Social Distancing in a Free Society

I've seen a few things today where people (prominent voices, not simply people like me) have been pouring doubt on the science behind the two metre rule. Stating that there's no real science behind it, and that about a metre is probably more appropriate

This chimes quite neatly with something I've been thinking about in relation to all this. Namely the way that humans, polite humans that is, normally give other people a degree of personal space. This is normal behaviour in most civilised societies and I would suspect that perhaps it has its origins deep in nature itself. No doubt predominantly stemming from our need to protect ourselves from physical harm, but maybe also to protect us from the germs of others when we're out and about and interacting.

I wouldn't like to put a specific distance on what exactly "personal space" is, but I guess a metre would be a decent approximation. In fact, thinking about it I'd probably say "arm's length" would be a better measure, which is a bit less (unless you've got very long arms), but still close enough. So if we all just behave naturally, and chastise the few impolite people who don't respect the personal space of others, then we should be fine. Without the need for a formal rule dictating the behaviour that we're already practising anyway.

💓 ...however 💓

There is a flip side to all this ..and that's when we want someone to be in our personal space. Crazily we're now living in a time where it's pretty much illegal for two people not from the same household to hold hands with each other. Think about that. What sort of world is this where two lovers cannot hold hands with each other? Especially two perfectly healthy, otherwise law-abiding lovers.

Without wanting to get too corny here I think this goes to the heart (get it) of the matter. Surely if two consenting adults want to share their body space with each other no government in the world should ever be coming between that.

Of course, it also means that two people can't come together to create life. So in the supposed pursuit of stopping death we've brought to a halt the very thing that leads to life. How many births have not happened thanks to this? How many people destined to be together remain separated. It's not too hard to imagine some Romeo and Juliet type story where the two protagonists are separated by decree. Un-fair Corona.

Ironically if governments started banning people with sexual diseases from having sex for fear of spreading those viruses then I'm sure the same people demanding lock down would be outraged. In fact, if they even started advising that people avoid people who have sexual diseases there'd be outrage. Now again, I'm totally in favour of personal choice and would never espouse such a sentiment. However, we currently have a situation where a consenting adult can choose to have sex with someone with a serious sexual disease (assuming they're living in the same household at the moment of course lol). Yet a grandparent can't hug their perfectly healthy grandchild on the off-chance that they may have a flu virus. It's a bit insane.

We're on a very slippery slope at the moment, and anyone reading this that finds the idea of governments deciding who does and doesn't have sex terrible, yet thinks the corona measures are somehow justifiable. Then they might want to reconsider things. As once this precedent is truly set things will no doubt head in a direction where governments do indeed dictate the sexual and reproduction options of the individual.

Choose liberty.

Revising Revisions

Very lazy Sunday today. I haven't done much at all. The one useful thing I have been doing though is reading through my book Civilisation Judas (the one in the sidebar). It's the first time I've read through it since it was published and it's allowed me to start correcting a few grammar mistakes that are in there. I was expecting to find more so it hasn't been too bad so far. Just the odd everyday instead of every day and a few other things like that.

Hopefully I can get it all fixed within the next week or so - that's if I can remember how to re-edit the Amazon templates. Not that it ever sells anyway. Still it's nice to have it out there and published.

It was interesting to read it back. I get the feeling it would annoy Christians, Jews, Muslims and Atheists in equal measure if any were to ever read it. Not to mention historians. So it's perhaps for the best that it remains in obscurity 😅

One paragraph did seem quite fitting for these current times though.

Regarding the excess of written law, it can often leave less room for moral choice, and consequently can sometimes have a dehumanising effect on society. Regulations and laws, for all their benefit, can come at the cost of genuine freedom. The law of the jungle - in effect the absence of law - representing freedom with all its dangers. The law of the city, or civilisation - with all its legality - symbolic of both captivity and comfort.

R ≤ 1 = (ERM)

I've been thinking about the whole "r must be equal to or less than 1" thing. The so-called "R rate". This is the mechanism governments are using to deal with Covid, where the "R" (rate of infection) must be kept below one. Meaning each person infected must be infecting less than 1.0 people on average (if I'm understanding it correctly). If the number is over this we move to more lock down. If the number is below this we can open more things up.

It reminds me a little bit of the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), which eventually led to the famous "Black Wednesday" in 1992. Where Britain crashed out under the weight of the economic damage it was causing to the country.

This could be a little bit similar. If we assume everything is as it is portrayed in the mainstream media, and forget for a moment any questions about the wider overall narrative. Then we (and other countries) are effectively pegging our entire economy to a single number. A single number we may have little real control over. Of course, once politicians commit to staying within this numerical parameter it then becomes very hard to u-turn and throw this commitment out. As was the situation with the ERM. They've nailed their colours to the mast and any deviation from it will be viewed as going back on their own words. Breaking their own rules. No matter how bad the economic damage caused.

It'll be interesting to watch, both here and in other countries.

Flying and Fiction

I've been continuing to work on my book. Getting lost in fiction is a nice escape. I guess the longer the lock down goes on the more likely it is that I'll get it finished.

In other news listening to some of what's going on in the airline industry - with job losses and proposed changes to how people will fly - I'm starting to see what I imagine will be a two-tier, or perhaps multi-tier society. Where flying will be off-limits or at least limited for large parts of the population. Ultimately by price. Though I suppose some degree of China-style social credit system could play a role too. The climate change lobby must be over the moon. Strange how that works.

Fear vs Football

The sheeple are starting to annoy me now. Of course, it's not their fault. The media have whipped them up into an incredible state of fear. Many so much so that even when (if) they're offered their freedom back they'll refuse to accept it.

A good case in point came today with English football. The Premier League announced that they've pencilled in June 8th for the date when they'll begin to finish the 19/20 season. This was quickly followed by cries of "Noooo! it's not safe!!" on Twitter and elsewhere. With former player, now pundit Gary Neville being one of the chiefest cheerleaders.

Football fans. Begging that football remain cancelled. Very sad to see.

It's worth remembering that Twitter isn't a good reflection of the real mood out there in the country, but still, it was quite depressing to see so many comments demanding it be postponed until "this is over." Which will be never, as there will always be flu viruses.

As I'm about to finish writing this Boris is due to start giving his first speech proper since returning to the fore as PM. There have already been a few precursors on social media suggesting it'll be further endless lock down. So it's unlikely I'll be watching - much too depressing. I'll no doubt catch the important soundbites on social media as the evening progresses.

Where Will The Bounce Come From??

I went into town earlier today. To do a bit of shopping. Sainsbury's. Ooh. Anyway, it was the first time I'd been in town since the start of the lock down and I was quite astounded how quiet it was. Obviously I knew it would be largely shut down, but still I expected a few more feet on the ground given we're now into week four and people are getting a little bit fed up moping around the house.

It was quite a depressing experience. I'm by no means an expert on economics so I won't try to make any predictions. However, I can't help but wonder where a "bounce back" will come from if we do start opening up again. People's shopping habits will have changed in this period. That may continue a little while. Many people will also still be apprehensive because of the virus. (Some folks have really been whipped up into quite a panic about it). So they may only start dipping their toes back into the water. Slowly easing themselves back into regular behaviour like visiting cafes or browsing clothing departments.

So I'm a little worried.

The decline of high streets was a major concern for towns and cities before the crisis hit. How will they cope now? Especially if there's continued uncertainty about "second waves", etc.

Also it'll be interesting to see if areas, be it in the UK or elsewhere, get a huge advantage from any extra confidence or 'braveness' they show in comparison to more germophobic areas.

Flu Strikes Forever

Another day in a world gone mad :)

I saw yesterday someone making the point that this lock down is the logical end point of 'health and safety' culture. Sadly I can't remember where I saw the tweet, so I can't give the person proper credit, however it was a wonderful insight.

We literally now cannot leave the house and meet other people because it's "too dangerous". Even though the fatality rate for this virus is clearly and undeniably now in the same ballpark as normal flu viruses.

In fact, that's another thing worth noting. Whenever you get people comparing this virus to regular flu it's often met with the angry response "It's. Not. Flu." It's becoming like another SJW type catchphrase. Almost like you're misgendering the virus.

Anyway, the 'health and safety' insight got me thinking further about where this may all be going. If the entire political establishment, in every single country, are fully invested in the "forever lock down" then it's pretty much game over for anyone against it. However, if the "right", for want of a better label, put up some resistance then we might see an endless battle.

I'm thinking something similar to the endless strikes of the 1970's. The left constantly striking to get their political demands. The right trying to break the strikes and get the economy moving. In the process looking like heartless cotton mill owners only bothered about money and economics. An obvious one to watch is the school re-openings. If teachers (and parents) refuse to re-open due to the "health risks" then they may effectively go on strike until it's "safe". It will then be a huge battle to get the schools open. This could go on endlessly back and forth. Especially with the so-called "second" and "third" waves, etc. This could then happen in any other sphere or industry.

Of course, they'll claim it's simply the "health" issue they're striking over. However it will be used to hold the country hostage to get all myriad different demands. As it already is now. Brexit delay. Universal Basic Income. Orange-man gone. And so forth.