The question is to what level you're willing to impinge of people's liberties and how much safer would that make them. On the one extreme you have people that would be happy for the government to pass laws preventing people from leaving their house, enforcing it with the military and imprisoning people for failing to comply (China effectively). On the other extreme you have people who don't believe the virus exists at all. As is often the case both extremes scare the shit out of me.
It would be interesting to see what level of safety differing people would be willing to give up their freedoms to achieve. Would some people accept annual restrictions to reduce the yearly NHS crises? Whilst not comparable to covid excess deaths in England/Wales in the Winter of 2017/2018 were estimated at 50,100. Should we have locked down back then in hindsight? Should we have to wear masks every Winter?
My view in that scenario would be no. I would not "give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety". Although my response was the same to the swath of restrictions brought under the guise of protecting us from terrorism.
In terms of the Covid response I think it's been all over the place. I think restrictions have been made based on zero data that are likely to have actually worsened the problem (e.g. 10pm curfew). I think that restrictions have been brought in without thought as to compliance which again would have worsened the problem, meaning a lighter restriction would counter-intuitively see greater compliance and reduced spread (e.g. plunging London into tier four on 19th, causing thousands of people to flee, spreading the new strain across the country). I think that some restrictions have been placed where the social/economic cost is far worse than the benefit (e.g. closing Covid secure hospitality venues and forcing people to drink together in their homes). We're also applying the same rules to differing categories of risk which to me is inane. My risk profile (having not been within 2 metres of anyone 70+ since March) is completely different to a care home worker and yet we're treated equally. For me that means cracking a pistachio with a sledge hammer; for them the rules may well have been too lax throughout.
Your reasoning may be confusing for some because you raise two very different points:
- The first one is about the level of individual liberties that should be sacrificed
- The other one is about the consistency of public policies
Covid 19 could have been managed and solved in different ways and, the worst way has been adopted.
Its the transparency of the whole saga which has been most worrying for me. People with legitimate concerns over the the flaws in the PCR test, the constant lockdowns or the efficacy of the vaccine seemed to be have been grouped into the "Covidiots" total hoax/anti vax group without a fair hearing. The government response to the crisis has been shameful and their lack of communication to people with valid questions is pathetic. The media doesn't seem to be much better with a constant focus on creating the "scariest/most fear mongering" headline they can devise.
I have been grouped here into the "people who don't respect the healthcare system and the deaths".
Yeah I don’t think there has been much fearmongering. People seem to think that actually reporting news and estimates is fearmongering when it’s actually... news.
If anything people aren't scared enough. There's so little respect or worry, more annoyance that we're in the situation.
The population can be divided into different categories in terms of the way they absorb information about Covid.
It is true that an important section of the population don't care. However, it is also true that some are overly petrified, stressed and concerned about news and future. I know some relatively young people whose only one interactions - in the real life - are cashiers since several months. They go out only to go to the supermarkets once a week as they are working from home, retired or unemployed.
Impact of media news on mental health is huge for some vulnerable people.
1. What’s the concern about false positives?Who gives a shit? Seriously. Conspiracy muppets have been banging this drum for ages. Trying to pretend this epidemic isn’t as serious as it seems. Now we have hospitals literally on their knees and it still worries you that some people might have been inconvenienced by being asked to restrict their movements when it might not have been necessary. That’s what worries you?!
Democracy is based on the trust citizens place on politicians and the political system. Individuals are free to distrust politicians or be sceptical about some topics for good or bad reasons, and they are not always "Conspiracy theorists".
The vast majority of those who disagree with political measures are not "Conspiracy muppets". The vast majority of Republicans/supporters of Trump do not agree with the US Capitol attacks.
In theory, one can agree with BBC/Westminster on the assessment of the covid situation at 75% and strongly disagree about the remaining 25%
The two extremes I can identify are:
- The Conspiracy muppets who are generally repetitive, boring, paranoids and who confuse causality with coincidence. *Depressing*
- The Parrots who repeat what they hear from mainstream media and who take everything for granted. No critical thinking. *Appalling*
The Truth is in the middle.
1. I was just giving my general view of the whole thing so far. I suppose concern was the wrong word. I was interested in the effectiveness and accuracy of the PCR test during 2020. I wasn't trying to link the issues of PCR test to the situation we have now. I was just skeptical over the PCR test numbers that occurred throughout 2020. I just wanted to make sure that the data was correct and hear other opinions on it. Obviously the position we are in now shows that Covid is once again rising.
Your question is legitimate about the efficiency of a test but more critical aspects are:
- Number of people hospitalized i.e. NHS overwhelmed?
- Death toll i.e. the direct impact of Covid on life expectancy
- Number of people who suffer from the consequences of Covid i.e. the long-term impact of Covid on the well-being of people tested positive at some point
I think you are worrying over nothing Wilford.you are only meant to take a test *when you have symptoms* (or in other specific situations).
Not when you come into contact with someone with the virus.
Not when a family member gets the virus. Not when you want to go back to work. If you have symptoms and you test positive that's two pieces of evidence you have the virus, not just one. The far far far bigger problem is no one understands the rules
In France, a test is mandatory for somebody identified as a contact of person tested positive.