Why having blanket rules just won't work

[1moreRep]

AIBU to think blanket rules such as the one period outside the house isn't practical or proportionate for the whole of the uk?

Firstly, i follow the advice, id love to be at home more but i'm a key worker and therefore i have been working more than ever.

However, the blanket rules just don't seem proportionate and therefore people are less likely to respect and adhere to them.

There will ALWAYS be a section of society who believe the rules don't apply to them and literally couldn't care less about their impact on others. This is not new, you can see with crime statistics, tax evasion, etc etc. I don't think the many should be punished for the actions of these people, because guess what, if there is a blanket ban ongoing out, these people will still beak it.

The enforcement of these prohibitions will put more front line staff in danger and use up limited resources.

Plus a person living in a remote location can go out 5 times a day and never see a soul, limiting their activity does not seem proportionate, compared to a person living in a crowded community for who going out once a day is too risky.

I don't know the answer, but if people living in rural communities do not see it as proportionate they are less likely to follow it. It seems like common sense has gone out of the window, and it's punishing the wrong people.

*break it

I don't know the answer

Then what's the point of your long post? If you don't have an alternative why criticise the current position

If everyone is not given the same rules, can you imagine how the locked down city dwellers would feel.

Whilst not generally true, because there is poverty everywhere, many people already view rural dwellers as lucky and privileged, especially in the south east where you need to be seriously rich to move out of the towns and cities

Having blanket rules is the only thing that will work. It's applying them to people in less than ideal circumstances that is hard. The reckless idiots should be publicly named & shamed though.

Such rules don't need 100% compliance to be effective,
just a very high compliance, say 95%

There will always be a feral / entitled / libertarian % who ignore rules even in an emergency,
which is why blanket rules tend to be stricter than are needed in theory, to compensate for the awkward buggers

the wreckless idiots won't change though, they don't care, therefore a full lock down won't impead them

However, lockdown undoubtedly is far harder on some groups than others

If 95% or whatever are compliant, that should suffice

If the government were to say, “here are some rules, interpret them as you see fit because you know best. You can conduct your own risk assessment because we think you can be trusted to put the public good before your own wants”, where do you think the infection rate would be right now?

They are planning for about 50% compliance, let’s hope it’s as high as that.

I agree. I wish the rules could be proportionate. Unfortunately that would be hard to implement and also make people more likely to lock themselves down in second homes if they had them....spreading the virus further. Honestly where I live it feels OTT but hey....before I know it maybe we will be hit just as bad and then I will be grateful for what we have in place.

It seems like common sense has gone out of the window, and it's punishing the wrong people.

I hear this word 'punishment' a lot around the lockdown – this isn't punishment. It's a viral global pandemic. We're not being told off, we're working together as a society to keep one another safe.

Can we please stop using vocabulary around this that makes us sound like petulant children?

It's not fair to make driving through red lights illegal as some people in remote places or who work nights might face empty roads so what's the point of stopping?

Leave it up to people's judgement if they should stop or not. That will work.

I can see the sense in total lockdown - it would be easier to police. If no one is allowed out then it's easier for the police to pull over those who are outside, rather than everyone being allowed out and the police are trying to figure who's out for the fifth time that day, who's out to do essential food shopping and so on.

How can you have different rules for different people?

I think the measures seem to be working well, at least where I am (London). Apart from exercise I've only been to small shops on 2 occasions and everyone was practising the 2m social distancing. Very few people around. Everyone I know is complying.

I think the measures we've been asked to do are reasonable and don't understand why so many people keep wanting a fuller lockdown.

If someone living remotely wants to go out twice a day and walk their dogs then why would anyone care - but I think it's something that should just be done quietly to avoid others thinking it's ok. The government aren't going to sanction it, but equally it's not going to be an issue. Especially if no-one knows!