Covid-19 and purity spirals

"IrenetheQuaint. Go and do it then if you're so convinced that it's safe to do so. Do the decent thing though and don't use the NHS if you do catch it."

Gosh, are you suggesting that if I come down with severe coronavirus I should die alone rather than bothering the NHS? How sweet of you.

I do go out every day to exercise, but don't sit on benches since I have no need to. However, I have zero problem with people who do need to sit down doing so.

Re the previous poster - I agree that going out of the house is not "zero risk", which is why people with serious health conditions are advised not to. However, the government has clearly taken the decision that, for people under 70 without serious health conditions, going out of the house for one of the reasons laid down in regulations(such as exercise), is relatively low risk if one stays 2m away from people who aren't members of the same household. Seems reasonable to me.

So why is it ok for 400 people to do it? If it's ok for those, it's ok for everyone or are you going to choose who can go?

If you are sitting on your own in a park far from anyone else, you are not going to catch or transmit the virus

So, by that thinking going out for a walk must be zero risk too. So why have the people who are shielded been told not to go out at all? Why are we being protected from a zero risk? There must be some sort of a risk associated with going out for a walk or we would be allowed to do it. Do you know that a park bench isn't a fomite?

Does it matter if it was 1000 or 3000? If it was ok for the 1000 to go to the park then why can't everyone who wants to go turn up? How do you stop 10,000 people going? If it's ok for one then it's ok for all. Might as well just end lockdown

Daily totals. Not 3000 all there at once. Average of 400 in a very big park. . The council was as bad at reading the stats as you ( it has been pointed out by several people that it has been thoroughly debunked ) and over reacted by closing it.

I go out for a long walk or a shorter run every day in one of our two local parks. I have seen a couple of poor social distancing incidents, but in my (admittedly small) sample at least 99% of people are following guidelines.

I really believe that completely preventing people from leaving their homes will be a disaster. Think carefully about the consequences before you advocate that.

Everyone can go, if they follow the guidelines for social distancing. What's the problem with that?

Because everyone doesn't do it do they?

Um, if you're sitting down at a safe distance from other people (and waah your hands when you get home, etc) then how can the virus infect you?

If you're sitting down you are likely to be spending longer there, which means more people there. Secondly, the risk of infection is in touching your eyes and face. Many people do it without thinking so washing your hands when you get home won't help much if you infected yourself by unthinkingly rubbing your eye while you were out.

Mayor of London on TV now saying you can go out once per day to exercise, exercise doesn't include having a picnic.

IrenetheQuaint

Go and do it then if you're so convinced that it's safe to do so. Do the decent thing though and don't use the NHS if you do catch it.

If any scientists have commented about the risk of catching the virus while sitting on a park bench away from other people (except members of your own household) I'd be v interested to see what they've said.

Um, if you're sitting down at a safe distance from other people (and waah your hands when you get home, etc) then how can the virus infect you?

Everyone can go, if they follow the guidelines for social distancing. What's the problem with that?

I have no issue with the police chastising groups, but closing parks is ridiculous.

Does it matter if it was 1000 or 3000? If it was ok for the 1000 to go to the park then why can't everyone who wants to go turn up? How do you stop 10,000 people going? If it's ok for one then it's ok for all. Might as well just end lockdown.

The 3000 people in a park thing was completely overblown. Brockwell park is huge, there are normally 10,000 people there on a given day. Radio 4 program More or less completely debunked the council's overreaction.

what about people with reduced mobility who need a sit down in the middle of their daily walk? Or parents watching their toddlers running about?

But the guidelines are very clear. Does the virus know that you are sitting because you need a rest or are watching children play and so doesn't infect you?

Why did the scientists issue these guidelines? Was it for shits and giggles? They obviously think there's a chance of transmitting it and so they've said we can't do it.

Look at the rules for those of us being shielded. We can't go out at all, even for a walk. If there's no chance of catching it from walking outside why aren't we able to do so? There must be risk from doing it because they've told us not to.

If you close the park then you are asking those 3000 people to exercise by walking along pavements in the surrounding area where it will be much harder to maintain even 2 metres distance.

Well, if that's what will happen they'll stop us going out at all then won't they?

"No one should be sitting in a park" - what about people with reduced mobility who need a sit down in the middle of their daily walk? Or parents watching their toddlers running about?

If you close the park then you are asking those 3000 people to exercise by walking along pavements in the surrounding area where it will be much harder to maintain even 2 metres distance.

The outrage going on right now reminds me of children in the first few years of reception in primary school.

I remember one of my daughters being outraged that one boy had said “poopoo” to another, AND THE TEACHER DID NOTHING.

I think, as we are all adapting to new rules, individuals policing others is inevitable. We all have different ideas about what the rules mean, or should mean.

From a social psychology perspective, it was also inevitable that, once rules were introduced, people would shift from a mode of thought about what would be safe, risky or dangerous, to thinking about what they are allowed to do, and what they can get away with.

Some people will instantly have shifted their thinking into how they can bend the rules or justify breaking them. Which then loops into others being outraged that some people are bending the rules.

The rules are inevitably crude, and cannot consider everyone’s living conditions equally, so some rule bending will have to happen, anything else seems a bit Marie Antoinette ‘let them eat cake’-ish.

All that being said, I do wonder if we should put experienced reception year teachers in charge, as they usually get their children into an understanding of which rule-breaking is a major issue, and which are annoying but not quite worth dealing with in detail.

If there's a gate, you can have a one-in one-out system, same as with supermarkets.

There are plenty of parks with no gates, or with multiple gates. You've got to have people staffing gates plus some way of working out how long a person has been in the park, restricting time spent in the park and a way of turfing out those who have over stayed. How is that workable?

Like someone sitting in a park a long way from anyone.

No one should be sitting in a park though so anyone doing that is flouting the rules so should be challenged.

JellyfishandShells, you're right, it was the brilliant More or Less, available in BBC Sounds, a programme that is a beacon of sanity in a post-truth world. The park in question is huge, the number was a whole-day total and at the busiest time held 1400.

The surrounding area has lots of flats, so... Let's not be judgy. Not every child has their own bedroom and not every home has a garden.

Agree, OP. You can tell it's a purity spiral because its fiercest adherents have no interest in the actual risk level of the activities in question (Brockwell Park is enormous, someone worked out that each of those 3000 people could have had 100 square metres to themselves).

The other classic sign is the level of outrage - which ramps up immediately to "you are killing people!", which come to think of it is reminiscent of the hardcore transactivist approach.

It takes a particular kind of individualism that’s the forte of our government to -

1. Delay action from the top asking individuals to sing happy birthday and wash hands till too late and making things an individual responsibility for what is a collective problem

1. And then, when the outcome of that behaviour starts manifesting in huge deaths 3 weeks later, start blaming invidividuals for misbehaving and threatening draconian blanket actions such as no outdoor exercise.

Those with large gardens will suffer less than those in inner city tower blocks. Already in the USA stats are coming out about the disease being far from a great equaliser and affecting minority ethnic communities far far more for long-standing socio economic reasons.

This was never an individual problem and it cannot be solved by punishing individuals. The government should have acted quicker, earlier and stronger.

That's why access should be restricted.

How?

Anyway, my main point (which may have gotten lost) was about moral outrage, and how the line can get blurred between objections to harmful behaviour and the need to prove one's own virtue.

I think it's understandable for people to be outraged if they see people flouting guidelines that have been put in place for the greater good. I can understand it even more if you, or someone you know, is a healthcare worker or is being put at risk by this behaviour.

I think you could equally ask why anyone should be outraged at anyone breaking rules or laws more generally. Most of us would be outraged if someone we knew drove whilst drunk wouldn't we? We you accuse them of being in a purity spiral or needing to prove their own virtue?

No one could think that cramming 3000 people into a park, even if they were two metres apart is ok

But they weren’t - this was a total figure over one day, which would normally, have 10,000 in similar weather. It was featured in a Radio four programme yesterday ( More or Less, maybe) . At any one time, they calculated it would be about 400 people and, as a very large park, plenty of space for everyone.