When will there be a backlash against these rule breakers?

[annabel85]

We know the government made errors back in March. They should have locked down quicker and messed up with care homes. However, the issue now is people not following rules. House parties, raves, mixing in big groups. People are blaming the government for the new rule of 6 and not the shameless delinquents who have been breaking rules.

The government have issued a clear warning to people with the new legislation. Follow the rules or cases will get worse and further restrictions will come. How long till people snap at those who aren't taking this seriously? The tolerance of the law abiding majority can only stretch so far.

PS - leave Cummings out of it. This is about the here and now.

Please go to live in China OP. Much more opportunity to do all that statsi snitching you're so keen on.

Not us or we'd be free by now

Ok

@annabel85

I'm sick of restrictions because of those not following the rules. One of the news headlines today said more ppl are annoyed over the rules breakers than they are over Brexit.

Yeah I do think MN can be a bit of a bubble. There's seething anger out there at rule breakers.

Over someone having their nan over? Yeah, right.

Personally I do not care what ppl do, it’s their choice. But I am most unlikely to comply with illogical rules.
You can meet ppl in a pub but not at home. Why? Fucking daft! But legal! The law seems to be an arse.

Are we going to end up with a situation where anyone who catches covid is going to accused of going out raving ?

WHATEVER WHATEVER I DO WHAT I WANT

Ya gg guys you sound like Eric Cartman, now have a seat, shut the fuck up and start behaving like a responsible adult.

I don’t really care what other people do, I don’t really care about Christmas either, you can’t really cancel a date on the calendar.

Most of the rule-breakers I know are over 65!

@disorganisedsecretsquirrel

I'm going to keep working from home. Go back to ordering online, basically making my own decision to lock down. DH and I were both told to shield.. I do not trust this shower and further than I could spit .. and will make my own decisions to protect my own life. I am sorry to say that hoping for people to have a sense of social responsibility to their fellow vulnerable man is just not possible. Just look on here at all the 'I've had enough' I'm bored' I won't die My kids won't die 'I have a RIGHT to do as I please. '

These are the reasons why this thing will be back with a vengeance in a matter of weeks. Schools are enclosed spaces with packed with spreaders. And surprise surprise, the first place to get higher outbreaks was Scotland, now it's the rest of the UK.. stand back and watch it rampage through the population as Unis go back and freshers get into their stride. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist.

It is going to kill many many more elderly and vulnerable. It's the price of all the 'me,me, me' listed above. People literally don't care who dies - as long as it's not them..

My advice. ? If you are (were) on the shielding list I would be locking myself back down. If you can't WFH I would find a way to go on UC until winter has past. If I had school age children I would be deregistering and teaching from home. (Or finding out what the school can offer children of the shielding) I would be drastically restricting my life if I were elderly.

In short , I will not be trusting anyone to protect me - except me. Least of all this government.

You're going to keep working from home...and you encourage others to work from home too, either that or they should simply resign and go on UC? What a fabulous idea! Perhaps all the people involved in making sure we have food and power should jack their jobs in. Let's see what sort of winter we have then. You're going to order online...but you expect someone else to actually be at work to take your order, and the whole supply/ delivery chain at each end of it. Yes let's all work from home, no electricity or water or food, but sure we'll be grand.

Over someone having their nan over? Yeah, right.

Raves, parties, mass gatherings, yet another protest in London tomorrow.

@Sarahandco

Are we going to end up with a situation where anyone who catches covid is going to accused of going out raving ?

Yep. Anyone who tests positive will have a red cross painted on their door and a big poster which says "unclean!" - except for grannies because obviously it's young people intentionally murdering them.

Protests are on the list of exemptions

I’ve folllowed the rules up until now but now I’m sick of the fact that the government has gotten nothing right and has made it clear that children and women are the least of their priorities. I won’t be going to big gatherings but if having my sibling and her DH and toddler puts us to 7 with my DH, toddler and baby then I don’t care. Scotland aren’t even including children in the 6 so there’s no logic in what England is doing.

If we have to leave Cummings out of it, can we talk about Neil Ferguson? He's the one who got us into the lockdown mess with his wildly inaccurate predictions and then broke quarantine to go meet his mistress or something?

Actually from an infection control perspective the rule that you can meet in a pub and not in a house would make sense

If you meet in the pub AND house, that's double the chances of infection

So by ruling out some meets, you reduce the chances of infection

( I am sure some one will now say that they never go to the pub, only to visit a struggling friend at their home once a week, but you have to consider the effect at then population level or we would have 67 million different rules )
( and someone else will say that they are replac8ng every home visit with a pub trip. Again, that's unlikely to be the case at a population level )

And by choosing pubs not homes you help the economy ( jobs , useful things )

An alternative rule could be meet no more than 4 people at most two times in a week but that's more complicated and doesn't not help the economy

You can't leave Cummings out of it. When the government refused to condemn his behaviour, they sent a loud and clear message that the rules were optional. It's no wonder half the population doesn't think they have to stick to them either.

Can you show me what predictions were wildly inaccurate?

I seem to recall his prediction was prefaced with IF WE DONT DO ANYTHING

And I seem to notice That we have done rather a lot

Sweden are looking good and they’ve had no lockdown or worn masks, I think this country has caused a lot of problem for many people with little end in sight.

It seems completely inevitable to me that cases should rise as lockdown eases even if everyone was obeying all the rules perfectly. If you believe that it was necessary to close shops, restaurants etc. to stop cases rising back in March, of course opening up again will lead to an increase in infection. A bit of hand sanitiser at the door and a mask while queuing for your coffee won't prevent that, particularly as much of the transmission has been in hospitals and care homes.

If cases gradually fall again before Christmas, they will just rise again as soon as restrictions are released (unless we actually are reaching a significant degree of immunity in the population). The government has said that it expects the rule of six to be in place for months and only to be released based on a mass testing regime which it has admitted is a "moon shot" or a vaccination which is highly unlikely to be rolled out to enough of the population in the next six months to make a difference. I don't think that it's logical to assume that compliance with the recent rules will make any longterm difference.

People have complied with the rules to a much greater extent than expected so far but it just isn't realistic to expect people to adopt such unnatural behaviour indefinitely for a virus which is unlikely to affect them personally.

And there is huge animosity against "rule breakers" already. The guardian had an article about a majority of the population feeling "hatred" towards those who can't wear a mask and this is making disabled people fearful of going out. We're living in a society where people are calling the police to report children's birthday parties. I think we're not far from public lynchings for the "rule breakers" and that scares me much more than the virus. I don't think we need to whip up any more hatred.

@midgebabe

Can you show me what predictions were wildly inaccurate?

I seem to recall his prediction was prefaced with IF WE DONT DO ANYTHING

And I seem to notice That we have done rather a lot

Even if we hadve done nothing it's widely accepted that his model anticipated it would have been much worse than it actually would have been. It was total bollocks.

@Chessie678

It seems completely inevitable to me that cases should rise as lockdown eases even if everyone was obeying all the rules perfectly. If you believe that it was necessary to close shops, restaurants etc. to stop cases rising back in March, of course opening up again will lead to an increase in infection. A bit of hand sanitiser at the door and a mask while queuing for your coffee won't prevent that, particularly as much of the transmission has been in hospitals and care homes.

If cases gradually fall again before Christmas, they will just rise again as soon as restrictions are released (unless we actually are reaching a significant degree of immunity in the population). The government has said that it expects the rule of six to be in place for months and only to be released based on a mass testing regime which it has admitted is a "moon shot" or a vaccination which is highly unlikely to be rolled out to enough of the population in the next six months to make a difference. I don't think that it's logical to assume that compliance with the recent rules will make any longterm difference.

People have complied with the rules to a much greater extent than expected so far but it just isn't realistic to expect people to adopt such unnatural behaviour indefinitely for a virus which is unlikely to affect them personally.

And there is huge animosity against "rule breakers" already. The guardian had an article about a majority of the population feeling "hatred" towards those who can't wear a mask and this is making disabled people fearful of going out. We're living in a society where people are calling the police to report children's birthday parties. I think we're not far from public lynchings for the "rule breakers" and that scares me much more than the virus. I don't think we need to whip up any more hatred.

Totally agree @Chessie678. look at the curtain twitching, shopping basket police, and masks Stasi we’ve had on here for months as it is.

I think some of you are missing the point.
Reduce risks by reducing likelihood.. ie reduce contact.

No large social gatherings is a bit miserable, but its not damaging livelihoods, the whole economy. Shutting great swathes of businesses would.

So of course mixing socially at home has to go first

If you believe that it was necessary to close shops, restaurants etc. to stop cases rising back in March, of course opening up again will lead to an increase in infection.

Obviously to a degree cases were going to go back up but most of the rise in case over the last few weeks have been younger people, predominantly younger adults. This is the demographic that have been wildly hedonistic in the middle of a pandemic with raves and house parties - or other big gatherings - while older demographics who've had a pint in the pub and ate out to help out have not been picking the virus up nearly as much. There's a big difference there.

There's no excuse now. We've had our summer and some have enjoyed it more than others, but now everyone has to be sensible and fair to their fellow Britons.

Says who? Evidence?

The best estimate fatality rate stands at between 0.6 and 1%. Assuming you have a functioning health service. That's between 400,000 and 670,000 deaths if everyone had the virus, his ballpark figure was 500,000.

God I wish I'd had the brilliant summer you describe. I'm not doing a good job being the selfish arsehole 20 something you describe, op.