Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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 think the govt has no right to tell me who I'm allowed to have in my home?

459 replies

HumanFemale1 · 08/11/2020 16:16

Anyone else feels the same? I just don't think this is OK. Govt making the rules of who I am allowed to have in my home or how many people I'm allowed to have in...

Especially when it's to keep a virus from spreading when the average death of a virus is higher than the life expectancy. But for any reason really. If the govt was making this rule for any other reason people would be horiffied.

OP posts:
MarieInternette · 08/11/2020 19:22

This issue is as devisive as Brexit. We have those are devoid of critical thought running scared at everything on the media and then we have those who recognise that life in itself involves an element of risk and who would prefer to carry on as normal.

I am in the latter camp. Someone upthread levelled the accusation that my wanting to go out doesn’t trump those wanting to stay in lockdown. No. I don’t trump you; you don’t trump me. So in that respect we should go back to my original suggestion that those who want to lockdown and hide do so and those who have evaluated risk and want to get on with their lives do so.
As suggested in the Great Barrington Declaration, protect the vulnerable and let the rest of us get on with it.

Flyonawalk · 08/11/2020 19:23

@MarieInternette, I agree with you.

Northernsoulgirl45 · 08/11/2020 19:26

Well my ecv dh has shut himself away pretty much. He is busy working from home in a high level job paying shit loads of tax.
COVID would make him very ill/ maybe kill him who knows?
As a family we do all we can to reduce the risk whilst still working out home and the dc attending school and before Lockdown limited shopping etc
We however have to rely on approx 450 other families to do what they can to mitigate risk. Something that I am coming to realise is a big ask.
The economic lockdown has imo more repercussions for other peoples livelihoods and mental health than not seeing your mum for 4 weeks. So whilst it could be classed as a restriction on our liberties it is a necessary evil to allow kids to receive an education. Incidentally even with shielding re introduced the Govt was very clear that our kids must attend school. We have accepted this risk as it benefits our kids and all dc.
Dh is in late forties btw so not at the end of his life expectancy. I am cv too.

catsarecute · 08/11/2020 19:27

@TheKeatingFive

I find the intolerance of Covid deaths, compared to the quite high acceptance (comparatively) of cancer deaths/RTA deaths (just plucking two examples) prior to the pandemic very interesting.

There is so much we could have done over the years to minimise cancer deaths. But we didn’t, because of cost, or the impact they’d have on our way of life (the irony).

And that’s before even getting started on the many preventable developing world deaths that would only take a bit of money thrown at them to sort.

The cognitive dissonance here raises many questions.

There's a few things to consider here.

First of all, I wouldn't say that there is a high tolerance of cancer deaths/RTA deaths (to use your examples).

Regarding cancer, we have pretty widespread screening programmes available already, including smear tests and mammograms as just two examples. The HPV vaccination has been rolled out to both boys and girls and will help to prevent certain types of cancer. There's information widely promoted about healthy lifestyles and preventative measures people can take in their day to day lives in order to reduce their risk of developing cancer. And there are treatments that are often successful too.

Regarding RTAs - people have to take a driving test before they are allowed to drive a car on their own. We have speed limits, traffic calming measures, speed cameras, and a system of fines/points as a deterrant. Cars over a certain age have to have an annual MOT to make sure they are road worthy.

And so on.

However, there are other aspects at play here too. You can't catch cancer off someone who has it. They don't need to die on their own. And you can't pass cancer on to your mum or your nan who might die from it.

Plus, the strain on the NHS from treating covid means that other treatments are being affected. I already know someone who has had a much needed operation cancelled because the NHS is under so much strain here.

What would you suggest as an alternative? If we let covid run rampant through the population, the NHS won't cope because it's already struggling now. We've got a high level of excess deaths already. Many people who have had covid are reporting long covid symptoms which are potentially life changing for them. And there is no suggestion from the research that herd immunity is something that is actually achievable simply through everyone catching it - because antibodies seem to disappear after a couple of months, and there are already reports of people catching this twice. It seems that the only ways we can manage this are either keeping covid suppressed at a manageable level which will mean either long term restrictions or repeated lockdowns until there is an effective treatment/testing system/vaccine in place, or going for a zero covid strategy, in which case we could be free from restrictions but would need extremely tight border controls.

I disagree that there is any cognitive dissonance between being concerned about covid and concerned about deaths from other causes.

Sarahandco · 08/11/2020 19:29

You are obviously young, because as you get closer to the official average age of death you will realise that you would like to live a lot longer than that.

Sarahandco · 08/11/2020 19:31

Maybe the government is also worried about having a nation of people suffering from long covid as much as the deaths.

DailyCandy · 08/11/2020 19:32

But I bet you’re happy to take handouts

Sargass0 · 08/11/2020 19:33

If we should be doing what we can to save lives than gyms should be open, alcohol and cigarettes should be banned, driving and junk food too and we should have mandatory one hour exercises. This would save millions of lives.

I am so envious of people who are so simplistic in their thinking. The rest of us contemplate, weigh up the balance, have conflicting thoughts and feelings and see further than the headlines. Wouldn't it be so much easier to think like this...?

MaxNormal · 08/11/2020 19:33

I'm horrified at the sheer levels of aggression around this subject. We've just had huge amounts of government intrusion into our personal lives and ability to earn a living.
This should absolutely be up for scrutiny and discussion.

Northernsoulgirl45 · 08/11/2020 19:34

Cross post the vulnerable cannot be isolated. They live with others or need care. They have to attend hospital appointments. They may be keyworkers who can't wfh.
They could be your child's teacher or work in the local supermarket
It is not a case of shield the vulnerable and the rest of us crack on.
It amuses me the amount of things my conspiracy theorists anti vaxxer Facebook friends post which are clearly false yet they accuse others of lacking critical thinking.
Hell one of them won't have a COVID test to enable her to have surgery to fix a painful condition as she thinks the test contains namo particles which will alter her DNA. Not sure how a cotton bud on a stick will do this.

Flyonawalk · 08/11/2020 19:35

@Sarahandco - average age of death from covid is older (at 82) than U.K. life expectancy. Surely that puts the risk in perspective. No one is saying that each death is not a personal and family tragedy, but death at 82 is such an unreasonably shock that it should dictate how people live, work and educate.

Reborn2020 · 08/11/2020 19:36

@HumanFemale1

The people on the current list of clinically extremely vulnerable come in all ages and we take special precautions and follow guidelines to help these people. The group is quite large and not 'just' elderly (although they deserve looking after naturally):

Definition of clinically extremely vulnerable groups
People who are defined as clinically extremely vulnerable are at very high risk of severe illness from COVID-19. There are 2 ways you may be identified as clinically extremely vulnerable:

You have one or more of the conditions listed below, or
Your hospital clinician or GP has added you to the Shielded patients list because, based on their clinical judgement, they deem you to be at higher risk of serious illness if you catch the virus.
If you do not fall into either of these categories and have not been informed that you are on the Shielded patients list, follow the new national restrictions from 5 November.

If you think there are good clinical reasons why you should be added to the Shielded patients list, discuss your concerns with your GP or hospital clinician.

Adults with the following conditions are automatically deemed clinically extremely vulnerable:

solid organ transplant recipients
those with specific cancers:
people with cancer who are undergoing active chemotherapy
people with lung cancer who are undergoing radical radiotherapy
people with cancers of the blood or bone marrow such as leukaemia, lymphoma or myeloma who are at any stage of treatment
people having immunotherapy or other continuing antibody treatments for cancer
people having other targeted cancer treatments that can affect the immune system, such as protein kinase inhibitors or PARP inhibitors
people who have had bone marrow or stem cell transplants in the last 6 months or who are still taking immunosuppression drugs
those with severe respiratory conditions including all cystic fibrosis, severe asthma and severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
those with rare diseases that significantly increase the risk of infections (such as severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID), homozygous sickle cell disease)
those on immunosuppression therapies sufficient to significantly increase risk of infection
adults with Down’s syndrome
adults on dialysis or with chronic kidney disease (stage 5)
pregnant women with significant heart disease, congenital or acquired
other people who have also been classed as clinically extremely vulnerable, based on clinical judgement and an assessment of their needs. GPs and hospital clinicians have been provided with guidance to support these decisions

Flyonawalk · 08/11/2020 19:36

In my last sentence, I meant ‘is Not such an unreasonable shock...’

UnshakenNeedsStirring · 08/11/2020 19:36

People who think like you are the reason why the virus will be here forever. Selfish

florascotia2 · 08/11/2020 19:36

Marie that's all very pretty on paper but just doesn't work in reality. What if an essential worker (a) might lose their job (b) might infect vulnerable family members if they go out and about? What freedom of choice do they actually have, one way or another? if they continue to work, perhaps because of loyalty or a sense of duty, then they and their family and contacts are at risk. If they don't work, their present and their future is ruined.

That's not a free or rational choice, either way. FOR SOCIETY AS A WHOLE rules have to do their best to help as many people as possible. Self-expression, in that context, has to be a self-indulgent luxury.

I say that as someone who has been - on medical advice - shielding since April. I am also the carer for an elderly person and the psychlogical support for a vulnerable family member. I work from home in a demanding job, as well.

BUT but but, I am one of the lucky ones. There are many, many more people in worse circumstances than I am.

Am I whingeing on about personal freedom? NO. Just, as I say, try to work a mile in my shoes - and then see how you feel about 'personal choice'. I feel really lucky that I am those I care for are still here.

Genevieva · 08/11/2020 19:37

If you are really interested in this stuff then here are some links:

  1. The legislation from March:
Health Protection Coronavirus Regulations Health Protection Coronavirus Regulations
  1. The legislation from November:
Health Protection Coronavirus Regulations mark 2
  1. Lord Sumption (Supreme Court judge) talking about why we should be concerned about the way the government is acting:
This is how Freedom Dies

The third is the most important thing I have read all year. You can also watch him or listen ho him speaking on the YouTube link at the top.

JinglingHellsBells · 08/11/2020 19:38

No. I don’t trump you; you don’t trump me. So in that respect we should go back to my original suggestion that those who want to lockdown and hide do so and those who have evaluated risk and want to get on with their lives do so. @MarieInternette

Sorry but your idea that people who want lockdown want to hide away is nonsense.

You just want to be bloody selfish and sod everyone else.

People who are obeying lockdown don't want it any more than you do! Why should anyone want to hide away???

But we understand it's the best way to reduce the spread so everyone can go out and about eventually.

Can't you get it into your head that everyone wants to go about as normal? Those of us who fear for our loved ones who may be vulnerable (and it's not just ourselves) do not want to hide away.

We and they want to live life to the full- especially as they may not have many years left.

But the risks of catching Covid are increased by those people who refuse to take measures necessary to reduce the spread.

If they followed the rules for such a short time, everyone would be able to go back to normal.

JinglingHellsBells · 08/11/2020 19:39

Lord Sumption is a fool.

Why he's being listed as a person worth noting is ridiculous.

VenusTiger · 08/11/2020 19:39

Wow some of the comments on here - whatever happened to those against a nanny state, where we decide and take responsibility for our family? The elderly couple who were found dead in their house recently, anyone want to find out why? Covid is not the threat it's painted to be by a model so way off its had to near enough be retracted.

Partying in the streets in US right now, no social distancing. Look at the bigger picture.

MSG92 · 08/11/2020 19:39

@CuteOrangeElephant it was the most polite response I could come up with without wasting loads of time on this ridiculous topic

Flyonawalk · 08/11/2020 19:39

@Genevieva Thank you for these. Jonathan Sumption clearly stated that he comments on medical rather than legal grounds, and that his concern is the authoritarian state which we have quietly accepted.

Flyonawalk · 08/11/2020 19:40

@Genevieva - correction - he comments on legal and not medical grounds!! It’s been a long day.

tempnamechange98765 · 08/11/2020 19:40

YANBU, in theory it makes my blood boil. Looking back to the original lockdown, when I didn't see my DPs at all (and they didn't see my DC) for 12 weeks, because they live about 30 minutes drive away - how dare anyone stop families from seeing each other???!!!!

I am so glad that this time around, at least support bubbles for people living alone haven't stopped. SIL lives alone and had she stuck to the rules first time round, she wouldn't have seen anyone in 12 weeks?! Not acceptable.

But, I don't want to risk anyone's health.

BonnieDundee · 08/11/2020 19:41

Agree with @MaxNormal

Can we stop assuming that all who do not agree with the rules are "selfish"? I am totally and utterly against these restrictions but I AM actually following them. I would think that I am far from alone in this

JinglingHellsBells · 08/11/2020 19:41

and @MarieInternette It's not a case of your own evaluating risk.

You simply don't understand transmission, do you?

If you doing whatever you wanted meant no one else would be infected or die, you may have a point.

But that's not quite how it works, does it?

Surely you are not so ignorant you cannot understand how it infects people exponentially?

Swipe left for the next trending thread