Your own health – if you are a younger person with no underlying health issues your risk of death from COVID-19 is very low. The risk of getting sick enough to require hospitalisation is higher but still very low. Indeed it seems that the majority of people infected are either mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic. However, the risk of severe illness/death increases dramatically for older groups and those with certain underlying health conditions. It also seems that your inherited genetic make-up is likely to affect your susceptibility and more data is emerging all the time. So everyone has a different risk profile. Low risk suggests green band, high risk red band.

Other people’s health – Although it does not have a fatality rate as frightening as many other diseases, one of the widely (but not universally) accepted features of this virus appears to be that it in the absence of controls, it spreads relatively quickly. This appears to be at least partly due to it being passed on by those who are not showing symptoms of infection themselves. That distinguishes it from many infections that we are used to dealing with, where the risk is more apparent and so can more easily be avoided. So the concern for many is not their own health, but the risk to the health of others, especially those who are in higher risk groups. Greenbandredband is an attempt to tackle this problem by respecting red banders’ right to distance. So the risk of passing on the virus is kept as low as possible for all red banders while green banders accept that they have a greater chance of getting infected because they have chosen to take that risk.

Overwhelmed health service – In the early stages of the disease, there was great concern that the health service in various countries would be overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients. Indeed this appears to have occurred in certain regions for a period of time. The implications of this would be an inability to treat patients with COVID-19 and an unpalatable need to select between patients on the basis of likely survival. Non COVID-19 services would effectively have to be shut down resulting in more suffering and death. This is an outcome that no-one would want and is an argument in favour of red band. However, in the course of fighting the virus, many regions increased their health service capacity to deal with this potential eventuality. And increasingly, data and information is emerging to help us identify the people most likely to be admitted to hospital (see above) and mistakes regarding protection of people in high risk communities e.g. care homes are being recognised. So the adoption of green band by people in low risk categories – coupled with a desire to protect those in higher risk categories by respecting red band distance – would appear to carry a far lower risk to the health service than might have been the case at the outset of the virus.

Health workers exposed to high viral load – In addition to concerns about the health service being overwhelmed, there is the direct impact on the health of health workers, who could face a constant exposure to high doses of the virus if substantial numbers of COVID-19 patients were hospitalised. The argument would therefore be that by choosing green band one is not just risking one’s own health, but also the health of those who would be asked to care for a green bander who got sick. Some green banders might well be prepared to eschew any right to hospital treatment for COVID-19 in return for a return to the ‘old normal’. This is something which some societies may consider, but in most regions access to health care is not generally linked to lifestyle choices so it can be assumed that green banders would have a legitimate expectation of receiving hospital treatment. Green banders should therefore consider the data and information that exists regarding rates of infection and consequences of infection for their risk profile and the state of their health service, taking into account that improved protective equipment may now be available to health service workers compared to the initial weeks of the virus.

Overwhelmed critical apparatus of society – This is a similar argument to the health service. If too many people become sick then parts of supply or delivery chains that are considered essential may fail. Green banders will have to consider the actual risks of that occurring in their particular region and what level of sickness would be required for failures of that nature to become a reality.

Vaccine or medicine intervening – At time of writing there is no vaccine against Coronavirus and no medicine with established efficacy. Despite the unparalleled resources being dedicated to finding a ‘cure’ there is no guarantee that a vaccine will be found soon or even found at all. And there is no guarantee that it would be effective long term. There would also be a significant logistical challenge rolling it out across the world. It appears that most governments are unwilling to wait for a vaccine to attempt to emerge from lockdown. Instead there is a worldwide attempt to maintain or restore some form of life as we knew it prior to COVID-19, but with conditions imposed to limit or entirely prevent its spread. Whichever band you choose, greenbandredband can help that process. If and when effective medicine or vaccination becomes available, then to the extent that distancing still exists, the hopefully reduced impact of the virus might alter your assessment of risk considerably.

Herd immunity – This is the concept that if a large enough number of the population become infected, recover, then are immune going forward and their immunity prevents them spreading the virus, then the virus will be prevented from spreading because it will hit a block of immune people who do not pass it on and so it will be stopped. Those who support trying to achieve herd immunity are more likely to accept getting infection and therefore more likely to choose green band. Herd immunity is a controversial topic with very different percentages of immune people put forward as being required. It also relies on (a) infection leading to immunity post recovery and (b) immunity leading to an inability to spread the virus. While both assumptions are reasonable – even likely – on the basis of how other viruses behave, the effect of recovering from infection by this virus is yet to be conclusively established.

The Economy – It seems clear that the lockdowns across the world have had a severe effect on economies across the world and that the effect is likely to be long lasting. At time of writing the vast majority of countries are attempting to move out of lockdown and so are taking steps to kickstart their economies, while forms of distancing are maintained. Whichever band you choose, greenbandredband helps with the release of lockdown, allowing governments to tailor their approach to the differing views of their people and allowing people to operate with more certainty and freedom around each other. Clearly green band allows a faster return to pre-Coronavirus practices but this will not be acceptable for all.

Other health – While Coronavirus has been an all-consuming focus, it is clear that lockdown has had a detrimental effect on the mental and physical health of large numbers of people. As explained above, greenbandredband provides a helpful way to navigate the process of easing restrictions. Even if hospitals are now able to help people with other physical health issues, continued distancing will still pose well-being issues for many. Adaptation to continued distancing would be particularly hard on children for instance or on those reliant on group or close contact activities for recreation. For those individuals or groups green band may be more appropriate.

Personal immunity – As more people realise that they have had the virus and recovered, or that they were asymptomatic, there is an increasingly important question as to how the bodies of those individuals would react to further exposure to the virus, and particularly whether they can be re-infected or spread the virus to others in the future. With many viral infections an immunity to further infection is acquired after recovery from the initial exposure and it is hoped that this is the case for Coronavirus as well but at this stage it is simply not known if immunity does result from the initial exposure/recovery or how long lasting any immunity would be.

The role of face coverings – There are many different types of face covering, and potentially substantial differences between the effects of the different types. The cloth mask, which covers the nose and mouth, and can be purchased or made at home, is the most common of these. Many regions have recommended or mandated the use of these types of face covering for the public in certain circumstances or areas. As with much of the Coronavirus science, there are widely differing views as to the effectiveness of these face coverings. Those who advocate their use, generally do so primarily to reduce the risk of transmission from the wearer. So it is seen as a means of protecting others more than oneself. The majority of public health advice remains that distancing is a superior protection against transmission than a face covering. However, where distancing is impractical, many regions are recommending or mandating face coverings as a means of mitigating the increased risk of transmission due to lack of distance. This has lead to rules requiring the use of face coverings in certain places, even where distance is being maintained. Although many would question the need for a face covering when distance is being maintained, the justification is often that it makes the rule easier to follow and understand, and minimises the risk of people adjusting their mask on multiple occasions. Alternatively it is seen simply as an extra tier of risk mitigation, albeit not the most valuable one.