‘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.

Most people pick and choose which minor laws to break. Speeding, smoking cannabis, illegally downloading movies for examples. I suspect the 6 person rule will be the same.

I don't agree with that mindset, Marsha, I think it's irresponsible, but I think it explains it.

Secondly when I hear Covid Marshall’s I just think off the Cold War movies, and movies about the Nazi party , when normal people turned on there own family, neighbours, friends and colleagues and informed on them to the party (Ruling government) Very dangerous !! And very distasteful!! Or maybe more like Special Constables, there is no need to be so dramatic.

I am concerned that so many people are apparently unwilling to make the most minor sacrifices to protect others. Everyone can't just make up their own rules 'because I want to'.

@Youngatheart00

Families of 6 CAN see other people, it just involves them not all being together at all times!! For eg - Dad plus 3 can meet another 2 at any time.

Still agree with the point re 6 being arbitrary though suspect there is some science around exponential spread. The more additional people the more exponential. I suspect 6 was the lowest they reasonably felt they could get away with.

Yes but assumes a set up of two parents and the ability of one parent to stay at home or children who are older that can stay at home alone. What about single parent mum to 4 younger children who wants to see her parents, who she isn’t in a support bubble with. That is 7 people, she can’t leave the children with her parents to make six as the grandparents shouldn’t be providing care unless they can socially distance from the child, which for example an 18 month old is impossible.

Chardonnay don’t worry I agreed with you and got what you said. Maybe the government should ask for people to volunteer to close their dc’ schools instead.

@Itisbetter

each country in the union has different numbers I would love to the see the data to know why 6 and not 8 or 10 I’m pretty sure the data from the different models is looked at very closely and then we shift to the least intrusive most effective option. Of course this is presented as a horrifying “U-turn” without really considering that you make uturns when the road you’re on isn’t taking you where you want to go and you want to quickly get to the optimal path.

I would love to say I trust the government to have looked at the data and it to have been carefully modelled but my trust in the government is not exactly high given the u turns and complete incompetence we have had in other areas. Ring fence around care homes being just one example. We were meant to be following the science but that disappeared when we started easing lockdown and roadmap they set out bares no resemblance to what happened.

The rules are inconsistent for a reason though , it’s a trade off . If we want to keep things like work and school open and we want to be able to hold weddings and funerals then everything else has to stop because otherwise we are spreading it from work and school etc into society generally

Pretty much what I was going to say @Peaseblossom22, but you put it much better.

I think that as we go into autumn and people are likely to be doing their socialising indoors, some further restriction was inevitable. Going to work in a Covid-secure workplace isn't comparable to having a party indoors. And reopening schools was always going to be a potential risk as it's impossible to maintain social distancing in schools.

It does seem to be all about the money with the government though, and things that people rely on for their mental wellbeing seem to be far less important.

YANBU. Vast numbers of the population can't comprehend that the only way to avoid a total shutdown is to have restrictions on some elements of life - and these won't necessarily feel consistent.

I would prefer to reduce transmission levels by following the rule of 6 than having schools closed, local businesses closed etc. It feels like one of the least dreadful measures in the toolbox.

If we have a broader more extensive 'second lockdown' in the future it will be because people couldn't just follow the less extreme rules and insisted they knew more about epidemiology than those who design the rules.

[quote Itisbetter]@DalzielandPaxo
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?
Because infection rates are different depending on how many people are in the group. This is partly because of how many people are crammed into small areas but also to do with how people behave in those groups.
Eg
group of six, one or two people might use the loo, group of ten three or four.
Group of six, everyone together, group of ten party splits into two sub groups with adults in one and children in another
Group of six, family perch on arm chair and floor cushion visitors sit on sofa, group of ten visitors can’t all fit on the sofa so some sit on extra chairs/floor
Group of six adult hands round drinks, group of ten children help hand round drinks.

Can you not see the levels of contact are different?[/quote]
This is a really good point. As the group gets bigger, social distancing from other households becomes more difficult and people will be more crowded together. I have been to visit a family of 4 a couple of times and although social distancing was perfectly possible, it did take a some thought and a lot of care eg working out where I could sit to eat dinner, us all being careful when moving around to keep far enough away from each other. Their house has a reasonable amount of space and two children who were often in their bedrooms rather than in the same room as the 3 adults so thatade things, easier. . Depending on the size of the house/lounge/dining room etc 7 or 8 or 10 people all in the same space could find it pretty difficult to maintain social distancing.

I think that as we go into autumn and people are likely to be doing their socialising indoors, some further restriction was inevitable. Going to work in a Covid-secure workplace isn't comparable to having a party indoors. And reopening schools was always going to be a potential risk as it's impossible to maintain social distancing in schools.*

I agree. I have very little faith in this government about anything but to say 'well schools are open so anything goes' is wrong. Children need to go to school but sacrifices have to be made elsewhere.

You can still go to a pub or restaurant but in a group of no more than 6, socially distanced from other such groups.

I’m getting increasingly p’d off. I’m in the vulnerable category, have been diligently following the rules, only left the house less than a dozen times since the beginning of March.
I see the main problem as younger people (less likely to have symptoms, let alone be actually ill) thinking they’re fine to do whatever they like with absolutely no thought for those who are likely to suffer serious consequences if they catch Covid. Hence the large gatherings, parties etc.

Because of the irresponsible behaviour it’s impacting in different ways for many, many people and especially for those who have elderly parents.
Nursing and residential homes have had to continue with extremely strict rules, extended because of the rising number of cases.
I’m unable to visit my mother in a residential home because only 1 person can visit once a month and solely that person, no other member of the family. So I am highly unlikely to ever see my mother again. As my father is likely to need nursing home care for the remainder of his life, the same is going to apply.
It’s shit and deeply upsetting.

People are allowed to be pissed off about this stupidly arbitrary rule, without that translating to them breaking the rules.

A family of 6 can arrange to to meet people socially from 30 different households in a single day, but my parents can longer come and visit us in the garden.

Do these people not realise that this is to prevent further locodown. It obviously isn't fair and doesn't make sense because priorities are keeping children education and keeping businesses open so they can afford to fund schools and the NHS amongst everything else.

But if everyone decides oh no they nesd go have parties of 10 despite all of this?

Winter is going to be fun isn't it.

@Velvian

People are allowed to be pissed off about this stupidly arbitrary rule, without that translating to them breaking the rules.

A family of 6 can arrange to to meet people socially from 30 different households in a single day, but my parents can longer come and visit us in the garden.

I agree but how else can they draw a line?

The sad thing is if people had been distancing in the first place then this wouldn't have happened!!

I may be in the minority but I would rather my child saw family than went to school.

In a general sense the rules DO make sense! On an individual level they could be better
HOWEVER too many people were taking the piss and too many were lying when confronted & it wasn't 'law', only guidance, so the police couldn't enforce it.

People chose to ignore the guidance, so they had to make it law.

Thank the people who were ignoring the guidance, for the new law and thank people who are going to ignore that, for the tougher restrictions that will need to be brought in, if infection (& Then resulting death) rates keep climbing.

They aretrying to do what people want - keep kids in school and prevent as many job losses as possible, have shops & recreational facilities open. Therefore school/work 'rules' need to be different than 'social rules'

If school/work rules applied socially we'd be fucked virus wise

If 'social rules' applied to school/work it would be impossible to function and they'd have to close, resulting in more job losses.

We CANNOT have it all ways!! Firstly it massively overwhelming the NHS, then we'd be having thousands & thousands of deaths and a totally tanked economy.

Eat Out to Help Out was a daft scheme virus wise, but they tried to mitigate it by having rules, unfortunately they weren't as tough as they should have been AND people used it as an excuse to ignore social distancing and meet up in bugger groups without social distancing.

It's NOT actually the Gives fault (as much as we like to blame them) that venues & people dust follow the 'rules'

They know from TTT where people have been passing on the virus & what age group they are.

There's a reason the scientists (not the politicians) decided on 6. It's a shame it wasn't 8, as that would have helped a lot of families, but it's not & no matter what number they used, people would have complained.

The 'two' families was a good option but people were taking the piss & groups were saying they were two families & the police had no way of proving they weren't on the spot) even when it was fucking obvious!

Bigger families do not need to always do everything together, take turns who goes to see Granny & Grandpa. Have one adult take some of the kids to see cousins. But if on the odd occasion you're driving a couple of hours to see the in laws or close friends and you make 7 in total, the police are not going to be battering down the door, but don't be doing it when you could split and see other people nearby within the law.

Not because it's 'law' but because we want to save lives, not cause even more unemployment & not have hundreds of thousands with life changing/limiting conditions.

They needed a 'law'that was easy for the hard of thinking to follow snd is easily enforceable and 'SIX' is that. Any age, any location. SIX

I really don't understand how people can't see the science behind it. Some people need to Reduce Rage & Engage Brains

And yes people can get sick from school, pubs, the shops, being in work etc the point is you then keep it to yourselves. You don't then go and give it to everyone else you have decided to be close to when there is no need.

Because the rules are inconsistent, illogical and are being made up on the hoof because this government are criminally incompetent and are trying to shift the blame for their fuck ups onto the general public. As I have been for several months now, I'll continue to do my own risk assessing and act accordingly

This 100%

No it is not the younger people's fault. Is this the new blame game? At the start, all the blame was on the older generation, the elderly were going about doing what they wanted, socialising etc.

@Itisbetter something for you to do now we can’t socialise anymore, then. 👍🏻

@AmelieTaylor

In a general sense the rules DO make sense! On an individual level they could be better HOWEVER too many people were taking the piss and too many were lying when confronted & it wasn't 'law', only guidance, so the police couldn't enforce it.

People chose to ignore the guidance, so they had to make it law.

Thank the people who were ignoring the guidance, for the new law and thank people who are going to ignore that, for the tougher restrictions that will need to be brought in, if infection (& Then resulting death) rates keep climbing.

They aretrying to do what people want - keep kids in school and prevent as many job losses as possible, have shops & recreational facilities open. Therefore school/work 'rules' need to be different than 'social rules'

If school/work rules applied socially we'd be fucked virus wise

If 'social rules' applied to school/work it would be impossible to function and they'd have to close, resulting in more job losses.

We CANNOT have it all ways!! Firstly it massively overwhelming the NHS, then we'd be having thousands & thousands of deaths and a totally tanked economy.

Eat Out to Help Out was a daft scheme virus wise, but they tried to mitigate it by having rules, unfortunately they weren't as tough as they should have been AND people used it as an excuse to ignore social distancing and meet up in bugger groups without social distancing.

It's NOT actually the Gives fault (as much as we like to blame them) that venues & people dust follow the 'rules'

They know from TTT where people have been passing on the virus & what age group they are.

There's a reason the scientists (not the politicians) decided on 6. It's a shame it wasn't 8, as that would have helped a lot of families, but it's not & no matter what number they used, people would have complained.

The 'two' families was a good option but people were taking the piss & groups were saying they were two families & the police had no way of proving they weren't on the spot) even when it was fucking obvious!

Bigger families do not need to always do everything together, take turns who goes to see Granny & Grandpa. Have one adult take some of the kids to see cousins. But if on the odd occasion you're driving a couple of hours to see the in laws or close friends and you make 7 in total, the police are not going to be battering down the door, but don't be doing it when you could split and see other people nearby within the law.

Not because it's 'law' but because we want to save lives, not cause even more unemployment & not have hundreds of thousands with life changing/limiting conditions.

They needed a 'law'that was easy for the hard of thinking to follow snd is easily enforceable and 'SIX' is that. Any age, any location. SIX

I really don't understand how people can't see the science behind it. Some people need to Reduce Rage & Engage Brains

The probably sit there going omg can our nation get any thicker? But they really need to make sure they're following it themselves so there is no other Cummings debacle.

I don't actually want to get it or give it to anyone either so don't find it too challenging to follow.

@CrunchyNutNC

YANBU. Vast numbers of the population can't comprehend that the only way to avoid a total shutdown is to have restrictions on some elements of life - and these won't necessarily feel consistent.

I would prefer to reduce transmission levels by following the rule of 6 than having schools closed, local businesses closed etc. It feels like one of the least dreadful measures in the toolbox.

If we have a broader more extensive 'second lockdown' in the future it will be because people couldn't just follow the less extreme rules and insisted they knew more about epidemiology than those who design the rules.

Exactly!!!

Regarding the Covid Marshalls, some posters are placing a lot of faith in the idea that they will follow the rules and guidelines and behave impartially

I don't have that faith in people and that is really my point. It's not a case of "just follow the rules and you'll have nothing to worry about..." or "can't you just make a small sacrifice for others?" - I mean of course I can and have made some very large sacrifices for others, but I don't have faith in this situation.

I will follow the rules, but I will continue to question them and the interpretation and enforcement of them.

No it is not the younger people's fault. Is this the new blame game? Stop it! Don't buy into that media claptrap.

It is not blaming, it is identifying!

To blame someone is to say that something is their fault.

To identify a cohort as the one currently spreading covid is what PHE have to do.

Older people were not blamed by PHE for being the most vulnerable, most likely to spread covid early on. That was the media... and so very many posters here.

Funny now it is young people the attitude here has changed!