Silvaire wrote:
The fatality per day in Texas has decreased for three of the last four days. I said “the last four days” which was not quite 100% accurate, but reasonable shorthand. We all know that weekend reporting affects the data, but otherwise I think that data can speak for itself. This was not a four day holiday weekend in the US.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Seeing the world in absolutes is a dangerous thing because the world is not simple.
kwlf wrote:
Why stop by considering a disease with 10% mortality?
I think your both sketching a straw man. Silvaire point is I believe is about a governments role. Normally there is some system of accountability no matter how cynical you are. This in most cases has not happened because of timescales and existing health legislation that has never been used to this extent.
For example all of the recent laws in the UK are secondary legislation without any debate or vote from our elected representatives using the health act which is primary legislation created by our elected representatives. In Switzerland perhaps a referendum would be held. i.e. There is no real accountability, and plenty of mistakes…
A further example is that in the UK many people actually took measures far further than required. i.e. no flying
Could we have a separate thread entitled:
‘Philosophical discussion about the role of government and individual freedoms versus the common good’
’Philosophical discussion about the role of government and individual freedoms versus the common good’
We could, but pending the development of a vaccine or effective treatment the only way to approach the pandemic is through politics so personally I don’t see that it is out of place in this thread.
Perhaps my comment about a much worse disease than COVID should be rephrased as a question to avoid allegations of being a straw-man argument. Would Silvaire (and others) not see any place for the government to restrict individual liberties in this situation? Are their positions as absolute as they sometimes come over?
Fighting a communicable disease like Covid always includes restriction of freedom. There is no way without such restrictions at all! Even a vaccine (when it is available) doesn’t remove the need for such restrictions as always for a significant numbers of patients the vaccination is not effective or which can’t be vaccinated for medical reasons.
The only choice we have is if we do this restrictions by regulation and therefore can consciously decide which parts of the population are affected in which way or if we let these restrictions happen unregulated by telling people with high risk profiles that they must not leave their home in any case (not even to receive medical services as we can not make sure they don’t catch the virus in the hospital, buy groceries, etc.)
Ted wrote:
For example all of the recent laws in the UK are secondary legislation without any debate or vote from our elected representatives using the health act which is primary legislation created by our elected representatives. In Switzerland perhaps a referendum would be held. i.e. There is no real accountability, and plenty of mistakes…
One of the reasons for the “Swedish approach” is that it would be constitutionally impossible for the Swedish government – or indeed the parliament – to order a lockdown of the whole country or even regions. The concept of a “state of emergency” doesn’t exist in Sweden.
Hence the whole Anti-Vaxxers argument which will doubtless become another topic of discussion when a vaccine for Covid becomes available. At least I am guessing it will not in the first instance be given to children so only consenting adults then. 
Obviously everyone would like to preserve the economy and save lives without restricting freedoms. But that hasn’t proven possible.
So some have suggested it’s saving lives that should have the priority while others have suggested it should be preserving the economy.
There was a newspaper article here recently which looked at the Swedish economy as a result of their less restrictive approach. The conclusion was that initially the Swedish economy held up but as the pandemic moved on, the population stopped buying and as a result the Swedish economy has been just as badly hit as the rest of Europe has been.
As someone who spends my working life working with many different businesses and see the effects on them, I would suggest that a severe and harsh suppression of the virus to the point of elimination of domestic transmission together with quarantine/testing for inward travel would have the best outcome for the economy.
It would allow the domestic economies to return to full strength with no need for social distancing and no fears for going to pubs/restaurants/parties or various other businesses. It would provide a boost to domestic tourism (people wouldn’t travel abroad for holiday if they needed to quarantine on return). This would leave the travel industry being hard hit and needing help. But at least it would be the only one left badly hit. Given that the rest of the economy would be back at full speed, that sector could be supported as needed.
International business travel probably isn’t needed to anything like the extent that it happens and much of that could be temporarily replaced by video conferencing.
This is effectively what NZ has achieved.
I sometimes wonder if the same could be done on a county by county basis. Stop travel between counties without quarantine but as a county become covid free, it’s own economy is allowed to operate without restriction. But I suspect that wouldn’t be possible because too many people cross county borders daily for work; far more than cross international borders.
