‘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.

[LadyofTheManners]

Does anyone get a "I'm going to be a Covid Marshall Karen" vibe from the OP?
Yes people think sod it. I have followed rules to the letter, despite Cummings and others totally ignoring it. Despite people on my street totally ignoring it for months.
But after months of not seeing family, cancelled Wedding, my job being finished so I'm facing having to scramble for a new career which I don't want to do at pushing 40, kids miserable, education screwed, and contradictory bullshit from the government I've had enough.
We cannot maintain this, not for another 6 months.

[middleager]

There has only been ( bar 1 )very small cases in the work place. Schools open over 3 weeks , not even 1 year group sent home.

14 schools have been impacted by me. They only went back Thus/Fri!
This includes teacher. School is their work place. Otherd, like me, work in school offices.

[U2HasTheEdge]

I can go to work, I can go to the pub, I was encouraged to eat out and my children are mixing with others at school.

I can't legally have my mum round because I am a family of 7. However, we could all see her the same day, as long as it isn't at the same time. That is no more safer than seeing her together.

If I was getting married I could see 30 people. If she was single we could form a bubble.

Fuck that.

[Mjstjs]

Because like others have said the rules don’t always make sense. Months ago we were told to apply our common sense and this flies in the face of that. I now can’t see my dad’s household at the same time but can see them separately minutes apart. Before all 8 of us could meet for a picnic outside, from Monday we can’t yet we are only two households. The biggest risk to our household and therefore my dad’s household is my husband when he is home. (Our households do socially distance when we meet but it reduces the risk but doesn’t eliminate it) His workplace is not Covid secure and the nature of his job means it can’t be- they can’t be 2m apart and they have to be in close contact with one another to do their job, they can’t wear masks. Both my household and his household are aware of that and are happy with the risks. I’m on maternity leave, my siblings are studying at home (both university courses online) and my dad and step mum are WFH so we have all already reduced our social contact to the minimum and seeing each other was important for us.

[FurForksSake]

It's a numbers game. Six is designed to stop people socialising because in social situations people are more relaxed. Boundaries get blurred very quickly and people use the excuse "kids can't social distance" to allow them to carry on as normal. My five and seven year olds haven't hugged anyone outside our household since March. They are perfectly capable of distancing and if they weren't we wouldn't put them in situations.

School and work are essential activities that they are trying to make as secure as possible. Bubbles are designed so that schools are workable but if an outbreak occurs the least number of children need to quarantine. Teachers and school staff should be social distancing from other members of staff. By limiting socialising outside of school we are all trying to limit it getting into school.

I do think it is idiocy students being back at university when so many courses are totally doable online. Moving a huge number of adults around and ones that are likely to want to socialise seems madness.

The new laws are designed to allow the police to crack down on house parties and get venues to adhere to guidance. It's sucks but look at France and Spain and how quickly exponential growth takes off.

People are saying hospitalisation and death is low, there is a lag. Also currently the age profile is in less at risk groups, but a return to exponential growth would see rises in all age groups and more death. Shielded people and vulnerable age groups have given up so much. People seem to have forgotten that those people are now back to going out and are at real risk if people aren't careful.

[eaglejulesk]

If it's a state with a much lower population density than the UK, then comparisons are meaningless

The good old population density excuse, always trotted out when someone points out how shambolic the UK's reaction has been. Yes, it plays a part, but those people living in countries/places where the instructions have been clear and concise, implemented early and communicated well to the public have generally fared much better.

[QueenofmyPrinces]

As people have said - it’s all about the consistency, or lack of. The rules seem ridiculous and nonsensical.

When I was walking into school yesterday, my son (6) was holding the hand of his best friend as they were walking to their classroom line. The Headteacher stands at the school gate to monitor the one way system (which doesn’t have any real effect on SD) and lightly scolded the children and said they weren’t from the same household they shouldn’t be holding hands - she also have me a little glare.

These two children are in the same class (which the headteacher knew), so they are same bubble - there is no SD going on in the classroom. When the children are lining up with their teachers they are all hugging and cuddling each other, touching each other etc etc - so how is handholding any different? Let alone enough to lightly tell them off for doing it?

It’s thing like this that frustrate me - people are confused what they can and can’t do because they are wondering why ‘x’ is allowed but ‘y’ isn’t.

I completely agree with everyone who is questioning why a family of 4 can’t have a known family of 3 in their house, but it’s perfectly fine for them to have two other people round every night of the week and it can be different people each night.

It’s just nonsense.

[Pobblebonk]

I think an element of this is the perception of risk of being caught, and the penalties that can be imposed. Before the breathalyser was brought in, drink-driving was an offence but, even if caught, there was a sporting chance of getting off as convictions relied on imprecise evidence of police saying they smelt alcohol on the driver's breath, with tests of their ability to walk a straight line etc; and the penalty tended to be a fine. There was very much of a "one for the road" culture. Overnight it became much easier for the police to catch drink drivers and get convictions, and the law was changed to bring in automatic driving bans. Suddenly it became much easier to refuse "one for the road" and driving whilst drunk wasn't a joke any more.

So if the government wants to make these rules stick, it is going to have to do much more to make them enforceable, which is likely to include putting more resources into the police. If Johnson has billions to spend on his so-called moonshot nonsense, presumably he can divert a bit to enforcement.

[DalzielandPaxo]

@Itisbetter

Ten people from two households is no different to six from two, in my book.
Does your book contain any data on the number of Covid cases in people who’ve been meeting in large groups as you describe?

I simply do not understand why it would make a difference. Those people from the second household would be returning to the house where the other people (if we capped it at six) reside. So those other people may as well come, no?

Anyway, I’ve been sensible throughout but I’m at the point now where I will continue to distance but will be seeing more than six people on occasion. Why incentivise people to eat out to help out then punish them for it?

[TheGreatWave]

@MarshaBradyo

The only thing left to work with is socialising.

Simple number is easier.

If it gets worse then probably other social restrictions but no one wants another lockdown to businesses and school I assume.

Yeah so easy that it means I can't see family.

[mum2jakie]

Ironic that we're supposed to be following laws without question, yet our own government is openly talking about breaking international law!! Fucking hypocrites.

[Sallycinammonbangsthedruminthe]

Covid marshalls! Yeah thats gonna work really well...Karen from next door tottering around on her high heels wearing the official government badge and feeling the power targeting Brendas house cos she doesnt like her and spying on Jane from no 30 not cos shes at risk but because she doesnt wash her net curtains often enough....ooohh have we not learned anything by giving people useless powers and a clipboard? This will not end well I promise you...this is a conversation we will all be having in 3 weeks time!!!!

[MarshaBradyo]

Why can’t you see your family thegreatwave?

Can you split up?

I’m sure it’s easier than me getting into a COVID free state other side if the world. What’s the issue?

[AskDan]

I think Boris Johnson is an amoral twat and I think the government have totally stuffed things up, but I get why they are doing this.

We need our kids to go to school and it is logistically impossible to double or treble the size of every school in the country, and employ the extra staff needed. Therefore we need to accept that kids cant effectively socially distance in school, whatever the government says, but they need to be educated.

I am not going to pubs or restaurants, but someone has to, otherwise it will result in millions of job losses, lost tax revenue and empty town centres.

Therefore to stop the economy from tanking, which we all rely on for our childrens education, roads, bin emptying, etc, we need to keep businesses open.

But if the government does nothing than numbers will rise and we will love ones will die and others will end up with chronic health conditions.

Therefore the restrictions are being made to our personal lives. We know the virus spreads in enclosed spaces and most of us have small houses where we can not effectively socially distance in home. So homes are a place where the virus will spread.

Whether any of us on an individual basis breaks the rules makes no difference but as a society it does. Think about the huge reduction in use of plastic bags when the 5p charge came in. That happenrd because the majority of us changed our behaviour.

The problem is the government are a bunch of fuckers, they dont trust us with proper explanations and give out these ridiculous soundbites.

The bit of good news is that we get to see politicians having to apologise for breaking thr new rules at alarming regularity. I hope there is a camera permanently set up.outside Cumming's house.

[Velvian]

It is a really stupid, nonsensical rule. My parents can't come to our house from Monday and we can only see them in split groups. However, if I'm alone, I can meet 5 friends from different households indoors.

[Stompythedinosaur]

I am sadly unsurprised by how selfish people are.

I think some of the blame for people ignoring the rules is the government's for their lack of clarity and for situations like Cummings going to Barnard Castle giving the impression that the rules are flexible.

[MarshaBradyo]

.Also TheGreatWave do you have dc in school? Would you like them to have best chance of going or school closing?

[TheGreatWave]

It's a numbers game. Six is designed to stop people socialising because in social situations people are more relaxed.

6 stops me seeing my family.

[FreekStar]

Lots of things I've done are against the law,

Recording songs from the radio,
Paying the gardener cash in hand,
Keeping a £20 note I found,
Drinking underage,
Cycling on the pavement,
etc.

[TinySleepThief]

I'm amazed anyone thinks it makes any sense. If it was as people have claimed to help keep businesses and schools open then it would come into force ASAP instead of nearly a whole week later.

Also the same Government implementing the rules has on numerous occasions told us to use our common sense so surely when everyone is doing as instructed and making their own judgement call they can hardly moan about it.

[tiredanddangerous]

I think the "fuck it" attitude stem from complete loss of faith in the government tbh. No matter which way you look at it, the rules just don't make sense. Well I suppose they do actually; gatherings are fine as long as you're spending money.

[rookiemere]

The issue is that it's not really small infringements that will push up the numbers, the real target should be large groups such as house parties or illegal raves.

There are swathes of the population who haven't changed their lifestyle in any way due to coronavirus, because their lifestyle is chaotic and in the example of drug users - they need contact with others for their drugs. They don't care about coronavirus. To be honest I'm at the stage of caring very little about it myself, but I want my DC to stay in school as long as he can, so I will follow the rules.

Unfortunately a number has to be plucked from somewhere and 6 it is. I'm unhappy as have had to postpone our two family UK holiday yet again ( please god let this be over by end of June 2021).

Eat out to help out will go down in history as one of the most mistimed initiatives ever, but I'm not sure government is clever enough for it to be a sinister plot to infect us all.

[MarshaBradyo]

@tiredanddangerous

I think the "fuck it" attitude stem from complete loss of faith in the government tbh. No matter which way you look at it, the rules just don't make sense. Well I suppose they do actually; gatherings are fine as long as you're spending money.

Do you think the economy is important - Or more simply people’s jobs?

[ChloeCrocodile]

People will see this new limit on numbers the same way they see speed limits. Some will stick to it religiously, some will exceed it a little and some will ignore it entirely.

I do understand the logic though. The government need to bring down the number of transmissions. They really don’t want to close down workplaces (the economy is already fucked), or schools (politically unpopular and many would say that would be too big a price for kids to pay). So all they’re really left with is reducing social contacts.

[Toptotoeunicolour]

People who don't understand that getting kids back to school is hugely more important than having a birthday party for a one year old are just dim. The fact that there are so many of them around is the reason why we have to have all these rules. People just cannot be trusted to apply their own sensible judgement and only mix with people when necessary in order to keep the overall numbers down and save the vital functions of society such as educating children.