This is a Premium feature
To use this feature subscribe to Mumsnet Premium - get first access to new features see fewer ads, and support Mumsnet.Start using Mumsnet Premium
Have the government factored in breaking ranks now?(45 Posts)
Just curious really - I'm still driving to work daily and there's an increase in people for sure, people on beaches more and in parks, meeting up etc. There's posts on here saying they've made own risk assessments and have started using parks, hugging people, people round for dinner etc, shops opening.
Will the behavioural scientists etc have factored in that this would be the point that people would break ranks or is it happening sooner? Will it derail the plans in getting the cases right down for test, track and trace to work?
I'm not really bothered what others are getting up to but I guess if it puts us back to square 1 in a few weeks and it wasn't anticipated within The Grand Plan, that would be really annoying!!
Yes, they have all along, which is why they put off introducing lockdown for as long as possible
They came in for a fair amount of criticism then (eg only caring about the economy)
But with hindsight, they were right - people's tolerance for lockdown is insufficient for the Govt to rely on it lasting for as long as the scientists would want it to.
Yes, I think they must have. The interpretation by some people suddenly seems to have shifted from 'Stay at home' to 'Do what you want as long as you are social distancing' and as it's not being addressed they must be fine with it.
People are not going to tolerate the lockdown much longer as the weather gets better. People also want to return to their jobs/businesses. I know quite a few people whose livelihood is being destroyed by this. Some in jobs that could be done, but are banned for no reason.
People’s mental health can only last for so long.
It’s like having a broken leg and being stuck in for 6 weeks- you can do that but only because it’s time limited with light at the end of the tunnel.
Our families aren’t just our households!
I agree with @meditrina, they knew some people wouldn't stick this for long. In an example model I looked at it only had 50% of households properly following lockdown.
Also realistically the virus still needs to spread throughout the population. We don't have a vaccine or cure and it's impossible to keep out of the country when everything gets going again so the only way to be slightly protected is for people to become immune. The lockdown will hopefully slow the spread of it so the hospitals aren't overwhelmed but it's not a realistic long term solution.
I was chatting to the cashier in Tesco's and he said that when they introduced social distancing in the store, everyone was like 'keep away from me'. He said now that has gone out the window and he was right, no one was social distancing in store.
Personally I think that the modelling relies on people breaking ranks as we still need the virus to spread, just slow enough that we can cope.
I think people are at the end of their tether. My elderly parents, both with conditions that make them extra vulnerable, are now going for regular walks as their mental and physical health was beginning to suffer - their decision was based on the importance of quality of life vs length of life. I noticed that my elderly neighbours, again both with additional conditions, had a visit from their adult children yesterday.
I think part of the issue is the risk seems slightly suureal until you know, or know of, someone who has actually contracted the virus.
I now know 2 people who have had the virus and know of another 2 who have died of it. I also have a DB working in ITU on the outskirts of London who told me their case numbers are rising again because people didn’t observe the rules over Easter.
That is all enough to ensure I stay at home. Others might not be having those reminders!!
Well I think the plan still is that most people get cv to build herd immunity, just at a rate that the NHS can cope with. In which case, some people breaking lockdown probably is accepted.
I bet if we looked back at threads from just before the lockdown, there would be loads saying the govt was being incompetent in not going stricter, faster. And those who pointed out that they were having to factor in how long it could be maintained and so theynwere timing it to be around both sides the expected peak as effectively as possible, were shouted at as nasty Tory apologists who only cared about the economy!
Totally agree - the models only ever assumed a degree of compliance (between 50-70% or so) and the compliance in the first few weeks was higher than anticipated. As pp said (and as other sensible people pointed out when there were people frothing for an early lockdown), the public will only generally tolerate lockdown for so long - clearly a month or so is the tipping point- so that month had to be timed for maximum impact. There's no point locking down too early if lockdown fatigue sets in at the peak rather than past it. I think it's the main reason we'll see easing of restrictions soon; far better to have them eased in a controlled way so you can see the impact rather than having people ignore them right, left and centre!
We are soon to be taking back the furloughed staff some who I know have had a couple of sneaky meet-ups with family..... don’t want them back tbh
Weve all been following the rules rigidly here and they waltz back in from their ‘holiday’ ready for a chat and catch up and spreading god knows what!?
This worries me because other places have had longer and much stricter lockdowns and are only now relaxing them very slightly - does this mean that we are going to face an unnecessary rise in the hospital death toll in the coming weeks?
@Sosadandempty I think it depends on your view of what lockdown was for - I think it was primarily to avoid the NHS being overwhelmed which it seems to have done. The places with stricter and longer lockdowns (particularly Spain and Italy) clearly had more issues around capacity based on the reports and pictures from hospitals in the worst areas. Therefore it makes sense that they would need a longer and stricter lockdown in order to get the situation under control.
Yes I suspect you are correct.
I have noticed far more people out and about (from my window of course!) and I imagine this was factored in.
So we should see a steady supply of hospitalisations and deaths as a result, in keeping with the overall strategy.
If it's not "enough" then restrictions will be lifted a bit so more people go out and keep the infection rate where it needs to be, just in case a vaccine or treatment are never found or take many years.
I think that if people knew a rough timescale and rough plan they’d stick with it for longer. But people are hearing they won’t see family for over a year etc and thinking sod it not doing that so giving up on lockdown.
I walked around my area in London yesterday and it was obvious that social distancing (& the 2m rule) is being abandoned quite rapidly. If we have another summer like last year that was unbearably hot day and night for those living in flats, there’s no way they’ll be able to sustain the current measures.
I also noticed a large number of homeless beggars who had previously been accommodated by the council but are now back on the streets.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
You only have to look at the number of people on here who think going to the park to sit on a bench eating a packet of crisps and walk a dog off the lead is ok. Most people have no civic responsibility. I think government realise this and price it in to their decisions.
I suspect part of our governments strategy is to watch other countries and decide on the hoof so they probably don't know when they will lift anything.
As theres no cure or vaccine I also think a lot of people are feeling it's pointless and they'd rather take their chances (me included). I'm obeying because I'm law abiding not because I think it's useful anymore.
Tesco yesterday both mask wearing people invaded my space, walking past, ignoring the routes, reaching across. Loads of people in the park, lots of traffic.
Sadly I think the most effective strategy in avoiding the NHS being overwhelmed wasn't lock down but the refusal to admit people until they are seriously ill. I read a comment on here observing that the scenes from hospitals in Italy and Spain were in large part due to the fact that they were actually trying to treat more people. It's a novel strategy - protect the NHS by letting people die at home - but one that seems to have worked.
Yesterday a hospital was in the news for treating early with souped up cpap machines. Was v interesting
Join the discussion
Please login first.