Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To wonder what it is about “no overnight stays till 17 May” that is so hard to understand?

821 replies

HaveringWavering · 29/04/2021 16:22

So many colleagues and acquaintances merrily talking today about plans to go and stay with relatives for the bank holiday. Nobody has any shame. We’re waiting till the 17th. Does nobody care any more?

OP posts:
Beeeeeeeeeeeeeep · 29/04/2021 19:47

On what grounds do you believe it is arbitrary?

On the grounds of how could it not be?

traumatisednoodle · 29/04/2021 19:48

*19:21Letsgetreadytocrumble

traumatisednoodle

OFGS look at bloody Wuhan, actually look at the whole of China or Australia.

Indeed the reason they are basically COVID free and we are not is because we are so good at following the rules. (yes I am being sarcastic).

Yeah, let's weld people into their homes to stop them getting out, then theycan'tbreak the rules, so no need to feel ashamed. That'll show'em.*

I'm not suggesting that. But right now in Wuhan there are no restrictions, you can go to the cinema, a night club any resturant you fancy. Lockdowns work, they don't prolong the pandemic.

Letting it rip like Brazil and India doesn't hasten the end.

btwwhichonespink · 29/04/2021 19:48

Of course it is arbitrary. It is a fixed date which does not take into account what is happening with cases and deaths! If we were following the science everything would be open and restrictions ended by now.

There is currently a case with High Court to force the government to provide evidence as to why indoor hospitality is not allowed until 17th May when other restrictions on other businesses have been lifted. They won't provide scientific evidence because there isn't any.

btwwhichonespink · 29/04/2021 19:50

The current court case is being brought by the same team that brought the case against the government for the stupid 10pm curfew and substantial meal rule, which also wasn't following the science.

EducatingArti · 29/04/2021 19:50

But the review date needs to be at least 5 weeks because it takes that long for a change in Covid cases to be seen in the data and analysed after a previous lifting of some regs. It isn't arbitrary. It is the minimum time needed.

TheKeatingFive · 29/04/2021 19:51

Letting it rip like Brazil and India doesn't hasten the end.

The U.K. isn’t letting it rip. HTH.

Abraxan · 29/04/2021 19:51

Someone didn’t listen to their pre-vaccination briefing.

So tell me, what do you think the risk level is for someone who has had covid, has had one or two vaccine doses and/or who does twice weekly LFT?

Whilst at the moment we still follow the rules following vaccines, it isn't because the vaccine doesn't significantly reduce the risks to/from the vaccinated person.

Reality is that we can't open up for just vaccinated people or have different rules for them - imagine the outcry from those still waiting. We've seen small bits of it already when 'vaccine passports' have been mentioned.

The reality is that following vaccination, etc the risk is much much lower.

btwwhichonespink · 29/04/2021 19:51

@EducatingArti

But the review date needs to be at least 5 weeks because it takes that long for a change in Covid cases to be seen in the data and analysed after a previous lifting of some regs. It isn't arbitrary. It is the minimum time needed.
Total BS. Cases are falling. They are published every day. No need to wait five weeks to discover what we already know today.
YorkiePanda · 29/04/2021 19:51

Go out, enjoy yourself... and don't whine when you are dying from a nasty virus that can (and will) kill you

You do realise that 99% of people recover from Covid right? It’s actually not the Black Death.

Reign21 · 29/04/2021 19:53

It's not as if they are robbing old ladies at gun point or selling crack to children.. People choosing to see their friends and families isn't a big deal. I'm sure at some point most people will have or will have had covid same as the flu etc. It's not lethal for everyone and many people recover from it perfectly fine. I think your being abit dramatic given that shops are open and people can go for Dinners etc and we are 2 weeks away from the "end of lockdown". If people are scared or are considered vunrable then they can decide to isolate etc, the same as everyone else has a right to see friends and family over night if they wish.

Covid isn't going to magically change on the 17th May just because bojo said its "safe". It is what it is

Original poster
HaveringWavering · 29/04/2021 19:53

@PegPeople

On what grounds do you believe it is arbitrary?

Because it happened to be the day that fell a set period of time after the last review date. That's literally the only reason may 17th was chosen. If they had chosen to wait 6 weeks or 3 weeks or any other given number of weeks between reviews the date would be different.

But it’s not fixed. Further loosening of restrictions on that date will only be confirmed if the science stacks up.
OP posts:
FindingMeno · 29/04/2021 19:53

People have had enough.
We sent our kids to school and watched them drop like flies on the government say so. They told us we'd be fined if we didn't. Then we were told to keep them at home again. Many of us worked through. Some employers have treated employees very badly and have put them at risk. People who were being clapped are now being shafted over their wages.
It's just all got a bit too much for many.

JovialNickname · 29/04/2021 19:54

Because not everyone follows stupid rules blindly. No, of course the words and sentence you indicate are not hard to follow in terns of grammar and syntax, obviously. But those of us capable of independent thought read source statistics and know from ground level NHS data that there are currently 20 or less deaths a day throughout the whole of the UK following our very successful vaccination programme, meaning that following outdated rules like an automaton is unnecessary. Of course it's not hard to read and comprehend a single sentence. No one is saying it is. Just as a human being you are supposed to be capable of more than blindly doing as you're told. It's this that people are opposing. The fact that you think that people don't understand or are unable to read, rather than they wish to make their own decisions, makes me sad for you.

PegPeople · 29/04/2021 19:55

But it’s not fixed. Further loosening of restrictions on that date will only be confirmed if the science stacks up.

Od course its fixed. If they were following the data and the 17th may wasn't set in some crummy stone why can't it be flexible and change to earlier?

Original poster
HaveringWavering · 29/04/2021 19:55

@Abraxan

Someone didn’t listen to their pre-vaccination briefing.

So tell me, what do you think the risk level is for someone who has had covid, has had one or two vaccine doses and/or who does twice weekly LFT?

Whilst at the moment we still follow the rules following vaccines, it isn't because the vaccine doesn't significantly reduce the risks to/from the vaccinated person.

Reality is that we can't open up for just vaccinated people or have different rules for them - imagine the outcry from those still waiting. We've seen small bits of it already when 'vaccine passports' have been mentioned.

The reality is that following vaccination, etc the risk is much much lower.

The part of the briefing relevant here is briefing is about the ongoing potential to TRANSMIT. It’s not about the vaccinated person’s safety (although worth noting that protection does not kick in properly for 3 weeks, according to the woman who have me my briefing).
OP posts:
Original poster
HaveringWavering · 29/04/2021 19:56

@PegPeople

But it’s not fixed. Further loosening of restrictions on that date will only be confirmed if the science stacks up.

Od course its fixed. If they were following the data and the 17th may wasn't set in some crummy stone why can't it be flexible and change to earlier?

It can be. They can change any law they want, at any time.
OP posts:
Abraxan · 29/04/2021 19:57

don't whine when you are dying from a nasty virus that can (and will) kill you

Whilst covid can be fatal, the reality is that for most people it isn't fatal.

Your statement that covid WILL kill you is clearly nonsense.

I've had covid, ill enough to need hospital admission. As far as I can tell it didn't kill me. I believe I am still alive and kicking.

Obviously I could be wrong. This might be a 'after death' life I'm currently living. But it looks very similar to the one I was living before I caught covid tbh.

apooagnuandyou · 29/04/2021 19:57

Both extremes are equally wrong.

No need to laugh at people who DID follow the rules - we saw what happened when rules were NOT followed and ended up on lockdown again (could have been worst, could have ended with a lot more bodies but still). Ask anyone who worked on covid wards at the worst times is not finding Covid a joke or a weird conspiracy.
Original rule breakers are not clever, they are lucky the majority wasn't so bad and rules didn't get stricter.

Today, no need to be so angry against people using common sense and taking the rules with a small (or big) pinch of salt.

It's too late to hang and want strict restrictions. We are thankfully passed that. Chill.

PegPeople · 29/04/2021 19:58

It can be. They can change any law they want, at any time.

But that's the point so many are making. They won't change it despite the science showing it would be OK to do so hence why it's just an arbitrary date that means essentially naff all.

GoldDisco · 29/04/2021 19:58

I’ve followed the rules all year and worked in key role whole pandemic. I’m done with this shit. Went round to my friends today for coffee. I’m not putting up with this crap any more. We are both vaccinated. Bring on the opening up. I’m ready for a good time.

apooagnuandyou · 29/04/2021 19:58

Abraxan

Obviously I could be wrong. This might be a 'after death' life I'm currently living. But it looks very similar to the one I was living before I caught covid tbh.

I sincerely hope not, otherwise you have drawn the short straw and your after life is pretty grim if you are stuck here Grin

Original poster
HaveringWavering · 29/04/2021 19:58

The fact that you think that people don't understand or are unable to read, rather than they wish to make their own decisions, makes me sad for you.

The fact that you don’t recognise a rhetorical figure of speech when you see one makes me sad for you. Must be sad to live in such a literal world.

OP posts:
Original poster
HaveringWavering · 29/04/2021 19:59

@PegPeople

It can be. They can change any law they want, at any time.

But that's the point so many are making. They won't change it despite the science showing it would be OK to do so hence why it's just an arbitrary date that means essentially naff all.

Who says “the science shows it is OK”?
OP posts:
Abraxan · 29/04/2021 19:59

The part of the briefing relevant here is briefing is about the ongoing potential to TRANSMIT

Transmission is hugely reduced following just one vaccine dose, increasing after two.
The chance of catching covid is already much reduced following even one vaccine.
Of those people who still manage to catch it the chance of transmission , after one dose of the vaccine, has been reported conservatively at being Halved. Reality is that it's likely to be higher than this. After both does this increases again.

The risk really is very much reduced.

No vaccine or anything will be zero chance. We aren't aiming for that.

TheKeatingFive · 29/04/2021 19:59

The part of the briefing relevant here is briefing is about the ongoing potential to TRANSMIT.

Given that the vulnerable have been vaxxed, transmission is much less of a concern