This blind following of 'The Rules' is going to backfire when lockdown ends

[OtterPotter]

I have been really concerned at the attitudes I've seen on here and in RL of people's blind following of 'The Rules'.

The mentality I have seen here including outrage at people dancing in a park, or refusing to go for a picnic with their own children in a secluded spot because it's "AGAINST THE RULES!" demonstrates a complete inability to risk assess and interpret the guidelines.

What worries me is that same mentality will prevail when lockdown is lifted, and those same people will blindly follow the new rules and fail to appreciate that the risk is still real.

The day lockdown is lifted, the risk to yourself of catching it, and the risk of you spreading it to others remains exactly the same. The only thing that will have changed is that the government will have decided that the peak has passed, and the pressure on the NHS is lower - so they can allow YOU to risk catching it now. It can still kill you, it can still kill your family.

I'm deeply concerned that I'm going to have to have this battle with my rule obsessed family to try and convince them that they are still very much in danger.

Ok maybe not most. But a whole lot of people really are very dense.

Agreed!
I had this conversation with DH the other day after we received a group invitation for a house party in June if lock down has been lifted.
I do not understand the absolute stupidity of some people (one of the hosts works for the NHS! yes, you read that right ffs)
I can't grasp that some think when we are allowed to be back out, the virus will be gone.
It is going nowhere and we will still have to follow some form of social distancing for a good while after. 'Back to normal' is a long long way off.

That’s not effective risk assessment, and also doesn’t take into account the wider underlying principles, so again, those are lemming-brained people who will make it worse for the rest of us. Following the spirit of the guidelines (they’re not rules, nor law!) is about much more than doing the ‘bare minimum’ but again, a lot of people won’t understand that. Which is why they froth about RULES and LAWS and freak out when people don’t abide by their ridiculous misinterpretations of advice

Absolutely agree. I also refuse to call them 'RULES'. There is the law, which I have read and fully understand and know I am not breaking. Then there are guidelines that have been developed to help people understand and interpret the law. And then there is advice that has sometimes been made up on the spot - e.g. Gove's arbitrary '30 mins of exercise' that he came up with when asked during a television interview what he thought an appropriate amount of exercise was.

So a person who chooses to drive away from the busy town where he lives to walk their dog somewhere empty, or another person who drives to a secluded beach rather than walk from their home along a busy A road where they risk having an accident aren't breaking ANY LAW, and are making sensible risk-based decisions to minimise the risk to themselves and to others. But in both these examples I have seen people vilified for breaking the 'rules'.

Frankly I think those risk-assessing people will continue to do so, and continue to make sensible decisions once lock down is lifted, while the rule police will continue to demonstrate their inability to do so and will put themselves at more risk.

The day lockdown is lifted, the risk to yourself of catching it, and the risk of you spreading it to others remains exactly the same.

Completely wrong. Once lockdown is lifted, your risk of catching it and spreading it is FAR HIGHER because more people are out and about, more people aren't keeping 2 metres apart etc. The lifting of the lockdown will cause the virus to start spreading again. Until there is a vaccine, there will continue to be restrictions, obviously the current lockdown will be eased, but when cases are high enough again, there'll be another lockdown until numbers drop again, and so on.

So a person who chooses to drive away from the busy town where he lives to walk their dog somewhere empty, or another person who drives to a secluded beach rather than walk from their home along a busy A road where they risk having an accident aren't breaking ANY LAW, and are making sensible risk-based decisions to minimise the risk to themselves and to others.

By driving anywhere you don't need to, you're taking a risk of an accident. We've had two serious accidents in our town, both caused life changing injuries to those involved, both involved the police, ambulance, fire service etc. The police have been quite clear in the press release that both involved non-essential journeys that have now put the emergency services at risk and taken up scarce resources in the local hospital - both drivers are now in ICU on ventilators!

If it were me, I'd let them languish on a normal ward and let Covid victims have the ventilators!

But it's the rules!!
You just have to follow them and do as your told, the government is always right - about everything.
Please leave common sense, research etc at the door.
You've heard of the computer game lemmings, right?

I’m right there with you, OP

I’m trying to din into DH that the reason for lockdown is to ‘manage’ the impact on the NHS but he thinks everything will be done and dusted and hunky dory, life back to normal 😡😡😡
He watches the news etc so can’t be that —dim— blinkered, can ge?!
Please send me bottles of patience ASAP!

We've abided by then rules' religiously.

When lockdown is lifted we should be fine because we've already had a conversation and understand our risk will be increased so we will continue as if we are in lockdown but with me eventually back at work hopefully

I was hoping others who've adhered as we have would also continue to social distance and avoid any unnecessary mixing. It would appear I've forgotten that some people are stupid.

By driving anywhere you don't need to, you're taking a risk of an accident - yes of course, which is true in normal life as well. And yes the Police have asked people to avoid non-essential journeys for exactly this reason.

However, the risk to me of driving 10 mins out of the town where I live, to walk my dog where I can be almost sure I will see no people vs the risk of walking him through town, past dozens of people, family groups, kids on bikes, joggers etc is a no brainer.

In the first example - I have a miniscule risk of having an accident (where there are no cars), and almost no risk of transmitting the virus. In the second example - I have no risk of having a car accident, but a considerably higher risk of transmitting the virus.

In the example I gave above of my friend who has having to choose between driving along the road to get to her walk destination vs walking long it - the risk to her was Far greater that she might cause/get involved in an accident having to walk that road.

Common sense.

I was hoping others who've adhered as we have would also continue to social distance and avoid any unnecessary mixing. It would appear I've forgotten that some people are stupid

Me too.

I have a friend who shouted at me for "reading too much" when I warned her about this impending crisis. She laughed at me for disinfecting the pub table the last time we went. She insisted on going to the pub with her mates right up to the day they were closed.

She is now Chief Coronastasi. She's shouted at me for going for a walk, she has announced she will no longer take her children for walks (we live rurally, they see no one) because its' against the rules. She refuses to listen to my reasoned attempts at explaining why certain things are ok, and my explanations of the risks I have assessed.

She will be straight out to the pub the day it reopens, then straight over to her elderly parents house because the rules say it's ok now. It is people like her who I am very worried about.

I totally agree re blind following of rules, especially about when you are outdoors. The rules are about social distancing, nothing else, and need to apply because some people live in very busy places. But in most areas around the country, outdoors is not a risky place to be in terms of viral transmission. Hysteria about 'what if everyone did it' is just froth. Where we tend to go for picnics in the summer is a field by a river about a mile from town. Even on the hottest, loveliest July day when everyone and their dog is outside, there'll be at least 30 metres between picnicking families, probably more. Yet now stopping to eat a sausage roll on your daily walk apparently makes you into nothing short of a murderer. Meanwhile the government get a free pass, despite the fact our death rate is entirely down to political footdragging and incompetence. People are dying now because there isn't enough hospital PPE and the NHs is underfunded and because there were still football matches and festivals being allowed just a month ago, not because auntie Mary sits by the river for ten minutes on her daily constitutional. It's nuts. But as many a thread on MN has proved, a lot of people have wildly inaccurate risk antennae, and limited powers of analysis.

In the first example - I have a miniscule risk of having an accident (where there are no cars), and almost no risk of transmitting the virus. In the second example - I have no risk of having a car accident, but a considerably higher risk of transmitting the virus.

How can you say you have "no/miniscule risk of having a car accident"?? Are you some kind of super-human being? One of the accidents in our town was a middle aged woman taking her dog for a walk on the shore - somehow she ploughed into a wall on her way - no other vehicles involved!

She may have been distracted (dog/phone), may have had a medical episode, or may have swerved to avoid a pet/child on the road, or maybe it was a mechanical fault. Accidents can happen to anyone.

despite the fact our death rate is entirely down to political footdragging and incompetence

Other countries who locked down sooner have higher rates!

Again, limited powers of analysis.

Lockdown won't be lifted overnight. There will be "rules" for a long time yet. Successively more vague and open to more interpretation. Loads of scope for criticising neighbours and MILs still to come.

Two sets of my neighbours are continuing to mix with each other. One person from both households is still working out of the home, one is a supermarket worker.

It's these people that scare me, they haven't given a shit about minimising the risk of transmission during lockdown so they won't understand it's going to increase.

Yet there they all are clap, clap, clappy clapping each week.

We can't - that's my point. But I'm worried that some people will think that the lifting of lockdown will mean that the virus has suddenly disappeared. I'm worried for my family - I have a lot of "You can't do that because the RULES say so" type people in my family. At the moment, their following of the rules is of course keeping the more vulnerable members of the family safe. But Im concerned that their attitude will switch to "Of course we can do that now, the RULES say we can" which will immediately put them at risk.

This makes no sense. You are complaining about people following the rules now but once lockdown is over you think they shouldn't follow the rules but should follow stricter rules ( made up by who? You?)

The government will no doubt issue rules for after lockdown. Some people might be able to follow stricter, self imposed rules but many others won't be able to. If government say return to work many of us won't be able to say " no, I don't think I will because I might catch it".

Are you really spending your time worrying that people who are currently following all of the rules, are suddenly going to stop and treat the living of lockdown like Mardi Gras?? 😕

Have you considered taking up crochet or painting?

Lifting not living.

Hello “ I have friends counting down to the end of lockdown, despite being vulnerable.”

I wonder what their fears are. Do they think the guidelines for shielding are actual law?

OP your post makes very little sense.

When the rules allow people to go to a cinema, they will go if they want. So what?

I think the trouble with interpreting the rules is that you are often only risk assessing for yourself only. The rules are about keeping everyone safe.

Yes of course you can say that if you choose a rural spot to have a picnic with members of your household, then you are not putting yourself at risk. But what happens when 50 households all make that same judgment call and all end up in the same remote spot?

There will, of course, be a second peak. The lockdown measures were never about limited how many people get the virus - they are about managing when people get it so the NHS can cope.

Yeah, I have thought the same OP. Many things that are against The Rules so beloved on MN are actually about as safe as you can get. If I walk to my mums and stand in her garden 2 metres away chatting for half an hour when I bring her shopping I am breaking The Rules but using my powers of reasoning I can see that it's OK.
I will continue to stay 2 metres from my mum, and get her shopping when Lockdown is lifted, and for as long as it takes, because her risk factors will still be there.
There are a lot of people in the world who seem incapable of using their own brains and need to be told to the letter what to do, maybe because it helps them feel less scared.