Quote:
Originally Posted by nffc
The most sensible thing to do is something which actually works and doesn't impact on people, and to not do it until it's actually needed.
So we already know that the virus spreads mostly in busy indoor places with poor ventilation. There are 2 ways you can solve that possibly - improve ventilation or make them less busy by introducing number restrictions.
The original 2m idea was based on the idea of keeping apart, the figure itself wasn't based on any real science, just reasonable separation which was easy to visualise. It was 6ft in the US, and 1m / 1.5m in some countries.
As for masks, well, you only need to look at people who have continued to wear them whenever they are indoors and out of their house and have still caught covid. And this includes people who should know how to use them properly. You can't wear them with glasses without the lenses steaming up, which is dangerous in itself, as you either need to not wear the mask, not wear your glasses (which may not be possible depending on how bad your sight is) or walk around with steamed up lenses. The disposable paper ones just add extra to landfill (they can't go in as paper as they have non-recyclable plastic on them) and don't really work too well nor do the cloth masks. If they were going for masks which actually do work then the N95/surgical masks would be better but even then Germany is experiencing a spike in virus despite these masks being needed in other areas.
The obvious thing they could actually do which will probably work is to advise people that they need to work from home if they can. This stops needless interactions in the office where you don't need to be with those people to work. Any job which needs you to be in a workplace can continue.
The trouble if you start to introduce any more measures is that it impacts on trade. Enforcing distancing and masks would mean that the hospitality industry would have to suffer again which means there would have to be job losses or we'd have to pay for furlough again which we can't afford.
Even Chris Whitty said the other day that he doesn't think people would support another lockdown. We've already seen in previous restrictions where people are having parties in parks and in houses because they can't do it in pubs.
|
You’re basing what we should do against a new variant with knowledge based on an old variant. There are significant changes between the two.
The WHO has specified what they advise the social distancing size should be,
It’s up to countries to heed that advice.
To your point on the economy, there may be a degree of difficulty to businesses but nowhere near the level should another lockdown be needed
It’s a finely tuned balancing act and I’m glad I can just discuss hypothetically rather than having to actually make the decision. but with the amount of mutations in the new variant which we don’t yet understand acting cautiously would be in our best interests.
The British would probably grudgingly accept another lockdown, there would be protests of course. But I don’t believe a mass uprising of the populace is on the cards. Let’s hope we don’t get to find out.