Wish there was a simple yes no survey for 'would you comply'

[Family1st2020]

I read a lot of threads of a similar nature.
And I speak to lots who say they wouldn't comply if we had tighter restrictions or lockdown.
With people their own reasons for their choices.
However I remember reading the gov saying people would back it up and want a lockdown. ( honestly can't remember where or when)
I would just love one that people could just click yes or no to get a good idea.

Just a random thought
.

Stick this question in AIBU and use the poll function?

I'm glad there isn't. It's far too simplistic and polarising. Have people learned nothing from brexit?

Unless there's some sort of fine or consequence to not complying, this will lead many people to not want to follow government guidelines.

There is a consequence for not complying. The people keep getting sick and dying and you keep getting restrictions.

@Athrawes

There is a consequence for not complying. The people keep getting sick and dying and you keep getting restrictions.

However this still seems not enough for majority that don't want to comply. There are a lot of different views people hear online, for example -people saying it's just like the flu, that it isn't that bad if the average person gets it. Then there's also people claiming the hospitals aren't actually full. So much of these stories go around on social media/newspapers etc, that make it difficult for people to actually see the importance or complying. The government also don't make it any better by changing there minds 24/7. Its an extremely difficult time for everyone, hoping things get better.

Several polls have shown the majority support containment measures and would comply. A recent one was from yougov but there have been others.

I think the penny has dropped for most. They've realised they won't access hospital treatment of any kind if beds fill up and staff are off sick. They've seen other countries, who've taken effective containment measures, are now largely living normal lives - with schools, offices, shops, gyms, pubs, restaurants etc all open. Perhaps people are also nervous about the risks of Long Covid.

I don't think it's a yes or no issue. There are degrees of compliance, not just following every rule to the letter or ignoring them all.

I would comply only if there was proper financial compensation for those unable to work during that time. Their full wage, not this 67% rubbish. A lockdown would mainly affect those on minimum wage (pub staff, non essential retail) and 67% of minimum wage is not good enough.

It’s true to say a lot of hospitals aren’t full, not even in some higher risk areas. That doesn’t mean they won’t fill up.

Similarly, in fact the nightingale hospitals were not required first time round. The nhs planning in our area (north west) is expecting a longer, flatter curve. That’s what senior clinical staff have been briefed on. It’s what staff shift patterns are being designed around.

@Waxonwaxoff0

I would comply only if there was proper financial compensation for those unable to work during that time. Their full wage, not this 67% rubbish. A lockdown would mainly affect those on minimum wage (pub staff, non essential retail) and 67% of minimum wage is not good enough.

That's a red herring, as those on minimum wage would then most likely be eligible for uc,plus housing element and council tax benefit. That's probably worth more for many.

I think many people who declare themselves supportive of lockdown are just pro restrictions for other people. That, or harsher restrictions are how they are living their lives right now anyway and they don’t see why others shouldn’t do the same as them. There is quite a bit failure of imagination on MN about what other people’s lives are like

Research consistently finds up to one third of people are minded to bend rules, break rules, wiggle round rules, forget rules etc.

However laws get higher compliance.

It'll be the same with this - the far larger group will comply with the law.

@SoloMummy UC was specifically designed not to be worth more than work. So you are incorrect about financial impact.

The middle income are more likely to comply as the rich are not bothered by the fines, footballers have parties etc and the poor won’t be able to pay them and have nothing to lose as they will just go to court, get thrown out or told to pay £1 a week.

@MiracletoCome

The middle income are more likely to comply as the rich are not bothered by the fines, footballers have parties etc and the poor won’t be able to pay them and have nothing to lose as they will just go to court, get thrown out or told to pay £1 a week.

This is not borne out by research.

However at lower income end it is harder as there are pressures of homelessness etc.

But the percentages are fairly stable and most people try as hard as they can.

The constant rowing and nitpicking is in itself harmful, according to the news this morning

It always amuses me the number who say that they won’t comply.

Firstly, there will be a lot of propaganda and shaming, which will affect many. Secondly, some meaningful enforcement and large fines will have an effect. If you actually know someone who is fined £6,400, it will have a deterrent effect (unless you are very rich). They could also allow it to give rise to a criminal record, which will affect many professionals.

Many people will actually see the full hospitals and start to fear that they won’t be treated if they get ill, which will have a salutary effect on behaviour.

For those (I suspect many on here) who will continue to see a relative quietly, carefully distanced at home, you will probably get away with it (and, in fact, I suspect that you are meant to). It is all about contacts and egregious offenders. I would guess the government is very happy for people to exercise intelligent judgment. They just cannot legislate that way as, for some, you give them an inch and they will party like it’s 1999.

@SoloMummy not if they own their own homes. And no it isn't, I'm on working tax credits myself and the more you work, the more money you have. People will be worse off. UC is not good enough, these people are literally being told they cannot work by the government so they deserve to be compensated.

UC is rubbish. The government should bring back a temporary child tax credit claims that don’t have the two child limit nonsense. Huge poverty is coming and children will suffer. Charities have been closing down so I expect a lot off people will break the law. To feed themselves and their children unless the government does something to safeguard them.

Million of people were already living pay check to pay check and now they are supposed to be happy with 67% of their full wage.

The vast majority will comply, both with the law and the guidance. The minority that won’t, or want to create the impression that they won’t, are more vocal though.

[quote PracticingPerson]@SoloMummy UC was specifically designed not to be worth more than work. So you are incorrect about financial impact.[/quote]
Uc was designed to benefit those IN WORK. So these people on 67% would be the very people to benefit.

[quote Waxonwaxoff0]@SoloMummy not if they own their own homes. And no it isn't, I'm on working tax credits myself and the more you work, the more money you have. People will be worse off. UC is not good enough, these people are literally being told they cannot work by the government so they deserve to be compensated.[/quote]
The system is not ideal, BUT those on low incomes affected do have options.
100% furlough was always unsustainable and should imo never have started.

The 67 percent would stuff us we live pay check to pay check.
When dh was in furlough UC made enough to cover the basic bills and rent as our rent is 1k a month which is the lower costs here for a 3 bed . We had to use credit cards to afford food and baby formula.

If we had to isolate if myself or the kids were ill. He's already said he thinks he would go to work. He would have no choice!
He can work solo away from Everyone else and have no contact with anyone at all . But it cannot be done from home.

If the government want us to stay home to protect the vulnerable then they need to protect us financially. Why should those on already low incomes be forced into poverty and make their own families suffer?

@Waxonwaxoff0

If the government want us to stay home to protect the vulnerable then they need to protect us financially. Why should those on already low incomes be forced into poverty and make their own families suffer?

Well apart from being a shit thing to do and possibly lead to blood being on their hands if someone dies as a result of their self-centredness, they'll hopefully get fined. And I genuinely hope that a couple of high profile fines will make losing a fortnight's pay is preferable given the fine would be more than the income loss if on such a low wage.