Scot Dutchy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:42 am
Brian Peacock wrote: What's the alternatives to the actions European governments have taken - and what are we to base those alternative public health policies on - ignorance or wishful thinking?
Yep play it up and keep giving shit to the people. That is what people like you want to do. You are part of the political game but you wont see it. The numbers you are using are not significant only politicians are making them that and using them.
I'm not pulling rank here, but in a past life I worked in health service admin. If you read the entire post again you'll note that I talked about the concerns and considerations that impact on public health policy. To dismiss that as 'part of a political game' is to fundamentally misunderstand what I wrote - and disingenuous if you did understand it.
Scot Dutchy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:42 am
The one government that did not accept the requirement for extreme measures is Sweden maybe as result of the Swedish history on civil liberties but public life there just carries on as normal. They have only the half of the number of cases as we do.
Sweden is a nation with its own set of circumstances, whether that be political. social, geographical, demographic or whatever. Don't assume that the public health decisions of the Swedish government is the end of the matter for Swedes or are a model that Lombardy or New York state should adopt. And the numbers on Swedish public transport are down by 50% and nearly half of Stockholmers are remote working at the moment.
Scot Dutchy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:42 am
The UK government is saying it may keep the extreme measures in place for six months. Bang goes your civil liberties.
Indeed. But at the moment having the liberty to be infected and to infect is not a straight forward matter of personal freedom or autonomy. I guess that matter depends on whether one places one's personal freedom and autonomy -- or that the state should place your freedoms and autonomy - above any individual obligations to one's neighbours and the wider public at large. We can see this question being played out in the tension between the Florida and New York state at the moment.
Nonetheless, as I've mentioned a number of times now, self-isolation is a blunt instrument imposed in the absence of other options. There are many reasons why European nations including the UK are lacking other options - but if you're looking to point the finger look no further than the financialisation of the political system and the economy which abhors unused capacity. Anyway, what we all need is more secure epidemiological data - which means a massive ramp up in testing, both of those with symptoms as well as broadly and randomly within the general population.
Scot Dutchy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:42 am
This "social distancing" thing is a great move. It gives people power to control others. The thing is no one seems to agree about is the actual distance. UK is two metres, we 1,5m. China as low as a metre and America of course 6 feet (1m80). The same goes for masks. All good moves in a dictatorship and there are plenty dictators now strutting around our streets. What happens after the all clear?
Get real - what dictators now strutting around your streets?. Social distancing is a concept as much as a practice. As a concept it highlights to the public what is obvious and already known: that close contact significantly increases the risk of infection. This in turn justifies a practice as a reasonable prophylactic measure. So this is a social measure that follows a reasonable medical assessment given the highly contagious nature of Covid-19.
What's your alternative, presuming you don't dispute the contagious nature of Covid-19 and it's related risks to individuals who acquire it? For example, if you cannot guarantee that the person you're meeting isn't infected, and given the way society operates and the demographic risk factors, then would you be happy to give that person a hug and stand next to them chatting while you inhale each others moist, warm breath? If you understood the risk factors but the person you're meeting didn't, or didn't believe in them, would meeting them be a responsible thing to do - and if so why? How does one practice and police social distancing in these circumstances if not voluntarily? The civil liberties questions are really important, but so are the public health questions - and one doesn't necessarily trump the other.
