DH broke lockdown but is making me feel guilty

[Anonandonandonandon]

DH agreed, in spite of my protests, to meet a few local friends last week, in the park our houses backs on to. They kept 2m apart, but there were 4 of them. They are mutual friends, but I declined to go.

He wanted to do this again today, but I’ve told him I think he is being selfish. He says the risk is minimal, and I probably agree, but I’ve made clear that it’s not legal, that the rules are in place for a reason and he is not above the law.

He’s agreed not to go, but he’s told the friends it’s because of me, which I think is unfair.

I’d arranged to meet 1 friend in the same park later, but DH has asked me to go somewhere else (which would involve a drive for both my friend and me), so that these other friends don’t see and feel slighted.

He thinks IABU, but I think he is. I don’t want to upset any of my friends and I’m now not sure what to do.

[Oakmaiden]

He’s agreed not to go, but he’s told the friends it’s because of me, which I think is unfair.
Well, it is because of you?

Frankly, though, if DC is allowed to use his "judgement" about which rules to follow when, maybe we should all be allowed that privilege.

[vanillandhoney]

If the law says Jane, Susan, Janet and Sophie can all meet each other together then Jane can spread the virus to her 3 friends at once. If each of those 4 people then go and meet 4 more people each then it spreads to 16, that spreads to 64. 256, 1024 and so on. It can explode exponentially.*

If Jane can only meet her friends one at a time and each friend only meets one person at a time (assuming everyone passes it on) , then the spread is 4, 8, 16, 32. It's much slower and much less likely to get out of control.

But if Jane and her three friend all rotate in pairs, surely the level of risk is exactly the same? So Jane and Susan hang out for an hour at the same time as Sophie and Janet, then they all swap "friends" so they each hang out with each individual separately, why is that less risky than them all hanging out as one four at once for an hour?

They're still all meeting three different people, it's just happening in a different way.

[IncrediblySadToo]

Give an inch,take a mile

Charitably - The rule came about to help people struggling with their MH, to allow them to meet up with one friend.

Uncharitably - they're still keen on the herd immunity bollocks.

But the allowance is ONE person. Not 3.

Whilst we cannot see why it matters (as long as social distancing is observed) - it's obviously had some greater effect On the R when it has been modelled. If it hadn't they'd have made it more liberal.

The fewer people sticking to the rules the higher the R will remain & we will all suffer from that.

[vanillandhoney]

Whilst we cannot see why it matters (as long as social distancing is observed) - it's obviously had some greater effect On the R when it has been modelled. If it hadn't they'd have made it more liberal.

Nah, not at all. They've done it the way they have to make it look like they still give a shit about lockdown. Which they clearly don't.

If they cared, they wouldn't have relaxed the travel/exercise rules to the extent that millions of people flocked to the coast on Wednesday with no semblance of social distancing occurring.

[Haffdonga]

But if Jane and her three friend all rotate in pairs, surely the level of risk is exactly the same?

Not really because the speed of transmission is one person to one to one to one and on. So even if the Jane gave it to all her friends, she would be doing that one at a time. And then the friends would be passing it on to anyone they meet one at a time. It would be a relatively easy job to track her contacts and their contacts.

If Jane can meet in a group of 4 and then all of that group can each meet in other groups of 4 at a time then by the end of a bank holiday weekend there could be literally hundreds of thousands of potential contacts and the possibility to stop the spread is lost.

[DamnYankee]

I agree with The Stoic

You haven't been asked to assess personal risk? The minute you became an adult, assessing personal risk is a given. You assess personal risk all the time - whether its getting in a car or decide to to have a baby. Can people help inform your decisions? Sure. But the decision is up to you - as is the responsibility (and the privilege, quite frankly).

We have a few "guidelines" in place and most people in my town are following them. They socially distance where they can and wear masks when they can't. No gatherings over 10 people.
Our state and county government are encouraging us to develop a sense of personal responsibility and to take ownership of our safety and the safety of the community at large, but how we do that is largely up to us.

[GoatyGoatyMingeMinge]

Ludicrous!

[vanillandhoney]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Personally I think the current rules only exist so the government can be seen to be still supporting the lockdown, when they clearly don't.

• People can bet rammed onto tubes and buses on their way to and from work but they can't have a picnic with three others in a park.
  
• Thousands could flock to the coast during Wednesday's heatwave and that was okay too.
  
• Your cleaner, dog walker and nanny can come to your home each day but your mum can't pop round for a cup of tea in the garden.
  
• You can see people at your workplace but you can't see your friends in the park.
  

The events that are acceptable are those that benefit the economy. They aren't interested in protecting people's health. If what you do benefits the economy then social distancing is irrelevant. Going for a picnic doesn't benefit the economy so you can't do it.

[highmarkingsnowbile]

Laws or guidelines?

[Haffdonga]

@vanillandhoney

We wont have to agree to disagree - because I agree with you that the law is contradictory, confusing and probably deliberately designed to get people breaking the lockdown and us all spreading the virus at just about manageable levels.

But there is some scientific logic to the law that you can meet one person at a time rather than groups. (Although absolutely none to why it's ok to have your cleaner visit but not your daughter or why it's fine for some people with symptoms to drive 300 miles to family but not others ).

[vanillandhoney]

Fair enough

[mrsmuddlepies]

Why post on here, OP? If your husband is not allowed to disagree with you, you must realise that you will not accept strangers having a different viewpoint to your own
I think you are unfair and dismissive of other people"s well argued and valid points of view.
You do sound self righteous. I think you need to apologise to your husband for your insensitivity and recognise that other people think differently.

[Mummyoflittledragon]

Statistically if you meet 4 different people in succession over a 2 hour period, the chances of transmission will probably be marginally lower. This is looking it at in isolation and not adding in any other variables, for there could be other factors involved... For if all of you did this swap every 30 mins and swapped amongst each other, just moving around could easily put you in contact with other people and negate the small benefit or even raise the risk.

With dd, I have risk assessed her contact with friends in this way. She is meeting with a small group of children either individually or as a group of varying sizes. They are all only allowed outside. They have to socially distance. I prefer them to be in someone’s garden to stay away from others. She started doing this a week ago and is 11.

[Khione]

Power - Terry Pratchett

People said that there was one law for the rich and one law for the poor, but it wasn’t true. There was no law for those who made the law, and no law for the incorrigibly lawless. All the laws and rules were for those people stupid enough to think like Cockbill Street people.

[Anonandonandonandon]

Laws or guidelines?

Laws. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020.

I find it somewhat rich to label me as self righteous on a thread where I have been called stupid, lacking in intelligence, illogical etc. for expressing an opinion in line with the law to my own husband.

I haven’t dismissed other view points. I’ve changed my plans to see my friend because I can now clearly see that there could be a misunderstanding.

In terms of those arguing that flouting the rules is fine, more and intelligent than my position even, I just haven’t found those arguments convincing. I’m clearly not alone there either.

[MsTSwift]

You are abit self righteous though. These times have brought it out in some people. I have read about how the virus spreads and am managing my own risk as an adult. The chances of passing it on outdoors having a short chat at a distance are negligible. Telling another adult what to do makes me uncomfortable - can’t imagine ticking dh off like one of the kids.

[roarfeckingroar]

You're being ridiculous and controlling

[user1486723488]

Look at other countries and make a decision based upon your own research, not stupid pressers or the media. The most likely problem all nations are going to encounter letting people out is people with repressed immune systems because they have encountered very few germs (good or bad) for nigh on 3 months, and have probably disinfected their way towards an even more reduced natural response.
Go sit in the sun/rain/snow (whatever the planet throws at us) and start working your way back to natural health. And let your dh do the same. Staying inside is ridiculously harmful for human beings. Look up how the world dealt with TB 100 years ago - outside classrooms for schools, a huge change in architecture for homes and communities to stop people being cramped together etc. We forget so quickly. You need fresh air, sun, exposure to others to STAY HEALTHY.