Forum menu
And nut allergies still require action beyond the individuals effected, and rules and restrictions placed on others by government. Think food labelling.
Controlling a highly transmissible virus pandemic can not be left to “individual responsibility” of those most at risk
I'm not saying that, and I'm not blaming anyone but the government for the mess we're in.
What I am saying is that if an activity is higher risk for me than for the majority of the populous then I either avoid that activity or take greater precautions when I'm there. the same is true of Covid.
The risk of Covid to my 20 year old cousin is very small, the risk to my 8 year old niece is tiny. The risk to my 70 year old parents is much greater.
So why is unreasonable to say to my parents (as I have) that they need to be more careful than my niece or my 20 year old cousin? That they won't need to go to the shops every day, and that they don't need to meet their friend for a stroll when said friend has visited his daughter who works in ICU the week before. I'm not locking them up, or blaming them, I'm suggesting their risk is higher and so be more careful.
And I can't get my head round why saying that is a bad thing. And also saying that perhaps when the controlling measures begin to relax that maybe my parents generation should stay put a bit longer them my cousins generation. And if this means that the majority get back to some semblance of normality sooner then all the better.
Nut allergy isn’t highly transmissible. Or transmissible asymptomatically. Or, indeed, transmissible at all.
No, but thats why I said analogy....
Nobody is saying to stop to make pragmatic policy decisions to keep the prevalence in the community low, and we all have a collective responsibility to help protect each other.
But people should also have the responsibility to protect themselves too.
Nobody is saying to stop to make pragmatic policy decisions to keep the prevalence in the community low, and we all have a collective responsibility to help protect each other.
Your post...
I personally think a there needs to be a discussion at some point around how the elderly/vulnerable can be kept safe whilst allowing the groups of people that are least affected to get on with their lives.
Its the elephant in the room.
The discussion we should be having, but nobody wants to because its uncomfortable.If you are in a vulnerable group should you be more careful? Yes, you should.
Of the same opinion.
If we have a group of people who are severely allergic to nuts, do we remove nuts completely from society?
No.We put in place measures to protect those people, but allow the rest of the population to live their lives as normal as possible
@lunge - I think there is potential harm in pointing the finger at certain demographics. We all need to be very careful. It really is that simple. Simple, concise and consistent communication is the key to this.
Not meeting in any more than small groups (if at all) in indoor settings, be that in their home or in public.
Avoiding large groups.
Maintaining “social distance” from others.
So just obeying the same rules as everyone else should then? Not sure that strengthened your case.
Loving the nut analogy and responses btw. This was all getting too serious again.
Not seen his comments in full but headlines seem to suggest the PM is being more cautious and circumspect about relaxing lockdown this time around. Certainly less bullish.
I'd be happier if he just told the CRG headbangers to **** off, but I'll take this.
I think there is potential harm in pointing the finger at certain demographics. We all need to be very careful. It really is that simple. Simple, concise and consistent communication is the key to this.
Again, I'm not pointing the finger of blame, I'm saying that certain groups have higher risk and so perhaps need to be more cautious. I don't see how that's blaming anyone.
I agree the messaging needs to be simple in an ideal world. But a message of "if you're over xx years of age or are on the list of vulnerable people then we suggest you take additional precautions such as doing this, this and this is hardly complex.
That's not blaming anyone at all.
So just obeying the same rules as everyone else should then? Not sure that strengthened your case.
At the moment, yes. But if/when the rules relax then asking some people to keep to the older, more restrictive rules to help protect themselves.
I'm not trying to be deliberately provocative here, I'm genuinely struggling to see why asking those at greater risk to be more careful is in any way contentious.
But if/when the rules relax then asking some people to keep to the older, more restrictive rules to help protect themselves.
You could argue that is the unvaccinated young that should stick to the more restrictive rules, in order to keep the virus under control.
I’m genuinely struggling to see why asking those at greater risk to be more careful is in any way contentious.
It is not. But asking them to protect themselves, while the rest of us have most of our restrictions lifted, to get back to "close to normal", is unfortunately not workable. There is no magic membrane between the at risk and everyone else, even if they take greater precautions. If we act so as to allow the virus to get out of control again, it will get to the vulnerable, and it will allow new more dangerous variants to develop.
I’m not trying to be deliberately provocative here, I’m genuinely struggling to see why asking those at greater risk to be more careful is in any way contentious.
Because if you are carrying a potentially fatal disease that may kill others (but not you) then do you not think that you have as much responsibility to not transmit it as others have not to contract it? The aim is to prevent transmission...& transmission requires two parties, both of whom need to take equal care.
Can’t you see that your attitude is fundamentally selfish?
I have had a very heated one way (she wouldn't let me get a word in) exchange with my 40 year old neighbours.
They have consistently had their friends, their friend's children and their older relatives round in all lockdowns.
They have now had a first vaccination because her parents own and fun a care home, so their friends are coming round to visit more often. They at their age are also in the age category to end up with 'long covid'.
So I firmly believe as Elshlimo is saying that we ALL have to take responsibility, we all have to abide by the simple rules.
Yes Lunge I agree your parents are being reckless, but it's up to every single one of us to stick to what we've been asked.
Also Edukator - this virus isn't ageist, it's just that the elderly have very low immune systems.
The aim is to prevent transmission…& transmission requires two parties, both of whom need to take equal care.
Agree with this. Transmission of the virus isn't age dependent, and the long term effects on a younger person catching it could be pretty serious.
But it's about everyone doing their bit together*, not allowing anyone to divide and conquer by suggesting some people are more or less responsible
*not literally together. Together but suitably apart.
I’m saying that certain groups have higher risk and so perhaps need to be more cautious.
With the vaccination programme in full swing, the highest risk group could well be the 60 to 70 year olds. Once they are done, hospitalization risks should be very low in the population.
Our kids' school is nut free.
It is also covid secure.
Every year group has been effected by covid outbreaks.
There have been no cases of nuts in the same time.
That’s the point isn’t it, as said, there are still so many unknowns that to rule out another lockdown is insane and deeply misleading to the public.
Today's 'special person' asked by email if it would be ok to book flights for a holiday in France in mid-September. My living in the mystic East has obviously confused some of these 'special people'. It is scarey how many people are unable to deal with sitting quietly and waiting until it's safe for everyone.
I'm quietly going stir-crazy but accept that the good of the many outweighs my personal needs. On the upside I can retire early in just under 4 years. Roll on January 2025.
Edit. No.
Mad isn't it that people are booking holidays to places that likely won't have a sniff of a vaccine until 2022.
It is a horrible balance for those countries though as they need tourists for the income but then would have to deal with the consequences of an imported infection
I don’t see how asking those at a higher risk category to be a bit more cautious than those who aren’t is being selfish, no.
If I am in my Volvo & you are on your bike, who is most at risk if we collide? I take it you think the cyclist should keep out of the way of the car driver, & the latter does not need to take as much care as the bloke on two wheels?
If I am in my Volvo & you are on your bike, who is most at risk if we collide? I take it you think the cyclist should keep out of the way of the car driver, & the latter does not need to take as much care as the bloke on two wheels?
Excellent example.
In an ideal world, the driver would take as much case as the cyclist.
In the real world as the more vulnerable person, the cyclist will take more care to avoid being hit. That's because the consequence of being hit is much great for the cyclist so they may decide to take additional steps to avoid it. They might wear hi-viz clothing, protective equipment or even modify their behaviours to lesson the chances of being hit, and the damage the impact would make.
I'm certainly more aware and more careful on a bike that I suspect the majority of car drivers are.
I’m certainly more aware and more careful on a bike that I suspect the majority of car drivers are.
But that isn't how it should be. It certainly isn't what the law says, or what government policy is. Are you saying that if I drive down the road, and as a result of my actions there is a risk that somebody might die, I should be more careful if the fatality is me rather than someone else? Seriously... you can't see that is selfish?
Completely messed up my reply to @TiRed, it's close to unreadable, and it's lost amongst the age division nonsense anyway... so I'll try again...
Currently the former, no data on the latter.
I thought so. And it's just about possible for us non-number crunchers to see how the success of the former (reduced hospitalisations due to the vaccination programme) might be monitored as we remove restrictions. But I have no idea if/how the later (long term health impacts but no hospitalisation) is going to be tracked/measured… is there anything being planned that you know of TiRed? I’d imagine it’s something you’ve looked into out of personal as well as professional interest.
But that isn’t how it should be. It certainly isn’t what the law says, or what government policy is.
Of course it isn't how it should be, but the world isn't an ideal place. The guy in the metal box will never be as aware and as careful as the guy in Lycra.
Are you saying that if I drive down the road, and as a result of my actions there is a risk that somebody might die, I should be more careful if the fatality is me rather than someone else?
I'm saying that if the risk is to you personally then you're more likely to take increased care. In the bike/car analogy then yes, you should both be equally as attentive, but it's not the car driver who will die, it's the cyclist. So, as a cyclist I take more precautions than I am legally required to as I'm at risk. I wear a helmet, I wear hi-viz and I am careful when I see a car approaching a side road, I don't have to do any of these things but choose to to keep myself safer.
We've got to work to real world solutions. It would be great if everyone behaved perfectly, followed the rules to the letter and that the rules set were clear.
But they won't, so asking/suggesting people most at risk do a little more is a sensible, real world solution.
I don’t see how asking those at a higher risk category to be a bit more cautious than those who aren’t is being selfish, no.
A bit more cautious is overly simplistic. It's not about nuts and Volvos. It could be about asking a group to make major changes to their life. Managing exposure and infection risk isnt going to be a bit more hand washing or a bit more mask. It's more likely to be things like avoiding working in a large office or retail. Can you imagine that being taken as a reasonable excuse for not taking a job for anyone on benefits. There might not actually be the options for people to avoid the rest of the population going for I'm all right Jack.
But they won’t, so asking/suggesting people most at risk do a little more is a sensible, real world solution.
But you aren't advocating asking them to take more care than is necessary in the current situation. You are suggesting moving to a state where the rsk of transmission is dangerously increased & then telling the vulnerable to take additional steps or face the consequences. That's like abolishing speed limits & then saying, 'Cyclists! Given how dangerous the roads are, you might want to just ride off-road from now on.' I'm not denying that if I was more at risk & they relaxed the rules I would do more than the rules said to protect myself, but that is a world away from saying therefore we can relax the rules.
.....& you still can't deny that your 'real world situation' is justfying a wholly selfish attitude.
It could be about asking a group to make major changes to their life.
They've already done that, we all have.
This isn't about about asking those at risk to do more, it's asking them to hold on a little longer to those restrictions than those who aren't at as high risk.
I don’t see how asking those at a higher risk category to be a bit more cautious than those who aren’t is being selfish, no.
Is your name Jack? Are you alright?
But they won’t, so asking/suggesting people most at risk do a little more is a sensible, real world solution.
They will be, in the main, already choosing to take extra precautions, because the risk of harm to them is greater, as your analogy implies. But we should not be changing the regulations and laws to mean that the onus is all on them. Your example would be like changing the law and highway code to tell drivers to just crack on as if cyclists aren't at risk, not to look out for them, or drive with their safety in mind, because they have been told to look after themselves.
Once again I'm reminded of why the UK has so many Tory governments.
why?
This sums up the UK approach of the last 12 months to me…
https://twitter.com/chrischirp/status/1361346101140459525?s=21
…but I’d add in something about… timing.
Talking of Christina Pagel, I saw today on Independent Sage a disturbing piece of data. It said that 70% of all current Covid infections occur in the under 50 age group. If lockdown measures are largely lifted when all 9 groups are vaccinated and the common sense behaviour of social distancing, hand washing etc get ignored, we will have a rampant infection rate in that under 50 group. Now admittedly the occurrence of serious disease and hospitalisation will be markedly reduced, but isn't our main concern that in that massive, but largely symptomless infected group, the potential for new mutations to develop will be increased. And sooner or later one or more of those mutations will be resistant to current vaccines?
It should be a concern.
And feed into policy.
We seem to be good at monitoring for troubling new variants.
Not so good at responding at speed to them.
Timing.
I'm going to take a wild guess lunge and imagine you've not considered households that contain three generations.
Nice to see case numbers under 10,000 today. First time since October, I think?
Getting things back under control nicely. And cracking on with vaccination at an impressive rate. We’re getting on top of this at last. Government just needs to hold its nerve for a while.
I’m not sure 10,000 case a day is under control, just not as utterly disastrous as it was after Xmas!
But I do hope this time has been used to work out how to make our track and trace system work... rather than rely on it not being needed just because we're deploying the first round of vaccines.
I’m not sure 10,000 case a day is under control,
I did say "getting things back under control"... we're not there yet, but all the figures are going the right way, and arguably faster than many of us feared would be the case. There is cause to be optimistic... but all eyes on the PM in the hope that he doesn't get drunk on that optimism, and get the timing and speed of changes to restrictions wrong (again).
But I do hope this time has been used to work out how to make our track and trace system work… rather than rely on it not being needed just because we’re deploying the first round of vaccines.
Spot on!
lunge
Excellent example.
In an ideal world, the driver would take as much case as the cyclist.
In the real world as the more vulnerable person, the cyclist will take more care to avoid being hit. That’s because the consequence of being hit is much great for the cyclist so they may decide to take additional steps to avoid it. They might wear hi-viz clothing, protective equipment or even modify their behaviours to lesson the chances of being hit, and the damage the impact would make.I’m certainly more aware and more careful on a bike that I suspect the majority of car drivers are.
It's more like changing the speed limit outside a primary school from 20 to 40 and then blaming the kids for dying when they get hit.
This sums up the UK approach of the last 12 months to me…
…but I’d add in something about… timing.
Its like jumping fully clothed into a river, getting out, putting on a rain coat, and then complaining your trousers are wet.
Government just needs to hold its nerve for a while.
Unfortunately part of the pacification of the CRG seems to be Boris asserting lock down exit measures are irreversible. This is just be needlessly tying his hands for future responses. The PM has form for saying what plays well rather than doing what's needed.
Labour front bench have been saying the same. I get that it’s leverage to help persuade people (public and other MPs) to put up with a slower removal of restrictions, but it seems short sighted to me.
With that one caveat, that promising restrictions will never return is a promise that shouldn’t be made if the government wants to be able to react as and when necessary to events, I think Johnson had a very good press conference today, for a change. Got the balance right. No over promising, or signally that people can ignore the social distancing measures yet.
Spot on!
It should be the obvious question, before we open things up again more. People are avoiding being traced, avoiding isolation, because they can’t afford to get caught up in it, and/or know the same is true of their contacts. That and the lessons need to be learned as regards using local expertise and networks, not (at home) call centre staff, to do the work.
And cracking on with vaccination at an impressive rate.
Today's daily number of vaccinations is the lowest since the 25th Jan. Looks like the cupboard is bare after meeting the 15M target yesterday.
BTW does anyone know why the daily vaccination rate starts lowest on Monday and ramps up to max out at the weekend? (Graph courtesy of travellingtabby.com)
Your first paragraph had me worried. Your second paragraph gave enough context for me to ignore the first, for now, and wait and see what happens later this week.
MY dad was one of the first he thinks in the 65 and over category to get his injection today at G Live in Guildford, he said the place was deserted in terms of those waiting to get vaccinated. He asked the doc/vaccinator why they thought it was so quiet, they weren't sure. Anecdotal of course.