Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
HelloMissus · 08/11/2020 19:43

Many posters here wouldn’t care if Boris instigated martial law and brought on the army.
Meanwhile in the real world people are concerned of course with the extra powers that have gone unchallenged.

Flyonawalk · 08/11/2020 19:43

For anyone who wonders how Jonathan Sumption is relevant, he is an Oxford-educated former high court judge, and he gave a lecture last month at Cambridge about the legal and social implications of current restrictions.

JinglingHellsBells · 08/11/2020 19:43

Can we stop assuming that all who do not agree with the rules are "selfish"? I

No we can't.

Agreeing with and following are different anyway.

Not following is selfish.

Genevieva · 08/11/2020 19:44

@Flyonawalk Yes - he is a legal expect not a medical one. His main point is that the procedures exist for the government to do what it is doing. However, they have chosen to circumvent those procedures because they would involve a high level of parliamentary scrutiny, which they appear to be keen to avoid. This is what makes me angry. We have a 350 year history of parliamentary democracy with a system that has been steadily evolving for 800 years. It has stood the test of time for good reason - it has strong checks and balances in place. It appears our current government care more about getting their own way than about doing things properly and well.

pontypridd · 08/11/2020 19:44

Yes - it’s not all about dying from Covid. There’s long covid to be scared of ...

Except there are so so many conditions people are saddled with - suddenly- often as a post viral effect - often with unknown cause.

We cannot shield ourselves or others from every virus, disease and every condition coming our way.

And because of that it’s so likely we’ll all catch Covid at some point despite lockdowns etc

JinglingHellsBells · 08/11/2020 19:45

Lord Sumption is still a fool. Don't give a toss where he want to uni (half the cabinet went to Oxford or Cambridge anyway!)

He's retired and bored and wants to stick his oar in.

Dartsplayer · 08/11/2020 19:45

@dramallam4

So what I'm hearing is sacrifice the elderly, and the vulnerable. Push the NHS past it's surge capacity so anyone that needs any medical treatment is turned away and surgeries are cancelled. For you to see people at home? Your personal pleasure is worth significantly more than the lives of the clinically vulnerable. Would it also be worth more than our healthcare system which is what the government is trying to protect, yes in a slightly flawed way but they are trying to preserve our economy and they are trying to ensure your friends and family have access to medical treatment whether that be for a long term health condition, for a broken arm or for covid. So your preference is to have a cup of tea and a little chat, I'm sure that's what we would all prefer but ultimately these restrictions are not about your personal preferences they are an attempt to keep emergency medicine accessible and that will, at least for me be far more important than having a little chat in the garden that could realistically be done with a phone call or a zoom call. But yes of course your little chat is more important then healthcare. reassess your priorities have some empathy and maybe then think outside your little bubble.
Very well said Drama
JinglingHellsBells · 08/11/2020 19:46

@pontypridd

Yes - it’s not all about dying from Covid. There’s long covid to be scared of ...

Except there are so so many conditions people are saddled with - suddenly- often as a post viral effect - often with unknown cause.

We cannot shield ourselves or others from every virus, disease and every condition coming our way.

And because of that it’s so likely we’ll all catch Covid at some point despite lockdowns etc

No, it' s not because there are plans to start vaccinating the over-85s as soon as possible then the over 60s.
Flyonawalk · 08/11/2020 19:46

@Genevieva Exactly. You explain the issue very well.

BonnieDundee · 08/11/2020 19:46

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

I dont want to be the one who bursts your bubble but the virus will most likely be here forever

Flyonawalk · 08/11/2020 19:48

@pontypridd You are right about post-viral issues not being new! Remember when there was so much focus on ME/chronic fatigue? Many viruses can have debilitating effects.

Jenasaurus · 08/11/2020 19:50

Yes Bloody Goverment who are they to tell me I cant do drugs, have sex with a 12 year old or not allow me to drink drive...who the hell do these people think they are aye?

BonnieDundee · 08/11/2020 19:52

Can we stop assuming that all who do not agree with the rules are "selfish"?

^No we can't.^

^Agreeing with and following are different anyway.^

^Not following is selfish.^

So not agreeing with the rules is selfish?Grin

HelloMissus · 08/11/2020 19:52

Of course the virus is going to be here forever.
We’ll end up in a situation like flu.
We’ll mitigate by a vaccine that works a bit and some vulnerable people will die of it every year.

ChocBeforeCock · 08/11/2020 19:52

@Flyonawalk

For anyone who wonders how Jonathan Sumption is relevant, he is an Oxford-educated former high court judge, and he gave a lecture last month at Cambridge about the legal and social implications of current restrictions.
He was more than a High Court Judge - he was a Supreme Court judge, and was appointed to that role straight from the Bar which basically never happens. He’s a very eminent lawyer, and I listen carefully when he speaks of concerns about the government circumventing our usual checks and balances.

He’s not an epidemiologist and their take on public health is far more relevant than his, but I don’t think we should minimise the importance of ensuring that whatever exceptional measures are taken in respect of our freedom to deal with the pandemic, these are justified, proportionate and temporary.

VenusTiger · 08/11/2020 19:53

@JinglingHellsBells so ignorant aren't you. Lord Sumption was the first barrister ever to be made a high court judge without ever being a junior judge. His peers believe him to be the cleverest man in Britain. He represented Roman Abramovich in a case brought against him by Berezofski who has a doctorate in applied mathematics. Sumption wiped the floor with him.

User43210 · 08/11/2020 19:54

@catsarecute 👏👏👏 absolutely spot on.

florascotia2 · 08/11/2020 19:54

I profoundly dislike and distrust this government.
Sumption makes a good point about its disrespect for Parliament, and how dangerous that is.
But ithat really does not mean that he is right on medical matters.
Just having in an Oxbridge degree does not make him reliable on matters outside his own sphere of knowledge (or even within it, for heaven's sake!).
This whole debate is falsely framed. It should not be about 'personal freedom' vs 'government powers'.
Surely, the question should be, 'How can we all get through this together, as quickly as possible, with the smallest risk to all of us as possible?' If that involves temporary loss of individual freedoms, then those should be safeguarded as much as possible by law, and restored as soon as possible.
The fact that the government seems unwilling to do this is very, very worrying, but it does NOT MAKE THE RESTRICTIONS INVALID OR UNIMPORTANT in the short term.

Very, very sorry for shouty capitals.

Flyonawalk · 08/11/2020 19:55

@ChocBeforeCock I sold him short I know! I gave him a very limited CV because seeing him described upthread as a fool was quite a surprise! I am hugely respectful of his achievements and intellect.

MarieInternette · 08/11/2020 19:58

jinglinghellsbells
It’s not about me being selfish anymore than you are. Lockdowns do not reduce the spread long term. It’s just kicking the can down the road. Until there is a vaccine there will be no end to this. The best way to deal with this until then is to protect the vulnerable and let the rest of us get on with it until heard immunity is reached.
I fear for my loved ones. My parents are in their eighties. I don’t want them to get it BUT it is their choice if they want to go out and live what little of their lives they have left, of whether they decide to stay indoors and isolate. I will respect their decision. If anyone doesn’t want to see me that’s fine, I won’t pressurise them, but if they, like me are happy to crack on with life that’s fine too.
And I reiterate, I am classed as extremely vulnerable. But I have experienced enough of life to know that it’s for living , not for hiding away doing what your’re told. And again I will a say, this is a virus which has a 0.2% rate of fatality. Perspective is needed here.

chickenyhead · 08/11/2020 19:58

OK, not read the full thread, but OP comments and last few pages.

The problem lies, perhaps, in the fact that we live in a democracy.

There are absolute laws, fundamentally accepted by almost everyone, like not murdering anyone, stealing whatever you like etc. Some won't follow those, they get locked up, we all agree and carry on.

Laws are written and enforced by governments, after court enactment. The government being voted in by first past the post principles.

So, our democratically appointed government has taken the advice of scientists and other advisors in an attempt to mitigate the affects of a worldwide pandemic, which is killing a lot of people, but more importantly to them, takes a long time to do so.

Because it takes such a long time, there are bottlenecks determining how well the country fares. The NHS. The collapse of which would destabilise more than just the economy.

So the government had to take action to prevent that collapse. The laws, once triggered are as applicable, in your own home, as not murdering people.

Other countries, which are autocratic or god forbid dictatorial, just tell citizens what to do. Democracy means that we are asked nicely.

It's life. At least in the UK you won't be shot for breaching it. Silver linings eh.

VenusTiger · 08/11/2020 19:58

@florascotia2 it'll go on and on and on - look at Wales with hospitality restrictions in place till 2022. This is how government tests the water.

frozendaisy · 08/11/2020 19:59

@HumanFemale1

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.

No one "thinks it's OK"

But it is most likely necessary.

Yep it's pants.

JinglingHellsBells · 08/11/2020 19:59

@VenusTiger why do you assume I know nothing of Lord Sumption?

I have listened to him speak many times on the radio on these issues.

I am fully aware of his work and academic achievements. hat doesn't mean I agree with what he is saying on this issue as it comes over as meddling, unhelpful and provoking people to break the rules.

madcatladyforever · 08/11/2020 20:02

Are you entering this years Darwin Awards OP?

Swipe left for the next trending thread