This whole thing is very tricky. IF a wider family wants to get together, & each part can isolate for 2 weeks before, when they get together how are they putting anyone other than themselves at any risk ? You can't eliminate risk but if you're sensible you can manage it.
I bet there are loads of people in or who have been in hospital that thought they could manage the risk. It's like seeing a car crash when driving eh? We all feel bad and '...there but for the grace of G_d go I...' but it does happen to someone. The people in the crash never thought it would happen to them.
The problem with this is that you may not even know you have the virus. If everyone turned bright pink with green spots as soon as the virus entered their body, then maybe.
And I seriously doubt people 'isolating' for two weeks anyway. Wasn't there a 'stat' recently that <10% of people told to isolate actually isolated - and by isolated I mean had no contact at all outside of their household.
@Allotment Boy agree that emotions run high on this topic. Although I would say that really for the wider family not to put anyone else at any risk they would need to isolate after the get together too? (ie prior isolation is largely about protecting those within the wider family circle , risk to "others" is greater after the get-together with a wide group). So a pretty high bar depending on your own risk tolerance as well as looking out for others.
Managing risk is not the same, and can never be the same, as eliminating risk. Society as a whole does not eliminate risks, we accept them. Therefore all risk must be judged in context and scored holistically, and mitigated appropriately.
This discussion is an excellent example of human inability to correctly judge risk, and an isolated focus on one risk only (virus). Because the vast majority of input we currently receive (media, discussions, politics etc) is so heavily focused on the virus, it has skewed our perception and created an echo chamber. That means we are in danger of making more risky decisions due to confirmation bias - "I believe this virus is incredibly dangerous therefore I will not take action xyz", even when not taking that action can be proven to be more risky/harmful (see the number of excess deaths from heart attacks due to people not seeking treatment).
Imagine what would happen if kitchen knives were treated to the same level of coverage. I recall a post from @pansyface that made me chuckle, about how when a criminal is arrested the police parade his butter knives as evidence of weaponry.
Christmas day is neither more nor less inherently risky than any other day of the week, so any risk mitigation or measure you feel is appropriate for Christmas day should also be adhered to on every other day as well. Remember that if you are not in the high risk categories (age, other illness etc), statistically you are more likely to die from choking on your Xmas dinner than from the virus, but I doubt anyone will be going on a starvation diet.
The following article, about how the human brain is wired to have a greater response to new and exotic threats compared to known threats, is interesting, and may help people understand why they react in certain ways.
Isn't that a bit disingenuous? Fine - as a day Christmas day is neither here nor there - it is a day. But for a lot of people, Christmas (the period) is a time of social gathering - singing in church, family get togethers, trips to the pub. It's not the day that's the problem, but what actions are then undertaken on the day, and over the period in general, isn't it?
The issue being then that we all (?) accept that general mixing is wrong with regard to Covid - I think the perceived risk is real - but we are then treating Christmas as being different (and assuming the gov relax constraints over Christmas, so is the government) when we shouldn't be then should we? If it is wrong for me to mix indoors with people today, then why treat Christmas differently (unless the figures are so low then)?
We all manage risk in our own way - some take risks and some are risk averse. Over Christmas there will be people who take risks - and are probably taking risks now - and get away with it. There will be people who take risks and don't. The 'problem' to me is that that risk isn't isolated - it isn't restricted to the person taking the risk. If I get the virus, fine - I am not worried by that. What concerns me more is that I may just be a link in the chain and somebody else then suffers for my risk taking.
You are correct Steve, you can make a risk assesment for using a knife, you cannot desided not to breath near someone who has the virus, perhaps we SHOULD paint them green with pink spots!! (Have just watch the 3 parter about the Great Plague.)Households compulsarily in isolation, a whole village knowing everyone would probably die, isolating itself.
I would think it’s almost impossible to correctly assess the risk of the virus and we are not given a choice. Many activities we all regularly undertake would be considered dangerous by some but we are given the freedom to do those.
I see that the government seems to be divided on the benefit of further lockdowns and restrictions.
What I don't understand is this all idea on testing surely if you are tested on a Friday and get the all clear by Monday but what happens if you pick the virus up on Tuesday you will be back to square one , I do understand if you are going into hospital and alike.
There are plenty of risks that are not left up to the individual to assess because they affect other people as well as the individual concerned ... seat belts and driving speeds are just two of them; there are laws about the way firearms are kept and used, ditto fireworks. laws about keeping your car properly maintained, only using qualified people to fix your gas boiler etc etc etc. There are also laws about educating one’s children and also to prevent parents from exposing their children to danger.
Life within a society cannot be left to a free for all.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
@steveTu I can see the direction of your thinking.
To clarify "risk aversion" first. Everyone takes risks in everything they do, without exception. Many people have become so inured to the risks they take that they do not register the risk any more ("familiarity breeds contempt"). This is a good thing, because we'd probably all collapse in a state of nervous wreckage if we properly processed risk in daily activities. But there is no such thing as "I don't take risks", in reality it's either "I don't recognize/comprehend a risk" or "I implicitly accept the benefit of activity X outweighs the risk R and have made a subconscious decision".
That distinction is key, because it underpins a misconception that many people have about their own behaviors. As I've said before, humans are terrible at correctly assessing risk and cost of both action and inaction.
We have to measure risk in terms of all impacts and likelihood, to correctly score it: a "risk" alone is fairly meaningless. This gives us a risk matrix, in which we can draw our tolerance line and apply to a risk-reward calculation. If a risk is high impact (I'll die) but low probability (unlikely to happen), I'll go sky diving because it's within my risk tolerance and the reward (excitement etc) is high enough, and the cost of not going is higher. Individual risks within this activity can also be scored and mitigated - I'll use a reputable company measured by NPS, I'll watch them pack my parachute, I'll make sure any mortal enemies are kept away from my equipment etc.
Your concern of passing on the virus still falls within this model - you have weighted the moral desire not to transmit the virus highly enough that the risk of activity X now falls outside of your tolerance, and you've determined that the cost of mitigating action (in this case, you not going out) is lower than the cost of inaction against the risk (going out and possibly transmitting the virus). But you could also choose to mitigate your risks in other ways.
This approach can be easily applied to both the Christmas activities you listed as well as any day to day activities, allowing people the freedom to make decisions for themselves. Simply because it's Christmas doesn't change the way in which risks are assessed.
Perhaps I find this easier as I'm at least 80% robot...
Posts
This discussion is an excellent example of human inability to correctly judge risk, and an isolated focus on one risk only (virus). Because the vast majority of input we currently receive (media, discussions, politics etc) is so heavily focused on the virus, it has skewed our perception and created an echo chamber. That means we are in danger of making more risky decisions due to confirmation bias - "I believe this virus is incredibly dangerous therefore I will not take action xyz", even when not taking that action can be proven to be more risky/harmful (see the number of excess deaths from heart attacks due to people not seeking treatment).
Imagine what would happen if kitchen knives were treated to the same level of coverage. I recall a post from @pansyface that made me chuckle, about how when a criminal is arrested the police parade his butter knives as evidence of weaponry.
Christmas day is neither more nor less inherently risky than any other day of the week, so any risk mitigation or measure you feel is appropriate for Christmas day should also be adhered to on every other day as well. Remember that if you are not in the high risk categories (age, other illness etc), statistically you are more likely to die from choking on your Xmas dinner than from the virus, but I doubt anyone will be going on a starvation diet.
The following article, about how the human brain is wired to have a greater response to new and exotic threats compared to known threats, is interesting, and may help people understand why they react in certain ways.
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2015/03/fear
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
To clarify "risk aversion" first. Everyone takes risks in everything they do, without exception. Many people have become so inured to the risks they take that they do not register the risk any more ("familiarity breeds contempt"). This is a good thing, because we'd probably all collapse in a state of nervous wreckage if we properly processed risk in daily activities. But there is no such thing as "I don't take risks", in reality it's either "I don't recognize/comprehend a risk" or "I implicitly accept the benefit of activity X outweighs the risk R and have made a subconscious decision".
That distinction is key, because it underpins a misconception that many people have about their own behaviors. As I've said before, humans are terrible at correctly assessing risk and cost of both action and inaction.
We have to measure risk in terms of all impacts and likelihood, to correctly score it: a "risk" alone is fairly meaningless. This gives us a risk matrix, in which we can draw our tolerance line and apply to a risk-reward calculation. If a risk is high impact (I'll die) but low probability (unlikely to happen), I'll go sky diving because it's within my risk tolerance and the reward (excitement etc) is high enough, and the cost of not going is higher. Individual risks within this activity can also be scored and mitigated - I'll use a reputable company measured by NPS, I'll watch them pack my parachute, I'll make sure any mortal enemies are kept away from my equipment etc.
Your concern of passing on the virus still falls within this model - you have weighted the moral desire not to transmit the virus highly enough that the risk of activity X now falls outside of your tolerance, and you've determined that the cost of mitigating action (in this case, you not going out) is lower than the cost of inaction against the risk (going out and possibly transmitting the virus). But you could also choose to mitigate your risks in other ways.
This approach can be easily applied to both the Christmas activities you listed as well as any day to day activities, allowing people the freedom to make decisions for themselves. Simply because it's Christmas doesn't change the way in which risks are assessed.
Perhaps I find this easier as I'm at least 80% robot...