One wonders how much better today would be if only if only everybody everywhere had followed the prescription of Dr. Trump and used good old fashioned bleach ... *sigh* ... I dunno ...
Yup. Are you thinking they might back out, or that they might wind up with a placebo in a test?
The anti-vaxxers and conspiracy nuts will undoubtedly claim that the footage was faked / the vaccine wasn't real / they used body doubles or whatever other ludicrous claim allows them to keep peddling their nonsense.
Yes, this -- if you aren't predisposed to believing the medical profession then you are unlikely to be convinced by a bunch of politicians being injected on stage.
Doesn't help that the US gov't doesn't exactly have a sterling record of honesty. Don't have to be an anti-vaxxer to have some doubt and caution.
Several years back, there was a show on PBS about vaccines. All sorts of scientists and medical folk; but kept pretty calm and low-key. They were trying to help the general public understand. No insults nor poking fun. One person said that anti-vaxxers (specifically the ones who focus on autism, IIRC) aren't stupid or crazy--they're just scared.
They're also pretty stupid, because even if their belief that the MMR vaccine can trigger autism had any basis in reality they're still missing the fact that autistic is a hell of a lot better than dead, and the death rate from the three diseases is higher than the incidence of autism.
But, from *their* perspective, AIUI, their kids seemed normal and healthy, until after the kids got vaccinated. So, for them, it's not a matter of "this might happen" or "that might happen". Something did happen, whatever it was, and they and their kids will be living with it for life.
I know the current evidence and wisdom is that vaccines (and the thimersol (?) in them) have nothing to do with autism. Though there was a lawsuit in which the judge decided that a vaccine was a *factor* in a particular child's autism.
I don't have kids, and have never had to assess all that and make decisions on behalf of a kid. I think I'd be terrified, no matter what I decided. I would most likely at least try to spread out the vaccine schedule--especially if the kids were mine biologically, because I have various sensitivities and allergies and other health problems, and the kids might, too.
Plus (and when I mentioned this here years ago, some Shipmates disbelieved) I had an early MMR vaccine at school, many years ago. tl;dr: line of kids; pneumatic vaccine gun that used multiple needles all at once; most kids got sick immediately, those who were waiting saw that, and some kids trying to return to class collapsed in the halls and sat there. And we were left with multi-point scars on the back of our shoulders.
Plus I know what it's like to have mysterious health problems that are hard to diagnose, let alone treat, and subject to disbelief; to have to wait a long time for any official diagnosis and hope of help; and what it's like to finally get support and a knowledgeable doctor.
So maybe I have a little more room to sympathize with people who are scared of a permanent health disaster.
I'm *not* anti-vax. I was just glad the PBS show showed some sensitivity and respect for people who are trying to deal with terrifying changes in their kids.
NOTE: no disrespect intended towards people with ASD.
As the parent of two autistic children I'm finding it hard to sympathize with people who think having an autistic child is a permanent disaster. None of my children is a disaster.
As the parent of two autistic children I'm finding it hard to sympathize with people who think having an autistic child is a permanent disaster. None of my children is a disaster.
Quite. I am autistic and so are two of my children. A family friend is autistic and is an international speaker and author.
I apologize for my wording. I was trying to indicate what the autism-related anti-vax folks are worried about, and also what it's like for me with my many health problems, as I mentioned, which have kept me mostly at home, mostly in bed, and often asleep, for a couple decades. For me, that's been a terrifying health disaster.
I'm not an anti-vaxxer, quite the opposite. Both my kids had the first MMR. My son was unwell afterwards, but my health visitor thought that was just co-incidence. However my daughter was very unwell; lethargic, off her food, swollen neck glands, a rash - it took six weeks for her to get back to the weight she had been on the day she had her MMR. Our GP said that he was unwilling to give our son his second MMR, but would if we insisted, and flatly refused to give our daughter her second one.
We didn't insist. Both our kids started school with only the first of the two MMRs. The school had a copy of a note from our health visitor on their records.
We then started getting regular letters from the health authority explaining that the MMR didn't cause autism. We didn't think it did. Every couple of years we were asked to make an appointment with our GP to revisit "our" (actually our GPs) decision not to have the second MMR. We got caught in some list of "crazy anti-vaxxers" and there was no way off it. Eventually, when our kids were in their teens, our GP decided that the impact of a vaccination intended for pre-schools on teenagers was likely to be minimal and they both had the second MMR, without ill effect.
However, my experience was that, whatever question you ask about the MMR, the answer is "It doesn't cause autism" It doesn't matter what the question is, that's the answer. It's very hard to get answers to some questions. Our daughter had feeding issues and was still breastfed when she got her first MMR; our health visitor became interested and tried to find out more. If a child is still getting maternal antibodies through breastmilk, does that impact on the reaction to the MMR? - It doesn't cause autism. In the future, should I recommend delaying the first MMR if a child hasn't been weaned? - It doesn't cause autism.
Just for the record, all the nonsense about MMR - autism links came about through a publication that is now known as the Lancet MMR Autism Fraud.
10 of the study's 12 authors retracted the interpretation that was the basis of the supposed causal link, and the lead author was struck off the medical register.
The paper was eventually retracted in full as multiple conflicts of interest and manipulation of data were discovered.
"I'm so glad I caught the virus. Otherwise I might have caught the virus!"
I continue to struggle with whether I should feel guilt over wishing that he caught the virus so badly that the outstanding medical care he received couldn't save him.
My grandson is on the spectrum. He got the MMR when he was less than one year old. It was not until he was four that he was diagnosed on the spectrum. But there is no way his parents think there is a correlation between the shot and him being on the spectrum. BTW he is extremely bright. The only issue he has is things have to go a certain way. He is in therapy and has made quite a bit of progress in his socialization skills even in the midst of the pandemic.
Here in the UK, as you probably know, there are quite severe restrictions on interaction over the Christmas period and thereafter.
For example, for most of the UK mixing with family is only allowed on Christmas Day itself, with no overnight stays. This has been set in law. On top of which we are all advised to keep interaction as short as possible and forego it completely if we can. I will be by myself and am well-adjusted to the legal and advisory points.
However, I do have a question about how folks feel, and what you would do, if you were aware of someone who is clearly intending to break the legal covid-related restrictions (having indicated as much in a public forum). Would you address them directly? Report them? I feel quite angry about such situations, but I wonder if I am just being unrealistic.
Mostly because I truly do not believe that anyone who lives near me will be doing anything wrong.
But the very bottom line is that even If folk are making choices that I might consider to be wrong, I do not know what breaking point might have just been reached. Right now, a whole load of folk are running out of both resilience and hope.
So I would hope that compassion and charity is to the fore over this Christmas time.
And if people Really deliberately do summat wrong and the consequences are terrible?
Well that is going to be bad enough, without falling out with their neighbours as well.
Then again, it is easy for me to say this. I live in a rural setting and we all know each other .
Would I feel the same way in a city centre crowded block of flats?
Possibly not
However, I do have a question about how folks feel, and what you would do, if you were aware of someone who is clearly intending to break the legal covid-related restrictions (having indicated as much in a public forum). Would you address them directly? Report them? I feel quite angry about such situations, but I wonder if I am just being unrealistic.
What would you do?
I'm in exactly this situation and also feel very angry. I've said as much as I feel I can but I won't be reporting them. I want to say more here but it's probably best not to.
However, I do have a question about how folks feel, and what you would do, if you were aware of someone who is clearly intending to break the legal covid-related restrictions (having indicated as much in a public forum). Would you address them directly? Report them? I feel quite angry about such situations, but I wonder if I am just being unrealistic.
What would you do?
I've been in this situation. A friend - a while back - thought she was doing something ok by driving a long distance and going for a walk with a friend. This was at a time when "no unnecesary travel" was indicated. I told her that that wasn't allowed - I told her quite nicely I think as she is still talking to me. I also added a comment that if she felt that it was something she felt she needed to do for mental health reasons - then - in my mind - it became "necessary" travel.
I never heard whether she did make the trip or not.
Reading back on what I wrote - it sounds a bit pompous but I don't think it was as such as it was in the course of a normal conversation.
I wouldn't say anything, because you never know what someone else is dealing with and how close they are to the limit of what they can take - but - if I'm honest I suspect I'd think less of them for wimping out of a decision which has been so painfully hard for my family.
As far as anything beyond asking close friends to mask up, etc., I think I'd only ever report someone if, for instance, I saw a large group of unmasked and non-distanced people gathering, like an event or picnic involving hundreds of people. I'm not sure I'd even do that. If I did, I'd want to be as anonymous as possible.
Mostly because I truly do not believe that anyone who lives near me will be doing anything wrong.
But the very bottom line is that even If folk are making choices that I might consider to be wrong, I do not know what breaking point might have just been reached. Right now, a whole load of folk are running out of both resilience and hope.
So I would hope that compassion and charity is to the fore over this Christmas time.
And if people Really deliberately do summat wrong and the consequences are terrible?
Well that is going to be bad enough, without falling out with their neighbours as well.
Then again, it is easy for me to say this. I live in a rural setting and we all know each other .
Would I feel the same way in a city centre crowded block of flats?
Possibly not
So ... If ... your neighbor's toilet is broken and (s)he has nowhere to *go* would you intervene to prevent him/her/them pooping/peeing into the community water system ... ???
As far as anything beyond asking close friends to mask up, etc., I think I'd only ever report someone if, for instance, I saw a large group of unmasked and non-distanced people gathering, like an event or picnic involving hundreds of people. I'm not sure I'd even do that. If I did, I'd want to be as anonymous as possible.
A couple weeks ago in line at our local post office, all of us were masked up, six feet apart ... But ... One "lady" stormed out -- mask-less, after being TOLD to mask up -- shouting, "It's not a LAW ... !!!"
Well ... It is a Public Health Regulation and it does have the force of law, calling for a Misdemeanor citation and a fine of $100 ... It is not just a good idea, or a request or a helpful hint ... Compliance is not voluntary ...
However, I do have a question about how folks feel, and what you would do, if you were aware of someone who is clearly intending to break the legal covid-related restrictions (having indicated as much in a public forum).
It might depend on how. I'm not persuaded that the risk of Covid transmission is significantly different if someone spends all day enjoying a family Christmas, then sleeps in the spare room and goes home in the morning vs if they spend the day, and then drive home late at night. (And would they be sober when they were driving?) So I would give that a pass.
If, on the other hand, they intended to hold a massive super-spreader party, then I might be more inclined to say something.
However, I do have a question about how folks feel, and what you would do, if you were aware of someone who is clearly intending to break the legal covid-related restrictions (having indicated as much in a public forum).
It might depend on how. I'm not persuaded that the risk of Covid transmission is significantly different if someone spends all day enjoying a family Christmas, then sleeps in the spare room and goes home in the morning vs if they spend the day, and then drive home late at night. (And would they be sober when they were driving?) So I would give that a pass.
If, on the other hand, they intended to hold a massive super-spreader party, then I might be more inclined to say something.
Except ... It still appears that ca. 30% of cases are asymptomatic, but still capable of shedding virus ... So, e.g., our family mini-gathering on Christmas Day will NOT include relatives with whom we do not have very regular contact ...
Except ... It still appears that ca. 30% of cases are asymptomatic, but still capable of shedding virus ... So, e.g., our family mini-gathering on Christmas Day will NOT include relatives with whom we do not have very regular contact ...
Yes, indeed. This is sensible.
My point is that if you consider spending Christmas with some number of relatives (as is legal), then the additional contact caused by illegally spending the night in the spare room is minimal (in both cases, you spend the day eating, laughing, sharing a sofa and singing with people, and exchanging virus. The subsequent eight hours sleeping in separate rooms is not the risky part of the day.)
My son owns a bar in Northwestern Washington. While he is choosing to follow the governor's orders, doing just takeout and delivery, a competing bar is allowing people to come inside their establishment. I have told him that it is important for all establishments to play on the same pitch, but he is hesitant about turning them in because if word gets out he turned them in there will be a backlash from the community residents.
My son owns a bar in Northwestern Washington. While he is choosing to follow the governor's orders, doing just takeout and delivery, a competing bar is allowing people to come inside their establishment. I have told him that it is important for all establishments to play on the same pitch, but he is hesitant about turning them in because if word gets out he turned them in there will be a backlash from the community residents.
Both were charged. (Not sure why the boyfriend was.) Original sentence didn't involve jail time, but the prosecution appealed. I'm *guessing* maybe they wanted to make a point with an American.
In the right-hand nav bar, there are links to other coverage of this. I noticed that her grandma is trying to get the White House to help. Per NBC (via Yahoo), Skylar and her boyfriend's sentences have been cut to 2 months.
My guess the boyfriend who was quite a bit older and a local got convicted because he may have helped her break quarantine and certainly knew she was breaking quarantine. The islands had in fact just modified the law so the max penalty was 2 years, and, they definitely wanted to make an example. Her spending 7 hours in a large crowd probably forced a lot of people into quarantine while she finished up the remaining 12 days of her quarantine and could have started an outbreak since the islands currently don't have cases except for incoming travelers in quarantine (luckily she didn't have Covid-19). She is apparently hoping to become a doctor.
The boyfriend was convicted of aiding and abetting the offence. Clearly there was pre-meditation and planning to circumvent the quarantine restrictions, in order to be part of an event involving crowds of people.
In the face of that the courts are unlikely to give much weight to an offender’s sorrow when caught. The permitted level of sentencing is clearly intended to deter others, and I guess the original sentence of a fine of $2600 and 40 hours community service was seen as being at a level where those visitors to the islands who are wealthy might simply factor in as a cost-risk to their holiday. A period of imprisonment is rather different, however. Apparently the norm for short sentences is for people to serve 60% of their time - just over five weeks in this case.
I have some sympathy for an 18 year old who has made an albeit self centred mistake, but I also have sympathy for the Cayman Islands which are trying (with a high level of effectiveness) to hold at bay a disease that might infect thousands, kill some, and devastate the islands’ economy.
However, I do have a question about how folks feel, and what you would do, if you were aware of someone who is clearly intending to break the legal covid-related restrictions (having indicated as much in a public forum).
It might depend on how. I'm not persuaded that the risk of Covid transmission is significantly different if someone spends all day enjoying a family Christmas, then sleeps in the spare room and goes home in the morning vs if they spend the day, and then drive home late at night. (And would they be sober when they were driving?) So I would give that a pass.
If, on the other hand, they intended to hold a massive super-spreader party, then I might be more inclined to say something.
I don't get it. I don't think the rules are just set the way they are just out of spite. Why would anyone implement something so unpopular - and set it in law - if they didn't think it mattered?
In passing: One of the obvious downsides of people staying the night is that everyone gets pissed, and any care and control flies out the window. And the longer people stay within the same house the more opportunity there is for any kind of slip-up to occur.
I suppose my basic position is that if everyone making these decisions for themselves worked, we wouldn't need any rules in the first place.
However, I do have a question about how folks feel, and what you would do, if you were aware of someone who is clearly intending to break the legal covid-related restrictions (having indicated as much in a public forum).
It might depend on how. I'm not persuaded that the risk of Covid transmission is significantly different if someone spends all day enjoying a family Christmas, then sleeps in the spare room and goes home in the morning vs if they spend the day, and then drive home late at night. (And would they be sober when they were driving?) So I would give that a pass.
If, on the other hand, they intended to hold a massive super-spreader party, then I might be more inclined to say something.
I don't get it. I don't think the rules are just set the way they are just out of spite. Why would anyone implement something so unpopular - and set it in law - if they didn't think it mattered?
In passing: One of the obvious downsides of people staying the night is that everyone gets pissed, and any care and control flies out the window. And the longer people stay within the same house the more opportunity there is for any kind of slip-up to occur.
I suppose my basic position is that if everyone making these decisions for themselves worked, we wouldn't need any rules in the first place.
I think this is true, but I also observe that the rules are compromises, and real life is more complex than the circumstances the rules can address. You are having to draw lines where no clear demarcation exists.
There's also different ways people look at compliance. Many people consider they are law abiding motorists because they don't go "much" above the speed limit, they were only on the double yellows for ten minutes, and it was 3am so no-one cares about an illegal right turn.
Setting the rules has to take into account that some people will sail as close as possible to them as they can, and some will consider themselves to be compliant if the actual rules are still in sight from where they're sailing. We saw this when the kids were at primary school and teachers would lay on Thou Shalt Be Quiet When I Raise Mine Hand and Thou Shalt Not Lose Thy Pencil as if failure to comply was a capital offence in order to get some kids to actually hear "try to shut up when I ask and not lose stuff" at all.
Which means there will be edge cases where a strict interpretation of The Rules doesn't quite work.
The boyfriend was convicted of aiding and abetting the offence. Clearly there was pre-meditation and planning to circumvent the quarantine restrictions, in order to be part of an event involving crowds of people.
In the face of that the courts are unlikely to give much weight to an offender’s sorrow when caught. The permitted level of sentencing is clearly intended to deter others, and I guess the original sentence of a fine of $2600 and 40 hours community service was seen as being at a level where those visitors to the islands who are wealthy might simply factor in as a cost-risk to their holiday. A period of imprisonment is rather different, however. Apparently the norm for short sentences is for people to serve 60% of their time - just over five weeks in this case.
I have some sympathy for an 18 year old who has made an albeit self centred mistake, but I also have sympathy for the Cayman Islands which are trying (with a high level of effectiveness) to hold at bay a disease that might infect thousands, kill some, and devastate the islands’ economy.
I have no sympathy for the young 18-year-old. She broke the law. She should experience the consequences. After all, had she been infected, she would have caused a superspreader event. I would have thought 2 years would have been too much, but six months would be reasonable in my mind. If she has to stay in jail for 2 months, so be it.
The boyfriend was convicted of aiding and abetting the offence. Clearly there was pre-meditation and planning to circumvent the quarantine restrictions, in order to be part of an event involving crowds of people.
In the face of that the courts are unlikely to give much weight to an offender’s sorrow when caught. The permitted level of sentencing is clearly intended to deter others, and I guess the original sentence of a fine of $2600 and 40 hours community service was seen as being at a level where those visitors to the islands who are wealthy might simply factor in as a cost-risk to their holiday. A period of imprisonment is rather different, however. Apparently the norm for short sentences is for people to serve 60% of their time - just over five weeks in this case.
I have some sympathy for an 18 year old who has made an albeit self centred mistake, but I also have sympathy for the Cayman Islands which are trying (with a high level of effectiveness) to hold at bay a disease that might infect thousands, kill some, and devastate the islands’ economy.
In December, 2020, "Honestly ... !!! I had no idea ... !!!" is not likely to be a successful defense ...
However, I do have a question about how folks feel, and what you would do, if you were aware of someone who is clearly intending to break the legal covid-related restrictions (having indicated as much in a public forum).
It might depend on how. I'm not persuaded that the risk of Covid transmission is significantly different if someone spends all day enjoying a family Christmas, then sleeps in the spare room and goes home in the morning vs if they spend the day, and then drive home late at night. (And would they be sober when they were driving?) So I would give that a pass.
If, on the other hand, they intended to hold a massive super-spreader party, then I might be more inclined to say something.
I don't get it. I don't think the rules are just set the way they are just out of spite. Why would anyone implement something so unpopular - and set it in law - if they didn't think it mattered?
In passing: One of the obvious downsides of people staying the night is that everyone gets pissed, and any care and control flies out the window. And the longer people stay within the same house the more opportunity there is for any kind of slip-up to occur.
I suppose my basic position is that if everyone making these decisions for themselves worked, we wouldn't need any rules in the first place.
I think this is true, but I also observe that the rules are compromises, and real life is more complex than the circumstances the rules can address. You are having to draw lines where no clear demarcation exists.
There's also different ways people look at compliance. Many people consider they are law abiding motorists because they don't go "much" above the speed limit, they were only on the double yellows for ten minutes, and it was 3am so no-one cares about an illegal right turn.
Setting the rules has to take into account that some people will sail as close as possible to them as they can, and some will consider themselves to be compliant if the actual rules are still in sight from where they're sailing. We saw this when the kids were at primary school and teachers would lay on Thou Shalt Be Quiet When I Raise Mine Hand and Thou Shalt Not Lose Thy Pencil as if failure to comply was a capital offence in order to get some kids to actually hear "try to shut up when I ask and not lose stuff" at all.
Which means there will be edge cases where a strict interpretation of The Rules doesn't quite work.
Microbial pathogens don't much *care* about "edge cases" ... They are simply insisting on their right to survive by producing viable offspring ... Ironically, a virus isn't actually "alive," but we potential hosts are not only living things, but we are capable of thought and therefore of behaving based upon acquired knowledge and shared values ...
I have some sympathy for an 18 year old who has made an albeit self centred mistake, but I also have sympathy for the Cayman Islands which are trying (with a high level of effectiveness) to hold at bay a disease that might infect thousands, kill some, and devastate the islands’ economy.
From the article, The judge, Justice Roger Chapple, said: "This was as flagrant a breach as could be imagined. It was born of selfishness and arrogance."
I'd say the judge pretty much nailed it there. I'm generally sympathetic to technical breaches of the law that don't actually have much risk of virus transfer. Wealthy privileged medical student ditching quarantine to spend all day in crowds watching her boyfriend race jet-skis is not a technical breach, or one borne of desperation, but as the judge says about as flagrant a breach of quarantine as could be imagined.
Now, if the boyfriend had snuck in to quarantine with her, and they'd spent the time quarantined together "entertaining" each other, I'd give them a pass. As long as boyfriend doesn't go in and out, there would have been no practical breach of quarantine. But going out in crowds when you should be quarantining? That's just taking the piss.
Microbial pathogens don't much *care* about "edge cases"
Nor do they care about laws. The point that both Karl and I have been getting at is that "the law" and "the set of actions that minimize the risk of virus transmission" aren't perfectly aligned. There close-ish, but there are things that it is currently illegal to do that are in reality fairly safe, and there are things that are technically legal that are nevertheless foolish. It is there that you'll find some of these "edge cases".
I don't get it. I don't think the rules are just set the way they are just out of spite. Why would anyone implement something so unpopular - and set it in law - if they didn't think it mattered?
I think it's mostly a nudge.
We know what the facts are. The virus is spread mostly by airborne droplets. Spending time in close proximity to people breathing in the air that they exhale is a risk. People who are eating and drinking, and talking loudly or singing, tend to produce more droplets, and more airborne virus, than people who are sitting quietly. If you spend eight hours singing, dancing, and laughing with your family, then an additional eight hours asleep in separate rooms doesn't significantly increase the contact you have with them, or the potential for virus transmission. (You'd want to open the window and close the door to the room you'd used, and your family should wait a couple of days before cleaning it.)
So I stand by my claim that the risk of staying overnight itself is minimal.
But if you plan to stay overnight, you probably spend a lot longer awake together than if you don't. If you can't stay the night, then perhaps instead of having a long boozy lunch and drinking more in the afternoon, you'd just pop in for a coffee and a mince pie in the morning, or would decide not to go at all.
And if you do stay overnight, then it's easy to end up having breakfast together, and hanging out for the next morning as well. So while the overnight itself isn't a risk, it can easily facilitate tripling or more the daytime contact you have, and so tripling or more the risk.
But I'd still rather someone who did spend all evening drinking with his family slept it off in the spare room, rather than driving home drunk in some kind of attempt to reduce Covid risk.
However, I do have a question about how folks feel, and what you would do, if you were aware of someone who is clearly intending to break the legal covid-related restrictions (having indicated as much in a public forum).
It might depend on how. I'm not persuaded that the risk of Covid transmission is significantly different if someone spends all day enjoying a family Christmas, then sleeps in the spare room and goes home in the morning vs if they spend the day, and then drive home late at night. (And would they be sober when they were driving?) So I would give that a pass.
If, on the other hand, they intended to hold a massive super-spreader party, then I might be more inclined to say something.
I don't get it. I don't think the rules are just set the way they are just out of spite. Why would anyone implement something so unpopular - and set it in law - if they didn't think it mattered?
In passing: One of the obvious downsides of people staying the night is that everyone gets pissed, and any care and control flies out the window. And the longer people stay within the same house the more opportunity there is for any kind of slip-up to occur.
I suppose my basic position is that if everyone making these decisions for themselves worked, we wouldn't need any rules in the first place.
I think this is true, but I also observe that the rules are compromises, and real life is more complex than the circumstances the rules can address. You are having to draw lines where no clear demarcation exists.
There's also different ways people look at compliance. Many people consider they are law abiding motorists because they don't go "much" above the speed limit, they were only on the double yellows for ten minutes, and it was 3am so no-one cares about an illegal right turn.
Setting the rules has to take into account that some people will sail as close as possible to them as they can, and some will consider themselves to be compliant if the actual rules are still in sight from where they're sailing. We saw this when the kids were at primary school and teachers would lay on Thou Shalt Be Quiet When I Raise Mine Hand and Thou Shalt Not Lose Thy Pencil as if failure to comply was a capital offence in order to get some kids to actually hear "try to shut up when I ask and not lose stuff" at all.
Which means there will be edge cases where a strict interpretation of The Rules doesn't quite work.
This is very true, and it totally sucks when you're raising a child who has OCD and regards EVERY rule as descended from on high, and panics when the teacher glares menacingly at the class if anyone presumes to lose a pencil. The number of times I've had to explain that rules (and consequences!) are written for the idiots who don't think it applies to them, and NOT the overly conscientious types...
However, I do have a question about how folks feel, and what you would do, if you were aware of someone who is clearly intending to break the legal covid-related restrictions (having indicated as much in a public forum).
It might depend on how. I'm not persuaded that the risk of Covid transmission is significantly different if someone spends all day enjoying a family Christmas, then sleeps in the spare room and goes home in the morning vs if they spend the day, and then drive home late at night. (And would they be sober when they were driving?) So I would give that a pass.
If, on the other hand, they intended to hold a massive super-spreader party, then I might be more inclined to say something.
I don't get it. I don't think the rules are just set the way they are just out of spite. Why would anyone implement something so unpopular - and set it in law - if they didn't think it mattered?
In passing: One of the obvious downsides of people staying the night is that everyone gets pissed, and any care and control flies out the window. And the longer people stay within the same house the more opportunity there is for any kind of slip-up to occur.
I suppose my basic position is that if everyone making these decisions for themselves worked, we wouldn't need any rules in the first place.
I think this is true, but I also observe that the rules are compromises, and real life is more complex than the circumstances the rules can address. You are having to draw lines where no clear demarcation exists.
There's also different ways people look at compliance. Many people consider they are law abiding motorists because they don't go "much" above the speed limit, they were only on the double yellows for ten minutes, and it was 3am so no-one cares about an illegal right turn.
Setting the rules has to take into account that some people will sail as close as possible to them as they can, and some will consider themselves to be compliant if the actual rules are still in sight from where they're sailing. We saw this when the kids were at primary school and teachers would lay on Thou Shalt Be Quiet When I Raise Mine Hand and Thou Shalt Not Lose Thy Pencil as if failure to comply was a capital offence in order to get some kids to actually hear "try to shut up when I ask and not lose stuff" at all.
Which means there will be edge cases where a strict interpretation of The Rules doesn't quite work.
This is very true, and it totally sucks when you're raising a child who has OCD and regards EVERY rule as descended from on high, and panics when the teacher glares menacingly at the class if anyone presumes to lose a pencil. The number of times I've had to explain that rules (and consequences!) are written for the idiots who don't think it applies to them, and NOT the overly conscientious types...
That can work another way around too - when the rules are written to cover someones arse / driven by a fear of getting sued. Telling a kid 'this time, we're going to ignore this stupid rule which is all about this person not wanting to be sued by idiots, but the deal is if we hurt ourselves it's our problem' is so confusing when 'NO XXX' could next time be sensible, life-saving advice.
In view of all this, however, I am ridiculously oroud of the fact that whenever I hear a hellish crash as of dishes breaking, car hitting the garage door, etc. his first reaction is to yell "I'm all right!" and NOT to immediately apologize for whatever he busted... Mr. Lamb has picked up this habit, too. ::glows::
I share the difficulty with not following rules, but for me it's Asperger's rather than OCD. I really struggle at work because there is a certain type of manager who makes what appear to be hard and fast rules in the certain knowledge that they will be ignored some or all of the time, but some of them are meant to be followed all the time and it's never made clear which is which.
Comments
"The second person to get the vaccine is already dead! Stop the rollout immediately!"
They're also pretty stupid, because even if their belief that the MMR vaccine can trigger autism had any basis in reality they're still missing the fact that autistic is a hell of a lot better than dead, and the death rate from the three diseases is higher than the incidence of autism.
But, from *their* perspective, AIUI, their kids seemed normal and healthy, until after the kids got vaccinated. So, for them, it's not a matter of "this might happen" or "that might happen". Something did happen, whatever it was, and they and their kids will be living with it for life.
I know the current evidence and wisdom is that vaccines (and the thimersol (?) in them) have nothing to do with autism. Though there was a lawsuit in which the judge decided that a vaccine was a *factor* in a particular child's autism.
I don't have kids, and have never had to assess all that and make decisions on behalf of a kid. I think I'd be terrified, no matter what I decided. I would most likely at least try to spread out the vaccine schedule--especially if the kids were mine biologically, because I have various sensitivities and allergies and other health problems, and the kids might, too.
Plus (and when I mentioned this here years ago, some Shipmates disbelieved) I had an early MMR vaccine at school, many years ago. tl;dr: line of kids; pneumatic vaccine gun that used multiple needles all at once; most kids got sick immediately, those who were waiting saw that, and some kids trying to return to class collapsed in the halls and sat there. And we were left with multi-point scars on the back of our shoulders.
Plus I know what it's like to have mysterious health problems that are hard to diagnose, let alone treat, and subject to disbelief; to have to wait a long time for any official diagnosis and hope of help; and what it's like to finally get support and a knowledgeable doctor.
So maybe I have a little more room to sympathize with people who are scared of a permanent health disaster.
I'm *not* anti-vax. I was just glad the PBS show showed some sensitivity and respect for people who are trying to deal with terrifying changes in their kids.
NOTE: no disrespect intended towards people with ASD.
Quite. I am autistic and so are two of my children. A family friend is autistic and is an international speaker and author.
Beats dead.
I regret any offense I caused.
We didn't insist. Both our kids started school with only the first of the two MMRs. The school had a copy of a note from our health visitor on their records.
We then started getting regular letters from the health authority explaining that the MMR didn't cause autism. We didn't think it did. Every couple of years we were asked to make an appointment with our GP to revisit "our" (actually our GPs) decision not to have the second MMR. We got caught in some list of "crazy anti-vaxxers" and there was no way off it. Eventually, when our kids were in their teens, our GP decided that the impact of a vaccination intended for pre-schools on teenagers was likely to be minimal and they both had the second MMR, without ill effect.
However, my experience was that, whatever question you ask about the MMR, the answer is "It doesn't cause autism" It doesn't matter what the question is, that's the answer. It's very hard to get answers to some questions. Our daughter had feeding issues and was still breastfed when she got her first MMR; our health visitor became interested and tried to find out more.
If a child is still getting maternal antibodies through breastmilk, does that impact on the reaction to the MMR? - It doesn't cause autism.
In the future, should I recommend delaying the first MMR if a child hasn't been weaned? - It doesn't cause autism.
etc etc.
10 of the study's 12 authors retracted the interpretation that was the basis of the supposed causal link, and the lead author was struck off the medical register.
The paper was eventually retracted in full as multiple conflicts of interest and manipulation of data were discovered.
I continue to struggle with whether I should feel guilt over wishing that he caught the virus so badly that the outstanding medical care he received couldn't save him.
January 20 cannot come soon enough.
Ho hum, hope is useless.
"Vatican permits use of COVID-19 vaccines made using aborted fetal tissue" (Reuters, via Yahoo).
"Anger as Republican lawmakers who played down pandemic jump vaccine queue" (Independent, via Yahoo).
For example, for most of the UK mixing with family is only allowed on Christmas Day itself, with no overnight stays. This has been set in law. On top of which we are all advised to keep interaction as short as possible and forego it completely if we can. I will be by myself and am well-adjusted to the legal and advisory points.
However, I do have a question about how folks feel, and what you would do, if you were aware of someone who is clearly intending to break the legal covid-related restrictions (having indicated as much in a public forum). Would you address them directly? Report them? I feel quite angry about such situations, but I wonder if I am just being unrealistic.
What would you do?
Mostly because I truly do not believe that anyone who lives near me will be doing anything wrong.
But the very bottom line is that even If folk are making choices that I might consider to be wrong, I do not know what breaking point might have just been reached. Right now, a whole load of folk are running out of both resilience and hope.
So I would hope that compassion and charity is to the fore over this Christmas time.
And if people Really deliberately do summat wrong and the consequences are terrible?
Well that is going to be bad enough, without falling out with their neighbours as well.
Then again, it is easy for me to say this. I live in a rural setting and we all know each other .
Would I feel the same way in a city centre crowded block of flats?
Possibly not
I'm in exactly this situation and also feel very angry. I've said as much as I feel I can but I won't be reporting them. I want to say more here but it's probably best not to.
I've been in this situation. A friend - a while back - thought she was doing something ok by driving a long distance and going for a walk with a friend. This was at a time when "no unnecesary travel" was indicated. I told her that that wasn't allowed - I told her quite nicely I think as she is still talking to me. I also added a comment that if she felt that it was something she felt she needed to do for mental health reasons - then - in my mind - it became "necessary" travel.
I never heard whether she did make the trip or not.
Reading back on what I wrote - it sounds a bit pompous but I don't think it was as such as it was in the course of a normal conversation.
So ... If ... your neighbor's toilet is broken and (s)he has nowhere to *go* would you intervene to prevent him/her/them pooping/peeing into the community water system ... ???
A couple weeks ago in line at our local post office, all of us were masked up, six feet apart ... But ... One "lady" stormed out -- mask-less, after being TOLD to mask up -- shouting, "It's not a LAW ... !!!"
Well ... It is a Public Health Regulation and it does have the force of law, calling for a Misdemeanor citation and a fine of $100 ... It is not just a good idea, or a request or a helpful hint ... Compliance is not voluntary ...
It might depend on how. I'm not persuaded that the risk of Covid transmission is significantly different if someone spends all day enjoying a family Christmas, then sleeps in the spare room and goes home in the morning vs if they spend the day, and then drive home late at night. (And would they be sober when they were driving?) So I would give that a pass.
If, on the other hand, they intended to hold a massive super-spreader party, then I might be more inclined to say something.
Except ... It still appears that ca. 30% of cases are asymptomatic, but still capable of shedding virus ... So, e.g., our family mini-gathering on Christmas Day will NOT include relatives with whom we do not have very regular contact ...
Yes, indeed. This is sensible.
My point is that if you consider spending Christmas with some number of relatives (as is legal), then the additional contact caused by illegally spending the night in the spare room is minimal (in both cases, you spend the day eating, laughing, sharing a sofa and singing with people, and exchanging virus. The subsequent eight hours sleeping in separate rooms is not the risky part of the day.)
It's *tricky*
Both were charged. (Not sure why the boyfriend was.) Original sentence didn't involve jail time, but the prosecution appealed. I'm *guessing* maybe they wanted to make a point with an American.
In the right-hand nav bar, there are links to other coverage of this. I noticed that her grandma is trying to get the White House to help. Per NBC (via Yahoo), Skylar and her boyfriend's sentences have been cut to 2 months.
Thoughts?
In the face of that the courts are unlikely to give much weight to an offender’s sorrow when caught. The permitted level of sentencing is clearly intended to deter others, and I guess the original sentence of a fine of $2600 and 40 hours community service was seen as being at a level where those visitors to the islands who are wealthy might simply factor in as a cost-risk to their holiday. A period of imprisonment is rather different, however. Apparently the norm for short sentences is for people to serve 60% of their time - just over five weeks in this case.
I have some sympathy for an 18 year old who has made an albeit self centred mistake, but I also have sympathy for the Cayman Islands which are trying (with a high level of effectiveness) to hold at bay a disease that might infect thousands, kill some, and devastate the islands’ economy.
I don't get it. I don't think the rules are just set the way they are just out of spite. Why would anyone implement something so unpopular - and set it in law - if they didn't think it mattered?
In passing: One of the obvious downsides of people staying the night is that everyone gets pissed, and any care and control flies out the window. And the longer people stay within the same house the more opportunity there is for any kind of slip-up to occur.
I suppose my basic position is that if everyone making these decisions for themselves worked, we wouldn't need any rules in the first place.
I think this is true, but I also observe that the rules are compromises, and real life is more complex than the circumstances the rules can address. You are having to draw lines where no clear demarcation exists.
There's also different ways people look at compliance. Many people consider they are law abiding motorists because they don't go "much" above the speed limit, they were only on the double yellows for ten minutes, and it was 3am so no-one cares about an illegal right turn.
Setting the rules has to take into account that some people will sail as close as possible to them as they can, and some will consider themselves to be compliant if the actual rules are still in sight from where they're sailing. We saw this when the kids were at primary school and teachers would lay on Thou Shalt Be Quiet When I Raise Mine Hand and Thou Shalt Not Lose Thy Pencil as if failure to comply was a capital offence in order to get some kids to actually hear "try to shut up when I ask and not lose stuff" at all.
Which means there will be edge cases where a strict interpretation of The Rules doesn't quite work.
I have no sympathy for the young 18-year-old. She broke the law. She should experience the consequences. After all, had she been infected, she would have caused a superspreader event. I would have thought 2 years would have been too much, but six months would be reasonable in my mind. If she has to stay in jail for 2 months, so be it.
Rich white girl privilege, be damned.
In December, 2020, "Honestly ... !!! I had no idea ... !!!" is not likely to be a successful defense ...
Microbial pathogens don't much *care* about "edge cases" ... They are simply insisting on their right to survive by producing viable offspring ... Ironically, a virus isn't actually "alive," but we potential hosts are not only living things, but we are capable of thought and therefore of behaving based upon acquired knowledge and shared values ...
From the article, The judge, Justice Roger Chapple, said: "This was as flagrant a breach as could be imagined. It was born of selfishness and arrogance."
I'd say the judge pretty much nailed it there. I'm generally sympathetic to technical breaches of the law that don't actually have much risk of virus transfer. Wealthy privileged medical student ditching quarantine to spend all day in crowds watching her boyfriend race jet-skis is not a technical breach, or one borne of desperation, but as the judge says about as flagrant a breach of quarantine as could be imagined.
Now, if the boyfriend had snuck in to quarantine with her, and they'd spent the time quarantined together "entertaining" each other, I'd give them a pass. As long as boyfriend doesn't go in and out, there would have been no practical breach of quarantine. But going out in crowds when you should be quarantining? That's just taking the piss.
Nor do they care about laws. The point that both Karl and I have been getting at is that "the law" and "the set of actions that minimize the risk of virus transmission" aren't perfectly aligned. There close-ish, but there are things that it is currently illegal to do that are in reality fairly safe, and there are things that are technically legal that are nevertheless foolish. It is there that you'll find some of these "edge cases".
I think it's mostly a nudge.
We know what the facts are. The virus is spread mostly by airborne droplets. Spending time in close proximity to people breathing in the air that they exhale is a risk. People who are eating and drinking, and talking loudly or singing, tend to produce more droplets, and more airborne virus, than people who are sitting quietly. If you spend eight hours singing, dancing, and laughing with your family, then an additional eight hours asleep in separate rooms doesn't significantly increase the contact you have with them, or the potential for virus transmission. (You'd want to open the window and close the door to the room you'd used, and your family should wait a couple of days before cleaning it.)
So I stand by my claim that the risk of staying overnight itself is minimal.
But if you plan to stay overnight, you probably spend a lot longer awake together than if you don't. If you can't stay the night, then perhaps instead of having a long boozy lunch and drinking more in the afternoon, you'd just pop in for a coffee and a mince pie in the morning, or would decide not to go at all.
And if you do stay overnight, then it's easy to end up having breakfast together, and hanging out for the next morning as well. So while the overnight itself isn't a risk, it can easily facilitate tripling or more the daytime contact you have, and so tripling or more the risk.
But I'd still rather someone who did spend all evening drinking with his family slept it off in the spare room, rather than driving home drunk in some kind of attempt to reduce Covid risk.
If .....that occurred with my neighbour, they (knowing many of us have two bathrooms) would ask to use someone’s spare facilities.
Which would be kept for their exclusive use until such time as their facilities were repaired.
In addition, our village has a public toilet. Two actually.
I can’t quite see what you are getting at here, but maybe I am too full of Christmas Eve dinner.
This is very true, and it totally sucks when you're raising a child who has OCD and regards EVERY rule as descended from on high, and panics when the teacher glares menacingly at the class if anyone presumes to lose a pencil. The number of times I've had to explain that rules (and consequences!) are written for the idiots who don't think it applies to them, and NOT the overly conscientious types...
"Public Health" ... is what at I am getting ...
That can work another way around too - when the rules are written to cover someones arse / driven by a fear of getting sued. Telling a kid 'this time, we're going to ignore this stupid rule which is all about this person not wanting to be sued by idiots, but the deal is if we hurt ourselves it's our problem' is so confusing when 'NO XXX' could next time be sensible, life-saving advice.