We basically have a ‘contact budget’...

[Redolent]

“Imagine we’ve got a “contact budget”. Stay within it, R is below 1. Go above R increases and cases rise. We have to decide what to prioritise in it. Children’s education? Being able to work? Going to the pub? Having a party? The more contacts with people the bigger the risk.”

twitter.com/CathNoakes/status/1307315616735531008

——

The simplest explanation of the conundrum we’ve always had to face. As atrocious as this government is, I believe that at this stage, they will prioritise keeping schools open above all else, and if necessary, try to balance that out by reducing contacts elsewhere. But looks like this premise is lost on a lot of people.

Completely agree. All the “why can’t we do this but we can do this” threads are very frustrating - people only need to understand this principle

I think most people do understand- but the government communication around what can open when, and why, has been so inconsistent and poorly strategised that people are frustrated.

In terms of the economy, of course it makes sense to open hospitality venues and stop people meeting in private homes. But in normal human terms it is wildly unreasonable that you can mingle with multiple households and contacts in a pub but not have 2 families of 4 meet up in a park for a picnic.

Messaging and communicating have been totally cocked up. It’s like anti-spin, as if they’ve got no one who understands how to put a simple effective message across.

I was talking to a friend the other week who also has a chronic illness that the whole world is needing to use a similar concept the Spoon Theory but in this case for multi-person activities.

People won't know if they don't make it clear.

Most people understand it, but there will always be some who don't

Or who wilfully don't in order to mock

I think I proposed exactly this a couple of weeks ago on MN. The real problem , as you can see from numerous posts on MN too, is that lots of people are pushing the rules as far as they can or reinterpreting them to suit whatever social arrangement they want to do.

I fear the govt will realise this and decide the only solution is to crack down hard.

I had an idea of ration books for retail and recreation. You can go non-essential shopping twice a month, one restaurant trip, etc.

I think actually that if people had a ration book saying they could go out shopping only on so many occasions, they might actually be more inclined to spend more money on the times they did go out. It might make people who wouldn't usually do those things feel they had to get them in, or waste them!

Obviously, it would take too long to organise to be of any use now, and people would be up in arms over this turning into a police state, but I thought it was an interesting idea to think about, rather than actually do.

In terms of the economy, of course it makes sense to open hospitality venues and stop people meeting in private homes. But in normal human terms it is wildly unreasonable that you can mingle with multiple households and contacts in a pub but not have 2 families of 4 meet up in a park for a picnic.
This 100%.
It also seems to translate as 'don't see people unless you're going to spend money', which is infuriating.

DH and I rarely go to pubs, nor are we regularly found going for coffees with friends. We do enjoy going to the park with other families and long walks with our wider family and friends. At the moment it is ridiculous that we can't meet up with my cousins and their children outside at a park (but we can all go to different parks where there's different families we don't know), but a single 20-something can go to work drinks in a pub on Friday, shopping and for lunch with 6 people on a Saturday, out on Saturday night with another 6 friends, but because two families would take us over 6 people it would be me and my cousins who are apparently the biggest risk.

I can't meet up with friends and their children because they are already a family of 6, but it's fine for some of my colleagues to go into the nearest big city for an afternoon day drinking.

They've encouraged everyone to eat out to help out, but then tried to blame teenagers for a spike in cases caused by the government's terrible handling of schools.

They called a meeting to prioritise getting an exemption for shooting, but have effectively banned family childcare on the grounds 'it's ok to have a nanny come to your house though'.

The government seem to have forgotten about normal families.

You’ve summed it up perfectly @ LolaSmiles especially the blame of teenagers.

@NoSquirrels

I think most people do understand- but the government communication around what can open when, and why, has been so inconsistent and poorly strategised that people are frustrated.

In terms of the economy, of course it makes sense to open hospitality venues and stop people meeting in private homes. But in normal human terms it is wildly unreasonable that you can mingle with multiple households and contacts in a pub but not have 2 families of 4 meet up in a park for a picnic.

Messaging and communicating have been totally cocked up. It’s like anti-spin, as if they’ve got no one who understands how to put a simple effective message across.

All of this. Plus I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of a two tier society where you can only see people if you can afford to eat out / go to the pub etc. If you can't, sorry, you have to stay at home and not have any human contact. That does not sit well with me at all.

If we had ration books, the happy hermits would end up selling their coupons to others.

Problem with this whole idea is that it assumes that the relative risks are confidently & precisely known -- they aren't. Plus, the true transmission chances are contextual. You can be extremely safe going for 1 walk a day in a rural area.. unless you stop and gas animatedly with your friend(s) for half an hour each time, and you have no clue how your friend "spent" their risk budget. You can be at high risk riding on the bus for 20 minutes... unless you're the only passenger & the bus is huge. There are too many covariables to make this risk-budget idea work. You can't even know if you'll see your friend while on the walk or how many other passengers there will be.

People struggle to accurately count calories, never mind people contacts/day.

I understand the premise of a "contact budget" but don't think it's fair that some people have much larger budgets whilst others have to shoulder the whole cost.

I'm in a local lockdown area. As a single, childless person, who lives alone and WFH, I'm basically allowed contact with one friend (but not supposed to use public transport to meet). Not even allowed to meet others outdoors and socially distanced. Meanwhile other have close contact with several people by virtue of being lucky enough to have a family, not to mention all the school contact and work/commuting contact.

I think most people understand it well enough but you only have to look on MN (as a microcosm) to see that people don't think it applies to them. Or, worse, know it applies to everyone but just say "I'm not going to do it, let them come for me"

I think a lot of people do understand it, but it’s being applied stupidly.

Just look at the local lockdown areas. Birmingham isn’t supposed to be mixing households but you can still go to pubs and restaurants in groups of up to six. Wolverhampton is just down the road and isn’t supposed to mix at all.

To be honest, I think it’d be more popular and potentially more impactful to have restaurants and pubs limited to household groups too, but that’s especially harsh on people who live alone...

I’m 30 and I know three people who moved back with their parents when lockdown happened and haven’t gone home yet. One is commuting for work, two still working from home. One of them has her two kids in her childhood bedroom with her, as her sister also went home. It’s a struggle but that’s the lengths people will go to to avoid being alone, and we have to consider that too...

Plus all the “larger” families that already have six members, and feel hard done by that they can’t see other people because they’re already using their quota.

There’s not a way that feels fair for everyone, just ways that make sense from a population view, and that relies on the individuals who get the rough end of the deal complying with the rules regardless. They did the first time round. I don’t think they will again, if I’m honest. I think people will still meet even if they close businesses, and that would be an economic nightmare.

I don't think most people understand it at all. From what I've seen the overwhelming view seems to be well if my kids are mixing at school or I'm mixing at work sod it, we may as well mix socially as well. I'm the opposite, my child is back at school so going into my (previously shielding) PILs house is once more a no-no.

Most people like to think of themselves as being good and decent but in reality they just want to be able to say they are obeying the rules/law. Hence all the 'is this allowed....?' posts on MN. The truth is, if what you want to do puts you or others at risk err on the side of caution and just don't do it. (Or accept that you are not the selfless, thoughtful person that you like to think you are.)

Plus I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of a two tier society where you can only see people if you can afford to eat out / go to the pub etc. If you can't, sorry, you have to stay at home and not have any human contact. That does not sit well with me at all.
That's my feelings entirely.

Agree with "contact budget". Budget is the same for everyone.

A lot of people wilfully choose to not understand it, just to be twats.