'People have relaxed too much' .... have they?

[SqidgeBum]

This evening Deputy Chief medic Van Tam said the rise in cases were because 'people have relaxed too much' and we all need to take things more seriously. This has made me a bit angry to be honest. I am of the camp who doesnt understand how the shops, restaurants, and pubs can open and the government actively encourage us all to get out and spend, the schools open and we are told its safe, and people are being encouraged to go back on tubes and buses to offices, but its then somehow OUR fault when cases rise.

Was this not inevitable? Did the government not know this would happen as a result of opening things up? I feel pretty peeved that the public are being made out to be the bad guys when we are acting on government advice.

What do people think? Have people become too lax?

@GabsAlot

i dont think witty and van tam ever agreed to opening everythng back up they were overruled and now when they say its getting worse people are wondering why

our government has let us down over all this too many mixed messages and not strong enough enforcment-who exactly are they fining the police cant do anything unless its a mass illegal public gathering

Whitty and Van Tam aren’t elected representatives. They don’t get to decide anything. All they do is advise and the government the British public voted for - and let’s not forget they knew what they were voting for as they kept telling us wrt Brexit - make the decisions.

@DianaT1969

I think he means too lax about social distancing indoors with guests and extended families. As young people are getting it, he is presumably saying they are too lax with social distancing. The examples you mentioned - public transport, sitting outside a coffee shop or pub and going to an office - I can do all that and keep around 1 metre distance, limit my time next to strangers, keep a mask on to limit risk of passing infection to others. The huge raves, crowds of protestors with no masks, families extended families socialising indoors. That's the type of thing that is avoidable. Some work places, such as chilled food factories carry more risk than others.

Well said, I fully agree. But it seems huge numbers of people can't understand the difference. They fail to grasp that the longer you're with another person (workplace, cafe, house, etc), the greater your risk of increased viral load - i.e. more likely to catch it and more likely for it to be serious. Also, the more people you meet, you're increasing your risk of catching it - meet 1 person, chances very low they'll be infectious so you'll probably be ok - meet 10 people, far more chance at least 1 of them will be infectious so your risk is increased massively.

I can't understand the stupidity of some people, especially those who justify their own actions because of the actions of random other people. What the hell has that got to do with anything? Would they murder someone just because they knew someone else who'd murdered someone? It defies all logic. Yet we have people here and other SM who say their next door neighbour had a party so they're going to have a party - it unbelievable how some people twist things just to justify their own stupid actions.

@Egghead68 how can you say shutting down does not affect the economy , i lost my job due to covid and I am finding it very difficult to get another one
Its basic economics that if you shut loads of hospitality people won't have a job or money to pay bills rent etc
Do you think none of these places pr employees pay taxes which in turn go towards the nhs etc
You cant think shutting down a whole industry would have no negative impact on an economy as well as on the individuals

There's a lot of 'because X is ok, I'm going to do Y'

This

And this too

it seems huge numbers of people can't understand the difference. They fail to grasp that the longer you're with another person (workplace, cafe, house, etc), the greater your risk of increased viral load - i.e. more likely to catch it and more likely for it to be serious. Also, the more people you meet, you're increasing your risk of catching it - meet 1 person, chances very low they'll be infectious so you'll probably be ok - meet 10 people, far more chance at least 1 of them will be infectious so your risk is increased massively.

DD is in school and says her peers who were all SD very carefully when back in June/July (in a class of no more than 15, each at individual desks with space in between) are now hugging and touching because 'we're all sitting right next to each other so we might as well'.

The risk reduction in her school has been massively scaled back (due to lack of money - they had extra staff and used outdoor space in June/July) but cases are actually higher.

Unfortunately, rather than people thinking 'we're taking a lot more risks now, let's make sure we reduce risks elsewhere' everyone seems to have given up. And we see the result.

The problem is that the government is trying to do behavior modification on a mass scale.

But behavior modification (kind of like dog training) needs consistency and simplicity, and they have managed neither.

Too many mixed messages. Too many changes in too short a period of time. It's not surprising that then people en-mass draw different conclusions about what it's OK to do.

I have a lot of sympathy with the thought process of any 20 year old who says "well, by 17 year old brother is in close contact with up to 1,500 people in a day at school, so it makes sense that I can have a party with 30 mates". She shouldn't do it, but I can understand the rationale.

[Also, for those saying "cases are going up but its because there is more testing" - yes, that is true, but the concern is that the R number is now consistently above 1 meaning we will start to shoot up that curve again, regardless of whether we can compare the actual number of cases in April to the number in October]

If people live in a society where murder is commonplace and life is cheap, yes on a societal level they do start to attach less value to it themselves. Doesn't mean any given individual will murder someone because they know others have done it, but it means some given individuals do who wouldn't have otherwise.

Humans are influenced by what's around them. It's just how we are.

@SqidgeBum

This evening Deputy Chief medic Van Tam said the rise in cases were because 'people have relaxed too much' and we all need to take things more seriously. This has made me a bit angry to be honest. I am of the camp who doesnt understand how the shops, restaurants, and pubs can open and the government actively encourage us all to get out and spend, the schools open and we are told its safe, and people are being encouraged to go back on tubes and buses to offices, but its then somehow OUR fault when cases rise.

Was this not inevitable? Did the government not know this would happen as a result of opening things up? I feel pretty peeved that the public are being made out to be the bad guys when we are acting on government advice.

What do people think? Have people become too lax?

Completely agree, people have relaxed exactly how the press and government have manipulated them.

There are probably 10% of conspiracy theorists doing their own thing, 70% who can largely be manipulated by the government and 20% who can see what’s happening and feel a bit sick.

Press is changing this week though, think 1-2 weeks away from a u turn. Hopefully shielding will be back soon. So annoyed to keep hearing how people are shielding anyway so no need to bring it back.

Only the middle classes with no school aged children can afford to do this. Everyone else is being thrown to the wolves. Think we all just need to protect ourselves as best as we can.

[quote Notfeelinggreattoday]@Egghead68 how can you say shutting down does not affect the economy , i lost my job due to covid and I am finding it very difficult to get another one
Its basic economics that if you shut loads of hospitality people won't have a job or money to pay bills rent etc
Do you think none of these places pr employees pay taxes which in turn go towards the nhs etc
You cant think shutting down a whole industry would have no negative impact on an economy as well as on the individuals [/quote]
Not saying it doesn’t at all and I’m sorry about your job. However, prolonging the pandemic by not shutting down at the right time arguably affects the economy to the same extent or more.

There’s been little difference to the hit to the economy in Sweden (which did not lock down) compared to the rest of Scandinavia (which did).

I also think our economy needs to adapt to increased homeworking, with more jobs in hone delivery work etc rather than city centre sandwich bars.

Press is changing this week though, think 1-2 weeks away from a u turn. Hopefully shielding will be back soon. So annoyed to keep hearing how people are shielding anyway so no need to bring it back.

Only the middle classes with no school aged children can afford to do this. Everyone else is being thrown to the wolves. Think we all just need to protect ourselves as best as we can

Exactly. I got a lecture from my GP last week who was shocked that I am back at work (previously shielded) including asking me if I knew how dangerous this was for me, but what are we supposed to do? Government paused shielding and told us to go back to work. What other option is there?

Gas lighting government since Cummings is it in a nutshell.

@OLGADEEPOLGA

Gas lighting government since Cummings is it in a nutshell.

Stop using the Cummings excuse. People were breaking the guidelines and ignoring precautions before Cummings.

@TheLastStarfighter

The problem is that the government is trying to do behavior modification on a mass scale.

But behavior modification (kind of like dog training) needs consistency and simplicity, and they have managed neither.

Too many mixed messages. Too many changes in too short a period of time. It's not surprising that then people en-mass draw different conclusions about what it's OK to do.

I have a lot of sympathy with the thought process of any 20 year old who says "well, by 17 year old brother is in close contact with up to 1,500 people in a day at school, so it makes sense that I can have a party with 30 mates". She shouldn't do it, but I can understand the rationale.

[Also, for those saying "cases are going up but its because there is more testing" - yes, that is true, but the concern is that the R number is now consistently above 1 meaning we will start to shoot up that curve again, regardless of whether we can compare the actual number of cases in April to the number in October]

But the R number isn’t a useful figure unless you test the entire population (or the same representative sample) each week.

We have no idea what it was a few months ago if we had been testing the same as we are now. Everything suggested that opening things up etc hasn’t caused any issues as the hospitals are empty and barely any deaths.

Plus, the deaths that are recorded are people who tested positive in the previous 28 days.

If I had a positive test so had to stay home for two weeks and figured I would get on top of some DIY and fell of my ladder and was killed - Covid death.

It’s nonsense - get things back to normal and give people the choice. Maybe a day a week where those who want to socially distance can.

Stop using the Cummings excuse. People were breaking the guidelines and ignoring precautions before Cummings.
The response by the PM to the Cummings debacle was to say its fine to break the guidelines if you assess it to be in the best interests of your family. As a result we nowhave basically unenforceable guidelines and people are choosing to prioritise friends etc.
Dominic Cummings had a massive negative effect on this. Its not an excuse. Hm

@QuentinWinters

Stop using the Cummings excuse. People were breaking the guidelines and ignoring precautions before Cummings. The response by the PM to the Cummings debacle was to say its fine to break the guidelines if you assess it to be in the best interests of your family. As a result we nowhave basically unenforceable guidelines and people are choosing to prioritise friends etc. Dominic Cummings had a massive negative effect on this. Its not an excuse. Hm

I completely agree.

I agree as well

@MadameBlobby

The governments have been completely dishonest and lied to us all along. It’s no wonder people are fed up. I’ve stuck to all the rules all along and other than hardship and misery I feel it’s got me precisely nowhere and with no end in sight. Screw this government, their spineless so called advisors, and their lies.

This viewpoint genuinely interests me @MadameBlobby. What did you expect? That you'd comply with lockdown, the economy would be destroyed and then the virus would somehow disappear? To be fair to the (extremely stupid, incompetent government) they never once said that lockdown would result in zero risk. The fact is, you lock down, cases drop for a while, the economy goes to shit, you open up, cases go up, the economy remains shit. It's just a pointless waste of time - there's still an ongoing risk of coronavirus but now you have to face it in a destroyed economy.

@QuentinWinters

Stop using the Cummings excuse. People were breaking the guidelines and ignoring precautions before Cummings. The response by the PM to the Cummings debacle was to say its fine to break the guidelines if you assess it to be in the best interests of your family. As a result we nowhave basically unenforceable guidelines and people are choosing to prioritise friends etc. Dominic Cummings had a massive negative effect on this. Its not an excuse. Hm

I don't think Cummings is the only reason why there's been an erosion of trust, but he's had a very significant impact and telling people not to use it as an excuse is pointless. It's much more deep seated and complex than that now. All that argument does is make the person advancing it feel better.

True @TheDailyCarbuncle it’s a shit sandwich really

"Completely agree, people have relaxed exactly how the press and government have manipulated them."
Yes!! This.
And totally agree with the point about people who shield going back to work being thrown to the wolves, and very sorry to see a post almost straight away by someone in exactly this position.

[quote tigerbear]@DOINGOURBIT totally agree with you.
My DD is in a ‘bubble’ of 30 children in her class, so why would it matter if she had all/some of those children at a party, when she’s crammed into a small classroom with them all day anyway?[/quote]
Because it's illegal?!

Given that the same thing appears to be happening in just about every democratic society around the world I’m starting to think they were right in the beginning about having one chance to do it. It goes against human nature to socially distance the way that’s required. Of course that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it, but it’s ok to acknowledge that it’s hard and feels unnatural to most people. This is especially true of younger people who are hardwired to need socialisation and the company of their peers.

I don’t really know what the answer is. The police don’t even have the resources to deal with organised illegal raves let alone shut down every house party. If enough people aren’t following the rules now or weren’t before, I’m not sure what will make them this week or next week or next month.

@larrygrylls

People think in a very short term way. They cannot see many sick or dying and lack the imagination to think what it would be like if the virus were rife again.

The ‘it’s time to live our life’ brigade would not say this if it were Ebola or a war. They would be stoic and get on with it. The reality is, annoyingly, that it is bad enough to stop normal life if it gets out of control.

I do think that three word messages and inconsistent guidance is not helping either. And you do also get healthy young people terrified of Covid, which is unnecessary.

The reality is that we know how the virus is spread and, going into winter with schools open, people need to exercise common sense. Do, seeing grandparents indoors is, to me, ok, if everyone is happy with the risk but an indoor party mixing many households with no distancing is selfish. It is about balancing risk and reward.

No, if it was ebola (death rate 50%) you're right, I would be all in favour of a total complete shutdown of society

This?

Meh

From our local newspaper today:-

"The number of people on ventilation in the region's hospitals has risen from 15 to 77 in the last 24 hours."

That's very worrying and something for the covid deniers to think about

We don't have the legislation yet. I wonder when we will?