Coronavirus

[nffc]

Originally Posted by ianch99

So, are you saying that Covid no longer represents a serious risk to the vulnerable e.g. immunocompromised, etc. ? If not, then surely mandating that an infectious person remain isolated is the only sensible & moral choice to make.

The question is more that if a person contracts covid what is the likelihood of serious illness (for example requiring hospital, ventilator or ICU treatment) or death, and how does this compare to other viruses including cold viruses, flu, norovirus etc if contracted. Also which viruses also mandate legal isolation for a time period or a testing condition and the proportion of their infections progressing to such a state.


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?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by nffc

The question is more that if a person contracts covid what is the likelihood of serious illness (for example requiring hospital, ventilator or ICU treatment) or death, and how does this compare to other viruses including cold viruses, flu, norovirus etc if contracted. Also which viruses also mandate legal isolation for a time period or a testing condition and the proportion of their infections progressing to such a state.


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?

You have not addressed the central point: if Covid still represents a serious danger to the vulnerable, surely there should be degree of mitigation, enforced in law, in the same way, that people are protected from drunk drivers.

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:

No symptoms but test positive? Come to work, says hotelier

If someone tests positive for Covid but do not feel ill they should still come into work, a leading hotelier says.

"If the reality of this is that we’re saying that Covid isn’t a pandemic anymore, it’s an endemic disease and like flu, it should be treated like flu," Rocco Forte tells BBC Radio 4's World at One programme.

“And therefore you don’t test every worker who falls ill with flu. You tell people to stay at home if they’re not feeling well.”

Asked if an employee who tests positive for Covid but does not feel unwell should still come into work, he replies: "Yes, I would say that."

[nffc]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You have not addressed the central point: if Covid still represents a serious danger to the vulnerable, surely there should be degree of mitigation, enforced in law, in the same way, that people are protected from drunk drivers.

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:

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?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

My point was that they both were not against the law at one point and so only required only people to use their "common sense".

But they are not comparable, so there was no point made

---------- Post added at 19:12 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

So, are you saying that Covid no longer represents a serious risk to the vulnerable e.g. immunocompromised, etc. ? If not, then surely mandating that an infectious person remain isolated is the only sensible & moral choice to make.

No it isn’t.

---------- Post added at 19:13 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

You have not addressed the central point: if Covid still represents a serious danger to the vulnerable, surely there should be degree of mitigation, enforced in law, in the same way, that people are protected from drunk drivers.

Nope, it’s a pretty warped world between your ears!

Originally Posted by ianch99

My point was that they both were not against the law at one point and so only required only people to use their "common sense".

---------- Post added at 18:03 ---------- Previous post was at 17:57 ----------



So, are you saying that Covid no longer represents a serious risk to the vulnerable e.g. immunocompromised, etc. ? If not, then surely mandating that an infectious person remain isolated is the only sensible & moral choice to make.

If you’re going to make an argument from morality then you have a duty to be much more thorough than you have been here. Asking whether covid presents a serious ongoing risk is a valid starting point but if that’s all you’re asking then you aren’t going to arrive at a morally defensible conclusion. Covid isn’t the only risk to immunocompromised individuals and it must be evaluated alongside those other risks, which offer some valuable context. Our long-term response to it must be calculated with due regard to the way we have historically mitigated those other risks.

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.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Pierre

But they are not comparable, so there was no point made

---------- Post added at 19:12 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------



No it isn’t.

---------- Post added at 19:13 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ----------



Nope, it’s a pretty warped world between your ears!

Total rubbish

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Total rubbish

I understand what you're saying, but if I agreed with you, then we'd both be wrong.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

If you’re going to make an argument from morality then you have a duty to be much more thorough than you have been here. Asking whether covid presents a serious ongoing risk is a valid starting point but if that’s all you’re asking then you aren’t going to arrive at a morally defensible conclusion. Covid isn’t the only risk to immunocompromised individuals and it must be evaluated alongside those other risks, which offer some valuable context. Our long-term response to it must be calculated with due regard to the way we have historically mitigated those other risks.

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.

You raise some good points. Some are predicated on information not being fully available so any choice would be made on a basis of perceived risk. Your example of your University colleague is an interesting one however you knew he was immunocompromised and so could act accordingly. When people go out, they have no ability to discern risk.

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.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Total rubbish

Which bit?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by nffc

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?

You ask questions so clearly there are no obvious answers. You throw various diseases in the air but they are just deflection to be fair. I am not sure Ebola is on the rampage and I am confident that the cold is not as deadly as Covid is to the vulnerable.

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?

[Pierre]

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.

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.

I feel the parallel with drink driving is a good one.

. You think wrong

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

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 ----------

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”

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

If I decide to drink my freedoms are not curtailed by not being allowed to drive.

By not being allowed to do something, your freedom to do it is obviously being curtailed.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

The bottom line is that the people who are shouting for "freedom" are the ones who, typically, are not potentially at risk

Absolutely they are and quite right too.

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?

Ok, funnily enough, it turns out my wife has a immunoconflicted condition. It turns out that she is vulnerable to bacterial infection that can kill her. This bacteria is carried by every 1 in 1 million persons in the U.K. there are 67 people in the U.K. that can kill my wife just by touching her or breathing on her but we don’t know who or where they are.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

By not being allowed to do something, your freedom to do it is obviously being curtailed.

Not when there are alternatives. I can get a bus, taxi, have someone else drive.

My freedom to drink and travel to the place I want to drink has not been taken away.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Not when there are alternatives. I can get a bus, taxi, have someone else drive.

My freedom to drink and travel to the place I want to drink has not been taken away.

You might be able to afford a taxi or have a willing friend or partner to drive you. Others may not be so fortunate and would have their freedoms compromised.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You ask questions so clearly there are no obvious answers. You throw various diseases in the air but they are just deflection to be fair. I am not sure Ebola is on the rampage and I am confident that the cold is not as deadly as Covid is to the vulnerable.

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?

So your answers to the questions? Or does that conflict with your view we should sit in hermetically sealed bubbles until the end of time just because viruses?

---------- Post added at 21:41 ---------- Previous post was at 21:41 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

You might be able to afford a taxi or have a willing friend or partner to drive you. Others may not be so fortunate and would have their freedoms compromised.

Tom Lawrence is looking for this post :P