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?

I actually pity anyone that is still vigorously sticking to these “rules” this virus is here to stay!
I don't want or need your pity thank you. I'm not judging those who aren't sticking to the rules, please in return don't talk about me as if I am someone inferior to be pitied.

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
I totally agree with you there.

I also never understood why critical cancer care couldn't have been run solely from the private hospitals that were requisitioned for most of last year.

**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.

We can know, actually. Just look at what’s happening in Brazil, where there was very little lockdown.

Although, if the government had got their act together sooner with test and tracing, we could have coped without having to lock down. Like South Korea did.

Instead, the government initially refused to test anyone who hadn’t been overseas or been in direct contact with a confirmed case. Then they stopped community testing altogether for two months last spring.

Bold fail, apologies.

There are just so many more people out and about now,traffic much busier
People are basically voting with their feet
Passing the local park yesterday lots of groups of teenagers and lots of large family groups
Most people who get it are getting it in hospital,works etc
Not in the park and probably not by popping round to your mum’s for a cup of tea

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 watched some HIV / AIDS documentaries the other day and some of the "alternative opinions" were utterly shocking.

It's not at all obvious that lockdown measures are the best way of dealing with this situation. I certainly don't trust this government to make the right decisions. I'm mainly sticking to the rules because it's not major hassle and I can't do what I'd like to do (take the kids to fun places, go to the restaurant etc). But I'm not judging those we've had enough and bending the rules. If my family was in the UK (and assuming I couldn't rely on 'bubbles') I'd do the same I expect.
I do feel sad for people who haven't seen or hugged loved one for months on end and I do fail to understand why they would put up with it unless major risk factor.

Because it was wrong.

Yes, the modelling was based on outdated data, and they apologised for that, but they still weren't predicting what they thought would happen with lockdowns and other restrictions in place.

The fact is, we will never have any means of knowing how many people would have died without the lockdowns and other restrictions that have been implemented. It might have been less than what the scientists predicted or it might have been more. As another poster has said, that's all speculation.

However, you said above that people were making these predictions about the likely deaths with lockdowns etc factored in, which is quite a different scenario. I'd be really interested to see a source for that.

I don't actually think anyone is too stupid to understand this

I didn’t think stupidity was a factor until I saw a number of assertions along the lines of ‘it won’t make much difference if 6 people meet up instead of 4’. There’s been plenty of information about the exponential spread of viruses and about the reasons why it’s important to reduce the spread of covid (and not just try to reduce deaths). So while I think it’s profoundly selfish to break the rules, I also think there’s an element of stupidity.

@AlexaShutUp

Because it was wrong.

Yes, the modelling was based on outdated data, and they apologised for that, but they still weren't predicting what they thought would happen with lockdowns and other restrictions in place.

The fact is, we will never have any means of knowing how many people would have died without the lockdowns and other restrictions that have been implemented. It might have been less than what the scientists predicted or it might have been more. As another poster has said, that's all speculation.

However, you said above that people were making these predictions about the likely deaths with lockdowns etc factored in, which is quite a different scenario. I'd be really interested to see a source for that.

Right fine, I mean they presented it as a "this is what will happen" and they were wrong, but carry on picking at me.

Honestly I cannot believe the defence when they were wrong, admitted they were wrong, but half of MN think they're the equivalent to God.

Right fine, I mean they presented it as a "this is what will happen" and they were wrong, but carry on picking at me.

I'm not picking at you, I'm just pointing out that you were wrong to say that the "predictions" were based on what might happen with lockdown and other restrictions in place, because they were based on the opposite scenario. That's a pretty crucial difference.

And yes, the scientists got it wrong too, but their mistake was based on outdated data rather than faulty logic. They are not infallible and they apologised for it.

The fact remains that we would have seen many more deaths if we had not taken any actions to mitigate the risks.

@Mittens030869

Brazil is appalling but other places seem to be doing weirdly well without lockdown eg Florida, India. Countries seem to respond differently. I’ve seen some people try to explain why but truthfully I don’t think we really know. Where the natural peak would have fallen in this country isn’t something we can ever know I don’t think but given how it was looking before we locked down in January, I think it would have been bad.

Ds’s uncle live in Boston USA. All shops and restaurants open as normal there.

I think the relevance of C Whitty and P Valance using that data was it does tend to suggest we are presented data in a way that fits with the narrative they want to portray, in other words to scare us into compliance.

This makes sense but undoubtedly has a knock on effect on other things such as people being too scared to attend their doctor relating to lumps and bumps.

I think it was David Speigelhalter who said of this out of date data that it was a shame that they used this because it affects public trust in circumstances where the true data was bad enough to have the same effect.

I would like to thank the posters on this thread whose comments have generated light, not heat.

I also never understood why critical cancer care couldn't have been run solely from the private hospitals that were requisitioned for most of last year

Because private hospitals simply aren’t set up for handling toxic drugs, radiation sources etc, not to mention the scanners, labs and machinery. They’re also not set up for critically ill people.

I respect other people's right to break those rules that won't really harm anybody if they respect my right not to break them.

@VanillaAndOrange

I respect other people's right to break those rules that won't really harm anybody if they respect my right not to break them.

What do you mean by not really harm anybody?

Do you mean there’s no chance of these people transmitting the virus to someone who will get very ill or worse, because how can anybody be certain?

Because we're re actually close to going back to some sort of normality with the vaccine programme underway and we don't need selfish wankers fucking things up now.

Bye it’s great you’re following rules but just generally no one can say there’s not really any harm.

There’s been huge amounts of harm (in many directions)

Btw

@MarshaBradyo

Bye it’s great you’re following rules but just generally no one can say there’s not really any harm.

There’s been huge amounts of harm (in many directions)

This is true but I think we also have to acknowledge that following the rules is causing people a great deal of harm too.

@bluebluezoo

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.

I meet those criteria but believe me, I’ve had plenty people on the internet call me stupid when I try to provide very basic info to them. Some of my favourites have been “you’re not a real scientist” (that’s news to me) and “you’re just a bimbo” (still not sure what whey were basing that on). It’s really making me give up on society.

Fridget I agree there’s harm in many ways - which is what I meant by many directions.

However much of that harm is made worse by not following the rules - higher cases means longer lockdowns, harder to control in hospitals, schools closing

I’m absolutely for moving on as planned and I’m happy it’s hospitalisation not cases we will use as a metric for it. But at every stage it’s compliance that has got us out of the worst part.

Please just stop calling people thick and stupid because they don't share your opinion, it's rude, nasty and just makes you look really bad.

I think there should be general guidance but that the public should be trusted too.

In Texas, all restrictions including masks are gone and cases have been falling doro 17 days in a row. How does anybody explain that?

I think we shouldn't shame people for not following every single rule to the letter, for instance allowing somebody to use their toilet if meeting in the garden, meeting in a group of 7 instead of 6, meeting on the 28th instead of the 29th.