Thread by @sundersays

Does it seem "ridiculous" for Bankers and Hedge Fund managers involved in £ high-value deals to be subject to similar quarantine rules to everybody else who comes in and out of the country - and to the citizens of the country themselves?

A core feature of public understandings of fairness is that *reciprocity* matters - that, if there are rules we need to follow, it is fair for them to apply to everybody, and that the rich/powerful should not give themselves a pass on the rules we follow

https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1265780585118793728

The public find the main reasons for following rules (prevent the spread, protect the NHS) persuasive by 87% to 12% - but almost half the country finds "those in power don't follow the rules they set for the rest of us" a potentially convincing reason to not do so.

This is Sunday Times: Cut quarantine to seven days - "and none for jet set" kite being flown.

[Super-Rich Should Play by Different Covid Rules, PM to tell Locked Down Regions. Economy Trumps Health for Bankers - though other Businesses forced to close]

https://twitter.com/Sime0nStylites/status/1320227050989473792

There are different perceptions of this, the paper reports.

"A Tory party donor said the exemption was 'eminently sensible'. But officials are understood to have warned the changes could be divisive".

Obviously, big political risks to this kind of idea. Many people will respond by noting the sacrifices they personally made to follow the rules.

Must be harder to assess how far this kind of row erodes trust/confidence in a way that also affects behaviour - but a key question.

Obvious alternative for people who don't want to follow the quarantine rules/restrictions is to use online and telephone meetings whenever possible. That isn't possible for healthcare, sewage workers and international sports matches - but it is for bankers/hedge funds & lawyers