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.

Oh silly me. I didn't realise that we have to do our own 'risk assessment' and can simply disregard official rules which apply to every citizen.

OtterPotter if you live somewhere so remote that you could walk for six hours without seeing anyone then you are in a different position to most of us.

Most of us are having to live in communities in which we rely on everyone taking their own personal responsibility seriously. Of course we have to look at risk intelligently, but we also have to be aware that we are each a small part of a much bigger picture which is why we have to trust the guidance we are being given by the Chief Medical Officer and we have to trust each other to stick to the rules.

And that I have risk assessed my own actions in accordance with the law and made a choice.

On what basis have you done that risk assessment?

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

Why will this be assumed? It’ll be a gradual loosening of lockdown with lots of caution expressed, I expect! Some people will remain super cautious and some won’t care but doesn’t mean they think it is infection free.

Also, they are still trying to work out exactly how it is spread. Some have suggested it is not actually ‘smeared around’ - others have found it on things. Droplet spread and being in close contact, especially when sweating etc seem to be very significant. So large gatherings are unlikely to be allowed for quite some time even after lockdown is eased.

Yes, I think tbh it's actually worse than the way OP frames it because so many people don't actually know what the rules are. It's not the rules they're following, it's things they think are the rules.

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.

Yeah you're right, I do agree with you. A bit of common sense needed all round I think. I'm also aware of the curtain twitchers who may see someone doing something e.g. driving unnecessarily every day and think well if they can do it so will I. I can see how that can lead to a breakdown of discipline.

OP “ It is people like her who I am very worried about.”

Why? If she gets it, she gets it. What’s more concerning is her lack of judgment. Is that she got the letter, read “stay at home” and didn’t read the leaflet?

People are dumb. There are still flights arriving here from LA etc. You can go shopping daily for essentials and as long as your essentials are cigarettes, magazines and chocolate then it's all fine. If you can't make your own decisions to try and keep you family safe then best of luck to you.

I’m partly following “rules” because I can’t get fined or arrested, I can’t afford that.

I can’t do mum’s shopping for her because I don’t have a car. Otherwise I totally would.

That’s the whole point —They don’t have the capacity for reasoned application of guidelines within the law.

As evidenced on this thread. Which is going to become another avenue for more lemming-like freaking out about RULES which patently don’t exist.

I just don’t understand this post.

We are told to “stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives”.

Very simple advice.

Just get on with it. Don’t read between the lines, don’t make up your own rules about picnics in quiet spots, don’t assume everybody else except you will be too thick to understand life after lockdown.

I’m not vulnerable, nor are members of my family. We have a difficult time staying in because of my children’s learning disabilities. But we do stay at home to protect the NHS and thereby save lives.

Oh silly me. I didn't realise that we have to do our own 'risk assessment' and can simply disregard official rules which apply to every citizen

Once again - there is the law which applies to everyone. And then there is the government guidance on how to interpret that law. There are no 'official rules'. The law is about maintaining social distancing - and we can risk assess what that means in our individual situations.

So going for a walk through a busy park with your family of 5 who live in your house, including toddlers who want to pick stuff up off the ground or go over to strangers; and a single person going for a long walk on a hillside where they come into contact with no other human beings are BOTH allowed under the law. But one is inherently more risky than the other. If you cant see that, then you are kind of proving my point entirely.

When it is lifted I will go back to work (please god). I will go on public transport. I will be careful but it's inevitable that I will catch it at some point and so will my husband and kids.

I think you're party of the problem if you're interpreting the rules differently from everyone else even if you're not the lowest common denominator. If someone is ignorant and not able to make good risk assessments themselves some will blindly follow rules and then act dangerously after lockdown ends. Others won't follow the rules but will instead follow the example set by others. If you are setting an example of driving 10 minutes and walking your dog in a quiet place, others will follow by driving for 25 minutes and walking their dog off lead along a busy promenade. They won't understand the distinction between what you're doing and what they are doing. Your actions do have consequences - not fir you - but for others.

I live in a quiet, rural county but recognise the rules are a necessary collective action. It's not a lot to ask.

I think we'll see a series of rolling lockdowns to manage the flow. And I don't think this is being communicated adequately to people, there will be a lot of discontent once they realise this

This ^^

We have been told, many times, that we are all going to contract CV and that will build up immunity. We are in partial lockdown because if we all contract it at the same time the hospitals will not cope and people will die en mass.

The way I look at it is those who are in the shielded and vulnerable group will stay in when the Gov declare lock down is over. The young, fit, healthy ones will rush out to the pubs/clubs/supermarkets/cafes/parks and contract the virus. When enough people have contracted it and filled the hospitals partial lockdown (or even total lockdown, depending on the the crisis at that time) will happen again, and again. So everyone will get it but in stages. We are not locking down in hope the virus will go away. We are doing so to make sure (hope) we have enough hospital beds to cater for the influx in stages.

I think some people lack critical thinking. It’s just different personalities.

Otter potter but people are yelled at on here for saying that something isn't advisable because it isn't against the law. As far as many on MN believe, they only need to follow the law rather than any guidelines.

Why? If she gets it, she gets it. Because she can spread it to other people when she believes its within the rules to do so. Its the other people I'm worried about, not her.

Just get on with it. Don’t read between the lines, don’t make up your own rules about picnics in quiet spots, don’t assume everybody else except you will be too thick to understand life after lockdown.

It's the people who are making up their own rules that I am concerned will be too thick to understand why those rules are nonsense, and therefore by extension too thick to understand life after lockdown will still be risky.

@Loveisland - that’s your prerogative. You can apply the ‘rules’ however best fits your family situation.

That doesn’t mean that others aren’t also free to consider nuance, complexity and extenuating circumstances and come to their own application of the guidelines within the law.

I will be trying to follow the lockdown rules as much as possible once it's lifted.

I will do this until a vaccine is produced.

I am in my 60s and therefore more at risk.

I am able to work from home anyway, self employed, and I live rurally so can get out to exercise and I have a garden.

I will not be going to pubs, cafe, places that are busy until there has been a huge change in how we deal with it.

@TeensArghhhh exactly.

So maybe we can hope that the guidance is really clearly communicated that despite partial lifting of lockdown - the vulnerable remain vulnerable and those who are free to do more normal things must maintain their distance from those who are not.

It is that messaging that worries me. I sincerely hope that is is properly communicated. It would be utterly tragic for our elderly families to have gone through 12 weeks of isolation, with their militant relatives shouting at everyone for breaking their made up rules, only for those same relatives to catch it and bring it home to their relatives because the rules said they could. And yes, I do know people like this.

OP “ Because she can spread it to other people when she believes its within the rules to do so. Its the other people I'm worried about, not her.“

Yes, but the government plan is not to stop it spreading ever, it’s to control the spread.

So if the pubs are open and she goes, she could spread it but it will be “allowed” by then - hence the pub will be open. So I can’t see what the issue is.

OP “ communicated. It would be utterly tragic for our elderly families to have gone through 12 weeks of isolation, with their militant relatives shouting at everyone for breaking their made up rules, only for those same relatives to catch it and bring it home to their relatives because the rules said they could. And yes, I do know people like this.”

This is more an argument why I should be able to see my elderly mum now. What do you expect people to do? Not see elderly family till there a vaccine, and oops, look, mum died alone while she waited?

I think what the lockdown has shown is how so many people have so few inner resources to cope.

It also perhaps shows how the nation's favourite hobby- shopping- has taken up so much time and prominence in people's lives when they can't do it .

I fully appreciate how hard it is for people with children cooped up if they are in a flat.

But at the same time, it's also an opportunity for people to do things that mean investing in themselves- reading, learning stuff online, talking to friends or writing to them.

We are still allowed out, it's not as if anyone had to stay at home 24/7.

I get angry and frustrated that people are making such a fuss about something that is going to last perhaps no more than 6 weeks in total when really, it's not that bad.

It's the people who are making up their own rules that I am concerned will be too thick to understand why those rules are nonsense, and therefore by extension too thick to understand life after lockdown will still be risky.

Yes. It’s always the way. There really are a lot of people who do not have enough critical faculty to properly and safely navigate it. And they cause quite a lot of problems for the rest of it, across all levels of society (but that’s a discussion for another thread).

I’ll continue to safeguard my and my family’s household(s) and we’ll likely be okay as we can all work from home for the foreseeable future. Everyone else will have to navigate it the best way they know or understand how, for better or worse. Many people will die, sadly that much is inevitable.

But this thread is just going to turn into a big bun fight now. 🙄🙄