Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To ask what we SHOULD have done during the COVID pandemic

504 replies

tunainatin · 10/11/2024 05:48

So I realise the government made mistakes at the time of COVID. They also acted completely immorally by not following the rules they imposed on everyone else.
However, I suspect any government in this country would have been criticized whatever their response.

I was mulling over the rules and restrictions and trying to work out which ones were actually worthwhile. Some rules seemed so petty (e.g. the one a day walk) but there has to be a line drawn somewhere, otherwise the parks would have been full of people.

Once we were allowed to attend things with restrictions in place, I went to an event which was meant to have masks and social distancing but everyone kind of got carried away and forgot about. Everyone got COVID, including me, badly, and one person was hospitalised.

So if you were the government what would you have done during the pandemic. Which of the bizarre rules we followed do you think saved lives, and which just causes stress or distress?

OP posts:
SoiledMyselfDuringSomeTurbulence · 13/11/2024 10:16

Got to disagree on the overblown part.

The government had crafted rules that meant ordinary people didn't have the privilege of making those kind of common sense assessments. People were told it's fine for them to be at close quarter with colleagues and/or the general public all day at work if they're doing something society deems important enough, but they don't get to do the same risk assessment if they want to spend time with others for their own benefit. Not just told, fined if they didn't.

Anyone who's got enough wit to tie their own shoelaces, let alone get into government ought to have realised that one rule for us, one rule for the rest was never going to be acceptable. Especially since they got the helpful Barnard Castle incident as a warning. Government approval dropped that month, and it's because people clearly don't like being told that rules don't apply when you're important enough. The lesson was there to be learned, but they declined.

Though even then, I think it might have been possible to head the whole thing off if the Tories hadn't lied. A prompt mea culpa in December 2021 would at least have given them a fighting chance. But again, stupidity and arrogance.

cardibach · 13/11/2024 11:41

Aposterhasnoname · 13/11/2024 08:01

Reading comprehension not your strong point then. I said give them whatever support they needed, including supporting families to shield with them if necessary.

Do you really think that the food delivery people, carers, medical staff etc were any safer from Covid during lockdown down than they would have been without only the vulnerable shielding? As a key worker who did all the shopping for three different vulnerable households and went to work everyday in a high risk environment you can take it from me, they weren’t.

I think it’s your reading comprehension that’s the issue. Food comes with people, yes? Someone has to deliver it? Someone has to check on the children in person? And those people are out in a world where the virus is at full pelt. It’s not possible. This has been explained over and over. It’s wilful ignorance at this point, so I’m disengaging now.

ToWhitToWhoo · 16/11/2024 19:47

Parker231 · 10/11/2024 10:35

And the hospitals would have been unable to admit the number of patients needing inpatient treatment if Covid had been allowed a free for all in communities. Inpatients weren’t just the elderly and CEV.

And it would also have meant many more people dying of non-Covid illnesses because hospital beds and medical treatment were unavailable.

Also, when people talk about isolating only the elderly and those with co-morbid conditions (a higher proportion of the population than is sometimes thought), they are forgetting that, unless one just wants to leave them to starve and die, they will need help from family members and other carers. To protect the 'vulnerable', you'd have to isolate all their carers and helpers as well.

Yalta · 17/11/2024 07:03

AgileMentor · 10/11/2024 11:35

ah yes that deadly the people giving you the rules weren’t adhering to them themselves. Which one was it that went on a couple hours drive to test his eyesight again?

My neighbour at the time was a dr in the local hospital

He was hosting barbecues every few days

No one I know was adhering to the rules because the rules made no sense

New posts on this thread. Refresh page