At least in the German mainstream discourse the proportionality of specific policies as well as it's costs and benefits are reoccuring, if not central themes.
This is, of course, currently about covid-19, but I think that the political arguments mostly apply to infectious diseases in general. ..once they gain a certain significance.
I don't doubt your perception though. The discourse might vary greatly between countries, languages, etc.
Depends what your metrics are, but very likely no. Even if you could prove it was a "good trade off", good luck convincing anyone. In America we're seeing how stubborn people are to take any actual steps against a deadly virus, they would absolutely scoff at any intrusive measure meant to prevent the flu.
Well there's negative economic effects to the flu in any case.
There's a variety of relatively low cost preventable steps that would just help in general if people followed them (may or may not fit your definition of social distancing).
I'm thinking of stuff like
- Contactless payments
- Head nods instead of handshakes for greetings
- More remote work options (where applicable).
- Mask wearing on public transit or by people with lots of personal contact
Wearing a mask in public doesn't restrict any commerce
Social distancing restricts some, but even without any legal enforcement I wouldn't be surprised if people just don't want to be close to others like before anymore. And for perfectly acceptable reasons!
Comments
because masks work and social distancing works.
Nobody is really doubting that. The question is, is shutting down the country to avoid flu season a good trade off (in more normal times)?
That's not actually a question anyone is asking.
At least in the German mainstream discourse the proportionality of specific policies as well as it's costs and benefits are reoccuring, if not central themes.
This is, of course, currently about covid-19, but I think that the political arguments mostly apply to infectious diseases in general. ..once they gain a certain significance.
I don't doubt your perception though. The discourse might vary greatly between countries, languages, etc.
There are many out there for whom it may not be worth it.
Depends what your metrics are, but very likely no. Even if you could prove it was a "good trade off", good luck convincing anyone. In America we're seeing how stubborn people are to take any actual steps against a deadly virus, they would absolutely scoff at any intrusive measure meant to prevent the flu.
Saying "nobody" may be putting to much faith on your fellow humans.
No need to shut down the country to practice social distancing, though.
I, for one, wouldn't support practicing social distancing every year to prevent the flu season. And this always has economic effects as well.
Well there's negative economic effects to the flu in any case.
There's a variety of relatively low cost preventable steps that would just help in general if people followed them (may or may not fit your definition of social distancing).
I'm thinking of stuff like
- Contactless payments
- Head nods instead of handshakes for greetings
- More remote work options (where applicable).
- Mask wearing on public transit or by people with lots of personal contact
You'd restrict an enormous amount of commerce.
Wearing a mask in public doesn't restrict any commerce
Social distancing restricts some, but even without any legal enforcement I wouldn't be surprised if people just don't want to be close to others like before anymore. And for perfectly acceptable reasons!
I don’t think so. People are very good at adapting once confronted with a situation.