‘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.

@Wishingforanotherlife effectively that's what initial lockdown was. Unfortunately the minute you lift restrictions, then cases rise again. Look at Spain and France who had much harder lockdowns than we did - doesn't seem to have done them much good in the longer term sadly.

@MrsFezziwig the economy is down the pan already. A few more months of reduced takings by enforcing a curfew on licensed premises is neither here nor there, nor do I give zero consideration to the owner of Pret going bankrupt.

Government policy is being dictated by the owners of Wetherspoons and the like. On LBC they genuinely think forcing people back into the office so they can buy lattes is a good thing.

Businesses need to diversify to survive, but if we're genuinely putting all our efforts in to reducing the number if infections (and I have some doubts about the validity of that as a strategy) cutting private numbers whilst leaving opportunities for large numbers of people to mingle in paid venues seems ludicrous.

@Wishingforanotherlife

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

Would have to close the borders to stop new cases arriving and test all the emergency workers daily but it would be a good way to really drive down cases for the winter.

You’d also have to have a lot of army/police to enforce it though and/or a really stiff prison sentence if caught outside as given how many seem to think the rule of six is there to be ignored they are unlikely to comply with a lockdown of this nature.

I'm not planning parties or raves or legally heading off to busy indoor public spaces.

In the not-so-distant future I will (hopefully) be volunteering/ running at parkruns. Hundreds of people in a park at the same time. Parkrun have gone through the evidence avaliable which strongly suggests that outdoor transmission is very low and the benefits of mass public exercise vastly outweigh the potential risks of spreading the virus. But the law is going to state that my family meeting another family in that park is illegal due to a couple of spare children.

Fuck that.

I don't want the virus. I'm not hanging out in big groups or indoor spaces. But if I can safely run my Scouting unit of 2x 15 children in the park, why are my friend's two children so toxic? I don't touch them or get in close, physical contact anyway.

For context, because the people I know have been conservative about the virus, my family has met another family twice, both in recent weeks in the past 6 months. Both in public outdoor spaces. I'm not lying down to give up friendships and family indefinitely again.

I have no intention of doing anything that is scientifically proven to be high risk of spreading the virus, and many legal groupings are higher risk than I am prepared to do (such as sitting around a pub table with 5 friends from different households)

Bad laws deserve to be challenged.

Too dangerous to see more than 6 people? In that case, I shan’t be taking the bus to the office, working in the office or going out to spend on the high street as it’s too dangerous.

#maliciouscompliance

@Wishingforanotherlife

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

We did this in Spain.

With no notice, we were shut in our homes without being able to leave except for supermarket or pharmacy, and even then just 1 person per household. No schools for key workers, no hour of exercise outdoors. We went hard for 6 weeks.

It's come back with a vengeance. Lockdown doesn't get rid of it. Neither do masks which we are wearing outdoors, indoors, everywhere.

Going back to schools, workplaces and public transport seems to be a tick list of nearly everything that gives Covid great conditions to spread (as far as we know so far). Schools plus universities at the same time - how can it not produce an effect because of the very large numbers on the move, that are involved?

Risks could have been reduced, perhaps halved, by an approach that was not all-or nothing and was more phased to be able to get early warnings. I will comply because we have a small family and I am afraid for older family members (given that we have to add schooling to our risks), but have major scepticism that this will work for any length of time,

@QuentinInQuarantino

So what if you did not do all that in Spain (as per your example). Do you think Spain will have as many Covid fatalities as UK (European worst record holder)?

In other words, if Spain was Belarus style Covid denial what would the Covid outcome be? I would suggest that globally excepted and expected Covid risk mitigation measures management has a bit of science behind it. Particularly if governments globally are willing to trade health and safety for economic damage. Otherwise why would policy makers risk economic collapse for no good health and safety reasons?

@Ormally agree totally with a phased approach. There was a long period where infection numbers were fairly static, a whole bunch of things opened and they went up.
Even in Scotland which prides itself on its oh so cautious approach went ahead an opened gyms - early - in the face of rising numbers.
It gives me little cause to hope that keeping schools open will be the top priority as was stated.

@ResIpsaLoquiturInterAlia no one knows who has done better at Covid until there is a vaccine or it runs its course. Severe lockdown will reduce deaths at that time, but is hardly a great long term strategy.
I'd rather look to Sweden as an example of a country that may come out of this long term with the best results, but of course the demographics are very different from the UK.

@ResIpsaLoquiturInterAlia

The issue was that policy makers were scared into ‘doing something’ by 1. apocalyptic predictions of 600,000 dead by the likes of Neil Ferguson and 2. the public and media.

I’m not saying we should have followed everything Sweden did but they are now in a position where the virus is under control, whereas it seems to be making a resurgence here. Lockdowns only seem to succeed in delaying things.

The other pertinent thing to note about Sweden is that despite not having a lockdown, they have far fewer deaths than the U.K. on a per capita basis (and the vast majority were in care homes, which they admit to not protecting effectively).

I can meet 5 friends all from different households but I can't meet my best friend and her family because she has 2 kids and that would make us 7 (4 adults and 3 kids). WTAF?!

Our only socialising this summer has involved meeting one other household at a time - we have a 2 year old so don't exactly go out partying in normal times. But I'm not going to never see anyone again because meeting in our family groups is now somehow 'dangerous'.

That's total nonsense.

Thanks for the replies @Ecosse and @rookiemere.

Seems like only one "winner" or best in class national government so far - Taiwan! Next to mainland Covid epicentre, also Chinese so lots of cultural and business links and has a population of 25 million. Seems the proactive Taiwanese Covid smart government cannot be beaten on these types of pandemic handling.

Bad rules deserve to be broken - I am more than happy to accept a higher death toll if we can function normally as a society. Shield the vulnerable and everybody get on with their life

@user1471500037

Bad rules deserve to be broken - I am more than happy to accept a higher death toll if we can function normally as a society. Shield the vulnerable and everybody get on with their life

Are you happy to accept you or your relative dying, or someone else's relatives?

We can surely have a balance. Is that not what we have now?

They are bad rules in your opinion. It doesn't actually mean they are the incorrect action to take.

Yes - you can fear monger if you like but I am happy to take individual responsibility and liability for my action based on the risk to me and my family and others should do the same. The measures haven't saved lves, they have just slightly postponed death - we can't wrap society in cotton woll

@user1471500037

Yes - you can fear monger if you like but I am happy to take individual responsibility and liability for my action based on the risk to me and my family and others should do the same. The measures haven't saved lves, they have just slightly postponed death - we can't wrap society in cotton woll

Eh?

@user1471500037

Bad rules deserve to be broken - I am more than happy to accept a higher death toll if we can function normally as a society. Shield the vulnerable and everybody get on with their life

A higher death toll won't be accompanied by a normally functioning society. If the body count increases sharply many people will be unwilling to risk their life so you can feel normal, so footfall in many shops will reduce to below what is needed to be worthwhile opening. There will be a shortage of workers (for example will your local authority risk their bin collectors to lift your rubbish, just so you can feel normal). It will be very far from normal.

Breaking the rules now only increases the chances of a full lockdown. It reduces the chance of anything feeling normal in the near future.

@user1471500037

Yes - you can fear monger if you like but I am happy to take individual responsibility and liability for my action based on the risk to me and my family and others should do the same. The measures haven't saved lves, they have just slightly postponed death - we can't wrap society in cotton woll

You misunderstand where your normality comes from. It comes from society - you do not exist in a vacuum, your whole life in knitted into the fabric of society, shops, food, leisure, health, entertainment.

So if you refuse to abide by rules which protect that society you are fucking over yourself, just as much as you are everyone else.

@Timeforanotherusername, what's difficult htere? THe whole problem with lockdown and other "protective" measures is that they don't have any criteria for when they end. As user1471500037 says, we have merely postponed death for those who are vulnerable to dying of coronavirus, unless they choose, which they are free to do, to shield themselves.
If I get it, I will probably feel a bit crap for a few weeks. Of course it's also possible that for unknown reasons I have a long-term effect, but then it's possible that I catch Epstein-Barr from the various boys I've been kissing, which also often has lingering symptoms. I am still taking the risk of going on dates, because I am living my life in the same way that i always have, taking medium risks. When my grandmother was alive, I didn't visit her if I had a cold, for example.

Like many others, I’m angry that I can now meet 5 friends in a pub (which I have no real wish to do) but can’t meet my brother and his family in a park.

Young people can now socialise more freely, whereas families are more restricted (as could previously only have 2 households indoors).

The Scottish and Welsh rules that don’t count children of 11 and under in the 6 make sense / are easy to understand without penalising families.

I’ll follow the rules, but the lack of consistency across the UK is getting ridiculous.

For everyone saying don’t you ever do anything on your own. Yes before you could very easily have kids out at friends or clubs or hobbies. But given people are working from home, hardly anywhere To go. Families are finding they are all at home the same
Time. Going for a Walk for an hour so grandparents can visit will soon lose its appeal.

Medium risks... this is looking interesting today.

informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/covid-19-coronavirus-infographic-datapack/

It's been periodically updated over 2020.

costco these people who might be higher risk and not want to catch covid aren't all currently sitting at home twiddling their thumbs now.

They include doctors, nurses, midwives, paramedics, pharmacists, refuse collectors, lorry drivers, train drivers, bus drivers, shop workers, bank workers, electricity engineers, etc etc etc.

Send all these workers home and who is going to empty your bin, serve you in a shop, make sure you can withdraw money from the bank, drive the bus you need to get to go to the shops?

@user1471500037

Bad rules deserve to be broken - I am more than happy to accept a higher death toll if we can function normally as a society. Shield the vulnerable and everybody get on with their life

The issue is the government haven’t taken this approach so if the numbers track Spain not Belgium we’ll likely get further restrictions.