A.i.b.u to think UK fatigued with social distancing

[DollyPartons]

Yesterday a couple 60+ reached out to handshake.They believe the "covid thing is fake"
Yesterday, elderly parent deliberately hugged DD
Today somebody grabs my nutrician bar to read and tell me the bad ingredients. People coming closer in shops, on pavements. Im scared.

people complain we went into lockdown too late. This is why. We only have a certain time period of tolerance for this. The government and experts said so at the time. And it's proving to be true.

Agree.

Prolonged periods without human contact are totally unnatural though, and it goes against everything we are biologically designed to do.

The only person I've had any decent conversation with in person since the middle of March is is DH. I haven't seen my parents, haven't seen my friends - it's not natural to live like that. Of course people are going to struggle after a while and of course people are going to think "fuck it, I want to hug my mum".

We have to live with this virus. We can't all live 2m apart from everyone else forever.

Yes in park over weekend saw two groups meet up (definitely not same household) all take turns embracing each other as a greeting...

The rhetoric amongst colleagues has changed from 'we must do this to protect the vulnerable' to 'the bloody vulnerable just need to stay at home and let the rest of us get on with it.'
Exactly this, i do agree though. For most of us some sensible and normal hygiene practises is enough so why not have the vulnerable stay at home (with employment protection and shopping deliveries made available) and let the rest of us get on with it?
The nhs was protected, if it starts to build up again we am resume lockdown but I highly doubt that would be the position.

We can only comply for so long. This isn't living and it's not a natural way for humans to exist.

My CEO seems to want to make a plan for going back to the office (including 'one person goes back' ), even though we are fully tech'd up for working from home.

I'm prepared to cause quite a stink (and am in a position to do so as COO), that our staff are well able to work from home, and that coming in to work has an even fraction chance to increase the R rate.

We can work from home, what we want is to see our families! And we'll only get to that stage by continuing to distance from one another.

Does everyone think that this virus is just going to go away..we have to just get on with life...there are hidden agendas behind this and the handling of it and many have been sucked into it..yes it can deadly for some..as can many other diseases and illnesses..as can be being hit by a bus...what if there is never a vaccine ? are we going to social distance forever!?? What kind of life would that be...

‘Even in the most high risk group, the majority of people do not die’.

t.co/P5Imw6aIuY

I seem to remember that the government predicted this would happen and that is why we went into lock down too late. Seems they were right and we can only stick to it for so long before we get bored of 'protecting other people'.

so why not have the vulnerable stay at home (with employment protection and shopping deliveries made available) and let the rest of us get on with it?

And the vulnerable that want to get out and get on are also allowed to do that, I'm in that group as extremely vulnerable, I know the possible, but not guaranteed risk and I'm more than prepared to accept it.

If we’d locked down hard and early, and put suitable test and trace procedures in place then it probably would be safe to emerge from lockdown now. If the government were really worried about lockdown fatigue that should have been their strategy, not waiting until the virus was well established.

In the absence of firm leadership people draw their own conclusions.

Round here people are doing their best. We have had very low levels of infection and I guess people want to keep it that way.

Everywhere I’ve been people are still social distancing but then I’m not going much further than my village other than to the supermarket and then back home. Our local park is fine (ds and his friend met up - his friend’s mum and I are friends so we socially distanced at the park for a chat while the boys played footie). Two other teens not social distancing but I don’t know if they were from the same household. That’s it.
I’m not in too much of a flap about teens as at least some of them will be back at school hopefully in a few weeks.

I am sick to the back teeth of lockdown. A couple of friends and I (one to one) have been meeting in our back gardens, socially distanced, for a cup of tea and a catch up. No difference at all to meeting at the park - although I do understand why they have made the rule public places to avoid people having family bbqs etc - give an inch and all that.

I think the only way they can open things up a bit is by expanding what we can do but upping fines for non-compliance and enforcing wearing of face masks. Seems a bit draconian but worth it I think if we can get out and about more.

In the absence of firm leadership people draw their own conclusions.

Agreed, though the more people you have, and the more people they're in contact with means that one person's bad conclusion can disproportionately affect others.

Case in point, there's a lot of froth about not going to the Lake District, because Cumbria is a hotspot.

But take Barrow out of the equation (and people who visit the Lakes are absolutely not going to see the delights of Barrow), and the infection rate is MUCH lower. My family live in the Lakes, in a less popular and highly remote valley - we'd almost certainly not see anyone else. They're incredibly healthy, and I'm very fit also. The chances of a bad outcome from my visiting would be phenomenally small (I'm able to isolate fully for a couple of weeks before visiting, and can easily make the journey in one 2h drive).

But I fear the cluster of fear around the area means that I'm doubting visitors will be welcomed, even when it's likely to be harmless to do so. Which means my parents will want to visit me, in an area where the overlap between cases is much higher. And they can't do the journey in one go so would do stops on the way.

Obviously none of this is allowed right now, and it's only theorising - but with everyone doing their own theorising (and, IMO, a lot of it led by fearful paranoia), some very shaky conclusions are being drawn.

Since Wednesday last week I started taking my children out for a local walk in the afternoon.
I honestly can’t believe the numbers of teenagers I see larking about. Giving each other piggy backs, lying on blankets together, just general mucking about. I’m talking 10+ individuals.
I don’t know if it’s been like this all along or only since Wednesday but I have had words with a couple who have got too close. On each occasion they shouted at me “we all live together” and then burst out laughing.
I hope their parents are genuinely under the impression they are going for a socially distanced walk with one friend but I suspect in reality they know they are meeting up with their mates and allow it.
It’s very depressing for someone who has been following the rules for months.

I was fatigued and still am with having to work and commute 5 days a week every year for the last 30 odd years. Still do it though.

It would be nice to come out of this looking at a society more geared towards the well being of people instead of serving capitalism.

This whole thing has been ridiculous.

35k dead is just ridiculous, I agree. Back to work you pop.

They gave up weeks ago here OP ..It is soul destroying for me watching this going on when we as a family are observing the rules. Mainly I have to say it has been the 50 somethings who havent cared less or were the first to break ...I am that age and feel ashamed for them that they think they know best and are plainly too ignorant to know better.

Two distinct types have definitely emerged. You can spot the “fake news” mindset at 50 paces, they’re not moving out of anyone’s way 😁

The rhetoric amongst colleagues has changed from 'we must do this to protect the vulnerable' to 'the bloody vulnerable just need to stay at home and let the rest of us get on with it.

This is a hugely valid view point though. Irrelevant of how you phrase it to sound bad, the bottom line is 66 million people are staying home to protect 8 million max. The cost to each one of us is enormous.

There has to be a way where the vulnerable and shielded are protected if they wish that and everyone else can get back to normality, hence protecting everyone as much as possible and not just the vulnerable and shielded. It simoly can’t be all or nothing.

We've got a bit of a mixture here. The vast majority are still socially distancing whilst out and about. We have seen a couple of bigger groups mixing in the park - obviously two young families, sat at least 2M away from the other group and tucked away in the corner.
The most hilarious one is our neighbour who only a month ago was out counting traffic and posting it on Facebook " it's as busy as a normal day!!" ( it wasn't ), yet now has gone very quiet which is a good job as she now allows her daughters boyfriend to come and go, some nights staying, most not.... . She likes to clap the hardest on Thursday nights!

And yet that's what just about every country is doing. So surely there's something in it?

66 million people are staying home to protect 8 million max

To me, the question is how much autonomy do you give those 8 million?

I've 99% certainly had corona (classic symptoms, mildly). I'm not in a vulnerable group. The known and likely science says I'm good to crack on without risking myself or others. I actually benefit from WFH as I'd be incredibly stressed going into work atm due to unrelated issues.

My mum almost certainly hasn't had it. She's over 70, but incredibly fit (doctor put her metabolic health at roughly 40s). She's suffering mentally through isolation after having overcome several issues through therapy.

Should she have the choice to put herself in the same situations as me, even though she's definitely fitter? Is she more or less likely to wind up in hospital? Is her mental health better or worse than mine?

66 million people are staying home to protect 8 million max

It's not though, is it? Sure, the vulnerable are most likely to die. But plenty of non vulnerable are seriously affected.

Should she have the choice to put herself in the same situations as me, even though she's definitely fitter?

Should that scenario ever arise where everyone else can carry on and the shielding, high risk are to stay in, they absolutely should have the choice to be able to carry on as normal or continue to shield.

I'm in the shielding category and my choice would be to go out and get on as normal.

imnotawitchimyourwife you asked if those of us bending/breaking rules had someone die of covid-19 and then decided no of course not.

Well I'm a rule bender recently, and yes my 94 year old uncle passed away from Covid last weekend. He was 94, bloke had a good innings!

Death comes to us all eventually, in one way or another sadly.

As they say there are only two certainties in life is death and taxes. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Death is sad, but it's a part of life. We've become so sensationalist about death in society recently, like it's not a norm for people to die. It's sad, and in some circumstances tragic and shocking, I don't deny that, and grief and bereavement are genuine strong emotions that need to be supported to overcome, especially when someone was taken before their time.

But he was 90+ he had to go eventually.

It's not though, is it? Sure, the vulnerable are most likely to die. But plenty of non vulnerable are seriously affected.

But 'plenty' is meaningless without a definition, as is 'seriously affected'.

As I say, I 99% certainly had it. I worked two days with it, had two days off, then a further week working short hours. I have experienced post viral fatigue about once a week since (6 weeks on).

Not great, but not worth grinding the nation to a halt for.

What we need - and is being developed - is a model of how seriously the majority in the 66 million are likely to have it, and factor that into decision making. Including those who are experiencing worse outcomes than they would be for being exposed to the virus.

I'm overdue a smear test. Who knows if having one could save my life?

My brother is not receiving medical treatment that drastically improves his quality of life.

The government planned for provision for up to 20% of children on the grounds of vulnerability. Schools are seeing 1-3% of children attend. Up to 17% of the most vulnerable children are trapped in the most dangerous environment to them - their own homes.

It's frankly irresponsible not to factor these things into decision making for a virus that for many is not severe.

I'm not saying the vulnerable should take a running jump. I'm saying that those vulnerable to this virus are being prioritised over every other category of vulnerable person.