Depends if the lock-downs are at your doorstep or at the border. The UK had a few opportunities to pursue a zero covid strategy but squandered them all.
The mass testing story is not what you think it is. The tests are optional, self administered, self reported, only available to staff (not students) in many cases and have a 50% false negative rate.
> The tests are optional, self administered, self reported, only available to staff (not students)
That's rubbish. My kids are stuff swabs up their nose twice a week - and they are lateral flow tests, so we sit there waiting to see whether the double line appears.
Different schools are running things differently. I am glad you used the tests, but they were strictly speaking optional. Lateral flow tests have a very high false negative rate, particularly when not administered by a trained professional.
In this case their "lived experience" is directly contradicted by the lived experience of a number of people right here in this very thread.
It may well be they're telling the truth about their school, but that still makes a blanket claim, like the one made above, misinformation when it's presented with no qualification to indicate it's based purely on an anecdote (I'll note the comment has since been edited to water down the original claim)
Not true at all. UK was doing >1million rapid tests a day when schools were open. They will do that again when they are back from easter break.
Also, the false negative rate isn't a big problem IMO. The PCR 'false negative' rate is far far higher because we are only doing a few hundred thousand a day, so 90% of people are getting missed entirely. I'd rather a 50% false negative rate than a 89% false negative rate from PCR.
There is also the problem that PCR takes at least a day to turn around as well - which will result in more spread.
I'm not saying we should get rid of PCR testing and just do LFD but doing both is probably the best option.
What if they added posts? Either metal driven down into the road that a car would not go through or plastic ones that would deter a driver from running into them? I think that would provide more of a sense of physical separation.
We can't all drive though. There is not physically enough space in an urban environment. If you don't provide good alternatives - cycling is one, trains and buses are also key - then everyone will be stuck in traffic.
It is very flat, but it's also quite wet and VERY windy. The Netherlands would not be the best place to cycle if it weren't for the infrastructure that they chose to build.
You are not alone. Transport for London found safety concerns as the biggest reason people do not cycle in London. Interestingly, many people who do cycle also considered it too dangerous.
For what it's worth, your risk from diseases of inactivity (diabetes, heart disease, etc) are far greater than the risk of cycling, even with poor infrastructure. Most people who take up cycling to work see an increase in life expectancy.
The solution is to separate cyclists from motor traffic on all major roads and introduce 30kmph limits on quiet roads. The Netherlands did this and has far lower accident rates, despite having more children and elderly people cycling. They don't wear helmets either!
Cities are usually quite small in area. USA is an exception to this but that is due to car dependency. We can't reverse care dependency if we continue to pander to it. In London, the average speed of traffic is much lower than a gentle cycle. For longer distances, municipalities should focus on rail infrastructure. You might also consider an e-bike, which can double or triple your range as a cyclist.
> You have facilities to shower and dress at work
Cycling at a moderate pace does not make you any sweatier than public transport . With adequate infrastructure, cycling in a city can be leisurely, rather than a battle against motor traffic. Riding a bike is not the same as racing a bike, much like how walking is not the same as running.
> You have sufficient time to shower and dress at work
Presumably you have to shower somewhere. What difference does it make if it is before or after your commute?
> You don't have to bring kids or sizable cargo
Cargo bikes are remarkably efficient and can carry two small children. They are cheaper than a car too. Older children can cycle. Did you know 75% of dutch teenagers cycle to school? However, we need infrastructure where people feel safe to do this. For occasional journeys a car may still be required, but that's fine, we are targeting the 90% case here.
> Weather is sufficiently good
Cycling away from traffic in the rain with fenders and a jacket is no worse than walking. Toughen up?
> You're sufficiently healthy
In The Netherlands, disabled and elderly people can use powered scooters and wheel chairs on the cycle paths. This gives them independence even after losing their driving license. In other countries, they would likely end up in a home. For those who must use a car, that is still an option. Traffic is actually reduced since cycle lanes have much greater carrying capacity in terms of _people_.
Regarding weather and showering, I think the person is thinking more about the times of year when it is 100 degrees F outside and 60% humidity for 1/3 of the year.
