Another +1 here for broadly agreeing with Bonjoy
I don't agree with the idea of a national circuit breaker right now as there are plenty of areas with lower case numbers where businesses could remain open - why shut?
Quote from: abarro81 on October 13, 2020, 07:03:56 pmAnother +1 here for broadly agreeing with BonjoyYup. Same here. The 'in it all together' avoiding crags mentality has evaporated for me... Lone bouldering outside is ridiculously low risk...
I guess the only potential residual argument is not wanting to turn up at A&E with a broken wrist when the hospital is overburdened with Covid patients, but on a risk basis the chances of this still seem low.
Going into stricter lockdowns through winter.. I'd find it completely unacceptable if outdoor leisure in the hills and mountains was actively discouraged, when it's proven to be such a low risk way to rejuvenate and so many other leisure activities were banned.
Okay so this is me thinking aloud and playing devil’s advocate to an extent, but I’m voicing it because I’m interested to hear if other people are drifting in the same direction. A direction which is very worrying if extrapolated across the whole population as not everyone has the rarified levels of good judgment routinely displayed by the average UKB poster. As this thing drags ever on I get more and more of the mindset that I’m going to do what I deem low risk if the law doesn’t strictly prohibit it and possibly where it does if I personally risk assess it to be fine and I know I can get away with it.This grows out of a feeling that if I’d mindlessly followed the guidance about what is safe I’d probably have caught COVID by now and it’s my own hypervigilance that has kept me virus free so far not the blunt instrument of politically/economically driven ever changing rules. I know how to keep myself virus free as far as practically possible and quality of life considerations dictate I trust my own judgement. During lockdown there was a strong argument that you had to go along with nonsensical measures in the name of social cohesion and unity of purpose, but at this stage it feels like this has largely gone to rat shit and middle class dads sticking rigidly to the rules is not going to save the world after all.In short I didn’t ‘eat out to help out’ but I might go on my remote and isolated holiday in Scotland if it’s not strictly illegal.
The government needs to have the confidence to just say that some businesses and indeed industries will not survive a pandemic world. Travel is knackered, at least one more airline will go before Christmas I'd guess; I can't see theatres surviving and many if not all cinemas look like going the same way.
Everyone’s defiance is admirable but it might be worth remembering we know a lot more now than we did the first time round. It’s extremely unlikely outdoor exercise will be curtailed completely. More likely is that you’ll have to ignore advice such as that in-place now for Tier 3 locations, such as travelling into or out of such locations.
Quote from: TobyD on October 13, 2020, 10:55:29 pmThe government needs to have the confidence to just say that some businesses and indeed industries will not survive a pandemic world. Travel is knackered, at least one more airline will go before Christmas I'd guess; I can't see theatres surviving and many if not all cinemas look like going the same way.I can't work out if you're saying that you don't think these industries are viable post-pandemic, or just that keeping them afloat through a pandemic (in which they're not viable) isn't a prudent use of money? I don't really know the ins and outs of trying to keep things afloat vs letting them go bankrupt and then emerge from the ashes as those with capital buy up the assets (the latter sounds a bit wank and will exacerbate wealth disparity, but I guess is way cheaper for the gov)... but if you were saying the former then I disagree. Travel market will be a little smaller, but IMO there'll be plenty of both business and leisure travel coming back post-pandemic
I think the only thing which is likely to regain the consensus support for lockdown (given the existing agitations for light restrictions/personal choice/let it rip) is deaths, lots of them, at which point measures will have to be severe, broad brush and probably indiscriminate. And I think Boris is too weak and desperate to be loved to actually lead and outpace the consensus.
I'd largely defer to the economists on whether accepting mass unemployment is a wise idea, or whether it's better to borrow to attempt to mitigate it and avoid all the cascading impacts. No doubt they all disagree anyway. Clearly some things would be worth supporting for strategic reasons, in order to maintain expertise in certain areas.
I'd largely defer to the economists on whether accepting mass unemployment is a wise idea...
I always think of economists as ideologically driven mathematicians. They have a political view just like the rest of us, which explains why they band together in like minded think tanks, are funded by people who would benefit from their ideas, and are quoted by people who align with them politically because it lends a veneer of objectivity to their ideas, whatever their politics.
Quote from: abarro81 on October 14, 2020, 09:56:21 amI'd largely defer to the economists on whether accepting mass unemployment is a wise idea, or whether it's better to borrow to attempt to mitigate it and avoid all the cascading impacts. No doubt they all disagree anyway. Clearly some things would be worth supporting for strategic reasons, in order to maintain expertise in certain areas.I always think of economists as ideologically driven mathematicians. They have a political view just like the rest of us, which explains why they band together in like minded think tanks, are funded by people who would benefit from their ideas, and are quoted by people who align with them politically because it lends a veneer of objectivity to their ideas, whatever their politics.
Quote from: abarro81 on October 14, 2020, 09:56:21 amI'd largely defer to the economists on whether accepting mass unemployment is a wise idea...Its not a wise idea, it never has been, and it never will be in future, except in the scenario where we are either all hunter gatherers or have a UBI that covers all essential living costs and sufficient public services. Is that not self evident? Signed, a non-economist.No doubt qualified economists will disagree, but I would check their allegiances first before quoting.