[alancalverd]

Only if you have an enforceable quarantine system.

[Bored chemist]

Only if you have an enforceable quarantine system.

Not really.
People would be more likely to stay home if they knew they had the virus rather than they knew that had a sore throat which they didn't think was the virus because they had been round at their aunt Ethel and she said that the neighbour was talking to a nurse at the bus stop- well she thought it was a nurse; might have been the cook, but he worked in a hospital and he said that you can tell if you have it because the dog acts funny.

[alancalverd]

There's a difference between "more likely" and doing it, and we can already see the effect of inadequate persuasion in the rising infection rate, driven by an incompetent approach to short-term economics and absurd sentimentality.

Where do the most vulnerable congregate? Weddings and funerals. Where do group limits not apply? Weddings and funerals.

There was an excellent rational, expert interview on Radio 4 World at One yesterday, persistently interrupted by a reporter asking "but won't that ruin Christmas?" as if overeating on some random day were more important than preventing endemic disability.

[Bored chemist]

There's a difference between "more likely" and doing it, and we can already see the effect of inadequate persuasion i

A positive test result would be much more persuasive.
It doesn't have to be perfect to save lives, just " a bit better" will do.

[Bored chemist]

Where do the most vulnerable congregate? Weddings and funerals. Where do group limits not apply? Weddings and funerals.

That's because e have a Prime minister who thinks that having large wedding parties is more important than international law.
I can't see why any rational individual (other than the very rich) would have voted for him.

[alancalverd]

As you have pointed out elsewhere, the only people who voted for him are a few citizens of Uxbridge, who probably aren't short of a few quid, and the paid-up members of the Conservative Party, who probably are short of a few neurons. 

His 2017 majority in Uxbridge and South Ruislip of 5,034 votes was the smallest of any sitting prime minister since 1924.

His slightly larger majority in 2019 was entirely due to the absence of a Brexit policy among any of his rivals, their vote being split between a Liberal Antidemocrat sworn to ignore the result of a public referendum, and a Labour candidate whose European policy was to sweep Israel into the sea and embrace the IRA.

[Bored chemist]

His slightly larger majority in 2019 was entirely due to the absence of a Brexit policy among any of his rivals, their vote being split between a Liberal Antidemocrat sworn to ignore the result of a public referendum, and a Labour candidate whose European policy was to sweep Israel into the sea and embrace the IRA.

Thanks for demonstrating your clarity of thought there;
"the absence of a Brexit policy among any of his rivals"
They both had clear policies on the issue.
The Lib dems said that they would do what the majority wanted (at the time- rather than 3 years earlier) and ditch brexit.
Labour said that they weren't sure what the UK currently thought so they would ask.

So those are the democratic things to do.
Regrettably they split the "brexit sucks" vote so the minority view "brexit is great" liars got in.

The Labour candidate did much the same as Mrs T- actually talking to the IRA- a process that has done a lot to re-unite the people of Northern Ireland.
Boris is putting that at risk and will possibly end up rejuvenating the IRA.

It's hard for 1 man to have a European view on Israel. I know they are part of Eurovision; but that's really not the same as being part of Europe.

He has this unfashionable view that Israel should be subject to international law.
No wonder he doesn't agree with Boris.

And the major reason his party didn't win was the Tory press kept calling him "unelectable"- he was, of course, duly elected.

[alancalverd]

The Lib dems said that they would do what the majority wanted (at the time- rather than 3 years earlier) and ditch brexit.

Thus claiming psychic powers in addition their previously demonstrated perfidy in government.
 

Labour said that they weren't sure what the UK currently thought so they would ask.

As previously demonstrated by the EU and SNP demanding that the Irish/Scots keep voting until they get the right answer.

I quite like the Swiss procedure of having a referendum on almost everything, but not the same question every year.

[Bored chemist]

Thus claiming psychic powers in addition their previously demonstrated perfidy in government.

No.
Just looking at the data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_the_United_Kingdom%27s_membership_of_the_European_Union_(2016%E2%80%932020)#/media/File:Brexit_post-referendum_polling_-_Right-Wrong.svg
You should try it.

I quite like the Swiss procedure of having a referendum on almost everything, but not the same question every year.

Perhaps you are right.
We had a referendum; we should stick to the result.
The vote was back in the 70s, and we decided to join.

No need for any further opportunities to see if things have changed.

Which option do you want?
The one where we can change our minds- in which case Brexit would be rejected by the people, or the one where we can't change our minds, in which case being in the EU was the option chosen by the people?

[alancalverd]

Opinion polls are excellent space-fillers but irrelevant to democracy.

As has been demonstrated, jumping in and out of the EU is not a quick or a cheap process, so frequent changes of mind are not helpful. The EU we are leaving is very different from the Common Market we joined (against my better judgement) and the decision to leave was taken in the light of 50 years' experience of paying for the privilege of an ever-increasing trade deficit.

[Bored chemist]

As has been demonstrated, jumping in and out of the EU is not a quick or a cheap process

Indeed.
The process of leaving has cost more than 50 years of membership.

Perhaps we should have spent the money on the NHS instead.

against my better judgement

Is that based on conceitedness or on psychic powers?

Opinion polls are excellent space-fillers but irrelevant to democracy.

They are also the best available easy mechanism for finding out what people actually want.

What you seem to be saying is that almost every single poll in the last two years has been wrong, and you are right.
But you have a record of getting stuff wrong; you seem to think the Earth is hollow; and you don't believe in the conservation of angular momentum.