scotia wrote:dealtn wrote:So there are 50,000 pubs in the UK. Do you happen to know the infection outcomes in the other 49,999? I'm afraid all you are doing is demonstrating Selection Bias. A well known statistical term.
I fear you are mis-understanding how the information I provided was obtained. In Scotland we have a significantly lower infection rate than south of the border. Hence all reported cases are quickly investigated, and sources of clusters are identified. From such (few) clusters we may learn useful information. One cluster was associated with a visit to a pub on a specific date - with at least 13 infections. We don't have other clusters in Scotland with different numbers of infections from visits by an infected person to a pub, and we obviously can't carry out a test by seeding such persons. So that number is currently a best guide as to what happened in that particular pub environment. Environment health officers visited the bar to assess the controls implemented, and they confirmed that the pub had a series of controls in place for physical distancing and enhanced hygiene. We can therefore assume that there was nothing exceptionally different from the advised norm in that pub. Hence the cluster size of 13, is at the very least an indication of what can be expected in such circumstances. The previous respondent, who's contribution I supported, suggested a multiplication of 10. I provided the above evidence to suggest his number appeared to be in the correct ball park.
Have you any experimental evidence to support a widely different number?
No, I think its perfectly possible that on occasions 10, or even more, can be infected.
But my argument isn't that it isn't possible. My argument is that it is rare, and like all things you need to weigh up the risks, and positive and negative outcomes on both sides. It would appear that 49,999 pubs don't have that outcome, unless you have evidence otherwise? I suspect many thousands have zero spreading, a few hundred one or two, and a very few as much as 10.
There are considerably more than 50,000 cars on the road, and people are hurt and die every day. Do we ban cars? No society accepts that risk despite the undoubted tragedies felt by a few. The benefits of having cars are deemed important enough to continue.
There might be 50,000 trains in the country (I don't know). Occasionally one comes off the rails. People die. The cause, and safety features are examined by an enquiry, and lessons maybe learned. Are trains still allowed to run? The benefits are deemed worth it.
Planes crash. Oil terminals occasionally explode. Ships sink. The economy isn't stopped.
I don't think any of us want to live in a society where all deaths are to be prevented at all costs, and what that would entail. Maybe you disagree?
If every avoidable death is a tragedy and we should (literally) do whatever it takes to prevent such, then why are there cars on the road? Why is so little spent on adult mental health to prevent suicides? Why aren't nuts banned from shops to prevent the few allergic reaction deaths? Why isn't society shut down, and masks made compulsory, to prevent the many thousands of flu deaths every year?
Society has to decide the level of risks, and the inevitable outcomes associated with that in terms of injuries and deaths. That can be tricky to do. It was probably right that "extreme" measures were taken in locking down, but such an extreme response also has many negatives, and is costing peoples lives as well as livelihoods through the economic situation.
So (returning to the subject) it isn't an issue to me if pubs and restaurants are re-opening (and the results of such being scrutinized) if that allows people to keep their jobs, improves mental health etc. As not doing so also endangers lives (many of whom will ordinarily have multiple years ahead of them). Few seem to be "fighting" to save these unseen deaths and tragedies it seems.
I can't see the implied alternative of shutting many thousands of businesses, making millions unemployed, and having schools and hospitals closed as being "better". I doubt you do too. So all we are arguing about is where the line is drawn, and people will have differing opinions on that. I just ask that those tasked with making such difficult decisions, that won't please all of us, hear the evidence and consider the harm, and fatalities, on both sides of the debate, and are pragmatic not dogmatic, about monitoring and potentially revising some of those decisions.
just 20 people in groups of 6 or fewer in an outside space for 200