Graham wrote:
Related to that is the extent to which people are becoming conditioned to the idea that travel, eating and drinking out, sports and recreation, seeing friends and family etc. are things you can do only if the government permits it.
Exactly, it is by far the most dangerous development of any kind in my lifetime. It dwarfs coronavirus in its implications.
If we are talking western societies I’m less pessimistic on that. I don’t see any such conditioning at all, just see people longing for the day when they are free again, to the point of rioting. And why would governments impose limitations on us when we are back to normal? Unsellable. And they don’t have the resources to enforce it properly and constantly in the first place.
Peter wrote:
This “UK variant” was actually first picked up in Kent, and guess where the busiest sea ports are? This variant could have easily entered the UK via one of these.
There is a specific theory about how the UK variant came about. I don’t think this paper is about the strain in question, but it involves the same mechanism If it’s correct then it’s unlikely to have arisen in a patient who was doing much travelling. I suppose it could have arisen overseas then been brought into the country by a third party.
aart wrote:
And why would governments impose limitations on us when we are back to normal?
Not that they necessarily will, but going forward they will know that they can whenever circumstances are judged to require it, and that resistance to it will be minimal.
From the legislative perspective the concern is whether everything will be properly repealed, i.e. putting us back exactly where we were, or whether some of these powers may remain on the statute to be used at the discretion of the executive in future.
Yes – a patient with a compromised immune system, who spent a long time ill, at home or in a hospital.
I doubt everything will be repealed because some things will be needed, like a rapid shutdown of air travel. One cannot close borders totally but one can play for time while a vaccine is developed. I think a set of rapid reactions will be one of the changes resulting from this very expensive mess.
Graham wrote:
Related to that is the extent to which people are becoming conditioned to the idea that travel, eating and drinking out, sports and recreation, seeing friends and family etc. are things you can do only if the government permits it.
It’s not that the government needs to permit it – it is that they can forbid it if we as society feel we need that as a norm to protect the many against the few.
Yes, one can – and must – always debate and readjust what the social norms are that are so important to society want the government to sanction transgressions. And honestly, before we start debating that on measures about the acute pandemic I had some other things in mind where I ask myself, why government does not permit it: Drinking (or even only open bottles of alcohol) in public, being nude in public (why is it ok that the government mandates I have to wear cloth around my waist when I’m in public but it’s a big concern if it mandates the same about cloth around my mouth?!?), data protection/GDPR (why can the government restrict me with what I do with data that someone else voluntarily gave me/ put on the internet), etc.?
Not to mention that I’m not allow to fly drunk, don’t get a medical with a mental condition, etc.
Graham wrote:
From the legislative perspective the concern is whether everything will be properly repealed, i.e. putting us back exactly where we were, or whether some of these powers may remain on the statute to be used at the discretion of the executive in future.
The situation might be very different in different countries: In Germany – from a legislative perspective – the executive did not get any more powers that they did not have since decades. It’s just that for the very first time it actually used some of these powers.
From the legislative perspective the concern is whether everything will be properly repealed, i.e. putting us back exactly where we were, or whether some of these powers may remain on the statute to be used at the discretion of the executive in future.
Hmm, maybe I’d even like such powers.. Enables a country to swiftly do the right thing. And it will not be misused as that would be political suicide.
I see a lot of responsible citizens around me who sensible protect themselves and other in this pandemic. But also see lots of people who do not (or admittedly, cannot) and I’m prepared to give up some freedom to prevent irresponsible people to mess things up.
Living in proximity to other people has benefits and costs. I I wanted to be free of both the benefits and the costs, I’d move as far from other people as I’d like. However, I recognize that trying to have your cake and eat it too, by controlling the behavior of others, might have some appeal to those of authoritarian bent but won’t actually work. And sure enough it hasn’t worked in this situation. More of the same won’t work any better.
The better course for me is to leave other people alone and live in the real world where government has yet to enslave people for long or (in particular) tame and control nature. People have an amazing ability to learn if you lead them respectfully and don’t beat them over the head, provoking antagonistic responses that disrupt their judgement.
Malibuflyer wrote:
The situation might be very different in different countries: In Germany – from a legislative perspective – the executive did not get any more powers that they did not have since decades. It’s just that for the very first time it actually used some of these powers.
Indeed – it must be very different. Quite a lot of legislation has been required here, some of it passed very quickly when the government has decided to act quickly.
Issues have been exposed around law (and enforcement) vs guidance. People here talk in vague terms about ‘covid rules’ and ‘covid regulations’ without being specific enough – i.e. whether they refer to a legal restriction or not. There are some laws (which of course have the force of law and enforcement is possible) and a lot of government guidance, which anyone is free to ignore and enforcement of which is (rightly) impossible. There have been isolated issues with Police Officers (and their bosses) who believe they have a remit to ensure compliance with guidance.
