File under - remember the risk budget. Risk of transmission may be the same in food as book shops, but we need food more than books. And to keep the virus from spreading, contacts between people have to be limited. (The limit growing as the vaccinated pop grows.)
https://twitter.com/MPWife_/status/1363397522115428356
'This is similar to that; that is allowed; therefore this is allowed.' It's been a persistent difficulty with the regulations that the virus control measures don't spring from the same ethical/moral sources as other laws where we demand consistency.
Lockdown sceptics have, variously, failed to understand the notion of the risk budget, or just sought to exoloit the fact that lay people don't, and played on the expectation that virus control measures will adhere to non-pandemic norms of consistency...
... pointing to the apparent lack of consistency as evidence that the restrictions on civil liberties are opportunistic and arbitrary lurches towards authoritarianism.
This form of lockdown scepticism is dangerous as a shortage of resources means regulations have to be complied with by consent, + if people don't think the regulations are fair and consistent, and don't understand the public health mechanics behind them, they won't comply.
Exhibit A: lockdown sceptic views pre-announcement of the gradual increase in the risk budget and how it will be spent as 'micro managing', playing on the notion of infringement of private liberties.
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1363623033966059520
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
