I think some people on this site can lose sight of things a bit and the case would be stronger if there was some compromise sometimes, even in the main updates.

For instance I remember over the summer people were saying 'the virus is done, it's gone, it's not coming back'.

Unless you're really deep into conspiracies (and those people rely on a combination of very sketchy evidence and blind faith it seems to me), that's patently been shown to be untrue; and so to acknowledge that would show that you're serious about treating the situation as it is rather than ranting about things.

I oppose most or all restrictions mainly on philosophical and moral grounds; I am a responsible adult and can manage my risk to myself and others as such. I don't need the state poking its nose in. That opposition can be present even while compromising on data and acknowledging the situation when it turns against you (as per my example above).

I think some people on this site can lose sight of things a bit and the case would be stronger if there was some compromise sometimes, even in the main updates.

For instance I remember over the summer people were saying 'the virus is done, it's gone, it's not coming back'.

Unless you're really deep into conspiracies (and those people rely on a combination of very sketchy evidence and blind faith it seems to me), that's patently been shown to be untrue; and so to acknowledge that would show that you're serious about treating the situation as it is rather than ranting about things.

I oppose most or all restrictions mainly on philosophical and moral grounds; I am a responsible adult and can manage my risk to myself and others as such. I don't need the state poking its nose in. That opposition can be present even while compromising on data and acknowledging the situation when it turns against you (as per my example above).

Actually I dont know any serious poster (not just here) who said it was just going away. Now the whole second wave scare was based on an estimated R0 value that was more than double what it actually seems to be. The same as the other general circulation corona-viruses. Stick that first number in your models and you get a second wave as strong as the first one. Which is what happened with Hong Kong Flu in the UK in 1968/69. Use the more plausible lower R0 (<1.2) number and you just get a much smaller "second wave" that merges with the normal winter flu season. Which has been pretty bad the last few years.

Thats what you are seeing. A pretty bad winter flu season numbers. Just like we get two or three times every decade. And some very sloppy use of statistics by those claiming the "second wave" is here.

The whole "going away" was more that SARs CoV 2 was just going to become another general circulation corona-virus. Just like all the others. Which you have had dozens of infections from in your life so far. Mostly as a kid. The actual SARs CoV 2 epidemic in the UK, from a epidemiological point of view, was over by June. What we have now is just another virus that can cause very nasty colds in most people and pneumonia in a few sick / high risk people. The same people at risk from 'flu. And at about the same level of risk and seriousness as the other corona-viruses we have always been living with.

So actually SARs CoV 2 turned out to be no big deal medically speaking. No different from viruses we have not been living with for generations with much fuss. Which is very different from saying it will "go away".

For instance I remember over the summer people were saying 'the virus is done, it's gone, it's not coming back'.

Not sensible people. Its a human coronavirus - all the others are seasonal so it'd be more surprising if this one wasn't.
Most people fully expected a late autumn return and that's exactly what happened.
As with everything else in summer, a combination of warmer temperatures, higher UV, people spending less time indoors in poor ventilation, more vitamin D and so on suppressed it just like it does with all the others. But it never went away so would come back.
No shock there.
I oppose most or all restrictions mainly on philosophical and moral grounds; I am a responsible adult and can manage my risk to myself and others as such. I don't need the state poking its nose in. That opposition can be present even while compromising on data and acknowledging the situation when it turns against you (as per my example above).

Personally i'm against it on scientific grounds. In that there we have no reliable data (poor testing), we have no evidence lockdowns work other than to just kick the can down the road creating MORE deaths later (as modelled by SAGE/SPI-M and even Ferguson in report 9. Since confirmed by the Lancet global review of the first lockdown that came out last month) and the admission that sometimes pandemics happen. Sometimes something comes round that is more deadly than the average. That's just mathematical fact because that's how averages work.

I've yet to see any data to convince me lockdowns dont make the problem worse a bit later on or that any benefit of them outweighs the huge side effects they cause, both directly and indirectly.

Its a virus that's lethal *to a very small, known demographic* so our focus should be on protecting that group.
Our entire response goes totally against all established epidemiological understanding and practices since the field was created.

The main disappointing thing here is how science has become dogma. Its no longer a free discussion between any side and point of view that has valid data. Its now binary, either you agree with this view or you opinion doesnt count, no matter how much data you can provide to support it.

Masks are another - all the RCTs done to date show they dont do anything at all. There have been no studies showing they do. Yet based entirely on "gut feelings" they've become "scientifically proven" despite no data at all. This would never have happened before 2020 and is very dangerous for science as a whole. Nobody is allowed to question their weak data or provide an alternative as it "disagrees with mainstream opinion".

Science isnt like that in reality, its supposed to be a debate between valid, reviewed, alternative views to establish the most likely facts which is *always* open to change.

I'm also imposed on libertarian grounds - to me everything should be personal responsibility and a personal assessment of risk. People should be informed of the full facts (and thats the problem..see above...) and allowed to make their own life choices and accept the consequences of those choices.

....sadly there are more and more batsh*t insane conspiracy theorists coming out of the woodwork which massively devalue the debate. Generally on here when i see the names of those i just stay away from the thread - theres no sense engaging with facts as they really dont want to hear any.

....sadly there are more and more batsh*t insane conspiracy theorists coming out of the woodwork which massively devalue the debate. Generally on here when i see the names of those i just stay away from the thread - theres no sense engaging with facts as they really dont want to hear any.

A sensible post. I agree the conflation of anti lockdown and conspiracy theorists is a great shame. Some of them are just hysterical and driven by blind faith in conspiracy, while claiming to have found secret evidence that says they have discovered the objective truth, and it greatly devalues reasonable opposition that might influence decisions in our favour. I wonder if more should have been done to draw a line on this site between those types and the rest.