Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99
The point I am making is that it not yet clear, beyond reasonable doubt, that the vulnerable are not disproportionately at risk.
|
They almost certainly are. How many are there? And how should we curtail the freedoms of the overwhelming majority to accommodate this tiny minority.
Quote:
|
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.
|
wouldn’t the immunosuppressed be at risk of encountering someone with the flu? Or any other infectious disease. Also there is no obligation to test yourself so if you don’t know you have it there is no obligation to isolate anyway.
Quote:
|
I feel the parallel with drink driving is a good one.
|
. You think wrong
Quote:
|
Some people would argue that they can perfectly drive after 2 pints and so the law is curtailing their "freedom"
|
. It doesn’t work that way. I’m 6’4” and weigh 17 st I could/can have 2 pints and not be over the limit, others of different size and shape may not be
Quote:
|
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.
|
If I decide to drink my freedoms are not curtailed by not being allowed to drive.
---------- Post added at 21:02 ---------- Previous post was at 21:01 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99
I am confident that the cold is not as deadly as Covid is to the vulnerable.
|
A really bad one for the immunosuppressed could lead to a chest infection and pneumonia. But as long as you’re “confident”