To wonder why I'm getting abuse?

[NewDOOFUSfor20]

I'm an A&E nurse, I have had to leave my DH and ds at home and move into accommodation as I pose a risk to them both. This was not an easy decision, I'm heartbroken as is my family, but it felt like I'm damned if I do damned if I don't.
Last night on a "spotted" page I follow on Facebook somebody wrote in to ask if them and their 3 friends that they are "spending isolation together" with could go to the park for a game of football. I asked them if they thought this was a holiday, I took that terminology as "spending Christmas together", and suggested playing their football game in the garden. Oh my god, the abuse I have been given! Apparently this is something I signed up for (bloody well didn't sign up to have to leave my family), I am part of the problem as I'm spreading this around, I'm "thick" because a game of football is a form of exercise and that is allowed under government guidelines, I'm bitter because they can spend time playing with their mates whereas I've walked out in my family.

I honestly don't get this. Spending isolation together makes it sound like they're not taking this seriously, football games are not essential (and are being dispersed by police). It's mainly 20-something men that have been abusive, not that that makes a difference I guess, and they have displayed an enormous lack of ignorance around the whole situation.

Do I deserve the abuse I've been getting? Should I have just stfu (I have barely commented on anything on Facebook because our trust are monitoring our social media). I just got annoyed that people are STILL disregarding the guidelines set out, if they continue to act like this then we will be facing similar measures to Spain and Italy where any outdoor exercise is forbidden.

MarginalGain

I said that I assumed the chief medical officer and the chief scientific officer had given the advice to the government and they were following it with good reason. You asked me why I would assume that.

And just because a government minister said something it doesn't make it so. Michael Gove, Boris Johnson have said comments that contradict Matt Hancock. Shouldn't we do what the Prime Minister says rather than what the secretary of state for health says?

Well all I can say Doof is you're at the sharp end delivering care and giving your all to everyone who goes to a&e so you see how the virus affects people which is more than the online numpties on fb do, it's very easy to be a unicorn front line fb know it all nurse or Dr from a keypad and spout abuse but entirely different when you're faced with the reality of treating those who have succumbed to the virus. Just ignore the abusive idiots and please take care, thanks for what you do but don't let the buggers get to you
Hope you'll be back with your little one very soon when all this is over!

What do you mean the sheilded are 'not allowed'. You have been advised. Not commanded.

Is someone checking all sheilded people? Or upon finding out someone is on the sheilded list, are they being ordered back home or issued a fine

And how irresponsible would you have to be to ignore advice intended to keep you, and others safe?

If I catch I will end up in hospital, putting the health of the doctors and nurses at risk and stopping another patient from getting treatment. How selfish is that, just because I want to go for s walk?

Not to mention the selfishness of putting my family through the distress of me getting ill and possibly dying.

Which is why it would be a huge boost for my mental health of I could go.out for a drive. Why shouldn't I be able to? No risk of infection if I'm in my own car.

You can...you are allowed to go for a drive. It really might help you so why not?

You can...you are allowed to go for a drive. It really might help you so why not?

Where does it say you can go for a drive? Everything that I've heard says don't drive because there's a risk of accidents or breakdown and the they issued a statement the day before yesterday saying traffic was increasing and needs to be reduced so where is it saying you can go for a drive?

And how irresponsible would you have to be to ignore advice intended to keep you, and others safe?

That's not what I said. You know it isnt and are out and out lying to try and make it look like people are advising breaking lockdown.

You said you are 'not allowed' out.

Of course you are. You have been advised not to. Not banned from leaving the house.

2 completely different things. Language matters.

If I catch I will end up in hospital, putting the health of the doctors and nurses at risk and stopping another patient from getting treatment. How selfish is that, just because I want to go for s walk?

You said going for a drive was essential to you and there was little risk.

There are your words. If you choose not to, findeiving for the sake of driving has been advised against.

Housemates playing football as not.

Wether you go for a drive or a walk, its doesnt change that 3 housemates going for a kick about,nis within the guidlines.

You said going for a drive was essential to you and there was little risk.

And as I keep saying, essential to me does not make it essential.

And little risk isn't no risk.

What I want doesn't trump the need for social responsibility.

Bloody hell. Margaret Thatcher and her "no such thing as society" is alive and well on here isn't it?

As I said before Matt Hancock, member of the government, said on Question time last night that you can go for a short drive to somewhere to exercise. He didn't say you could go for a drive for the fun of it or to visit someone so I think those are still now supposed to happen.

You know it isnt and are out and out lying to try and make it look like people are advising breaking lockdown.

Where am I lying? I didn't say you said anything.

You said that I can go out if I wanted to.

I replied that it would be selfish to ignore the advice I've been given

What part of that is lying?

You are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing, misrepresenting what I'm saying and accusing me of saying things that I clearly haven't said.

As I said before Matt Hancock, member of the government, said on Question time last night that you can go for a short drive to somewhere to exercise. He didn't say you could go for a drive for the fun of it or to visit someone so I think those are still now supposed to happen.

And other ministers have said that you can't drive somewhere to exercise - so there's a conflict there, who do you believe?

And now you say you can't drive to go somewhere or for fun and other posters are saying you can go for a drive for fun, in fact are encouraging me to do so. Again, who's right?

The government have said it's fine to travel for exercise. If you want to disregard it on the basis that you think Hancock is an idiot, go right ahead. On that basis you'd ignore the lot of them.

And as I keep saying, essential to me does not make it essential

Nope. Essential is open to the person doing it. You consider essential but not doing to maintain your martyr 'I have a worse situation than anyone else and am doing more than everyone else' status.

You classified it as essential. If you it's not, it's not.

What I want doesn't trump the need for social responsibility.

If it's just something you want, not need. it's not essential.

Yes, the comment about no society? What sort of society is it that restricts people activities, even when within the law, because that person may doing something wrong while doing the perfectly legal activity.

www.gov.uk/government/news/coronavirus-guidance-on-access-to-green-spaces

This says to stay local

Where am I lying? I didn't say you said anything.

You said it was irresponsible to ignore advice. I didn't say you should ignore advice. That's the lie. I Simply said that its advice.

Your 'I am not allowed out' isnt true. Because you are allowed out. You have been advised against it.

But it suits you better to have people believe you are under house arrest.

This says to stay local Yes Matt Hancock said you could drive short distances which is local. He's not saying go on a 50 mile drive to a beauty spot or even a 10 mile drive but short distance. I take that to mean a mile or two.

Nope. Essential is open to the person doing it. You consider essential but not doing to maintain your martyr 'I have a worse situation than anyone else and am doing more than everyone else' status.

Of course it isn't. If necessary they would test "essential" in court and a judge would decide what constitutes "essential". I absolutely guarantee that the judgement wouldn't be "essential is whatever the individual decides it to be".

You said it was irresponsible to ignore advice. I didn't say you should ignore advice. That's the lie. I Simply said that its advice.

Where did I say that you said I should ignore the advice? How exactly am I lying when I didn't say it. Obviously you're lying by saying that I said you said it.

1forsorrow

And this is the problem. The law doesn't restrict how far you can drive, nor for what reason. So, Matt Hancock deciding that you can drive locally has no basis in law. He is giving advice. So, that's as relevant as advice to only go out infrequently and for exercise such as walking, running or cycling.

Everyone is coming up with their own interpretation of the rules and the law and that's a ridiculous situation. You've interpreted "local" to mean one to two miles but says who really?

And what's the increased risk between driving two miles up the road to go for s run and me driving fifty miles to see my children, or someone else cycling for ten miles as exercise?

If necessary they would test "essential" in court and a judge would decide what constitutes "essential".

Which they are not doing. Why? Because they are leaving it up to individuals.

Hooves, you are clearly right in the edge. Talking nonsense.

My point is, you havent been banned from going outside. I didnt encourage to be irresponsible or to go outside.

I simply challenged your statement that you arent allowed. Because its not true. You know it's not true.

Even more confusing when looking at the link from demented pixie

Please use the following guidance in order to stay safe:

stay local and use open spaces near to your home where possible – do not travel unnecessarily

So use local spaces where possible and don't travel unnecessarily - what does that mean? If you don't have local open spaces how far can you travel to access one?

you should only go outside alone or with members of your own household

keep at least 2 metres apart from anyone outside your household at all times

gatherings of more than two in parks or other public spaces have been banned and the police will enforce this

Doesn't say that you can gather with more than two people in a park if you share a house. It says gatherings of more than two people in a park are not allowed. So according to this, three people from the same household can't play football in a park.

if you have a garden, make use of the space for exercise and fresh air

take hygiene precautions when you are outside, and wash your hands as soon as you are back indoors

Shitsgettingcrazy

So you can't find where I said what you accused me of saying then? So, clearly I wasn't lying then was I?

Yes I can its therem

Theres just not point talking to you.

I didnt suggest, encourage or in anyway say you should ignore the advice.

Simply stating that your statement of not being allowed to go outside is wrong. You know it is. But it sounds more dramatic if you use phrases such as that.

If necessary they would test "essential" in court and a judge would decide what constitutes essential

No, this isn't how statutory interpretation works.

The term 'basic necessities' is defined within the legislation and food and medicine both clearly fall within that definition. The term 'essential' doesn't even come into it if you actually read the Regulations.

This legislation is actually refreshingly clear on this point, the trouble is, a lot of people with little understanding of how law works are suddenly armchair experts on the thorny subject of statutory interpretation; a topic I spent a whole semester at university studying, and still wouldn't consider myself an expert on.

Then why are people insisting that each is allowed to do what they consider essential for themselves?

I'm not sure I bite follow your point, but there is no requirement for anybody to consider whether the food they are buying is 'essential'.

The Regulations have already defined all food as falling under the heading of a 'basic necessity'.

A lot of people are reading a lot of things into these regulations that simply aren't there yes Police, I'm looking at you

You are allowed to drive to exercise too - the regulations do not specifically prohibit this, so it is perfectly lawful to do so.

Quite follow your point