Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To say that if you are quite covid risk adverse there are some places it’s best not to go

219 replies

Scentsandsensible · 26/08/2020 17:23

Inspired by a few threads and personal experience.

I’m not saying stay at home and be isolated BUT... if you’re someone who is going to have a panic attack if someone gets within a metre it’s probably best to avoid

  • busy shopping centres
  • theme parks
  • pubs
-restaurants
  • busy hotels

I do get that this may sound unfair - but it’s the reality. If you feel vulnerable these probably aren’t the best places to go.

OP posts:
FrowningFlamingo · 27/08/2020 21:02

I haven’t read most of the thread but I half agree and half disagree.
We haven’t been to many of the places you mention as we don’t feel comfortable.
But we did go to the zoo. It’s outside and there was loads about distancing etc on their website.
When we got there it was mostly fine and there were lines marked and the majority of people respected your space and just took turns to look at the animals. As always though there were several selfish, entitled arseholes who just ignored the queues and came over to breathe down your neck to catch a glimpse of an elephant’s foot. Those are the people who should stay at home imo.

BlueBoats · 27/08/2020 21:12

I agree with what you're saying, pre covid we avoided high risk places like public transport/soft plays/crowded shops while DC was at high risk because of lowered immune system.

However while people at a particularly high risk should be sensible with precautions they're taking, people at busy places should also be taking precautions. A toddler walking too close to someone is understandable, but an adult standing right by someone else just because they're comfortable with the risk isn't reasonable when it's avoidable.

Scentsandsensible · 27/08/2020 21:27

@PiataMaiNei people really are! I’m actually finding some of the responses quite depressing. There seems to be a mentality emerging that everyone else is “selfish”.
I doubt that in many instances that’s truly the case.
People forget themselves for a moment, are distracted, etc. That’s not really what I was originally talking about - but going by some of the responses on here you’d think that there are people who wake up in the morning and think “I’m going to go and breathe over people in the supermarket today and enjoy standing .9m away from them.

OP posts:
PiataMaiNei · 27/08/2020 21:56

[quote Scentsandsensible]@PiataMaiNei people really are! I’m actually finding some of the responses quite depressing. There seems to be a mentality emerging that everyone else is “selfish”.
I doubt that in many instances that’s truly the case.
People forget themselves for a moment, are distracted, etc. That’s not really what I was originally talking about - but going by some of the responses on here you’d think that there are people who wake up in the morning and think “I’m going to go and breathe over people in the supermarket today and enjoy standing .9m away from them.[/quote]
It's because slagging off arseholes is easy, and fun. Nobody likes an arsehole. And it's not fair that arseholes make things more difficult for others. So it's easier and more pleasant to focus on those facts than to consider the other reasons why SD might not happen, which is why barely anyone saying you were BU has done so until directly asked.

It's also easier and more pleasant to pretend that because something isn't fair, it can be argued away with an appeal to fairness. I mean, of course people who refuse to SD should be the ones to miss out. They won't though, so it's a useless suggestion. However often it gets made.

Quartz2208 · 28/08/2020 08:19

I thinkk Frowningflamingo has summed it up - these places are mostly fine and people try to respect your space.

I have been to theme parks/days out and restaurants and I have found most people are trying to get a normality they can live with, have fun and help kickstart the economy so try as much as they can whilst respecting peoples space. But in all of these environments there are times that people do come within 1m of you - often accidentally turning down corridors, in queues where you can keep 2m one way but hard to in others. Tables that have been measured but when you move a chair to get out the distance reduces.

WellThisIsShit · 28/08/2020 11:17

I’m finding it so depressing that a poster on here thinks that that all the behaviour changes so far have been about ‘protecting vulnerable people’ (!!!!!!)

This is just such wrong thinking, though I guess the government phrased it as such so I can’t blame that individual too much. I wish people would think though!

However, it’s easier to emote, as if it’s those pesky ‘vulnerable people’ who have been making everyone stay inside, and then do social distancing, then it’s ok to fall into the mindset the poster has ... & I paraphrase:

Now they are ‘fed up doing it, because they’ve been having to be careful ‘because of vulnerable people’ for months, and after all, its time for the turn of other people now

ie. I’ve been kind, I’ve done my bit ‘for others’, now I want to think about me, vulnerable people have had enough!

Which is all fine and dandy except that ‘vulnerable people’ haven’t actually had their ‘turn’ at all! They took a body blow for everyone else, and no one seems to realise that.

‘Shielding’ wasn’t about the general population ‘being kind’ to vulnerable people, it was strongly ‘persuading’ those who would take up NHS resources to get out of general circulation, and isolate themselves, for months.

People did it because they didn’t want to die. Some people are STILL shielding, because it’s so risky for them to catch the virus. But that our individual motivation for compliance.

The government and the rest of society wanted us sickly types gone quick quick licketty split, so we didn’t take the beds and oxygens machines and ventilators that you, the ‘non vulnerable’ people wanted to have.

Of course there needed to be tough decisions, but the government used the virus to show horn in some lovely new decisions of their own, which were unnecessary and very much about policy changes by stealth. I won’t go into it all now but it’s nasty stuff, really nasty.

Anyway, I wish people like that poster would see through the rhetoric and understand: Shielding was just a nice name for it. It’s not caring and ‘everyone in it together’. It wasn’t YOU shielding US, it is US shielding YOU.

It also didn’t have anything to do with the wider lock down in terms of you guys suffering in lock down for us more vulnerable types.

And trust me, I’d take the lock down rules over the shielding rules anyway. I’m gradually coming out of shielding and have been on lock down type behaviours which have been wonderfully freeing.

Nope, the more vulnerable made way for the less vulnerable. No mistake.

Which would have been ok. It’s just now, when people won’t even do us the courtesy of following basic rules that would allow us to live peacefully like you... it’s yet another unequal sacrifice thats too much to swallow. Sorry mixing metaphors there!

I just get so riled by someone glibly saying that ‘we’ve had our turn and now we should move aside and let others do whatever they want because ‘it’s not fair’’, when really the opposite is true.

Anyway. I know that this isn’t what you said OP. But it was posted by someone else on this thread so I picked up on it. I’m seeing it everywhere at the moment.

Aridane · 28/08/2020 11:40

Well put, @WellThisIsShit, well put

Aridane · 28/08/2020 11:48

People should not stay inside because others can't control themselves not to stand right up their backside.
Why don't you stay inside OP if people who want to socially distance stress you out so much to make a thread?

👏

Shockingstocking · 28/08/2020 15:08

I found your OP quite depressing... You seemed to imply people should just give up and stay home instead of hoping that we all, as a society, could adapt together to keep the much needed, non-negotiable rules which don't hurt and don't dehumanise. I found it depressing that you started a thread to discuss what people who were 'anxious' (more likely had a valid concern) should and shouldn't do. There's no need for that kind of thinking and it leads to quite an ugly place where we have a narrative of "well you shouldn't be out" unless people hold a consensus position.

Scentsandsensible · 28/08/2020 15:59

@Shockingstocking literally second sentence of OP “I’m not saying stay at home”.
Realistically there are places where SD isn’t really working - so it’s two options really

  • close them
  • people who are vulnerable/nervous don’t go to them.
OP posts:
Scentsandsensible · 28/08/2020 16:00

Also - if you found it depressing there’s this handy little function - it’s called hide post.

OP posts:
OhdearSummersOver · 28/08/2020 16:02

Yes the vulnerable and the fearful should stay at home

Ormally · 28/08/2020 16:12

*I’m not saying stay at home and be isolated BUT... if you’re someone who is going to have a panic attack if someone gets within a metre it’s probably best to avoid

  • busy shopping centres
  • theme parks
  • pubs
-restaurants
  • busy hotels*

How can you tell if shopping centres, restaurants or hotels are going to be busy when you go or have booked? Perhaps they're not when you enter, (imagine, say, a supermarket), but then there's plenty who come in after you and you feel it's a problem. Similar thing with play parks, buses, whatever - they can be empty when you go in but 3 minutes later a nursery of 25 comes along to join you. Not your fault; not others' fault. But the only thing that can reduce people's feeling of vulnerability is overall 'rules' (which essentially limit numbers or time spent in groups of strangers) added to the acceptance of personal responsibility to be considerate of them.

Pubs and theme parks - yes, I would expect them generally to be busy, so agree more with this. But 'busy' now is also becoming determined by reduced numbers in public areas AND reduced numbers of staff operating on the business end. You weigh up the risk to go to a pub if you want; you have much less choice about a shop or a bus, in general.

ddl1 · 28/08/2020 16:24

It depends whether you mean that they should avoid situations that carry an inherent risk that is too great for them, or whether you mean that people shouldn't need to follow the rules because those who are at risk or feel at risk should just avoid these places.

I am fairly risk averse, and I would only go to restaurants/cafes/pubs if they have facilities for sitting outdoors ; and I don't do any of the other things (theme parks, busy restaurants, busy shopping centres) at all. However, I would hope that, wherever people go, they will follow the rules about face coverings and social distancing. And should note that others may be affected even if they never go to these places themselves: lack of respect for rules and guidelines may lead to spread of infection that may make all sorts of people ill, or at best may result in a local lockdown being inflicted on them.

user1497207191 · 28/08/2020 16:52

@OhdearSummersOver

Yes the vulnerable and the fearful should stay at home
Who will do all the work/jobs currently done by vulnerable people, such as train/bus drivers, nurses, doctors, teachers, shop workers, delivery drivers, etc. There are several million vulnerable people, many of who are integral to the day to day running of society.
Scentsandsensible · 28/08/2020 18:17

@ddl1 I mean the former. People seem to be going to places that are going to be tricky and then being astounded that they are not perfect.

The pub loo isn’t going to suddenly be ten times bigger because of SD rules. Kids will still run around a bit at theme parks. Narrow spaces will still be narrow spaces.

Yes people should always be considerate but reality is reality. People will forget themselves for a moment, someone in the pub will be drunk, the hotel pool will be popular and you won’t get it to yourself etc.

OP posts:
scrivette · 28/08/2020 18:29

We are not vulnerable or nervous, but trying to be careful and trying not to be in close contact with others.

We visited a theme park during the week and providing people followed the guidelines it would have been fine.

However, there were a few people that clearly failed to cooperate with the guidelines and were ignoring the allocated standing spaces (2 meters apart in all queues) which I found frustrating.

Shockingstocking · 29/08/2020 10:14

If you find the responses to your thread depressing, the hide option is there for you too :)

It is unrealistic to expect drivers to work in unison to avoid collisions but they do. I don't think you're in a position to judge what's realistically possible and reasonable to expect. Also, you seen to have an odd kind of person in your mind, who will expect the hotel pool to be empty and have an indignant panic attack if it isn't. You want others to agree that this Karen should go somewhere else. I suggest this person it's largely a figment of your imagination and it's unhelpful to create a script encouraging others to assume this is the person who asked them to SD at the shopping centre. Yes I know you're being very nice about it but what you're doing isn't so... Nice. It's patronising. There are many other options to resolve this and you aren't in a position to dismiss them in the way you're doing. And then you find the replies depressing!!

ddl1 · 30/08/2020 20:44

'I mean the former. People seem to be going to places that are going to be tricky and then being astounded that they are not perfect'

I don't think this is really happening frequently. I don't think many vulnerable or anxious people are going to theme parks, busy indoor pub or hotel venues, etc UNLESS perhaps they are being pressured into it by family or work, in which case it's really the family members or bosses who are unreasonable.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page