[f6v]

> So alcohol spreads COVID?

This always gets me. Isn’t it obvious that alcohol consumption is a social activity? Not all of it, but to a large degree. Limiting the consumption seems logical. Of course, you can’t assess the impact of individual measures at the moment, as you need a controlled experiment and proper statistics. But is this measure really something to be that upset about?

[dahfizz]

If you want high compliance, the rules need to be perceived as fair and just. Telling people they can't have beer with their dinner is plainly frustrating.

Not to mention that people can just get their takeaway from the restaurant, and then walk next door to the corner store and go "food shopping" to pick up a 6 pack.

If there was evidence that drinking alcohol spreads covid, I would expect that to be a clear message from the government and for there to be consistent restrictions on alcohol. Instead, we get silly rules with silly workarounds.

[alexchamberlain]

I for 1 am very glad about this. I accept this is just personal experience, but between Christmas and New Year - having not seen our families to prevent the spread of COVID - my wife and I were rather indignant to find large groups of people gathering outside the pubs of Greenwich all serving "take away" alcohol.

[woadwarrior01]

On a tangential note, there's a clinical trial[1] currently underway for exploring the use of alcohol vapor inhalation (with aspirin) as a potential treatment for COVID-19.

[1]: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04554433

[rusk]

You can measure it [0]. It has been measured. Contact tracing, where it has been done reliably has shown that a large amount of community transmission takes place at house parties where people have been drinking. You wouldn’t know that in the UK unfortunately because you’re never given any information beyond assurances that grit and determination will get together through.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/09/k-overloo...

[gnusty_gnurc]

> Limiting the consumption seems logical.

Lots of "plans" seem logical and this is precisely why technocracy is a vexation on society.

Unintended consequences. The presumption of knowledge and control.

All of these elite presumptions are illusory and fundamentally hubristic.

You know why "limiting the consumption" of alcohol is a dumb suggestion? We have tons of evidence that it was a massive failure: Prohibition and the War on Drugs.

No matter how well-intended you are - it'll backfire and people will ignore it.

Humans are fundamentally social creatures. Millions of years of evolution have seared into their biology the instinct to be social.

The idea that we can force humans into acting against their fundamental instincts to socialize is folly. Not only folly - but abuse.

But seriously, it's bizarre. The obdurance of so-called experts set on working against the grain of every human instinct, as though that's likely to maximize the success of their plans.

[f6v]

> The idea that we can force humans into acting against their fundamental instincts to socialize is folly.

Do you really want to go down that road? Well, here we go: procreation is a fundamental human instinct. Do you want to legalize rape? Didn’t think so. You see how folly your argument is?

[gnusty_gnurc]

> Well, here we go: procreation is a fundamental human instinct. Do you want to legalize rape?

This is non-sequitur.

A better comparison is like legally enforcing abstinence to eradicate HIV.

If you can't get the idea that isolation is counter-intuitive to humans and damaging to their health and psychology, and therefore bound to be hard to get compliance, I'm not sure what to say.

This is why jail is jail. Isolation is unnatural. It's punishment. No one voluntary chooses this.

[f6v]

Individual’s comfort can’t be a number one priority in a times of crisis. Sitting at home in a digital age when video calling anyone in the world is absolutely free, it’s the least you can do. Also all the entertainment which is available nowadays. How hard can it be to make this sacrifice so that someone’s grandma doesn’t die?

> isolation is counter-intuitive to humans

20 million cities are counterintuitive, and so is math. We get by.

I’m not denying that what is asked from people is a huge sacrifice. But not the biggest sacrifice you can imagine. And it’s definitely manageable.

[matz1]

As if grandma even want to be in isolation in the first place.

My grandma would rather took the small risk of dying of covid to go outside, socialize with their friends and family.

[gnusty_gnurc]

> How hard can it be to make this sacrifice so that someone’s grandma doesn’t die?

This is where things go wrong.

You're shaming people for feeling natural human instincts to socialize.

As though it's selfish to not want to be locked in your house indefinitely.

There is a striking resemblance here of the tactics used by abusers and emotional manipulators.

> But not the biggest sacrifice you can imagine. And it’s definitely manageable.

That's a completely presumptuous personal view - for a very large and underappreciated segment of the population, the ongoing lockdown measures to combat coronavirus are absolutely devastating.

[jasonlaramburu]

>You're shaming people for feeling natural human instincts

There are many 'natural' human instincts that are harmful to society and are either strongly discouraged or outlawed (violence, drug abuse, overeating to name a few).

[djsumdog]

Tell that to my best friend in the UK who's Italian flatmate committed suicide back in March.

[c0nducktr]

I truly am not trying to be insensitive, but didn't these restrictions only just barely begin back in March? It's difficult for me to see the causation.