‘Fuck the Covid rules.’ Really?

[Yellownotblue]

To all the posters (there have been many) saying they don’t plan to abide by the new rule of 6 - is your attitude specific to Covid, or do you generally don’t care about acting illegally?

For instance would you drink and drive ‘because you have a good reason’?

Or park illegally or drive without a seatbelt?

Would you drop litter on the streets?

I’m genuinely confused by the admission that so many posters see law-abidance as a “nice to have”, rather than some basic standard of life and morality in a society.

Ginorwine30 yes that's what I want to understand. and in fact that's what's making this hard, it seems as i'm living in some crazy sci-fi where everyone just keeps repeating the same lines.

@userxx

Someone please explain how living like this for god knows how long is the best thing for the majority of people?

It's not is it. I dont understand why people are shocked that figures are rising, it was a given wasnt it when the kids started going back to school. We just need to crack on and live with it, the virus is going nowhere.

exactly that. now i'm off to spend my employer's home equipment budget on making my home office nicer. silver linings.

@s**@s I play rugby, we’re training as normal and we’re having matches as normal. So I can get in a scrum and essentially wrestle a group of men, but I can’t be sat inside with them.

@simonjt

You can sit inside if you are spending money (eg in a pub)

As PP said, this is a new step, one they have been extremely reluctant to take before and you have to wonder what underlies it! What we do not yet know...

And whilst we are all fiddling with this, Rome is burning.

@SimonJT
Are you a professional rugby player, as I thought community rugby matches are still non-contact?

[quote Alwaysfrank]@SimonJT
Are you a professional rugby player, as I thought community rugby matches are still non-contact? [/quote]
Yes, not a high league though.

[quote Alwaysfrank]@SimonJT
Are you a professional rugby player, as I thought community rugby matches are still non-contact? [/quote]
Mist be as grassroots has not returned to full contact. They are on a return to rugby road map, so touch games and contact training in groups of six for no more than 15 minutes. Professional is different as they are being regularly tested (and I thought had to isolate?)

I think they should have gone for an either or rule, eg either 6 people or 2-3 households. So would allow small groups of friends and also family groups allowing larger families to meet each other, eg a family of 5 to legally meet the grandparents.

Dropping litter on the street / not wearing a seatbelt / speeding doesnt significantly improve my life, so I don't do it.

Breaking the covid rules significantly improves my life, so I do it.

I’m genuinely confused by the admission that so many posters see a social life snd spending time with family as a “nice to have”, rather than some basic standard of life.

Imo we need to have a balanced approach that of course takes into account covid, but also considers the economy, other health conditions and education.

1. A real focus on mitigations like hand washing (which many seem to have forgotten), social distancing and masks in some circumstances.

1. An acceptance that some activities and venues are simply too dangerous to open now e.g. nightclubs

1. Vulnerable people being given an individual risk assessment and making the decision as to whether to shield (the government should fund salaries if necessary)

Other than that we should focus on getting back to normal as far as possible.

A vaccine is not a certainty any time soon and we are currently surviving rather than living for a virus which poses no threat to the vast majority of people

rookie

But what is the difference between 7 and 70 people?

Really?
F**k
We’re all doomed.

Vulnerable people being given an individual risk assessment and making the decision as to whether to shield (the government should fund salaries if necessary)

Shielding is a hugely detrimental undertaking. It means sleeping and eating alone, isolating from other household members, not seeing friends or family, not going out to exercise, for children it means no school, for people at work it can seriously affect prospects (a poster yesterday was being made to shield by her employer and was in danger of losing registration with her professional body due to lack of f2f interactions with clients)

@EDSGFC

Shielding is difficult, which is why each individual should be given a risk assessment that is specific to them, and they can then take their own decision. I know my DM (86) would far rather take her chances it it means she could spend the time she has left seeing family and friends rather than being locked up.

They should absolutely be supported- their salaries should be paid by government and I’d do the same for their family members as well if necessary. Food deliveries should be provided.

In the absence of a vaccine, it makes far more sense to protect and help those at risk rather than prevent people who are at virtually no risk from living their lives.

[quote Ecosse]@EDSGFC

Shielding is difficult, which is why each individual should be given a risk assessment that is specific to them, and they can then take their own decision. I know my DM (86) would far rather take her chances it it means she could spend the time she has left seeing family and friends rather than being locked up.

They should absolutely be supported- their salaries should be paid by government and I’d do the same for their family members as well if necessary. Food deliveries should be provided.

In the absence of a vaccine, it makes far more sense to protect and help those at risk rather than prevent people who are at virtually no risk from living their lives.[/quote]
It doesn't make more sense than restricting everyone a bit.

Shielded children, or children of shielded parents or siblings, will lose out on education, people in work might find careers ruined or even lose their jobs, mental health of the shielded will plummet - it's not just about wages and food deliveries. How about clothes shopping, haircuts, dentists?

Of course there's another problem too - the shielded are likely to get sicker and need hospital care if they get Covid (which is why shielding was introduced - to protect medical resources). What happens if majority of shielded refuse to do it again? The implications for strain on the NHS is huge

@moose62

What would be your solution? If you were in charge? Further tank the economy to a state that we can not recover from? Keep kids at home so they lose out on education and parents can't work? Ask people to stay home so that the restaurants and retail sector have to shed more jobs? To control the spread of the virus and hopefully stop more people than necessary dying, what action would you take? We can all be critics, I work at a large secondary school and despite the best intentions it is hard to socially distance 1600 people. I would prefer to hear solutions rather than endless criticism!

This, a thousand times over👌

Op- sadly It's because people with that attitude are being totally selfish. If they cared enough to abide by the rules then this would all be over sooner. They're just keeping it going.

I won't be complying

I'm allowed to do with in an office with hundreds of people but can't spend time with my family?

Nah, get in the sea

Sigh. If the intelligent people of mumsnet can't see why some things are allowed and some are not, I despair.

Covidiotic criminality

The lockdown didn’t work, we are almost back to where we were in March. Spain had a full lockdown and now they are back to square one, with cases soaring!

But it clearly did work as can be seen by the huge drop in cases:
ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&year=latest&time=2020-03-09..2020-08-31&country=~GBR&region=World&casesMetric=true&interval=smoothed&perCapita=true&smoothing=7&pickerMetric=total_deaths&pickerSort=desc

Then as lockdown restrictions were lifted cases rose again. We are nowhere near being back to where we were in March as hardly any testing was being done then, so the actual number of cases in March were much, much higher than the reported numbers.

@malificent7

Well fuck the contradictory rules:

Stay in but go out to work.
Eat out to help out but dont eat out in big groups.
Go to work but work from home if you want.
No more than 2 households....actually no more than 6 people!
Aggggrrrr! I think the confusion is somewhat intentional as I no longet know what the stupid " rules" are!
I do wear a mask though.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=8_vI6Mtwj5Q

@MindyStClaire

Well I guess the government have made it clear that it's ok to break the law in a "specific and limited way" this week.

Exactly!! They have lost any dubious facade of authority that they may have had.

The rules are not contradictory in allowing larger gatherings in some areas of life (schools, weddings and funerals for instance) but not others (dinner parties, say). They are the government’s prioritisation of what is important.

If enough people socially gather in large numbers, then schools and businesses will close again. It will happen.

It is the sum of total contacts that will determine the r number of the virus. If we can mitigate unnecessary contact (and someone needs to make a decision on our priorities) then the necessary (and some ‘nice to haves’ such as restaurants) parts of society can keep functioning.

Radical but, what if the whole country shut down completely for 2 or 3 weeks? We’re given sufficient warning, we’re given food supplies then everything except emergency services just shuts down, no one meets anyone else at all, no pubs, shops, restaurants, not allowed beyond your garden, curfews to ensure compliance. Treat it like Xmas holidays, stick Morcambe and Wise repeats and good films on the telly and we just kill it off. This ebb and flow of restrictions could go on indefinitely

Activities which generate money HAVE to continue (with proper social distancing in order not to completely trash the economy).

Childrenand students HAVE to continue to go to school/college.

So where exactly do people think we CAN apply restrictions?

Can’t believe the hypocrisy of people who have been weeping and wailing for weeks about “the schools must open, we’ll do anything as long as the schools open” - but now the schools are open, it’s like “yes but we want to meet up freely with other families as well, it’s not FAIR....” and can’t use a bit of ingenuity to organise themselves to visit other people in reduced numbers.

I’m sure that the Rule of 6 is arbitrary to a large extent - because the correct scientific way to find out would be to do a two year study testing out different size groups to see how much the virus is transmitted within those groups, but I don’t think all the “whatabouts” want to sit at home for two years pending the results.