People having family and friends visit

[BackInTime]

Why do some people think that it's ok to have friends and family over? That they are special and the rules do not apply to them. So infuriating and an insult to those of us who are missing seeing our loved ones.

@onlyfoolsnmothers
Great explanation

But this thread is about visiting family, which for many is not posing that much of an increased risk

But it is still an avoidable risk and if everyone decides their WANTS outweigh the risk that they clearly don't understand then there is no lockdown and the virus is allowed to spread to the point of overwhelming hospitals.

But it is still an avoidable risk and if everyone decides their WANTS outweigh the riskthat they clearly don't understandthen there is no lockdown and the virus is allowed to spread to the point of overwhelming hospitals
I think unfortunately people can keep saying this over and over others r just not going to get ot accept it

What a lot of entitled fuckwits some people are these days.

"I am an adult, I have weighed the risks because I know more than every scientist, and so I am going to do exactly what I want to do just because I want to."

God help us all.

I don't know what's worse anymore the covidiots or the covigilantes...

Or the ones using words like 'covidiot' and 'covigilantes' 🙄

Yanbu op, it's not fair. I miss my friends terribly (one only lives a 3 minute walk away and our boys are good friends too) but I'm doing what's asked of me.

majesticallyawkward Nope. Those two are risking everyone else they contact and everyone else they contact ...
So one of those people is infected, they infect the person they meet. Both then are potentially infecting everyone else they come into contact with- people in shops, deliveries, shared spaces- who then pass it along to everyone they come into contact with and so on.

But the risk of inadvertently passing it on in a shop (or wherever) is the same. The difference is that someone with a whole family at home will also be exposing their household members to the virus (and exposing them to a much higher viral load), whereas the two single people will not.

In New Zealand they do actually allow single people to pair up and visit each other, presumably due to the risk of psychological harm from total isolation.

Also people can take risk into account. Eg. There's someone I'd like to meet - if we do we will both fully self-isolate for a week first. And this is in the context of actually being advised to stay with someone for a few days for mental health reasons. Unlike my neighbours who are just having people over (and all coughing away! )

Because they are idiots and dont think the rules apply to them.

I don't get what part of avoidable risk isn't getting through? For most it's unavoidable being in contact with anyone you live with, its avoidable being in contact with someone you don't. See the difference?

But by all means carry believing and justifying why the rules don't apply to you because you're special.

If everyone carries out this same risk assessment everyone will have a reason it ok for them too.

They are reporting on TV that Dominic Raab visited Boris Johnson at Chequers last week for a meeting. Couldn't they have done that over the internet? was it avoidable?

majesticallyawkward

But there are other risks to weigh up. What about children going between parents houses? Clearly it's been decided that the risk is worth it. What about people who need care? Escaping dometic abuse? Etc. Forcing already mentally unwell humans into isolation carries risk.

It is clear that hospitals and care homes are now the infection reservoirs. Workers coming and going taking the virus into society. Perhaps thought should be given to having these workers remain on site.

@TabbyMumz

Doesn't really mean much coming from you, seeing as you think the doctors and nurses treating people with covid are idiots if they smoke or have a tattoo.

But the guidelines have to be drafted in a very black and white manner, because everyone has very different circumstances and risk profiles. If the guidelines tried to cover every possible scenario they’d be 400 odd pages long!

This , combined with the existence of CFs and the fact that not everyone is able to effectively risk assess for themselves as they are not trained in applying general rules to varying sets of facts taking account nuances etc. means that the government must massively oversimplify everything.

The guidelines aren’t even really backed by particularly string enforcement measures, if you look at the underlying legislation.

@fools all of those have already been addressed. That doesn't mean everyone can then decide the rules don't apply to them for whatever tedious reason they decide is 'worth it' because they fancy a meet up with a friend.

I was chatting to the cashier in Tesco's and he said that at first, when the store introduced social distancing, people really adhered to it. He says now is is basically a free for all, and he was right. They control how you go in, how you pay and how you exit, but nothing else. I suspect a lot of people are relaxing their behaviour in the same way.

Naturalbornkiller.....I didnt say the word idiots, I said I think less of them and that smokers are stupid and horrid.

It's their choice and you are free to make yours. Live your life and do what you feel is right.

It's their choice and you are free to make yours. Live your life and do what you feel is right.

Its all well and good if this virus didnt spread without people knowing they have it, because u can spread it when u go shop and someone who is keeping to the rules/guildlines can get it through no fault of their own. Pure selfishness

It's their choice and you are free to make yours. Live your life and do what you feel is right.

In that case anyone who feels they don't have to follow guidance and can do what they want should be able to declare it so those who have followed the guidance and been infected by them can get priority medical care.... because we are in this 'lockdown' so the hospitals can cope