Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
drspouse · 30/04/2021 20:35

@HaveringWavering

They’d all be the first to complain if their employers asked them to come back to the office a millisecond before the government relaxes “work from home if possible”.
I'm desperate to use my office as it's manic after school at our house. My employer doesn't think I should use my single occupancy office even if I take my own pack lunch.
lioncitygirl · 30/04/2021 20:49

No one gives a fuck anymore - everyone is fucking bored and tired of this shit.

CrankyFrankie · 30/04/2021 21:13

I voted YANBU. But I do think you should wind your feckin neck in.

Gogetsalife · 30/04/2021 21:20

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

Brigleylake · 30/04/2021 21:22

As it currently stands, you have a 1 in 40,000 risk of catching Covid.

You can go in a supermarket full of strangers, weddings up to 30, and the hair salon but cannot have a friend in for a cup of tea or a partner to stay if not bubbled.

The world has gone mad and sorry OP but there are some that are just bloody over the lies and want normality.

IceCreamAndCandyfloss · 30/04/2021 21:27

As it currently stands, you have a 1 in 40,000 risk of catching Covid

The news today said 1 in every thousand has it so 1 in 40,000 seems very optimistic.

Croleeen · 30/04/2021 21:35

Pretty sure people post these messages just to wind us up.

numberoneson · 30/04/2021 21:37

HaveringWavering

You asked "Why, is breaking the law not shameful?"

No, not in every case.

If a law is amoral like forbidding women the right to abortion just for example, then the woman in question and the illicit abortionist are not doing anything shameful in preventing yet another unwanted life to join this already overcrowded planet.

Or in Nazi Germany as another example, it was against the law to shelter Jews. Do you think THAT was shameful?

If the populace just blindly follows the law without questioning its purpose, its morality and its practicality, then they're no better than an amoebic blob just wandering through life eating, shi*ing and fcking with no higher purpose.

BiggestJulie · 30/04/2021 21:37

@HaveringWavering you’ve doubted the intelligence of those disagreeing with you, but seem yourself not to be able to distinguish between the scientific / data part of Van Tam’s statement (incredibly safe for fully vaccinated people to meet freely/ 1:100,000 chance of catching/spreading) and the political part (but nevertheless you still have to follow the rules).

The government promised us data not dates and they have broken that promise. They (and you) are rigidly sticking to dates. A government that breaks its promise to its people does not deserve respect.

They also apparently mandate a vaccination briefing to say that you cannot change any behaviours despite being vaccinated when they know, and their officers admit, that there is no scientific reason for this. Vaccination provides protection both against illness and transmission and yet behaviours must not change? That’s a good recipe for undermining the vaccine programme. (We’ve already heard the cries of, “Why would I have the vaccine if it makes no difference?”)

Given that they tell such porkies for political reasons (it would be “unfair” to allow vaccinated people to do something different from unvaccinated people) is anyone surprised that people are starting to ignore their advice and break the laws?

(And in any case it is quite possible that these laws governing how people can interact socially and physically in their own homes will ultimately prove to have been in violation of human rights legislation.)

And yet you continue to say that if the evidence suggested revoking the law it would have already been revoked? That’s a “ha ha” from me.

Two thirds of the people on this thread, in a country where the official estimate is just over 1/1000 people have the virus (and please be clear that that includes asymptomatic cases, since the ONS stats are based on random sampling household tests) think you are unreasonable and agree that your colleagues who have decided to enjoy their bank holiday in the way they choose are not.

If you’re right, and they are selfish, cheeky fuckers endangering us all and guaranteeing further lockdowns, we’ll soon know.

If the cases and hospitalisations and deaths continue to fall next week and the week after, will you come back here and beg our pardon our pardon for calling us shameless and unintelligent?

Teateaandmoretea · 30/04/2021 21:49

@BiggestJulie good post. I’d add that lockdowns are a political decision anyway. So a rise in numbers doesn’t equate to one - we maybe need to get some Covid units rather than scream about how the NHS is overwhelmed next winter. I mean it’s not like Covid is new anymore is it?

Sillyduckseverywhere · 30/04/2021 21:52

I've been ignoring the "no overnight stays" since last summer.
I wasn't sacrificing my (non resident) relationship when kids are in schools and I was in work.

HaveringWavering · 30/04/2021 22:33

[quote BiggestJulie]@HaveringWavering you’ve doubted the intelligence of those disagreeing with you, but seem yourself not to be able to distinguish between the scientific / data part of Van Tam’s statement (incredibly safe for fully vaccinated people to meet freely/ 1:100,000 chance of catching/spreading) and the political part (but nevertheless you still have to follow the rules).

The government promised us data not dates and they have broken that promise. They (and you) are rigidly sticking to dates. A government that breaks its promise to its people does not deserve respect.

They also apparently mandate a vaccination briefing to say that you cannot change any behaviours despite being vaccinated when they know, and their officers admit, that there is no scientific reason for this. Vaccination provides protection both against illness and transmission and yet behaviours must not change? That’s a good recipe for undermining the vaccine programme. (We’ve already heard the cries of, “Why would I have the vaccine if it makes no difference?”)

Given that they tell such porkies for political reasons (it would be “unfair” to allow vaccinated people to do something different from unvaccinated people) is anyone surprised that people are starting to ignore their advice and break the laws?

(And in any case it is quite possible that these laws governing how people can interact socially and physically in their own homes will ultimately prove to have been in violation of human rights legislation.)

And yet you continue to say that if the evidence suggested revoking the law it would have already been revoked? That’s a “ha ha” from me.

Two thirds of the people on this thread, in a country where the official estimate is just over 1/1000 people have the virus (and please be clear that that includes asymptomatic cases, since the ONS stats are based on random sampling household tests) think you are unreasonable and agree that your colleagues who have decided to enjoy their bank holiday in the way they choose are not.

If you’re right, and they are selfish, cheeky fuckers endangering us all and guaranteeing further lockdowns, we’ll soon know.

If the cases and hospitalisations and deaths continue to fall next week and the week after, will you come back here and beg our pardon our pardon for calling us shameless and unintelligent?[/quote]
Nope. If cases continue to fall it will be because restrictions are still in place and have done what they need to do despite the actions of the “I’m alright Jack” brigade. As I said above, the govt have most likely factored that in to the timings already. We’d probably be legally able to have overnight stays already if people could be trusted to follow the rules better.

OP posts:
BiggestJulie · 30/04/2021 22:37

@HaveringWavering by gum you’re a believer!

AlmostSummer21 · 30/04/2021 22:45

@Voomster953

What do you think is going to be different on the 17th to the 16th?
Not a huge amount, but that's not what we're talking about! It's the 1st this weekend, if people stuck to the roadmap, we would ne in a better place by the 17th, but people being dicks is going to stop the cases/deaths dropping as they should, so by the 17th rates won't be as low as they could have been.

@HaveringWavering because they're idiots and you can't argue with stupid.

expatinspain · 01/05/2021 07:34

Reading your posts you are clearly a stickler for the law as opposed to someone who believes that these actions will have any real consequences on the spread of Covid. What's the difference to the prevention of the virus if someone goes to stay overnight the day before the law "allows" them to or on the day. None. So the date, at this point, is clearly arbitrary. If you'd been having this same conversation in January, most people would be agreeing with you. You do you and froth at home and let other people do them and assess their own risks.

ouchyouchyow · 01/05/2021 07:48

Staying with my family? Fine.

Staying with in-laws? No it's still illegal don't you know?

HaveringWavering · 01/05/2021 08:28

@expatinspain

Reading your posts you are clearly a stickler for the law as opposed to someone who believes that these actions will have any real consequences on the spread of Covid. What's the difference to the prevention of the virus if someone goes to stay overnight the day before the law "allows" them to or on the day. None. So the date, at this point, is clearly arbitrary. If you'd been having this same conversation in January, most people would be agreeing with you. You do you and froth at home and let other people do them and assess their own risks.
You haven’t read my posts properly then. My argument is that I trust that the dates have been decided precisely because they do have an effect on the spread of the virus and we should respect that the Govt is acting on scientific advice and not second guess that by cherry-picking random bits of “science” from the popular media/Dave next door in order to justify our own choices.
OP posts:
Dee1975 · 01/05/2021 08:33

The problem with people breaking the rules is that if infections go up - the government/ scientists don’t know the real reason. I.e if everyone starts doing overnight stays with people outside of household, if there is a rise in infections, then it’s blamed on ‘shops being open’. So shops will have to shut again (risking jobs etc ...). When actually infections ‘could’ have gone up because of people staying overnight. Not because of people going to the shops.
So I disagree with comments ‘people are entitled to take own risk’ etc ... because actually you could effect a whole lot more ...

Dontknowanymore2 · 01/05/2021 08:45

If i had anywhere to go id be off like a rocket. Ive had enough and that was before pandemic. Speaking to a neighbour yesterday she said she is still scared but i know shes had daughters round and their partners in the garden but still more than two household. She is doing her own thing but i know would report anyone else. These rules some people wont want to let go i tnink they like rules , regulations etc. Well they can fuck off

threatmatrix · 01/05/2021 08:47

If you want to be restricted for something that is now not a threat you carry on, but leave normal people alone to do as they please. Move to China if you want to live amongst such control.

expatinspain · 01/05/2021 08:50

You'd clearly have to be a bit silly to think that two weeks is going to make a difference. As I said before, if you'd had this conversation a month or few months ago, you would have had a point, but I don't think you're going to find any scientist who'd agree that staying overnight one day, three days or two weeks before the allowed date would make any difference at all to the spread of the virus, which is the actual point of setting the dates.

HaveringWavering · 01/05/2021 08:58

Dear Professor Van Tam

You really are a bit silly.

Love, @expatinspain xxx

OP posts:
HelloMissus · 01/05/2021 09:05

expat
Exactly.
And the majority of scientists would say that the return to mixing indoors needs to be gradual in order to test effect on numbers as safely as possible.
Now obviously the government can’t legislate for that so this trickle of non compliance is doing the job brilliantly.

expatinspain · 01/05/2021 09:15

No, you're the silly one and being deliberately obtuse. If you really think a scientist is going to say there's a difference between staying overnight on 16th or 17th to the spread of Covid you need help, because clearly your fear of this virus has made you lose the ability of critical thinking. A date has to be set for the future at the time they set it. The closer you get to the date (weeks obviously, not months) it becomes arbitrary, otherwise the date would be revised and set for a later time is there was still too much risk of spreading the virus.

HaveringWavering · 01/05/2021 09:27

“I am capable of critical thinking and you are not.” It’s chestnut bingo on here. No doubt you’ve already drafted your next post about Milgram and the Hitler Youth.

Change the record.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread