a referendum.

Your objections previously to another poster's suggestion were framed around the question posed (and the expense of having one). I merely gave you the chance to configure a suitable alternative (given your objection to his).

I notice you have declined the opportunity, which suggests your original objections to their post may have been misaligned. Your objections now being it is for Government to decide. I don't disagree, and that is what much debate is about, their response(s) and the appropriateness, or not, of those.

I am serious about my thoughts on this subject, yes. Are you?

So, if serious, can we keep the referendum nonsense out of it?

I still think at this point that COVD is primarily a medical matter. Others, for their own reasons, think (wish, require) it to be a purely "political" issue.
(But then, this has been evident all along, no?)

[dealtn]

So, if serious, can we keep the referendum nonsense out of it?

Yes. I didn't bring it up, nor think it anything other than a hypothetical tool as part of anyone's argument on how society, collectively thinks, responses should be measured as reflecting society's majority view, or not.

I still think at this point that COVD is primarily a medical matter. Others, for their own reasons, think (wish, require) it to be a purely "political" issue.
(But then, this has been evident all along, no?)

Well for most people it isn't primarily a medical matter, even at the pandemic's worst. Health may be one of the many considerations, but other matters do affect most people. That was always true, and I think will hold true going forward. For many (most?) people their primary concern is how it will affect them. With a small percentage of people dying, or becoming seriously ill long term, it isn't surprising, particularly with the successful roll-out of vaccines to those that want them, that their primary concerns are non-medical.

Do I have to work from home? Can I go to the pub/football/theatre/restaurant? Can I visit friends/family at Christmas etc. are all, rightly or wrongly, legitimate concerns of the ordinary folk that make up society. I don't think that is anymore about "politics" than medical is "politics". Politicians are representatives of those that elect them (and will soon potentially re-elect, or not, them). As well as attempting to do the (unknowing and undefined) "right thing", they will be attempting to tune in to the things that matter to the electorate. Not understanding that for many (most?) of the electorate that they don't see Covid now as primarily a medical thing, would be a political flaw.

[XFool]

I still think at this point that COVD is primarily a medical matter. Others, for their own reasons, think (wish, require) it to be a purely "political" issue.
(But then, this has been evident all along, no?)

Well for most people it isn't primarily a medical matter, even at the pandemic's worst.

I can't attach any real meaning to that statement. It sounds like saying I don't consider the fact it is raining anything to do with the physical properties of water - such as it being wet.

Health may be one of the many considerations, but other matters do affect most people. That was always true, and I think will hold true going forward. For many (most?) people their primary concern is how it will affect them. With a small percentage of people dying, or becoming seriously ill long term, it isn't surprising, particularly with the successful roll-out of vaccines to those that want them, that their primary concerns are non-medical.

Every day, in more and more ways, I hear evidence of the truth of my previous 'rash' statement: "After all this time, many people seem to me to still not understand the meaning of the word 'infectious'."

Do I have to work from home? Can I go to the pub/football/theatre/restaurant? Can I visit friends/family at Christmas etc. are all, rightly or wrongly, legitimate concerns of the ordinary folk that make up society.

Sure. Why not?

Not understanding that for many (most?) of the electorate that they don't see Covid now as primarily a medical thing, would be a political flaw.

Can't say you're wrong or not there...

[dealtn]

I still think at this point that COVD is primarily a medical matter. Others, for their own reasons, think (wish, require) it to be a purely "political" issue.
(But then, this has been evident all along, no?)

Well for most people it isn't primarily a medical matter, even at the pandemic's worst.

I can't attach any real meaning to that statement. It sounds like saying I don't consider the fact it is raining anything to do with the physical properties of water - such as it being wet.

Try considering what "Primary" means. Then adjust your analogy such that for most people getting wet is not a big thing (or they own an umbrella (vaccine)). The consequences more relevant to them might be - will the train/bus be on time, will the concert/match be cancelled?

Health may be one of the many considerations, but other matters do affect most people. That was always true, and I think will hold true going forward. For many (most?) people their primary concern is how it will affect them. With a small percentage of people dying, or becoming seriously ill long term, it isn't surprising, particularly with the successful roll-out of vaccines to those that want them, that their primary concerns are non-medical.

Every day, in more and more ways, I hear evidence of the truth of my previous 'rash' statement: "After all this time, many people seem to me to still not understand the meaning of the word 'infectious'."

I think most people do understand the word infectious. You trot out this regularly, but where is your evidence for this? I think the reality is most people do understand infectiousness, but rightly or wrongly look at the consequences (to them) of infection, and the risk and probability of being infected, in deciding how they will behave. This might not accord with how you think they should behave, but you must be able to see why it happens (and why many would think their behaviour is nothing to do with you).

Do I have to work from home? Can I go to the pub/football/theatre/restaurant? Can I visit friends/family at Christmas etc. are all, rightly or wrongly, legitimate concerns of the ordinary folk that make up society.

Sure. Why not?

Because to them, even small changes that are detrimental to them, that don't in their view meaningfully enough get offset by benefits to them (and society, which in turn benefit them), are impositions they don't wish to adopt. I am sure many understand the many ills to society things like smoking/drinking/betting bring. Many won't partake in them. Many do. Many think the government shouldn't (and doesn't) ban these, but does play a regulating role. The principal is the same. Regardless of what you think, on these, or Covid, Government will consider individuals freedoms in coming into the decision on what the response should be.

[servodude]

Government will consider individuals freedoms in coming into the decision on what the response should be.

Well said!

They very much should; that's a good thing!

I just hope they don't cherry pick and lie about the data when they do; that would be downright scummy.

-sd

[dealtn]

Government will consider individuals freedoms in coming into the decision on what the response should be.

Well said!

They very much should; that's a good thing!

I just hope they don't cherry pick and lie about the data when they do; that would be downright scummy.

-sd

That will inevitably happen I think. At least there are some respected data gatherers that publish a wide range of data. The downside of course being that some will cherry pick the data most suited to their argument, whilst others are happy for all, and any, data to be considered in arriving at conclusions.

[redsturgeon]

Just for clarity, as the person who posed the acceptability of the 1000 a week death level, I would tend to agree that there is a level of public acceptability with this at the moment.

We are to some extent free to judge our own level of risk and plan our lives accordingly, although I don't think we should underestimate the impact that this may be having on those less able to choose.

In the case I mentioned in the OP of my step daughter, 30 something year old, double vaxxed, last vax two months ago. She suffers from asthma so has been quite anxious to avoid unnecessary exposure. Unfortunately she has one young school age child and two younger than that...her choices are more limited than many here. Luckily the vaccination seems to have given her some protection from serious disease so far.

John

[XFool]

Every day, in more and more ways, I hear evidence of the truth of my previous 'rash' statement: "After all this time, many people seem to me to still not understand the meaning of the word 'infectious'."

I think most people do understand the word infectious. You trot out this regularly, but where is your evidence for this?

Where to start?

Try this: only the other night I heard a three way debate on BBC Radio 5 between a member of the public, a bit "sceptical", the shows presenter (forget his name, Irish(?), usually very sensible and straight down the line, IMO) and 'Mohammed', another BBC reporter, a bit more hardline - I agreed more with him. The presenter was arguing with Mohammed over COVID passports, "It's not fair! You can go to restaurants etc. without a passport if you have diabetes, are obese. It's medical discrimination." Now I realise he may have just have been playing devil's advocate - BBC neutrality and balance - but he sounded pretty passionate to me.

I thought: "What? So you think diabetes is infectious?" - obviously he didn't. So there's that argument holed below the water before it's even left port.

I remember the Lord Sumption and his arguments, which made pretty good sense to me - if only the best model for COVID was of randomly sized rocks falling, at random, from the sky onto people below.

'infectious' - Clearly a problem word for far too many people.

I think the reality is most people do understand infectiousness, but rightly or wrongly look at the consequences (to them) of infection, and the risk and probability of being infected, in deciding how they will behave.

Perhaps that's the problem, right there?

This might not accord with how you think they should behave, but you must be able to see why it happens (and why many would think their behaviour is nothing to do with you).

True. But I, and not just me, think otherwise - mainly because it does. Why? Look up the word 'infectious'...

Do I have to work from home? Can I go to the pub/football/theatre/restaurant? Can I visit friends/family at Christmas etc. are all, rightly or wrongly, legitimate concerns of the ordinary folk that make up society.

Sure. Why not? "Society" - Um...

[Lootman]

What question would you (hypothetically) pose to an electorate? Make it as neutral as you like. What answer do you think the public would give?

You serious? We hold a referendum to decide on public health policy? I'd have thought the last one would have flagged up the issues.

The referendum thought experiment was not so much a practical suggestion but rather a proxy for public opinion in general, and that very much does matter because politicians take notice of it, or at least should do.

As for the "issues" flagged by the last referendum, as far as I can see the only issue was that you ended up on the losing side. Had you won I doubt that you would have any "issue" at all.

How high would the weekly death count have to go up for the public to care enough to be willing to go back to being restricted? I don't know but it is clearly more than 1,000 a week. Cancer and heart disease kill three times as many per week and people are still smoking and eating junk food. It is all about acceptable risk and unlike you I think the people collectively can make such determinations without a nanny holding their hand.

[XFool]

You serious? We hold a referendum to decide on public health policy? I'd have thought the last one would have flagged up the issues.

As for the "issues" flagged by the last referendum, as far as I can see the only issue was that you ended up on the losing side. Had you won I doubt that you would have any "issue" at all.

May I suggest that is merely your "subjective opinion"? Might I also suggest that more than me ended up: "on the losing side"; possibly even some who voted for the winning side.

How high would the weekly death count have to go up for the public to care enough to be willing to go back to being restricted? I don't know but it is clearly more than 1,000 a week. Cancer and heart disease kill three times as many per week and people are still smoking and eating junk food.

So you also think "eating junk food" is infectious? Smoking - possibly more so?

[onthemove]

How high would the weekly death count have to go up for the public to care enough to be willing to go back to being restricted? I don't know but it is clearly more than 1,000 a week. Cancer and heart disease kill three times as many per week and people are still smoking and eating junk food.

So you also think "eating junk food" is infectious? Smoking - possibly more so?

This idea that because it's infectious that this is check and mate, argument won, is nonsense.

We've always had people who are susceptible to dying from what are for most people benign infections, and we've never demanded society as a whole has to adapt their behaviour to prevent transmission of these infectious agents.

The flu deaths already raised in this thread, in prior years are a good example. No-one demanded that we wear masks to prevent transmission of flu. No-one demanded that we must put ourselves under house arrest, not even allowed to go out to buy food.

Employers didn't demand proof of flu vaccination before allowing employees onto site, etc.

Let's have another then.
What question would you (hypothetically) pose to an electorate? Make it as neutral as you like. What answer do you think the public would give?

You serious? We hold a referendum to decide on public health policy? I'd have thought the last one would have flagged up the issues. Plus, if we knew the answer why would we need the question?

Call me old fashioned, I thought that was what government was for.

Shame you stopped where you did ... keep running with your train of though...

Governments are voted in in an election - they are voted in as representatives of the people, not disciples of science.

If the people the government represent would rather accept the risk of 1000 deaths per day or week or whatever, then the government should respect the will of the people that they are there to represent. The government aren't there to do the bidding of 'science. It's not as though science even has any desire or agency of its own.

I still think at this point that COVD is primarily a medical matter. Others, for their own reasons, think (wish, require) it to be a purely "political" issue.
(But then, this has been evident all along, no?)

Well for most people it isn't primarily a medical matter, even at the pandemic's worst.

I can't attach any real meaning to that statement. It sounds like saying I don't consider the fact it is raining anything to do with the physical properties of water - such as it being wet.

I'm quite surprised at your response here.

I mean, surely you recognise that it is for each of us to decide whether we want to go out in the rain or not? Whilst obviously we will take into account the physical properties - that it will make us wet, if it's cold, it could cause hypothermia, etc, but ultimately it's permitted for each of us to make our own judgement as to whether we go out in the rain, and how much preparation we make before we do.

But at the end of the day, it's up to each of us to decide whether we risk getting wet, and for most of us, there are considerations that go beyond the properties of water, There's no automatic inference that "It's raining" -> "I must not go outside".

So why "Flu is infectious" -> "You must isolate, you have no say in it, the science is science, end of story, it's infectious, don't you get it?"

Rain is (potentially) out there - we know the risk when we go out; it's for each of us as individuals to decide whether we take the risk.

Flu is out there - we know the risk when we go out; it's for each of us as individuals to decide whether we take the risk.

But apparently, we are being told that for some reason this shouldn't apply for covid...
Apparently NOT VALID : Covid is out there - we know the risk when we go out; it's for each of us as individuals to decide whether we take the risk.

I just cannot fathom why all the values and freedoms that we've lived with up until now, are no longer valid when it comes to covid.

Health may be one of the many considerations, but other matters do affect most people. That was always true, and I think will hold true going forward. For many (most?) people their primary concern is how it will affect them. With a small percentage of people dying, or becoming seriously ill long term, it isn't surprising, particularly with the successful roll-out of vaccines to those that want them, that their primary concerns are non-medical.

Every day, in more and more ways, I hear evidence of the truth of my previous 'rash' statement: "After all this time, many people seem to me to still not understand the meaning of the word 'infectious'."

I find it staggering, how some people scream "IT'S INFECTIOUS" to argue for restrictions on liberty, mandates on what people must wear, when those same people were never demanding such things in response to other INFECTIOUS agents that can and do KILL people with compromised immune systems, etc.

The funny thing is these same people think they are being rational now, and also believe that they themselves were rational before as well.

It makes no sense!

If it is rational to demand restrictions on freedom now, simply because "it is infectious", when previously with flu, etc, the very same thing applies -> "it is infectious" yet for some reasons, previously this didn't mean -> "restrictions on freedom are required".

Clearly it cannot be rational to base an argument for restrictions or mandates simply because "it is infectious". Clearly there are plenty of infectious things that don't require any restrictions or changes in our behaviour.

So I cannot understand how a rational person could use "it's infectious" as the (seemingly sole) basis for their arguments.

Without other facts or factors, whether or not something is "infectious" doesn't mean anything.

So I cannot for the life of me fathom why people are being derogatively criticised as "not understanding the meaning of the word infectious" - in my view, it's those making such a claim who perhaps are not fully grasping the meaning of 'infectious'.

[dealtn]

So you also think "eating junk food" is infectious? Smoking - possibly more so?

You really need to stop this, unless you can find (or start) a "Noone (else) understands what infectious means" thread.

The argument here isn't that some deaths are from infectious diseases, or not. It's that deaths generally occur for variety of reasons, some in isolation, some connected, some infectious, but that society (and individuals within that society) assess risk and act according to how that probability and outcome affects them, and others.

If, in this instance, it is ok for many thousands to die of obesity, but it is not ok for fewer (even a very few) to die of an infectious diseases can you please articulate why. Can you also extend that to other infectious diseases and explain why in previous times your argument has been absent, and whether going forward, should Covid disappear, you would be consistent with all the other (non-disappeared) infectious diseases.

Honestly, we get what infectious is, and means. Not a single person on this thread, nor likely across the whole site, has made any claim about eating junk food being infectious. Nobody thinks this.