[1] https://www.ox.ac.uk/soundsofthebodleian/#radcam

I don't miss commercial society, I don't miss their tropes and their rituals. Fake friendship and banter from people hanging around to get some of my money in exchange of half a glass of ice and a dribble of liquor.

Bonus annoyance this year: the eternal covid lamentations of bar and restaurant owners, as if governments purposely wanted to destroy their businesses, as if one's bar is more important than other people lives, as if they didn't paint themselves and their stupid restaurant for years as an example of entrepreneurship (apparently the free market is a good idea only when your business goes well).

To hell with paid service, picnics and aperitivi in the main square with cheap liquor and (honestly) friendly smiles.

"I command this dump to wither, board its doors and windows forever" as Dan Feeder says.

Things are starting to open up a bit in Chicago, but it won't be the same for a long time.

Meaning, all this stuff I usually try to tune off or ignore when I am(was) out.

I must be missing something?

I used to go to "bars" and the like, but it was only to meet women and get laid. Now that I've secured the means to reproduction I don't have to force myself through that hell any more. Sites like this suggest there is something attractive about such places even if you take the sex away. I'm so happy, happier than I've ever been, that I don't have to go to bars or drink alcohol ever again.

During this Pandemic i've lost three 'Friends' (Social Media acquaintances I knew from HS) to suicide and have not heard of a single person who's had any long-term damage from Covid and the majority of my friends have has it at one point in time by now. I got it in early March in SF and again in July in Miami. Both times i caught a little sniffle. I got tested and quarantined but it did not stop me or scare me away from living my life. Most of my friends have the money, willpower and social distain for authoritarian governments to move to wherever state is not trying to follow China's example. (Mainly Socal, Florida, even Mexico)

Smoking cigs, riding motorcycles, and a million other things can kill you in this life. Live your life and anyone who tells you "You must do this for the saftey of others" can go fuck themselves. You have no right to tell me what I can and can't do as long as i am not causing DIRECT harm to you. If you're scared of COVID stay inside, but let the rest of us live our lives.

> Do you think the state should give you money or leave you to your enterprise?

I haven't taken a dime from any government entity, including the unemployment pool that I 100% qualify for and have spent the last 15 years paying into. I also have ~4 other streams of income, so yeah, leave me to my 'enterprise, I'm good.

> Do you think that taking things from businesses was some sort of conspiracy plan against business owners

No...

> or the result of something terrible

Correct.

> plus bad management

Nah we run an extremely dialed joint that pays all state & federal taxes with all cash components (door cover, tips, etc) on the books. My round of ownership (I'm 1 of 3) dug the place out of ~$100k in debt from prior ownership (primarily to other local vendors, and the IRS) and hard course corrected the place inside 24 months time. I'd argue we're a great example of fantastic management – in this business and plenty of others.

> plus decades of no preparation

I've been in this business for ~5 years, so I can't speak to decades.

> even when the scientific community was proactively warning everyone of this problem?

This is so wildy out of pocket, I can't even respond with anything reasonable.

Are you suggesting that restaurant/bar/venue owners should fall to zero and grind it out on the streets because they weren't accounting for scientific research that presented the possibility of a pandemic that'd stop all economic activity across the globe for 6+ months, and their businesses for 2+ years? Are you high?

> I made myself resistant to THIS specific problem by decades of choices, losses and failures.

Like I said, I'm good. But I also have a responsibility to a payroll of 18+ humans, and I'm not a large enough piece of shit to tell them that I win, they planned poorly, I am superior, and to hit the line at the fuckin' food bank.

> and hopefully won't blame others for that.

Nope but you'll blame the ones drowning as you stomp on their heads and flex on them with your wild time traveling foresight that makes you better than all of them and worthy of watching their lungs take on water with an 'I told you so' attitude. Hope that works out for you, boss.

Especially in this age where all of our interactions are through text, and there lingers the possibility that everyone else does not exist, solipsism is becoming increasingly true.

> but the suicide rate spiked by 30%

Neither of these have happened.

> Sites like this suggest there is something attractive about such places even if you take the sex away.

It implies that you don’t know what that “something” is. This is what the replies to your comment are addressing.

Does that make it acceptable in your country?

The last lockdown was imposed when it was, essentially, because the powers that be wanted christmas retail open, and christmas day to happen, when cases were already massively on the rise. I'm not saying "it wasn't harsh enough", I'm saying that every time it's been done too late, and ramped up too slowly. It could have been shorter and well controlled had it been sooner, like it has been in other countries.

There's no need to be so incivil. Perhaps think about your own words.

I'm calling for less locking down, but done earlier so that it can be shorter, and I'm largely talking about how it could have been done better last year. If that's enough for you to want to physically harm me, I really think you need to get that support.

Bay Area Counties are starting to extend eligibility to essential workers.

Same time noises are that the amount of vaccine shipped is going to double in the next few weeks.

And if they're actually going to a bar instead, then just close the bar at 6pm. A general curfew seems like a chainsaw approach, instead of a scalpel.

We did that for bars and restaurants in the UK, but it doesn't seem to have done as much good as it was probably just lost or ignored by our abysmal track and trace services...

We also had a QR code system to tag yourself in places, but it fell down because it was firstly optional, and secondly there was no way to tag out so the records weren't that accurate.

Meanwhile, we spent last month in Honolulu, and every single restaurant took down our contact info.

Nothing for regular stores in either place, though.

People are still people, we are just being told that people are unsafe, with an invisible enemy attacking. I think these lockdowns are too far, I think we can't hide from danger. Most people disagree with me. I can't say I've found a way to deal with this. I am depressed. I take medicine, but that only worked when things were normal. I am more depressed than I can remember, but it feels numb. When I was depressed in the past, I was actively sad, actively self-harming through excessive drug use. Now I am just, existing, like you said. But there is hope. We can get out of this mess, things are getting better. Hopefully things will be better soon.

> if the police want to be arses

This is what's completely wrong about the situation.

Police officer had an argument with their spouse that morning and is in a shitty mood? Police officer was bullied at school and is using their power to punish the kind of person that looks like their bullies? Any number of entirely random things can change the "rules". Not good.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55625062

It's both sad and hilarious that going for a picnic is currently a criminal act.

Now even in the dead of winter, on my nightly walks I see people strolling around at night. Many times the same people, assuming they're just looking to get out of the house.

Summer was even more drastic, I don't think I have ever seen more people take to cycling and walking for enjoyments sake in my area before.

I'm saying the 2 weeks part was gaslighting. What they should have said is "one year or greater to flatten the curve." That would have been honest

Were some authorities gas lighting? Maybe. Were all? Certainly not. We should focus on and isolate the bad actors who are doing this, not generalize.

When is the last time you have even looked at one of them closely, let alone formed a close relationship?

It is something we humans have done our entire existence, until recently, yet many today go their entire life without such an experience.

Seeing that disingenuous planning on the part of state authorities, I would simply prefer to go back to normal behavior right now, allow young people to have their big social coming-of-age and courtship rituals and open the borders so that Europeans aren’t separated from their fellow Europeans, and simply accept all the deaths that would result in the in-between time.

I quite frankly hope business travel never returns. Better for the environment too.

Not in many countries. Courts have overturned some rules, finding that the government did not have authority to impose those rules. For example, in Poland the ruling party ordered that masks be worn in public spaces and that restaurants have to close, but courts have already found that this law was void because the government did not pass a formal state of emergency (which would have enraged the population and cost them the next election).

Similarly, in the Netherlands their curfew was overturned by courts. It was hastily reinstated through parliamentary vote, but this reinstatement is questionable when this curfew appears designed to prevent the ruling coalition’s position from being challenged before the upcoming election. In France, Macron has clearly resorted to harsh anti-COVID measures because they can help stamp out the Yellow Vests movement that was bothering him pre-COVID. Dishonest strategems like this – even if not the most blatant example of an authoritarian state – leave a bad taste in one’s mouth.

For all we know, China just stopped counting and is accepting whatever new cases or deaths come up.

We know they fake other numbers. There's not reason not to think they aren't faking them here.

If the news wasn't telling me about the Virus all the time, I would not know there was a "raging" epidemic. I only know one person who contracted the virus among my entire family and friends group.

---

For most people, (...) 2020 was a mostly terrible year. A dark spot in the book of life, filled with misery, missing loved ones, habit changes and an overall feeling of “this is too bad, too fast”. For some, it’s like we’re still in 2019, ending in a shitty way. For others, it’s like a pit of awfulness that’s been going on forever and doesn’t seem to end.

I can’t say I relate, though. I’m sorry if you’re reading this and you’re one of those people, but I just can’t relate.

(...)

2020 sucked for these people. Some lost their job. Some lost their routines — and to some people routine _really is important_.

But 2020 didn’t suck for me. Or, rather, it didn’t suck as much. Sure, 2020 still sucked in many ways, but they’re not really that related to the pandemic we’re living. Maybe they are indirectly (...), but I cannot personally say that I felt really negatively affected by the pandemic. Some things still hit me, but many didn’t.

It feels like I’m committing some kind of heresy by saying this, but it’s true. I _feel bad_ that 2020 didn’t _make me feel bad_. But, really, it didn’t.

(...)

This was 2020. COVID didn’t really mess with me directly. I already worked remotely most of the time. Here’s how COVID has impacted my life, in the most blunt honesty I can have: - It enabled me to be much more easily socially accepted when I wanted to do remote meetings. - It enabled me to multitask: I can do many tasks at home (dishes, clothes, etc) while having remote meetings without my camera on. - It made it so that instead of going every weekend to visit (...) family, we started doing it much more sporadically (...). - It reduced the amount of traffic on the street, noise around the house, etc.

(...)

Personally, COVID didn’t do much for my life. You could very fairly make the point that, in terms of my _direct personal life_, it bettered it. I didn’t really stop doing things I liked. Sure, we can’t really go out or go to concerts, but I don’t need that. I have never needed that. Similarly, I stopped hanging out with my friends, and while I’d like to do that, I’m at a stage of my life where I don’t need it. It’s not a part of my personality. I don’t need to go out. I don’t want to go out most of the time. (...) I don’t _need_ to go out. I can stay for months inside my home just fine.

---

I have seen this claimed a lot, but is it really true? In some countries the authorities ended restrictions (or ostensibly maintained restrictions but stopped enforcement of them) because the population simply wasn't observing them. In those cases just "giving up" really worked in terms of the majority of people being able to get back to normal socializing.

But, truth be told, come late spring especially younger people are going to be out and about and restrictions are going to start to be widely ignored even if they're still officially in place.

So... i myself side with freedom and (risk of) death.

Of course it has an impact. If we didn't have social restrictions and consequently had much higher rates of infection, death, and long term disability, that also would have an impact. There's no world where, given a global pandemic, there are no severe impacts. Most arguments against social restriction that I've seen don't acknowledge this though. I mean, the other reply to my comment said "why not put some of the blame on the millions of people who died from this thing, who probably could have lived through it had they lived healthier lives", to which I can only reply "what?" For at least the most vocal opponents of social restrictions, they seem to have a radically different understanding of how respiratory infections work than I do.

>Lockdowns aren't binary. We're allowed to consider the costs and benefits of individual measures

Absolutely. It's not the people who are able to do nuance I'm taking issue with here.

> it is not at all clear that stronger measures lead to better Covid outcomes.

Well, I think the evidence is pretty clear that taking either none or very few measures has led to worse outcomes. Among places that have taken measures, I agree it gets hazier as you then have to go from the general "lockdown or freedom" argument into "which specific measures work best." The latter discussion is where we should be; the former one is, to my mind, based on an unrealistic set of assumptions.

I grew up outside a small rural town, running barefoot all over creation every chance I got, and most of the time by myself. These days I'm a wildlife photographer by avocation, and over the last couple of years I've gotten deeply into macro - I take pictures of wasps while they're doing wasp things, and as a result of that, I'm not only no longer afraid of them, I've kind of fallen in love with them. They are at this point by far my favorite insects, and high up among my favorite animals overall. I like them better than most mammals at this point, and some of the best pictures I've ever taken of a spider wasp, I got in my backyard last October. Aside from that, research papers on wasp ethology have been a gateway into entomology as a special interest, to an extent where if I had it to do over I might go into that instead of software engineering. I've even learned to make and bind books from scratch, initially because I wanted paper textbooks instead of PDFs.

All of that means a great deal to me. None of it makes up for the fact that, over the course of the last year, I've only been able to spend a few hours in the company of a friend, and none in that of colleagues. I'm somewhat solitary by inclination, and I think that makes it less hard on me than on most. But even for me, it's been hard. I can't imagine what it's been like for anyone who came into this both alone and without the good fortune of knowing how to be satisfied with their own company. These aren't good circumstances under which to have to learn that, and even the most cursory glance at the comments in this thread overall is enough to show that the success rate has probably not been high.

Yes, every so often you get someone like me, who can feel good for days about the pompilid wasp who turned up in his home office for an impromptu visit. Every so often you get a Birdman of Alcatraz, too. To suggest that everyone should just instantly be a Birdman - I mean, I get that you're trying to help, and I respect that. But you seem not to have given any thought to how to make your advice potentially useful to someone whose perspective differs greatly from your own.

It's an easy mistake to make - I do it often enough myself. But it's still a mistake, and it's why the criticism you're getting is warranted. The intention is obviously good, but the execution needs a deal of improvement.

If you're drinking 3 bottles of beer a night, 7 days a week, you're likely consuming 6 units of alcohol a day, or 42 a week.

The NHS (UK health service) recommends less than 14 units a week, spread across at least 3 days (so less than 5 units a day, 3 days a week, tops).[0]

Drinking 3 beers a day 7 days a week results in you drinking more than 3 times the maximum weekly recommended allowance.

I think we're largely in agreement about how one can drink, but 2-3 drinks a day is not 'bordering' on substance abuse from a health perspective. Societally we've normalised drinking to this level, but it's not healthly, and is absolutely substance abuse.

It took me tracking my alcohol consumption daily before I realised that my 1-2 beers a weekday / 4-6 beers a weekendday was so far beyond what is healthy, that I stopped entirely for 6 months. I've since backslid back into 1-2 beers a day. I know it's wrong, but most of life is right now anyway that it doesn't seem like that big a deal anymore.

[0] https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/alcohol-support/calculating-alc...

Alcohol is embedded in our society because it is the traditional way for people to let off steam.

If you mean "perfectly fine", then no, it isn't. But it's normal¹ meaning is "what happens most of the time", and it certainly is.

1 - That's intended.

Can you provide some examples? I googled around and found this [1] which seems like a reasonable summary of the Covid-related consequences of the George Floyd protests. The "reasons it seems like it was OK" doesn't seem too divergent from what many medical professionals are saying (don't gather indoors, wear masks, wash hands).

I'd also like to point out that institutional racism and police brutality are public health crises with uncountable effects on the health of Black Americans. Further, when you consider that Covid-19 has had far worse effects on communities of color, and that many essential workers are people of color, the protests don't seem that unrelated.

Edit, found some:

- https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/political-and-health-l...

- https://abcnews.go.com/Health/people-protest-george-floyds-d...

- https://time.com/5848212/doctors-supporting-protests/

- https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-lette...

Here are some quotes:

> “Protesting against systemic injustice that is contributing directly to this pandemic is essential,” Dhillon said. “The right to live, the right to breathe, the right to walk down the street without police coming at you for no reason . . . that’s different than me wanting to go to my place of worship on the weekend, me wanting to take my kid on a roller coaster, me wanting to go to brunch with my friends.”

> "Staying indoors all the time in a pandemic is equivalent to an abstinence-only policy,"

> For her part, Patel says the core tenants of harm reduction fit into public health doctors’ broader obligation to protect human rights while also helping people stay safe. "You’re describing a broader human rights-based approach to policy and medicine," Patel said. "These are the tenants of human rights."

> "There’s broad recognition that racism is one of the top public health issues of our time," Beletsky said.

> "Racism is a public health problem," the health department tweeted Monday. "In New York City, Black and Brown communities face the disproportionate impact, grief and loss from the COVID-19 pandemic on top of the trauma of state-sanctioned violence."

> “If people were to understand that racism, and all of the social and political and economic inequalities that racism creates, ultimately harms people’s health,” Boyd says, they would see that “protest is a profound public health intervention, because it allows us to finally address and end forms of inequality.”

> "We created the letter in response to emerging narratives that seemed to malign demonstrations as risky for the public health because of Covid-19," according to the letter writers, many of whom are part of the University of Washington's Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. "Instead, we wanted to present a narrative that prioritizes opposition to racism as vital to the public health, including the epidemic response. We believe that the way forward is not to suppress protests in the name of public health but to respond to protesters demands in the name of public health, thereby addressing multiple public health crises."

[1]: https://www.vox.com/2020/6/26/21300636/coronavirus-pandemic-...

May you find a way to move about freely in the near future.

Sure our rates are ‘high’ but are on par with places like California and New York who have very strict lockdowns.

For me, it's the risk of death and/or a chronic condition, or the certainty of psychosis.

Hourly reminder that it's been almost 100 days since it was last legal for me to have a friend over for a cup of tea.

Best of luck, glad you're holding up well; sorry that I've failed you.

I still highlight dumb holidays (next week is International I Hate Cilantro Day), read by the candlelight, explore abandoned buildings, ride my bicycle around etc.

I had to delay the plans for which I have strived for many years, but I don't consider that time lost. I got to try things I wouldn't have tried otherwise, and to invest my time in different places.

When I get hit by a wave of despair (usually after they push the dates further), I do something that reaffirms this.

I can understand why people want things to look forward to - and why businesses and people whose jobs will reopen would want dates in advance so they can plan.

But the dumbest thing the government could do is schedule reopenings before we know if it'll be safe to reopen.

That's what they did with the second lockdown - announced upfront that it was from to 31st October to 2nd December. Then they kept to their timetable and reopened things even though every metric on https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ made it clear we hadn't stopped the second wave - and now we have a third lockdown.

I don't know anything about your personal situation, but if you're healthy and relatively young the risk from Covid (first catching it, then having a bad time with it) in resuming these aspects of normal life may be extremely low, even compared to activities you wouldn't think twice about doing pre-pandemic - like taking a short car ride for example.

I think there are probably a lot of people struggling with this sort of thing. Cognitive behaviour therapy incorporating aspects of exposure therapy could be useful here.

It boils down to: "Shut up, stay in your pen". I'm not a crazy person and I agree with herd immunity and generally think we should strive for it and not fight it for the sake of the unhealthy, but excuse the language, holy-shit people... it's been a year of "flatten the curve", "lockdowns" and "stay at home orders"!! I stand by this fully: This disaster could have been solved in a month with closed borders, tracking and a dedicated, absolute and draconian effort. But, we didn't get that and instead treated the potentially "misbehaving" people like cattle because they threatened the wider herd.

It all rests on what happens after a wide rollout of the vaccine.

It guarantees a horrible outcome (psychosis), versus a slight risk of a bad outcome.

I'm not going to put myself into a coma for multiple years on the off chance that someone else gets ill. Best of luck.

Cynical thought: COVID lockdowns are extreme largely because unlike most public health problems it affects the rich too, and the decision-makers behind them fall into the high-risk categories.

Sobering thought: if you think COVID-19 is bad now, wait until there's a pandemic of something like the Spanish Flu that does target and kill the young and healthy too.

Approximately 0.2-0.3% of the UK population has died due to coronavirus.

But my personal risk of psychosis as a result of lockdown is far higher than that, it's starting to approach 1, and when it happens, it doesn't matter if those figures are 10%.

Maybe it's just me, but I really doubt it is. Social unrest is coming if we do this for much longer, I can't see any other way.

I can't live in a world that doesn't allow me to have a friend over for a cup of tea indefinitely; compromise really needs to happen soon.

Can you point me to the study for public health outcome differences from protests vs going to church. And what what their scietific criteria for where to draw the line was.

In the absence of Government leadership, I've had to do it for myself - I have a set date beyond which I will no longer follow social distancing. If I didn't have that, I'd have snapped long ago, which is strictly a worse outcome.

People individually snapping and choosing to do whatever they want is more dangerous than the alternative of the Government explicitly announcing that lockdown is a time-limited policy (and as such providing more support to the hardest-hit individuals).

Perfect is the enemy of the good.

Well, if that's even a good analogy, since lockdown is clearly nowhere near perfect, it's trading life for life.

Because I have just about enough left in me, and by then, in the UK we will have vaccinated the groups which make up ~99% of preventable mortality.

At that point, the moral argument of "go outside and you're putting people at risk" completely falls apart in my view.

If there are variants which escape the vaccines, then at that point it's game over since I know I definitely won't be able to make it through another year.

The people who are isolated by themselves are struggling much more.

In prison, the worst punishment you can receive is to be taken away from the all rapists and murderers, and put in solitary confinement. Being stuck in a prison cell with a partner and family probably sounds like a dream to the person stuck in a prison cell alone.

Given the speed in which effective vaccines were developed I think this is a rather bleak outlook.

Sure, a lot is still unknown with the new virus variants and as has been expected vaccination drives had their teething problems. But in a few month time (almost) everybody who wants their jabs can get it (in rich countries, that is).

I for one, see myself on a 3 week vacation in Asia later this year. Optimistic? Maybe, and certainly dependent on a number of factors beyond my control. But I think it's a much better perspective than wallowing in misery and not seeing a way out.

Cost of living is pretty high, salaries are pretty OK (better than a lot of UK perm, not as good as UK fintech contracting AFAICT), houses are big if you live out of the city centres, the sun shines and the beaches go on forever :)

I'm going to go back to my normal life once I've been vaccinated. At this rate there's only a couple more months to go. I've already made it 11 months, I can do a couple more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_rationing_in_the_Un...

And global warming might as well not exist as far as lawmakers are concerned. The comfort of the old is our nation's top priority.

But I don't think doctors are making decisions about advice based on emotions. COVID-19 is the most likely cause of death for people 25-44 [1] (supplanting unintentional opioid overdose deaths). COVID-19 has a hugely disproportionate effect on communities of color [2]. Systemic racism also causes deaths; look at asthma for example [3].

Finally, even the CDC is kind of at a loss as to what to do about overdose deaths [4]. Essentially they're like "get more naloxone and get more treatment."

> Who are they to decide which population is expendable.

I get where you're coming from here but, I don't think it's as simple as "lockdowns kill people" because:

- Not imposing a lockdown also kills people

- Even in the absence of a lockdown order, people are hesitant to get together

- There are lots of ways to socialize and get outside that are very low risk (pods, outdoor activities)

- COVID-19 deaths are far, far outstripping opioid overdose deaths due to lockdowns (the numbers I've found show that COVID-19 deaths exceed all opioid overdose deaths, not just the total YoY increase).

But if I could summarize what I think your points have been, I think your argument is broadly that doctors treated George Floyd's murder and the subsequent protests differently than hardships in other communities, and that at least indicates some level of emotional reaction if not outright bias. But I think they themselves have explained why they reacted differently, and I think the data (gathered by medical researchers and social scientists) back them up.

[1]: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201026/COVID-19-now-like...

[2]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/09/16/covid-...

[3]: https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlid=1...

[4]: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p1218-overdose-death...

Yes there is evidence that 10-30% of covid infections have not resolved at 6 months

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.16.21249950v...

which is roughly what SARS 1 looks like (and those people are still sick). But we still can't definitely say that 35 year olds who catch covid will lose 10 years off the end of their life so it's disregarded in our decision making.

Note I am all for people doing whatever they want with their own lives - if you want to go to a Covid party I would love to support that. I love taking certain risks myself.

However, when the choices of one age group can kill my mum, dad or friends, I would hope we agree to serious restrictions to help prevent that. With engineering balance to the compromises, given that prevention techniques cause significant human costs.

I am from New Zealand, so I can resoundingly support everyone acting together in concert to protect everyone else (as most kiwis did, with a good outcome for us).

Now the bars have been closed for 3 months. Think anyone would remove that now useless limitation on selling alcohol after 20:00? Think again!

Especially the part about government trolling us.

Fuck this reality.

Never thought I'd say that in a positive manner though.

Wish you the better and best.

One would have thought that by now we wouldn't be comparing fatality rates of a disease that propagates exponentially when left unchecked, with a more or less stable family of diseases that isn't contagious, but here we are, apple pies to orange sorbets.

Right after I posted my comment above, at 15:12 comments regarding Canadian forecasts appeared in The Guardian's COVID live blog, in which epidemologists say that restrictions must be preserved within the country because the vaccine rollout is a global problem, not a local one.

* quarantine the infected person outside the home * develop protocols to avoid infection of the others * use medication that blocks people from getting infected * use measures to block infecting the others

It is kind of strange that in this situation somehow the government is justified in taking no action. While in others apparently they are obligated to act.

Your local government may not care about you. I'd look to respected civilian experts or at least government agencies staffed by respected experts.

I'm basing this on Texas' Lt. Governor Dan Patrick being willing to tolerate a lot of death for the sake of the economy:

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/04/21/texas-dan-patrick-ec...

But I wonder what claim to authority or special knowledge you are using to feel confident your own attitude is purely rational, and uninfluenced by your political beliefs and personal biases?

Moreover, whatever you think about the balance of scientific evidence, science should not be used to directly drive policy. Elected politicians create policy, and science is one sort of advice that feeds those decisions. Policy created purely from scientific advice would be a recipe for arbitrary decisions, and technocratic undemocratic rule. The politically motivated aspect is a feature not a bug!

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice

It would be interesting to do a relative comparison of physical and psych effects of lockdown versus post-Covid complications. It isn’t clear what the severity for the “33.6%” was.

In some places, ruling parties have complained that they simply couldn’t prevent people from leaving even if they wanted to, because freely leaving and re-entering is enshrined in the country’s constitution. The UK, Australian, and New Zealand prevention on even leaving the country is much harsher than in most other developed countries.

"Minimizing contact and travel" is not the only solution, just perhaps the only solution you personally find palatable. Keeping borders open and simply accepting deaths works for me. Deaths are bad, but a new wave of nationalism and wall-building is worse.

I am not going to entertain further the notion that we have locked people into their homes, given trillions of dollars to multinational corporations, and restricted the lives of everyday people, just because of a pandemic that kills less than 1% of the people infected. This is such an obvious cash-grab and overt attempt to impose further fascism upon people, just like what happened after 9/11 in the US with the imposition of the Patriot Act.

Allowing anyone to opt out disproportionately negatively affects people who are unable to isolate for whatever reason: essential job, medical emergency, etc. People not isolating creates more risk for the grocery checkout person or power plant operator, for example.

> Social distancing is a decision an individual makes, and a rational individual would choose to do this if they wanted to live without the risk of getting infected.

It's just selfishness (or at best rank ignorance) to believe that whether or not you personally isolate only affects your health.

"Drinking and driving, but I actually drive better while I'm drunk, these cops know nothing!"

If your country is less restrictive, I'm happy for you.

It's been illegal for me to have a friend over for 100 days.

It's illegal to have a picnic on a park bench.

So yeah, I'm not doing this any more. If you think that's selfish - cool, I'm selfish according to you. I'm not going to kill myself for your social credit score, stop trolling.

It's not about you, it's about not spreading disease to others.