Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

To not blame people for minor social distancing rule breaks

53 replies

Cornana · 06/06/2020 18:28

Whilst I wouldn’t support a large party, AIBU to not judge people for the following?

  • letting kids play together
  • seeing partner who lives in another household
  • not always being 2m’s away on walks with another household

etc...

I don’t know if I AIBU and it’s irrelevant to me as my family and friends all live miles away as I just relocated before all this. I haven’t gotten the chance to make new friends in my community, so not many opportunities for me to go out regardless...

OP posts:
MotherWol · 07/06/2020 11:50

YANBU, I think a lot of people are struggling with the loneliness and exhaustion at the moment, and I understand why they’re finding it hard to stick to the rules.

DH and I have both been WFH since the week before lockdown, we’ve not seen anyone other than the postman and the Tesco delivery driver for 3 months. Neither of us have been sick. DD is 4 and an only child, I have depression and have been struggling with my mental health. Yesterday I visited my parents with DD, in their home. I hadn’t seen them since Christmas; of course I gave them a hug! if DD goes back to nursery we’re likely to stay away from them for a while as our risk of exposure will increase, but right now the risk is minimal, I’m going to take that chance.

BirdieFriendReturns · 07/06/2020 11:56

I’ve stayed over at my parents house. And hugged my MiL.

SueEllenMishke · 07/06/2020 11:59

I completely agree. We allowed our DS to play with our friends children yesterday. Both families have been working from home, having shopping delivered and have stuck to the guidelines.
The risk was extremely minimal and the positive impact on my only child DS who knows he's not returning to school until September was worth it.

Moose42 · 07/06/2020 12:06

YABU to feel how you feel, but I don’t think I’m unreasonable to be angry at those same rule breakers. I’ve not seen my parents and siblings (who I am very close to) for 3 months. I’ve missed birthdays, funerals, and other significant events. I’ve followed the rules. I’ve felt like it’s the responsible thing to do, and I’m an NHS scientist testing for Covid so I feel like I have some knowledge and understanding on why the rules are important. It’s not about personal risk (I have one friend who I think thinks I’m scared of catching it...I’m not) but about preventing the spread.

So it makes me perhaps irrationally angry that some people have been to stay with their boyfriends/girlfriends of maybe a year who they weren’t serious enough to move in with for a few months, when I haven’t seen my mother of 30+ years in that time. I think for those of us who do feel like they’ve sacrificed a lot to protect the general public, it’s a real kick in the teeth to see selfies on social media of these couples cuddling.

PaddlingPoolAgain · 07/06/2020 12:31

Moose42 So it makes me perhaps irrationally angry that some people have been to stay with their boyfriends/girlfriends of maybe a year who they weren’t serious enough to move in with for a few months, when I haven’t seen my mother of 30+ years in that time.

It's not that easy to just up and move in with someone for an indefinite period of time. House size, especially if working from home, children, pets, home insurance being invalid if youre away too long... And really, what difference does it make to be two sepaate households rather than one bigger one?

And there's no need for sneeing that these relationships aren't "serious". Some people do actually take their relationships seriously by NOT rushing to move in, by taking things slowly and carefully, especially if there are children involved.

I say this as someone who hasn't seen my family since Christmas (was about to visit when they started saying no unnecessary travel) and have no idea when I'm going to see them again. But I can understand that people miss partners and friends more, if they are used to seeing them more than families who live far away.

Drivingdownthe101 · 07/06/2020 12:37

"oh but I want to see my Granny cos I love her so much I'm willing to take a chance on infecting her". If I were Granny I'd be really pissed off by that. I'm surprised there haven't been cases of Granny beating relatives with a stick

Well I assuming those granny’s are allowing their family to visit! If they didn’t want them there they wouldn’t have to let them in...

We went to see my grandma last week. She was desperate to see us after losing her husband 2 weeks before lockdown and not having seen anyone in that time. We saw her in her garden, took our own drinks and stayed 2m away at all times. Completely within the rules and it really cheered her up.

BirdieFriendReturns · 07/06/2020 12:40

TBH, I’m not bothered what an anonymous person on the internet thinks.

MadameMarie · 07/06/2020 12:40

I can no longer blame anyone for thinking 'sod it' after the scenes this week.

Moose42 · 07/06/2020 12:44

@PaddlingPoolAgain

Moose42 So it makes me perhaps irrationally angry that some people have been to stay with their boyfriends/girlfriends of maybe a year who they weren’t serious enough to move in with for a few months, when I haven’t seen my mother of 30+ years in that time.

It's not that easy to just up and move in with someone for an indefinite period of time. House size, especially if working from home, children, pets, home insurance being invalid if youre away too long... And really, what difference does it make to be two sepaate households rather than one bigger one?

And there's no need for sneeing that these relationships aren't "serious". Some people do actually take their relationships seriously by NOT rushing to move in, by taking things slowly and carefully, especially if there are children involved.

I say this as someone who hasn't seen my family since Christmas (was about to visit when they started saying no unnecessary travel) and have no idea when I'm going to see them again. But I can understand that people miss partners and friends more, if they are used to seeing them more than families who live far away.

I’ll apologise for my tone there, because I know I’m projecting about a couple of people I know in real life. I understand that everyone can’t just move in, but the people I know have no children or extra complications and by choosing to mix households, they’re putting parents and people in high risk categories at risk. As well as one of them going out to work in a school.

I understand everything you’ve said and I probably shouldn’t have posted while I’m feeling emotional. I’m just finding it hard at the moment. I miss my family a lot, and I find it upsetting to see some not making the same sacrifices that I have. I know people in serious, live-apart relationships who haven’t broken the rules too, so I’m guessing they must find it hard to see those who have posting their happy pics on social media as well.

Lilybet1980 · 07/06/2020 12:55

The point is the more people you mix with the higher your chances are of catching the virus.

A lot of people say now (some) schools are (partially) back then surely it makes no difference if I catch up with some friends indoors. But it does. Maybe not to you individually but if everyone did that then the overall impact on the R rate would be huge. The modelling allows for the impact of the partial reopening of schools. It does not allow for everyone to go over to their family or friends house for a cup of tea indoors.

Each slight easing of lockdown has an impact which is why it’s about small incremental steps.

I don’t have an issue with children having play dates with kids in their school bubble, as long as the parents socially distance. But I would be pretty pissed off if my child is being exposed to more risk because the other kids in their bubble are mixing with more children.

BogRollBOGOF · 07/06/2020 12:56

YANBU

People need to risk assess the situation.
In the last week of May there were 9 cases in my city, a rate of 3.5 cases per 100,000 people. 6 of those were a cluster identified through a workplace so a seperate 3.

The chances of my family and I being exposed sufficiently to form a risk while WFH and off school, when the greatest hazard is a weekly visit to the supermarket is pretty darn low. By age and health our risks are low.

I risk greater damage to my children by enforcing unnatural interractions on them that have to be unlearned again when normality resumes, particularly on my child with ASD who took a long time to form social connections and is prone to anxiety.

The more close interactions you have, the risk increases.
The poorer the ventilation and the closer the contact, the risk increases.

There are more hazards to human wellbeing than Covid 19 and months of isolation and being sedentary is pretty damaging to long term mental and physical health.

BogRollBOGOF · 07/06/2020 13:02

DH probably won't see his DM this year (high risk age/ health, long distance). It would be very unreasonable to ban all visits to mothers just because he can't.

I listen to my neighbours sensibly having family over. It jarrs because their circumstances are different to mine and I haven't seen DM for nearly 4 months. But griping and judging their circumstances would not bring me happiness. Good for them that they don't have to miss their family.

PaddlingPoolAgain · 07/06/2020 13:08

Moose42 Huh! Here I am, pissed of with lockdown and spoiling for a a fight, and you have to go and be all reasonable! Grin

It's shit, isn't it, seeing people break the rules where it doesn't seem necessary, whilst others are doing their bit and missing out as a result. As I said upthread, I don't blame minor infringements where people are being sensible and there's a real need, but so many cases are not like that.

I hope it's not too long until you can see your loved ones again. Flowers

PaddlingPoolAgain · 07/06/2020 13:17

Lilybet The modelling allows for the impact of the partial reopening of schools. It does not allow for everyone to go over to their family or friends house for a cup of tea indoors.

Right. But this means they've made the decision that schools going back is more important than other things. I'm not sure I agree with that decision, especially as kids are mixing in groups of 10-15; it's quite a leap to connect 15 households. Whereas allowing the joining of two households would mean less risk of infection/spread, surely? Especially if it was limitied to those most in need of this, ie. single-person households, or where there are care issues (although arguably that's already covered).

Lilybet1980 · 07/06/2020 13:28

You’re right PaddlingPool, the decision was made to prioritise education. Although you can question whether it was really education or helping people back to work that was the real driver.

I think care issues are factored in too. As is a % compliance with social distancing rules, % that have to use public transport for work, etc. There are numerous factors.

Lweji · 07/06/2020 15:21

Speaking as someone who understands disease transmission, there's no reason not to see someone for 3 months. You can still see them, outdoors, and at a fairly safe distance.

Most chains of transmission involve close contacts, indoors, and for a significant time, or lots of contacts (health personnel).
Meeting parents outdoor for a 30 min chat every two weeks, particularly with the wind blowing away from both of you, won't pose a risk to them.

People have been seeing their parents to support them. Just make sure you take measures to avoid transmission.
As much as I was in favour of lockdown to stop the exponential growth, I'm very much in favour of regaining relationships, as safely as possible.

PaddlingPoolAgain · 07/06/2020 15:40

Lweji Speaking as someone who understands disease transmission, there's no reason not to see someone for 3 months. You can still see them, outdoors, and at a fairly safe distance.

This is really bothering me in terms of the easing of social restrictions. It's presented as good news, a concession to social needs, but realistically we could have been doing it all along, as far as transmission risk goes! Why were we denied that?

Lweji · 07/06/2020 15:58

It wasn't forbidden, IIRC.
Some people seem to have taken rules far too strictly.
People were still taking shopping to elderly relatives and staying apart.

The thing is that, you want people to take things seriously when infections are rising fast.
You also don't want people who might be infected travelling to low infection areas.

But even with blanket rules, you can still be safe and keep some contact with loved ones. Just not arm reach contact.

PaddlingPoolAgain · 07/06/2020 16:53

Lweji The original rules said you could only leave your home for specific reasons. Obviously if you were dropping shopping off with someone you might as well have a chat, but you weren't supposed to meet up just to chat. Although I don't blame anyone who did!

I just feel like we've been gaslighted by the government - announcing a change in restrictions that either wasn't or shouldn't have been a restriction in the first place. Acting like we've been given something when we really haven't.

Cornana · 07/06/2020 17:09

Thank you for the replies- it is interesting, on Twitter and Facebook, anyone who mentions going within 2m’s gets ripped to shreds. There is certainly a lot more people who not in favour of lockdown on Mumsnet. That interests me greatly!

OP posts:
PaddlingPoolAgain · 07/06/2020 17:22

Thing is, OP, it's not just "lockdown" or "no lockdown". An awful lot of people just want certain amendments to the rules, whilst still understanding the need for restrictions in other areas.
Outside of MN I've been torn to shreds for suggesting there should be some minor social changes for the hardest hit, and it's been treated as if I've suggested there should be no precautions and let people die. Really vicious personal attacks too.

SnuggyBuggy · 07/06/2020 17:59

Like many issues it's become polarised

Elieza · 07/06/2020 18:09

I can visit family without bending or breaking the rules. That’s what I will be doing. Good for the mental health of all concerned. Don’t need to be indoors or under 2m apart to feel pleased to see them.

Yes I’d like to hug my mum or go in her house but I couldn’t live with myself if she got CV as I would blame myself, even if it came from some other source. I’d have to live with her death on my conscience for ever.

I know two people who have died of it.
One who survived.
All unrelated living miles apart incidentally and I’d not seen them in at least a month prior.

CV is real. It does kill.

wanderings · 07/06/2020 19:58

YANBU. Imposing social distancing was a knee-jerk reaction, and it's the biggest thing that's preventing normality. Entire sectors of industry are unable to work because of it. But the govt don't want to ease it, because they don't want to climb down. They're even reluctant to reduce it from 2m.

@PaddlingPoolAgain You're absolutely right: the whole thing has been a massive GASLIGHTING exercise, which all forms part of the 1984 handbook for future governments, and which would make Humphrey Appleby from Yes Minister proud. "The public do not ha a right to know, they have a right to be ignorant. Knowledge only means complicity in guilt; ignorance has a certain dignity."

Some of the granted "freedoms" have been merely allowing what people started to do anyway, such as travelling for exercise. Also these "guidelines" are unenforceable, as there simply aren't the resources; which is why I expect they're called guidelines, rather than rules. The police hung a few people out to dry early on (no doubt on Boris's order) to make it look as if they had the power. Gaslighting.

The government has been gaslighting us from the start, including with their early stance of "there's nothing to worry about", while they hoped it would go away. I'm guessing that part of the govt strategy is to wait for people to break social distancing anyway, all the while peddling the fabled second spike like a bogeyman, so they can say "we told you so". I suspect that when this second spike doesn't happen in three weeks' time (and I think it might easily be as mythical as Bliar's weapons of mass destruction), especially after the protests and so on, then somebody might say "actually, social distancing might not be as effective as we thought; it's a massive inconvenience, we could get rid of it". They might also announce certain easing of restrictions earlier than they originally said, so they can appear to be reasonable. I'm sure allowing six people to gather came earlier than they wanted, but they had to because people were angry about Cummings.

Likewise, the "allowing schools back" a week ago was a token gesture, knowing full well that many people were not ready yet, so they can say later "well, we tried to let the schools back in June, but parents/teachers/unions refused to co-operate".

I think the biggest problem is that Boris won't ever hold up his hands and say "actually, we were wrong"; about Cummings, starting lockdown late, etc. They don't want to be seen to climb down from anything; they want people to break rules themselves, so they're throwing temptation at us, while concentrating on what they can control, such as forcibly keeping businesses shut.

It's this top-down approach of a national lockdown and universal social distancing which is causing the greatest mayhem. We need to bite the bullet and say "enough is enough"; some of us feel we're being kept alive like lab animals for a very miserable existence. I'm in favour of local lockdowns where needed if it means more freedom for the rest.

And again, I'm mystified as to why there has been so little protest about lockdown, and the government's underhand tactics and incompetence. We're angry about things happening 5000 miles away, but for some reason many people are totally on board with this massive state-sponsored knee-jerk strategy which is set to destroy a large number of lives in other ways. We need to get angry about this, before Her Majesty's clowns totally screw us over.

Pebblexox · 07/06/2020 20:15

Honestly I'm prepared to be butchered for this, but I've broken the rules.
I've allowed my 17 month dd to hug her grandparents. (My mum and mil/fil). She was getting too confused and upset at seeing people and going up to them, for them to walk away from her. I also couldn't keep her away as I truly believe this age is too important for bonding and forming relationships.
I can understand people who have made decisions based on their own personal circumstances, and I wouldn't judge due to myself making certain decisions.

Swipe left for the next trending thread