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.

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'.

But it is breaking 'the rules'. The Govt and NHS advice for exercise is to 'walk, cycle or run'. Driving car is not exercise. Also the restrictions must apply to everyone equally or the police will be unable to enforce them.

The lockdown will not suddenly end BTW. It will be gradual

In the first example - I have a miniscule risk of having an accident (where there are no cars),

Why are there no cars? Because everyone else is following the rules and not driving. If everyone did as you are doing, decided to follow their own version of the rules then there would be lots of cars on the road and lots of people in the quiet location you choose to walk at.

The analogy of standing up at a concert is a good one.

but what happens when 50 households all make that same judgment call and all end up in the same remote spot?

What would YOU do in that (extremely unlikely) situation? Maybe..not sit down and move somewhere else? It's that sort of comment that makes my eyes roll so hard in my head they might actually fall out.

How can you say you have "no/miniscule risk of having a car accident"?? Are you some kind of super-human being?

Because in the first example, I have miniscule risk because it is driving up a road where there are no cars. In the second example I have no risk because i'm not getting in a car. I'd have to be some kind of super human being to crash a car that I'm not actually driving.

By driving anywhere you don't need to, you're taking a risk of an accident

Yes. But what you need to balance that with, is the risks avoided. It's not clear to say that walking somewhere to exercise is no risk and driving is risky.

Walking involves several risks too. Risks of being hit by a car, meeting more people, etc.

Driving involves risks of a car accident or breakdown.

It's hard to look into someone else's life and accurately asses all the risks for them because of so many factors involved. We need to have greater faith in people doing that for themselves.

In the first example - I have a miniscule risk of having an accident (where there are no cars) Sorry, I should have explained - there are never any cars. I live rurally and I know the quiet areas which are always quiet. You're absolutely right that it wouldn't be fair for people to capitalise on the lack of cars on the road to go out and do their own thing. That is not the case in my example.

I am breaking The Rules but using my powers of reasoning I can see that it's OK

But you can't run a country like that, because some people don't have valid "powers of reasoning". The people having parties etc will have their own "power of reasoning" for thinking it's OK, as will the gangs of youths congregrating on street corners. Their "powers or reasoning" are flawed, which is why the law has to take precedence.

How does any individual know that their powers of reasoning are correct and that they're not missing something?

How can the police enforce the law, when some people flout it for their own reasons? The fewer people out and about, the easier it will be for the police to deal with the ones who are deliberately breaking laws, whether covid or other laws such as burglary, speeding, etc.

The entire point of lockdown is to flatten the peak so infection rates are steady, rather than a sudden peak that overwhelms the NHS.

Lockdown is not intended to stop people from getting it. Herd immunity relies on most people getting it.

Unless you’re in a vulnerable group you are SUPPOSED to get it, just in a controlled way.

We need to have greater faith in people doing that for themselves.

Good luck with that. If people behaved, we'd never have needed laws nor the police in the first place would we?

Our chief would be neighbourhood enforcer of THE RULES , two houses up, is also the man who regularly speeds up and down the road in his car, smokes around his and other people’s children, drinks excessively, and is very fat. Clearly no respect whatsoever for the rest of THE RULES and THE GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES.

OtterPotter

Your driving for your walk asda traffic to the roads, which makes the roads look busier and gives people a sense of normality and business as usual, which then means other people follow this and start doing more 'nornal' things.

I'm following the rules strictly because I understand human behaviour. One person does something not in the set out rules but actually very safe, another person sees that person doing it but stretches their behaviour so that they're not safe.

It's very low risk for someone to go into another person's back garden via a side gate and sit on the grass and chat to them 2 metres away, but then their neighbour might see that and invite their friend round to do the same but offer them a drink and touch their used cup.

I was socially distancing prior to lockdown. At work I moved around not touching things like usual, using my clothes elbow to press automatic door buttons, not touching the hand rail of the stairs. I agree that there's a huge amount of the population who don't understand infection control and they're waiting for lockdown to end so they can go back to life as usual. They'll assume the outside world is infection-free at the point the government tell them they don't have to stay at home anymore.

@Ninkanink not that I don't agree with the general theme of the thread re: people blindingly accepting the government's restrictions but you are wrong in saying that it is guidance, not rules nor law - that's why there was such a rush to pass relevant legislation.

the health protection (coronavirus restrictions) regulations 2020 does specify the restrictions and then exemptions (e.g food shopping). The below is for England but there is a slight variance - for example in the Welsh legislation it specifically says you can leave the house for exercise once per day only. So in some instances people are following very specific rules and law, not just over-interpreting vague guidance.

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/contents/made

Because in the first example, I have miniscule risk because it is driving up a road where there are no cars. In the second example I have no risk because i'm not getting in a car. I'd have to be some kind of super human being to crash a car that I'm not actually driving.

But here you're saying that 'the rules do not apply to me because ...inserts own personal reason...'

What if everyone said that?

It might be that you see no risk in your own personal situation and you might be right, but that's not the point. The rules must apply to apply to everyone equally, without loopholes.

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?

This is exactly the point I was making. When the rules allow people to go to a cinema, they will go. And good luck to them. But when those same rules say that they can go visit their elderly grandparents - they will be putting them at risk by blindly following the rules.

What would YOU do in that (extremely unlikely) situation? Maybe..not sit down and move somewhere else?

But the whole point is that you don't know how likely it is because you don't know what everyone else will decide to do unless we all follow the guidance we have been given. If you do move on somewhere else you are compounding the problem by driving even further.

Roll your eyes all you like but if the foremost medical experts are telling me not to drive and just to go out for exercise, then that's what I'm going to do.

I know what the relevant legislation is.

I’m talking about the lemming-brained people shouting about LAWS and RULES who have absolutely no understanding of them, and whose lack of functional capacity renders them incapable of grasping what the legislation actually means and further makes them hugely susceptible to conflating things like ‘essential shopping trips’ with ‘essential shopping items’.

I understand what you are saying.
It's about risk assessment, you need to do your own.
The problem with blindly following the rules is once the rules are lifted these people can't think for themselves and will be the ones infected straight away, rather than using common sense.
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
I won't be doing much once the law is lifted because I'm at risk, but not in the shielded group.
I think people need to look at if they want to catch it or not. If you are fit and healthy and want to take the risk, then that is fine.

But here you're saying that 'the rules do not apply to me because ...inserts own personal reason...

I'm not. Im actually saying the law doesn't prohibit me from doing that, and the rules are entirely made up. And that I have risk assessed my own actions in accordance with the law and made a choice.

It might be that you see no risk in your own personal situation and you might be right, but that's not the point. The rules must apply to apply to everyone equally, without loopholes.

It kind of is the point. If there is no risk in my own personal situation, that is exactly the point of doing what we're doing. The Law must apply to everyone equally. The 'rules' are guidelines to assist people in interpreting the law, aimed at the lowest common demoninator.

Michael Gove said that he thought 30 mins of exercise was reasonable. That has now been interpreted as 'THE RULES' by some. I went for a long walk the other day - I saw precisely no one. It would have made absolutely no difference if I'd gone for 30 mins or 6 hours. However, if I had done the same in a busy London park, then yes increasing the time I am outside increases the risk of me coming into contact with more people. In that situation - the 30 min guidance makes sense.

It's not a 'loophole' it is applying common sense to interpreting the law. Which I fear will continue be entirely absent in many when the law changes to relax the lockdown.

I agree OP and I don't know what can be done about it.

By driving anywhere you don't need to, you're taking a risk of an accident. Didn't stop Boris taking a drive to Chequers, from TV footage that involved 2 cars, I assume the 2nd car was security? Carrie Symonds was due to join him, I assume that was another journey. Are car journeys somehow safer for them?

It will probably be a staggered release - so no need to suggest that just because it’s loosened people will think they can do anything. I suspect restaurants, pubs, cafes - where people are more likely to gather and stay for a while will be fairly far down the list of non-essentials. May even be that visiting family may be some way off after starting to go back to work and school, especially if elderly/vulnerable are asked to shield for 12 full weeks.

"Other countries who locked down sooner have higher rates!"

Have you not been reading the news recently?! We are on track to have the highest death rate in Europe. Other countries currently have higher rates because they are further along in the epidemic than we are Countries that locked down early and tested assiduously have death rates 50 times lower than us. This was an avoidable catastrophe but for complacent and incompetent politicians. We now need to follow social distancing assiduously, not mindlessly follow rules when they make no sense locally. The lockdown is about bringing down transmission rates at population level, and this is what is happening. A sausage roll or 5min rest on your unpopulated daily walk make zero difference to this. We have a need - in fact a duty - to interpret the rules such as to minimise spread. I might be allowed in the supermarket daily but I'm not doing it, because its a high risk activity. A walk twice a day in Hackney, probably not good, indeed, maybe even try not to go every day. In a deserted area? Totally fine.

** Oh just to say I agree re. the lockdown being lifted and people thinking that means there's no risk. I'm not sure that I agree that there is a huge amount of room for people interpreting the rules in their own ways- whilst your risk assessment might be fine, other people will make their own very inaccurate risk assessment and if everyone is going against the government's rules then that could increase the spread during the peak.

The problem with blindly following the rules is once the rules are lifted these people can't think for themselves and will be the ones infected straight away, rather than using common sense. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

Exactly. I too will continue to apply the same precautions that I'm doing now to keep my family as safe as possible.

It’s not going against the rules!! In any way, shape or form. This is exactly what I’m talking about.