Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
Nobody is suggesting people with covid or any other virus should go round everywhere coughing over people and making everyone else ill. They are just removing the legal requirement for a positive test result (which doesn't even define that a person is infectious) to isolate. Freedom from legal restriction should always be the case. If a legal restriction is applied, then it should be justified as to why it is necessary. These restrictions were temporary as we had no idea what the new virus was capable of and how we would manage it, the virus is now largely managed by not only the vaccines but also multiple options with antivirals which means that we are not only in a state where there is high immunity already but a much higher chance that people who do get ill will be treated. So does this justify having further restrictions? Why are legal restrictions necessary at this stage? |
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
You say "Nobody is suggesting people with covid or any other virus should go round everywhere coughing over people and making everyone else ill". Well, this guy is: Quote:
|
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
OK so, there are other points which need addressing first: - does Covid still represent a serious danger? Have they been vaccinated? What are the effects of anti virals? - how does this compare with the danger of them catching another virus such as cold, flu, noro, measles, ebola, etc from someone else? - are the measures in place for covid proportionate to the risk to them, with the preventions and treatments on offer, and to other viruses of similar risk to them? - are there any other measures you could put in place? What happened to these people before covid anyway? As for that guy, he's saying should they if they're not ill and test positive? So that test could be a false positive. Presence of a virus' RNA in a sample taken to run a PCR or LFT on doesn't make that person infectious to others does it? |
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
---------- Post added at 19:12 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ---------- Quote:
---------- Post added at 19:13 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ---------- Quote:
|
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
For example, I was at university with an immunocompromised person (due to medication) and when they were in the middle of a course of those drugs they requested that the rest of us be especially careful about coming too close if we had so much as a sniffle. This was how those responsible for this person’s medical care proposed the risk be managed ‘in the wild’ - a generous dose of personal responsibility on this person’s part, augmented with a polite request for additional caution from those they spent the most time with. Covid is going to become endemic, just like flu and the common cold, and it will continue to pose an abnormal risk to certain individuals, while most of us shake it off. We have never considered it immoral that there are no laws forcing people to self isolate with these viruses, though as a society we do frown on those who sneeze all over others and, for the most part, encourage personal responsibility (though I think some advertising around cold and flu remedies has bordered on irresponsible in the past). Using the law to shortcut anyone’s personal responsibility and especially to curtail their freedom should be an exceptional response to extreme circumstances, yet I worry what we’re seeing here is a far too eager slide towards using legislation to enforce everyday morality. This is not good; as well as infantilising people it also creates an authoritarian streak in government that once established, may not easily be removed. |
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
|
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
|
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
The point I am making is that it not yet clear, beyond reasonable doubt, that the vulnerable are not disproportionately at risk. The number of people with Covid are still large in number and so the chances of encountering an infected person, when they have no obligation to isolate, is significant. I feel the parallel with drink driving is a good one. Some people would argue that they can perfectly drive after 2 pints and so the law is curtailing their "freedom" but society disagrees. The balance of probabilities has been weighed against the driver who wishes to drink. In the same way, until we have clear data on the real world risks to the vulnerable, we should err on the side of caution. |
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
|
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
The bottom line is that the people who are shouting for "freedom" are the ones who, typically, are not potentially at risk and do not have loved ones who are. It really does come down to "not my problem, mate". Maybe a reflection on who we are as a society? |
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 21:02 ---------- Previous post was at 21:01 ---------- Quote:
|
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
|
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
Quote:
I demand for the safety of my wife that the entire population of the U.K. wear masks and surgical gloves - all ages. If you do not know if you carry this bacteria or not you should isolate to be sure. Otherwise you’re saying “ not my problem mate” you selfish society. Or perhaps my wife should be super very careful, her safety is her responsibility, not someone’s she has never met, and not the states. Why should her personal medical circumstances impinge on another’s persons life? ---------- Post added at 21:19 ---------- Previous post was at 21:16 ---------- Quote:
My freedom to drink and travel to the place I want to drink has not been taken away. |
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
|
Re: Coronavirus
Quote:
---------- Post added at 21:41 ---------- Previous post was at 21:41 ---------- Quote:
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:19. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.