10-17-2020, 03:03 PM
(10-17-2020, 02:30 PM)Nicolas Sarkozy Wrote: We know Mak, and you have to balance some things being open versus others not, that's clear. However, I would say that the standard starting ground (particularly from the #FBPE #FuckBoris Twitter scene) seems to be to shame people for things like going on holiday, visiting family or going to pubs/restaurants/gyms, but having no issue with less enjoyable things operating as normal.
It's like a competition to who can deprive themselves of the most things to be the best Covid citizen.
Mostly agree with this. I'm pretty ambivalent about holidays tbh - wouldn't shame anyone for going on a short break, and taking what precautions they can. But there is an unfortunate reality that the people who need to physically go to work (and there's definitely room for debate over who should/shouldn't be expected to do so) are the people who, from the point of view of transmission, should be the most isolated outside of it, given that they're most exposed and most likely to spread it. The argument against that is that it's not fair for people to be expected to work and not socialise, and it's true - it's not fair. But viruses don't have a sense of morality.
There are loads of things to balance with this stuff - the economic value of closing businesses vs the public health impact of keeping them open, and the mental health impacts of lockdown vs the physical health impacts of opening up. I honestly don't know where I stand on it any more - part of me wants to say that we can't just stay in lockdown forever and need to find ways of living with this, but having lost a loved one to Covid I also know that that stuff's easy to say when it's abstract and harder when you have to deal with the consequences. As it is I'm finding myself sort of half following the measures and sympathising to an extent both with people who are and aren't following them. Feel like inconsistent communications are at the root of most of the issues.