Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Corona / Covid-19 Virus - General Discussion (politics go to the Off Topic / Politics thread)

Graham wrote:

What I meant about HIV was that we don’t generally put extra measures in place, we don’t metaphorically make them paint a red cross on their door.

You gave the answer yourself: We did not need “extra measures” because it takes more than just exhaling to infect someone else with HIV. Therefore the existing laws are already suited well enough.

Graham wrote:

Then it comes down to how much we’re prepared to tolerate risk from natural phenomena and to what extent we view it as the role of government to eliminate these risks. We tolerate and manage many different risks in our daily lives – as aviators we probably understand this more than most.

I would not call it a “natural phenomenon” is someone who is infected with a deadly virus is coughing at my face.

And yes, as Aviators we do understand more than most, that some things can be regulated better at the few than at the many:
- We have design regulations in place to make sure that I don’t have to recalculate the strength of every bolt in my plane
- We have ops regulations in place that make sure I can rely on at least certain standards of operations when I sit in an airliner (and don’t have to ask for their W&B to check myself)
- We have Traffic regulations in place that make sure that in the traffic pattern nobody else is flying in the opposite direction because they like.

All of those regulations are (accepted) restrictions of freedom because we understood that sometimes it is justified to employ burden on some to avoid death of others. Most notably – and in contrast to the Covid situation – we have such regulations in place in aviation even though most safety issues are “symmetric” in a sense that if I put others in danger I put myself in the same danger and therefore my mere egoism keeps me from doing stupid things.

Germany

Malibuflyer wrote:

I would not call it a “natural phenomenon” is someone who is infected with a deadly virus is coughing at my face.

Social etiquette already dictates that one doesn’t cough in another’s face. But of course you already know that this wasn’t what I was referring to as a natural phenomenon.

The natural phenomenon is the circulation of a very infectious respiratory virus in the human population. To refer to it as a ‘deadly virus’ is just buying into the hysteria that is causing large portions of the population (and governments) to lose sight of what we’re dealing with here. You know well enough that if you’re infected the chances of it killing you are vanishingly small.

I argue against long-term measures legally enforcing things like masks and vaccines not because I disagree with the measures but because I believe they’re unworkable. Vaccination certificates for travel between countries is workable because it’s a simple matter of international politics and we already do it with things like yellow fever. Masks in supermarkets is easy: everyone can see your mask (or not) and their shop = their rules, or else don’t come in. A system where you can’t go to the cinema, a restaurant or a football match without proving your vaccination status is as ludicrous as it is unworkable.

EGLM & EGTN

Graham wrote:

A system where you can’t go to the cinema, a restaurant or a football match without proving your vaccination status is as ludicrous as it is unworkable.

Why? Both cinemas and football stadia already have entrance checks (for tickets or, in the case of stadia, dangerous items) already. It would be a matter of seconds to check somebody’s vaccination status along with the ususal checks. Last year, in restaurants, Germans had to provide their contact data anyways for the purpose of contract tracing.It is easily immaginable letting people provide proof of vaccination at the same point.

Last Edited by MedEwok at 23 Feb 14:50
Low-hours pilot
EDVM Hildesheim, Germany

Graham wrote:

Vaccination certificates for travel between countries is workable because it’s a simple matter of international politics

Will counties prevent the citizen of a country returning to that country without proof of vaccination? That is not the case now. Will intra-Schengen border controls be permanently reestablished? I doubt it.

As the health issues fade, people will grow tired of the pointless theatre. Those who want the protection will get vaccinated, the moral posturing will become unpopular and that will be the end of it. The problem in Europe is that this will likely take quite a while, governments have dug themselves a very big hole and will keep digging for a while.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 23 Feb 15:56

Airborne_Again wrote:

I would say that at least since the summer of last year, it has been clear that factors other than lockdowns are the most important ones.

Yes, even the press finally picked up on Florida (without almost no restrictions on anything) having very similar statistics to California, which is legally at the opposite end of the spectrum. This among other factors has led to growing civil disobedience in California (e.g. restaurants opening for indoor dining without consequence) and the likelihood of an upcoming vote to recall the California governor. Given the political statistics I think he’ll very likely stay in office but the vote will be held and he’s been strangely quiet and inactive since that became likely.

Meanwhile Florida and Texas lead the pack in immigration from other states over the last year, with hundreds of thousands of new residents added as a direct result of their policies. A far cry from the hand wringing that had those states collapsing, falling victim to a plague due to inaction etc.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 23 Feb 15:51

It is indeed interesting why the infection numbers don’t correlate well with lockdowns and such like.

Well, they do correlate very well with lockdown, but some countries with less strict lockdowns also see a similar rise and fall. The problem is, only some.

What this would tell somebody with an engineering education is that the course of an epidemic is affected by some factors which are not [yet] understood.

I reckon some very small factors are having a big effect, especially in combination. For example -

  • wearing masks probably has a huge effect, but obviously only in places where it would have a huge effect
  • old/retired people (a big chunk of Florida) don’t do much clubbing, and are likely to be a lot more easily scared into changing behaviour
  • car use v. public transport will help a lot
  • and a hundred other small things
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

What this would tell somebody with an engineering education is that the course of an epidemic is affected by some factors which are not [yet] understood.

An engineering education teaches you that very little in the world is understood in scientific detail, if you look closely enough. The world tends to operate on trends and calculations based on rules of thumb. My engineering education in relation to this particular situation tells me most of factors in the rise and fall of the statistics are yet to be understood. Nobody knows what drives the broad worldwide trend of upward statistics followed now by fast falling downward statistics.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 23 Feb 15:32

That may well be true, although I have zero doubt that without lockdowns of some sort the hospitals would not have coped, at the peak.

What I am sure is not understood is what drives it at low levels e.g. much of summer 2020. And indeed the effect of warmer temps.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The hospitals here just postponed elective or non-critical surgeries and did fine.

Graham wrote:

Masks in supermarkets is easy: everyone can see your mask (or not) and their shop = their rules, or else don’t come in.

That is one possible way to regulate it. Needs a discussion in society if that is the one way we want to go. Looking at the various regulations/discussions in countries weather it should be in the discretion of the individual shop-owner if he allows for LGBTQ, people that do (or do not) follow a certain cult, do (or do not) wear certain types of cloth around their waist, great or face, etc.
It is also a question for the social systems regulation if we a society want to pay cost of treatment for people that took the “own decision” to not get vaccinated or not wear masks and therefore get infected or infect others.

Graham wrote:

A system where you can’t go to the cinema, a restaurant or a football match without proving your vaccination status is as ludicrous as it is unworkable.

Sounds like “A system where you are not allowed to drive faster than 75mph on an empty highway is as ludicrous as it is unworkable”. Of course you can not control the speed of every car at every point in time. Neither could you practically control the blood alcohol level of everyone entering a car or a plane – and yet driving/flying under influence is forbidden.
Regulation is always a product of both: Risk of getting caught and consequences of getting caught. If the fine for visiting a football match without vaccination is high enough, it should prevent most people from doing so – even more so as vaccination is a longer term thing so that in contrast to DUI even a week later someone could tell you have been in the stadium and it can be checked if you had been vaccinated before. Adding significantly to the risk of being caught.

Germany
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top