Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally for all the concerns about a second wave soon - I'm increasingly not worried about that, looking at the countries in Europe that have been lifting lockdown. My concern is that we do lift lockdown and basically get comfortable we've beaten it, but there's still no vaccine or treatment and get absolutely walloped in the winter (especially given potential seasonality).

See, this is why this is disgusting; Johnson is in front of this committee of MPs, and he was saying how the whole Cummings thing is fine and there should be no time wasted with an inquiry and people should move on.

I'd add this liaison committee is something he's never done before (he delayed for various reasons his first three invitations) and even this time had a short availability so not all of the select committee chairs were able to question him.

Blair, Cameron and May used to do these 2-3 times a year for about 3 hours. Needless to say they were all reasonably decent at at least appearing like they were across the detail. Johnson has been less impressive

[Duque de Bragança]

I'm a bit worried about a second wave, specially in places where the first wave was strong and some parts had really trouble respecting lockdown.

https://www.euronews.com/2020/05/27/hundreds-urged-to-get-covid-19-test-after-attending-illegal-football-match-in-strasbourg

Officials in the French city of Strasbourg are calling for hundreds of people who watched an illegal football match this weekend to get tested for COVID-19 over fears the badly-hit area could see a new flare-up of the deadly virus.

Around 400 people watched the illegal football match held on Sunday evening in a local stadium in Strasbourg, "diregarding all clear interdictions and health safety guidelines", Mayor Roland Ries wrote on Facebook on Tuesday.

[Sheilbh]

Tamas, I'm sorry, but driving around the country by itself does not spread the virus. I don't know what you guys have in the UK, but here you can pay at the pump for gas. I could easily drive to Seattle approximately 3k miles away without talking to another person, going into another structure, or going more than a couple feet from my car. For non overnight trips like everything within England, it would be my expectation.

I don't think this is the issue here though.

The issue is the government issued very clear guidance that you should self-isolate if you had symptoms unless there was a threat to life. The PM's closest advisor broke that rule. The PM is now (rightly) announcing a sensible test, trace and isolate regime. This will, as with all the rules, rely on voluntary compliance. If you have the virus you'll be told to self isolate and it will rely on people's sense of, in the words of the Health Secretary, "civic duty". That's right and I think people will follow it.

But this government's in no position to ask for our voluntary compliance or to rely on our civic duty, while they're hand-waving away a senior advisor breaking the rules as completely okay. When we're told we've tested positive and we need to self-isolate, presumably that would be after our permitted 250 mile trip to a cottage so we can self-isolate more comfortably - or does that only apply to the inner circle?

[alfred russel]

I don't think this is the issue here though.

The issue is the government issued very clear guidance that you should self-isolate if you had symptoms unless there was a threat to life. The PM's closest advisor broke that rule. The PM is now (rightly) announcing a sensible test, trace and isolate regime. This will, as with all the rules, rely on voluntary compliance. If you have the virus you'll be told to self isolate and it will rely on people's sense of, in the words of the Health Secretary, "civic duty". That's right and I think people will follow it.

But this government's in no position to ask for our voluntary compliance or to rely on our civic duty, while they're hand-waving away a senior advisor breaking the rules as completely okay. When we're told we've tested positive and we need to self-isolate, presumably that would be after our permitted 250 mile trip to a cottage so we can self-isolate more comfortably - or does that only apply to the inner circle?

If you have a cottage 250 miles away, why not self isolate there to be more comfortable?

If the reason is because it will make people who don't have a cottage jealous that they don't have one--that is a terrible basis for public policy and comes back to my point: so many of the rules seem to be based on the premise, "this is serious, so no one have any fun."

[Tamas]

I don't think this is the issue here though.

The issue is the government issued very clear guidance that you should self-isolate if you had symptoms unless there was a threat to life. The PM's closest advisor broke that rule. The PM is now (rightly) announcing a sensible test, trace and isolate regime. This will, as with all the rules, rely on voluntary compliance. If you have the virus you'll be told to self isolate and it will rely on people's sense of, in the words of the Health Secretary, "civic duty". That's right and I think people will follow it.

But this government's in no position to ask for our voluntary compliance or to rely on our civic duty, while they're hand-waving away a senior advisor breaking the rules as completely okay. When we're told we've tested positive and we need to self-isolate, presumably that would be after our permitted 250 mile trip to a cottage so we can self-isolate more comfortably - or does that only apply to the inner circle?

If you have a cottage 250 miles away, why not self isolate there to be more comfortable?

If the reason is because it will make people who don't have a cottage jealous that they don't have one--that is a terrible basis for public policy and comes back to my point: so many of the rules seem to be based on the premise, "this is serious, so no one have any fun."

The issue we have been discussing doesn't relate to your personal predicament, so you would be unable or at least unwilling to comprehend it.  I ain't going to waste my time replying.

[DGuller]

If you have a cottage 250 miles away, why not self isolate there to be more comfortable?

If the reason is because it will make people who don't have a cottage jealous that they don't have one--that is a terrible basis for public policy and comes back to my point: so many of the rules seem to be based on the premise, "this is serious, so no one have any fun."

[crazy canuck]

Dorsey, you forgot to change accounts again.

[Sheilbh]

If you have a cottage 250 miles away, why not self isolate there to be more comfortable?

If the reason is because it will make people who don't have a cottage jealous that they don't have one--that is a terrible basis for public policy and comes back to my point: so many of the rules seem to be based on the premise, "this is serious, so no one have any fun."

This isn't about public policy it's about corruption. The rule was once you have symptoms you self-isolate immediately for two weeks and the same will apply if you're are contact traced or test positive. There is no carve out in the rules to allow someone to self isolate somewhere more comfortable.

A man at the heart of government broke that rule and it's now being waved away while the rest of are being called to draw on our sense of "civic duty" and follow the rules he broke.

Either we all have a right to go to a cottage or book an Airbnb in the countryside, or he should go.

Edit: Obviously it is right to swallow the hypocrisy and do your civic duty and self-isolate in accordance with the rules. But you should still be raging about it.

[crazy canuck]

If there is no rock climbing exemption, no go!

[DGuller]

Dorsey, you forgot to change accounts again.

I was just curious about the answer to that question myself, but it was obvious that coming from Dorsey it would only get vitriol.  Maybe it would be different if I asked that question.

[PDH]

See, we have "rules' that are broad, because they apply to entire groups, sometimes entire countries.  These "rules" are to be followed by everyone, even if (and this is important here), EVEN IF one person might not need to otherwise.  These "rules" might seem unfair to some, and indeed they can be unfair on individual bases, but they are designed not for the individual but the group to adhere to.

Now "rules" can change over time, to meet a changing situation, but since these "rules" are designed for many people they are not to be changed on a case-by-case basis as this can easily allow other influences to creep in.  Instead, the goal is to help behavior by having everyone follow them.

That is the goal, at least.

[celedhring]

If you have a cottage 250 miles away, why not self isolate there to be more comfortable?

If the reason is because it will make people who don't have a cottage jealous that they don't have one--that is a terrible basis for public policy and comes back to my point: so many of the rules seem to be based on the premise, "this is serious, so no one have any fun."

A big reason to make rules with few exceptions is to make them enforceable. Making more exceptions puts a larger burden on policing that people moving out of the city are doing it for valid reasons, and are doing it in a safe way. An impossible task. Keeping exceptions at a minimum reduces the burden, reduces the loopholes that rule-breakers can exploit, and at the end of the day reduces the chances of the virus spreading. When you're having the kind of numbers UK, Spain, or Italy had, yeah I'm sorry but being a killjoy is not something I think the authorities should be afraid of.

[Sheilbh]

See, we have "rules' that are broad, because they apply to entire groups, sometimes entire countries.  These "rules" are to be followed by everyone, even if (and this is important here), EVEN IF one person might not need to otherwise.  These "rules" might seem unfair to some, and indeed they can be unfair on individual bases, but they are designed not for the individual but the group to adhere to.

Now "rules" can change over time, to meet a changing situation, but since these "rules" are designed for many people they are not to be changed on a case-by-case basis as this can easily allow other influences to creep in.  Instead, the goal is to help behavior by having everyone follow them.

That is the goal, at least.

Yeah - in this sort of crisis situation I think there's a benefit in relatively simple broad rules that everyone can understand and apply, rather than a nuanced approach that accounts for people's varied situations. That might be possible in the next stage we're moving to, with widespread testing, local lockdowns and hopefully easily understood "phases" of locdown that go up and down based on local outbreaks etc.

Edit: And of course one of the varied circumstances that should never form the basis of an exception to rules is proximity to the leader

Edit: And on his own account he had concerns about his eyesight, which had apparently been affected by covid, before driving back to London. So he drove his family on a 60 mile round trip to a local beauty trip. Now I can't drive. But I feel like, if you have concerns that your eyesight might not be good enough to drive, you don't "test" that by driving you loved ones around with your dodgy eyes. As I say I'm not a driver, but that seems potentially dangerous. Or it's a lie, who can say.

[Eddie Teach]

The government tells people to limit their speed on public roads, for the safety of everyone. Yet I'm sure government officials break those rules all the time and nobody gets up in arms about it. I think this uproar is mainly due to people being cranky from having nothing to do. (And it's not like this guy wasn't also experiencing the same things, driving somewhere doesn't open theaters, restaurants and stadiums.)

[Tamas]

Dorsey, you forgot to change accounts again.

I was just curious about the answer to that question myself, but it was obvious that coming from Dorsey it would only get vitriol.  Maybe it would be different if I asked that question.

Plausible