Could you have done a DC and 'reasonably' broken lockdown BUT DIDN'T?

[Greenpoppins]

I've had families in my child's class who had covid, friends who have suffered suicides in the family, people who couldn't see partners before they died and then were alone in flats, I've felt my mental health being severely affected BUT we all stuck to lockdown.

People being approached by the police for sitting on the grass when they are stuck in gardenless flats. Mothers having to have pregnancy scans alone. Care workers going to work with no PPE. The sacrifice of everyday people has been HUGE.

Under DCs logic could you have 'reasonably' not followed 'Stay at Home'? I think I could have, but I didn't because it was the right thing to do.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dominic-cummings-statement-speech-transcript-durham-full-text-read-lockdown-a9531856.html

I suspect everyone could have done.

I had to send my daughter to stay with my mum when I was admitted to hospital, non covid related though, and my mum drove me to hosptial. There was no alternative though. So yes I broke lockdown for that but felt it was reasonable.

His reason for doing as he did was for childcare if they both became unwell. I had Covid and am a single mother so I got on with it with 2 DC. I'm sure many of us did. When I was admitted to hospital the DC's dad came and looked after them at my house then left as soon as I was discharged. He lives with his mum so wanted to minimise risk to her.

I guess that was their choice if they suffered a loss whether by suicide or illness and didn’t want to see their family for comfort or attend a funeral. You would need to weigh up the risks of your mental health against risk factor. You don’t get that time back to say goodbye to a loved one nor do you get a medal for sticking to lockdown during a bereavement. As long as they are happy with their decision that’s fine but others may not feel that way in the same circumstances.

If I had access to a self-contained property to isolate in where, in the event of me and DH becoming incapacitated by illness, and with family nearby in a very low risk group who could provide childcare then I most definitely would have driven there to self-isolate.

I didn't have the illness and I don't have access to such a property but I would have done the same. The rules do provide for it.

Both my dh and I were ill at the same time. Would genuinely not have crossed my mind to break the rules.

On account of not being a psychopath and not wanting to infect other people!

Had dcs to care for, I should add.

I don't have access to the kind of resources dc has, but I managed to shop around and get food delivered from Iceland as I couldn't get my usual Tesco slot.

I really, really don't believe that Cummings couldn't have found a way to get hold of food in London without putting his family members or strangers at risk.

There have been quite a few suicidal posters on MN and social media as lockdown wore on. I and a few others suggested they do what they needed to survive (i.e. to avoid their certain death over an extremely unlikely covid transmission), such as extra socially distanced walks or visits from non shielding family.

However I noticed that there were an awful lot of people who seemed to think it was better that a suicidal person continue to remain in the conditions which were making them on the verge of ending their life.

The rules were never the issue. The rules had exceptions for emergency and/or exigent circumstances such as that, the problem is that extemely vocal lockdown puritans decided that there were no exceptions and that some certain deaths were better than some theoretical deaths.

It was the madness of crowds.

Not me, but I've heard a lot of radio stories. People phoning up to explain about someone vulnerable in their family or the stress they were going to have worried about looking after someone they routinely look after.

A common one is someone who started Lockdown with enough support but then the support fell apart & now they were struggling, were they now "vulnerable enough" that the rules needed to be bent for them (or seen to be bent, since we now know it's fine to 'follow your instincts' ).

Lady you didn't. She travelled to provide care. Within guidelines. Also where necessary. Within guidelines. It's very different to travelling in case you needed care.
I hope you are feeling better now.

And yes, I could have broken it. When I had suspected covid. When I was laying for 3 days on my lounge floor struggling to breathe whilst my disabled ds was receiving barely adequate care.
But the guidelines were clear. STAY AT HOME.

@NotEverythingIsBlackandWhite

Then you would have driven between the two, gone out for a trip to a nearby town, used local facilities?

@llijk if someone was vulnerable it was always acceptable to help them. You didn't need a special exceptional justification, just common sense

Is that like Rees Mogg's definition of 'common sense'?

@YeOldeTrout it was a clearly stated exception to the rules that was repeated many times. Did you somehow miss it?

Dh and I likely had it. Temperature, persistent cough, chest pain, breathlessness despite being reasonably fit. We stayed at home looking after our 5 year old and almost 2 year old as best we could. We certainly wouldn't have taken our germs to our over 70 parents.

My grandmother died at the start. I didn't go to the funeral as was self isolating due to symptoms. My mum is on her own, depressed (was her mum). My dad is dead. I haven't done the 2 hour trip to see her since lockdown started.

My own mental health has really struggled with this. Haven't broken the rules even though I had to phone my GP in desperation.

Ky you are right. It was always acceptable to help someone vulnerable. It was never acceptable to travel to a second home, travel with symptoms when you should be isolating and driving to sit by a riverbank because it's your wife birthday.

@itsgettingweird lucky that's not what i said then isn't it!

Yes when he announced the lockdown I could have driven to wales and grabbed my daughter bought her home the last few weeks would have been so much easier for me less so for her but no we stuck to the rules still do

I feel like a right idiot now I need her back home for childcare reasons and because this is her home her primary address icould have shopped without taking her siblings (caused major stress on them they have special needs) I could have had my blood taken earlier honestly it would have been way better than staying home and saving lives like an obedient twat that I am

Eh? It is what you said. "It's always acceptable to help someone vulnerable". I literally copy and pasted your post.
I then added extra which wasn't. That was my words. I didn't attribute them to you

And I said you were right. It's a worry time when you are arguing with people who agree with you.

My children are teenagers now, but if this had happened when I had a four and one year old. I would have made the same decision as DC because I had no family within two hundred miles that could have helped..... and I am a very law abiding, rule follower!

We have heard just how quickly this virus can make you deteriote so planning ahead before you both potentially become incapable of looking after your child/ren seems sensible to me. You wouldn't want to risk child neglect.

All my local friends have parents and siblings living in the streets around them to call on. They will never understand the fear of being truly on your own with your childcare.

It was not an emergency though. Nobody was 'at risk'. He did not investigate any provision for childcare that would have enabled him to 'stay at home'. He put lots of people 'at risk' by making such a journey from an area with a high incidence to an area with a lower incidence.

He also has family who live in London so is not really 'alone'.