Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[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."

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.

Okay, fair enough, but I don't think that should be the only consideration to be balanced.  Another consideration is the legitimacy of the rules.  Any time a person encounters a rule that is clearly nonsense, their respect for the rules in general goes down.  It may lead to them skirting the rules, following the letter but not the spirit, or just flouting them completely.  Therefore, when you make rules, you have to consider whether reasonable people would find the rules as they apply to them reasonable. 

For example, here in the Northeast US, speed limits on most roads bear little relationship with either reasonable speed of travel or actual speed of travel.  Therefore, there is no legitimacy to any of the speed limit signs, and if some stretch of the road really does have low speed limits due to some quirks and cars really need to go slower than it seems like they should go, too bad.  Drivers will choose speeds that minimize the chance of them getting caught up in arbitrary enforcement, and traffic engineers have one less tool to ensure that all the road users coexist in as safe of a situation as possible.

[celedhring]

I think these rules are pretty reasonable in the kind of situation Western European nations found themselves at the peak of the pandemic. Compliance over here was pretty big, and I think it was the case for other countries. We were talking the days when death figures scaled up to nearly 1,000 per day. As Sheilbh said, these rules have been relaxed and exchanged for more nuanced ones once the emergency abated, and the risks brought by being more granular were thus lesser.

[Sheilbh]

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.)

I mean Chris Huhne, then Environment Secretary, lost his job in the cabinet and went to prison over this. Admittedly the actual issue was he only had a few points on his licence left, his car was caught speeding on a speed camera but his wife said she was driving so took the points on her licence. In their later, rather contentious, divorce she revealed this and they were both prosecuted for perverting the course of justice and jailed for 9 weeks (sentenced to 8 months).

To be fair I can well imagine that in year 3 of Trump's presidency it takes quite a scandal to really be worth caring about corruption by people close to the President, and I have no doubt there's a lot worse done by people in or around the British government (the number of failsons in well-paid positions or senior people subsequently joining, say, Blackrock or advising the Saudis etc etc). But I still think the principle is worth defending and the right approach is outrage

[The Larch]

For example, here in the Northeast US, speed limits on most roads bear little relationship with either reasonable speed of travel or actual speed of travel.  Therefore, there is no legitimacy to any of the speed limit signs.

What you described is being an asshole smartass, you're not the one who decides if a speed limit is reasonable or not, you have to abide by it and that's it. Same reason why people should not ignore lockdown restrictions if they don't feel like it.

This is not a "harmless crime" situation, it's a public safety one.

[Valmy]

but it was obvious that coming from Dorsey it would only get vitriol.

But that is mostly because of the way he asks it

I fully concede Dorsey might be right about everything.

[merithyn]

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."

Because a lot can happen in 250 miles. The car can break down. The car could need gas. A family member might need to use the washroom.

It's not about not having fun. It's about keeping the virus in as small an area as can possibly be made. Traipsing across the country isn't doing that.

[Sheilbh]

A family member might need to use the washroom.

Just to confirm they did indeed piss and relax on the side of the road, according to his account

[alfred russel]

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.

Corruption implies that at the very least he got special treatment. I don't see that to be the case--it seems like people who were going bird watching etc. were told to go home and maybe given a fine, not thrown in jail. It seems that the people not caught in the act by the police, when informants reported them to the police after the fact, the police did not follow up.

I could be convinced otherwise by examples of similar conduct by ordinary citizens more harshly prosecuted.

[Sheilbh]

Isn't that basically saying if you don't get caught, it's not corrupt?

But as we've discussed this can't rely on coercion by the state or the police to enforce. It relies on us all voluntarily complying because even if 20% of people don't comply we don't have the police resources to enfore that.

Most people have done that and will, continue to do that. As the Health Secretary says this relies on our sense of "civic duty", to do the right thing. He chose not to comply and rather than facing any consequences or even just accepting it and apologising, we've been given a stream of bullshit about why actually he was following the rules, he was facing "exceptional circumstances". There should also be a bit of civic virtue, because at the minute either they apply differently to people in government, or we've all been mugs for voluntarily following these guidelines.

[alfred russel]

Isn't that basically saying if you don't get caught, it's not corrupt?

But as we've discussed this can't rely on coercion by the state or the police to enforce. It relies on us all voluntarily complying because even if 20% of people don't comply we don't have the police resources to enfore that.

Most people have done that and will, continue to do that. As the Health Secretary says this relies on our sense of "civic duty", to do the right thing. He chose not to comply and rather than facing any consequences or even just accepting it and apologising, we've been given a stream of bullshit about why actually he was following the rules, he was facing "exceptional circumstances". There should also be a bit of civic virtue, because at the minute either they apply differently to people in government, or we've all been mugs for voluntarily following these guidelines.

There are separate issues. If it is voluntary compliance and the rules effectively have no teeth (as discussed I agree with that in non commercial settings), it isn't about corruption but rather immoral conduct. For example, in the US if you verbally racially abuse someone that is not criminal, and if a politician does so not an example of corruption, but also immoral and should be disqualifying for public office on those grounds.

Different people will have different points of view, but good grief...you guys can speak to your own experiences, but I don't think modest violations of the quarantine requests are uncommon--if that disqualifies people from public office we are effectively disqualifying a large percentage of the population. And yes--driving to a cottage is modest--it hardly seems higher risk that going out for a second round of outdoor exercise in London. It may even net reduce risk.

I think the knives are out because people are cranky and generally dislike this dude anyway.

[Zoupa]

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

Totally

[Sheilbh]

There are separate issues. If it is voluntary compliance and the rules effectively have no teeth (as discussed I agree with that in non commercial settings), it isn't about corruption but rather immoral conduct. For example, in the US if you verbally racially abuse someone that is not criminal, and if a politician does so not an example of corruption, but also immoral and should be disqualifying for public office on those grounds.

It has teeth. It's maybe arguable, but I think the stronger argument is that he broke the rules in law. My point is this law is irrelevant if we don't voluntarily comply with it, because it's asking all of us to do something and we don't have the police resources or surveillance necessary to enforce compliance.

Different people will have different points of view, but good grief...you guys can speak to your own experiences, but I don't think modest violations of the quarantine requests are uncommon--if that disqualifies people from public office we are effectively disqualifying a large percentage of the population.

I don't know anyone who's broken the rules and according to polls and data on travel compliance is estimated to be around 85%. I don't think many people are violating this modestly or otherwise, sometimes in very difficult circumstances. As I say either these rules don't apply to him, or we've all been had.

I think the knives are out because people are cranky and generally dislike this dude anyway.

That's part of it for sure - but you know I think over 40 Tory MPs, so over 10% of their MPs, have publicly called for him to go. Apparently cabinet ministers have done the same privately and at least one has said this will cost lives because he's confusing the message. That wouldn't be happening if it was just the people who dislike him already.

[derspiess]

For example, here in the Northeast US, speed limits on most roads bear little relationship with either reasonable speed of travel or actual speed of travel.  Therefore, there is no legitimacy to any of the speed limit signs, and if some stretch of the road really does have low speed limits due to some quirks and cars really need to go slower than it seems like they should go, too bad.  Drivers will choose speeds that minimize the chance of them getting caught up in arbitrary enforcement, and traffic engineers have one less tool to ensure that all the road users coexist in as safe of a situation as possible.

Yeah, but watch out for those quaint little towns with their 20mph limits.  Talking to you, Tuxedo, NY

[DGuller]

What you described is being an asshole smartass, you're not the one who decides if a speed limit is reasonable or not, you have to abide by it and that's it. Same reason why people should not ignore lockdown restrictions if they don't feel like it.

This is not a "harmless crime" situation, it's a public safety one.

I described what actually happens.  Compliance with rules correlates with respect for rules, which in turn correlates with the legitimacy of rules, regardless of whether you think everyone should be perfectly obedient.  When you set policy, you should consider people as they are, not as they should be.  When you get on the road with a 55 MPH speed limit and the flow of traffic is at 70 MPH, with literally no one complying with 55 MPH limit because it would be unsafe, you quickly realize that "just obey the speed limit at all times" is an empty platitude.

[Sheilbh]

As a non-driver, but pedestrian and occasional cyclist I disagree and there should be tonnes of speed cameras on routes where people routinely break the speed limit.

Edit: Because that example is basically a country road in the UK that people are treating like motorway/highway - it's dangerous for all of us other road users.