4 ms·

There's no reason for any restrictions, if the healthcare system is not in danger of being overwhelmed. Risk is a fact of life. And arguably your wish for ever

There's no reason for any restrictions, if the healthcare system is not in danger of being overwhelmed. Risk is a fact of life. And arguably your wish for everyone to wear masks and have compulsory vaccinations focuses disproportionately on one particular, small, risk, in comparisons to other much larger risks, such as travelling on public roads. Road traffic accidents are a bigger killer of young people, and yet no-one is calling for the speed limit to be drastically reduced. I think the preoccupation with COVID comes from particular human fear of viruses (invisible, lack of control), rather than an actual measured response assessing all the risks we deal with everyday living normally.

wizofaus 4y ago
"yet no-one is calling for the speed limit to be drastically reduced" Actually they have been, and fairly successfully - speed limits have been gradually and significantly reduced over the last few decades in built-up areas in many parts of the world. And I totally agree we need to do more to contain the risks of driving. However, infectious diseases ARE qualitatively different from risks from traffic accidents, as the latter can't spread exponentially. As far as there being "no reason" for any restrictions goes, the reality is there's no way to be sure the healthcare system won't reach a point where healthcare workers are constantly overworked just in order to be able to provide the extra care required for infected patients. If cases are not steadily decreasing (or at steady but negligible levels), that risk always exists. All restrictions/regulations have some balance of pros vs cons, and it's the job of governments to determine for which of them the balance is sufficiently on the "pro" side to enact and enforce them.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  (Having said that, it does seem that recent data isn't really backing up the "pros" of mask mandates, at least in the US. Though the studies seemed focused on hospitalisations, rather than actual infection rate.)
- heurisko 4y ago
  Regarding speed limits, I had reducing speed on major roads more in mind. > However, infectious diseases ARE qualitatively different from risks from traffic accidents, as the latter can't spread exponentially. Which is no longer the case for COVID, hence there no longer being a rationale for restrictions. > there's no way to be sure the healthcare system won't reach a point where healthcare workers are constantly overworked just in order to be able to provide the extra care required for infected patients. Then that's a case for increasing resources to a level of care that is deemed appropriate by society. Not turning society itself into a sick patient.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    "All Australian states and territories now have a Reff greater than 1, meaning that even with the current levels of immunity, we are seeing an exponential growth in case numbers." https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/what-to-expect-from-a-third-omicron-wave-in-austra https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/what-to-expect-fro... Published July 6th.

wizofaus 4y ago

"yet no-one is calling for the speed limit to be drastically reduced" Actually they have been, and fairly successfully - speed limits have been gradually and significantly reduced over the last few decades in built-up areas in many parts of the world. And I totally agree we need to do more to contain the risks of driving. However, infectious diseases ARE qualitatively different from risks from traffic accidents, as the latter can't spread exponentially. As far as there being "no reason" for any restrictions goes, the reality is there's no way to be sure the healthcare system won't reach a point where healthcare workers are constantly overworked just in order to be able to provide the extra care required for infected patients. If cases are not steadily decreasing (or at steady but negligible levels), that risk always exists. All restrictions/regulations have some balance of pros vs cons, and it's the job of governments to determine for which of them the balance is sufficiently on the "pro" side to enact and enforce them.

wizofaus 4y ago
(Having said that, it does seem that recent data isn't really backing up the "pros" of mask mandates, at least in the US. Though the studies seemed focused on hospitalisations, rather than actual infection rate.)
heurisko 4y ago
Regarding speed limits, I had reducing speed on major roads more in mind. > However, infectious diseases ARE qualitatively different from risks from traffic accidents, as the latter can't spread exponentially. Which is no longer the case for COVID, hence there no longer being a rationale for restrictions. > there's no way to be sure the healthcare system won't reach a point where healthcare workers are constantly overworked just in order to be able to provide the extra care required for infected patients. Then that's a case for increasing resources to a level of care that is deemed appropriate by society. Not turning society itself into a sick patient.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  "All Australian states and territories now have a Reff greater than 1, meaning that even with the current levels of immunity, we are seeing an exponential growth in case numbers." https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/what-to-expect-from-a-third-omicron-wave-in-austra https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/what-to-expect-fro... Published July 6th.