If you're still sticking to ALL the rules/guidance - why?

[RaspberryCoulis]

Will start by saying I am not sticking to the covid rules any more. Obviously I can't go places which aren't open. But we have had people in the house, kids are going out with friends probably in larger numbers than are permitted, we're crossing local authority boundaries which is supposedly illegal in Scotland. Why? Because we've been in lockdown for a year, cases here are very low, and some things are more important than Covid.

But on every thread there are people claiming that they are sticking rigidly to every single rule and guideline, never breaking ANY rule. They would probably say I was a selfish covid-denier who was hellbent on murdering their granny.

So if you're sticking to all the guidelines and rules, without fail - why? People who are clinically extremely vulnerable (officially) I can understand in part if they're not vaccinated. But the rest of you? Is it because you're scared of Covid, or scared of your neighbours, or scared of breaking the law by mistake?

@LAgeDeRaisin

I'm sticking to the rules because I'm *a hospital doctor still treating patients with covid, who are still dying of covid, because of selfish, entitled people like the OP.

2 more covid patients died on my ward yesterday. They might still be alive if it weren't for people like you.

Hope you enjoyed your family get togethers

Pathetic.*

This
5000 new cases a day still
100 death still a day.
And as pp upthread a recent Mother's Day gathering 9 infections- 2 ending up in hospital.
This hasn't gone away.
You're just playing Russian roulette.

You want others to share info, but when sage make statements everyone is apparently supposed to look up the explanation themselves
Every week SAGE meet (remotely) to discuss the situation and advise Government.

Early on in the pandemic they met every couple of days.

There are literally thousands of decisions that have been made in that time.

@StarCat2020

You want others to share info, but when sage make statements everyone is apparently supposed to look up the explanation themselves Every week SAGE meet (remotely) to discuss the situation and advise Government.

Early on in the pandemic they met every couple of days.

There are literally thousands of decisions that have been made in that time.

Yes, but that's not what I am referring to is it?

When they send someone to make a provocative statement to the press, they need to explain the basis for that statement and the evidence that lead to it. Why is that unreasonable?

It is frustrating when people blindly say vulnerable people stay at home. My mum has cancer is extremely vulnerable and has to go into hospital 2 weeks out of 3 for chemo. Staying home would kill her. She has had one vaccine but early studies suggest cancer patients may not get much immunity until after their second vaccine.

Some people can have covid without knowing and if that is you or the people you are socialising with inside you could be spreading covid. That is your selfish choice and sadly there are a lot like you. I just hope more people are sticking to the rules.

Yes we are abiding the rules as we all want this over with? You are being extremely selfish!

@MirandaPriestly

Good for you!! I wish you the very best of happiness in the precious time you have with your Dad.

As pp because I want this over with, and compliance is the fastest way to reach that goal.

Idiots who have started flouting rules because they think they’re special or are fed up or whatever, we’re all fed up, and your actions are going to lead to all of us being fed up for longer.

As for the vaccinated who now think as they’re ok they can spread it happily to the rest of us they can piss off too.

It’s only another 6 months until vaccination starts to have a proper hold, then hopefully we’ll be approaching normal except for foreign travel. We need to still contain new variants until we’re on too of the vaccinations and like flu we can just have boosters for any variant.

One of the patients who died on my ward yesterday had had both doses of vaccine. The vacine doesn't offer complete protection at an individual level- the point of it is to reduce transmission at a population level which will eventually eradicate the virus by having fewer and fewer transmissions and hosts.

It is not as simple as 'vaccinated people are safe'. They are just less likely to catch it by 60-90% than those who are not vaccinated. It's a population wide protection and takes time.

Those saying they "do their own research" - go on then. Get a medical degree, then do a Masters and PhD in Public Health of Epidemiology. That's 9/10 years of training in how to underatand and conduct research. Then do 2-3 post-docs. Or even at a basic level just start with a bachelor's degree.

The problem with people saying they've 'done their own research' is that many people are not trained in how to objectively analyse a source. The scientific community base their thinking on peer reviewed publications, and even then meta analysis and systematic reviews are performed to collate data from different studies to come to a conclusion, rather than accepting one study as gospel.

The most controversial viewpoints would be published in a heartbeat in Science or Nature or Lancet if there were enough data to support them. Scientists love a breakthrough. There would be huge amounts of funding given if somebody could prove to statistical significance a controversial viewpoint.

A struck off doctor on YouTube saying AIDS is a hoax or that covid isn't real, based on nothing but their own sad prejudice, won't cut it.

Yeah, that doesn't negate the fact their predictions were well off does it?

The point is, the predictions might have been bang on if we hadn't locked down. Or they might have been over, or they might have been under. We will never know, because we took measures to mitigate the risks.

Were there predictions of 4000 dying a day with lockdown restrictions in place? If so, you might have a point. If not, then you seem a little short on logic.

@AlexaShutUp

Yeah, that doesn't negate the fact their predictions were well off does it?

The point is, the predictions might have been bang on if we hadn't locked down. Or they might have been over, or they might have been under. We will never know, because we took measures to mitigate the risks.

Were there predictions of 4000 dying a day with lockdown restrictions in place? If so, you might have a point. If not, then you seem a little short on logic.

I believe they were with, and it was widely criticized. I believe they had to apologise for using it in the end.

”Your (sic) thick"

I think you meant ”Your [sic] thick.”

It’s OK. Punctuation is hard. 🤗

Those saying they "do their own research" - go on then. Get a medical degree, then do a Masters and PhD in Public Health of Epidemiology. That's 9/10 years of training in how to underatand and conduct research. Then do 2-3 post-docs. Or even at a basic level just start with a bachelor's degree

This. Why do you think the government isn’t taking advice from mumsnet, even when poster have clearly “done their own research”?

They aren’t picking these rules out of the sky. It is backed up with proper science, not opinions from the uneducated public.

Considering only 1% of the population have Phd’s, and even fewer in biological science, there’s going to be less than a dozen scientists able to advise.

@rookiemere

I'd feel more inclined to follow the rules religiously if they were the same for all parts of the UK. We're not a huge island, but very different restrictions and easing dates for England, Scotland and Wales.

The dates chosen for Scotland seem political rather than scientific and they really screwed over the teaching community with their everyone in before Easter but you must maintain social distancing nonsense.

If it's safe for me in England to holiday from 12th April, can't see why I've got to wait until 26th April in Scotland ( when Easter holidays are over) etc. etc. blanket policies throughout UK would make me more inclined to follow them.

Yeah agree with this. It's not like the vaccine knows what a border is. The differences are just stupid and completely political, plus I've seen people out in campervans and caravans up here for the past few weeks.

Some of the rules in Scotland just don't make any sense either, like going from 5 people max in a wedding up to 50 with no gradual increase? But you still can't serve alcohol? That's so not going to be followed here. Also I can go and get my hair cut, nails done etc before I can see my family even outside. How does that make any sense?

@Flowers24

Yes we are abiding the rules as we all want this over with? You are being extremely selfish!

This. It is as simple as this really. I wish people would stop thinking they know better than the scientists who ate dealing with this. Pure arrogance to think you know better.

Those saying they "do their own research" - go on then. Get a medical degree, then do a Masters and PhD in Public Health of Epidemiology. That's 9/10 years of training in how to underatand and conduct research. Then do 2-3 post-docs.

Yes, exactly. I'm fed up of all these people who read a couple of dodgy articles on the internet and then think they know better than the experts who have studied these things for years.

I blame Michael Gove and his comment in the referendum debate about how this country has had enough of experts. Silly tosser.

Yes, but that's not what I am referring to is it?
How do I know?

@TrustTheGeneGenie

The 4000 a day figure was Chris Whitby and Patrick Valance who apologised for using it. I think this was on the basis it was out of date as opposed to be because it was wrong when that modelling was initially done.

The truth is we will never know what would have happened if we hadn’t locked down. We can assume more people would have died, but how many will have to remain speculation.

If someone says “do your own research” I automatically think they are talking bollocks and believe watching a YouTube video classes as research!

The problem with people saying they've 'done their own research' is that many people are not trained in how to objectively analyse a source
Especially when "own research" is solely Facebook, Daily Mail and the BBC News.

The reason the numbers are low is because others are sticking to the rules. So really you want to reap the benefits of others efforts. I'd say this is pretty selfish

SAGE predicted that relaxing the rules at Christmas would result in many more deaths and pressurised the Government to scrap the five-day bubbles.

The 4000 a day figure was Chris Whitby and Patrick Valance who apologised for using it. I think this was on the basis it was out of date as opposed to be because it was wrong when that modelling was initially done.

Yes, and that was still modelling what might happen if we didn't lock down.

I'd like to see a source that shows which people were predicting deaths at this level even with lockdowns and other restrictions in place @TrustTheGeneGenie.

@LAgeDeRaisin

One of the patients who died on my ward yesterday had had both doses of vaccine. The vacine doesn't offer complete protection at an individual level- the point of it is to reduce transmission at a population level which will eventually eradicate the virus by having fewer and fewer transmissions and hosts.

It is not as simple as 'vaccinated people are safe'. They are just less likely to catch it by 60-90% than those who are not vaccinated. It's a population wide protection and takes time.

Those saying they "do their own research" - go on then. Get a medical degree, then do a Masters and PhD in Public Health of Epidemiology. That's 9/10 years of training in how to underatand and conduct research. Then do 2-3 post-docs. Or even at a basic level just start with a bachelor's degree.

The problem with people saying they've 'done their own research' is that many people are not trained in how to objectively analyse a source. The scientific community base their thinking on peer reviewed publications, and even then meta analysis and systematic reviews are performed to collate data from different studies to come to a conclusion, rather than accepting one study as gospel.

The most controversial viewpoints would be published in a heartbeat in Science or Nature or Lancet if there were enough data to support them. Scientists love a breakthrough. There would be huge amounts of funding given if somebody could prove to statistical significance a controversial viewpoint.

A struck off doctor on YouTube saying AIDS is a hoax or that covid isn't real, based on nothing but their own sad prejudice, won't cut it.

I believe Neil Ferguson has some qualifications in epidemiology - he broke lockdown rules.

People who think covid is a hoax are wrong but people on this thread haven’t been limiting their disparaging remarks to covid deniers. I generally think it’s a really bad look to say anyone breaking rules is stupid or not educated. My husband is a surgeon and most of his friends are medics, and so many of them are breaking the rules, albeit in minor ways eg 3 of them having a socially distanced cuppa in the garden.

I’m a rule follower as I said upthread but I can’t bear the attitude of calling people stupid.

It’s also not necessarily knowing better than SAGE about what rules can be broken, clearly there is very complex modelling involved which most people aren’t qualified to understand (myself included).

But people are allowed to have an opinion on the political decisions about whether what is being asked of them is fair and proportionate. For example I don’t think I know better than SAGE (I am very well educated but not in that field), but I think it’s wrong that my husband has to tell some of his oncology patients bad news on their own. Ditto what is happening to lots of women in maternity care and being delivered bad news. My friend had to attend a follow up scan to see if her pregnancy was viable on her own. I don’t need to be an epidemiologist to have an opinion that this is wrong.

In life there is always a fine balance between a lay person’s view not being as valid as an expert’s, and telling plebs to shut up and listen to their betters.

@AlexaShutUp

The 4000 a day figure was Chris Whitby and Patrick Valance who apologised for using it. I think this was on the basis it was out of date as opposed to be because it was wrong when that modelling was initially done.

Yes, and that was still modelling what might happen if we didn't lock down.

I'd like to see a source that shows which people were predicting deaths at this level even with lockdowns and other restrictions in place @TrustTheGeneGenie.

Right so they weren't made to apologise for it then? Oh wait! Yes they were. Because it was wrong.

@StarCat2020

Yes, but that's not what I am referring to is it? How do I know?

Well I assumed you had the ability to read.