Personal responsibility is better

[Jourdain11]

All this "allowing people meet up at Christmas" and "not allowed to hug" and "follow the rules". It is just so tedious and also utterly pointless. At the end of the day, people will hug if they want to, etc.

I don't know a single person who has followed the guidance/law to the letter this second lockdown, and that's including people who were very cautious about it the first time round. Going for a wander round the shops, visiting friends, going into the office still being allowed/encouraged for many...

There is a limit to how long you can dictate to people how to live their lives, especially over things that cannot be effectively policed. Wouldn't it be better to encourage that people behave responsibly? "It would be sensible to do a small scale Christmas this year", and so on.

They tried "personal responsibility" from July - October.

They didn't though, not really! Saying "go out and eat as many meals as possible" isn't the same as saying "please try to limit your social contacts, combine trips, etc."

They didn't then and they still don't for Christmas.
As far as I can see, dictating what we can and cannot do during festive season is the equivalent to "eat out to help out", just wait when people hit the shops for Christmas splurge and someone has to eat those turkey after all.

I think it's about time personal responsibility is mentioned but will they even think of it?

I think if there are restrictions then of course some people won't stick to them but the majority of people probably will, or at least try their best to.

If there are no restrictions and it's just a free for all then the people who would have stuck to the restrictions will be less cautious as well as those who just don't care and therefore it will get even more out of control.

I'm sure I could have worded that better and more concisely!

@frozendaisy

And there were very few cases here and still are. Main problem was the university students and now only place it's spreading is schools

@Jourdain11

They didn't though, not really! Saying "go out and eat as many meals as possible" isn't the same as saying "please try to limit your social contacts, combine trips, etc."

Well they sort of did, leisure centres, theme parks, cinemas, pubs, group sports, churches, travel, it was all open it wasn't just "eat out to help out" that was a spark to bring back social confidence.

And when schools reopened there were families who sent their child in with a positive Covid test.

There are still many who "won't wear a muzzle". Even if it does offered limited protection to others it's still limited protection. But it's too difficult for some.

So I think they tried to get a balance between personal responsibility and freedom but cases rose and rose again.

Don't get me wrong we hate all this but if there is a big enough percentage who won't take any responsibility it falls apart.

What to do?

But are most people sticking with the restrictions? In my experience, they are not. I'm not talking about massive parties, just little infractions here and there.

The people who really don't give a shit will continue not to give a shit, regardless of what restrictions are or are not in place. So I don't think there would be any harm in saying, for the benefit of the sensible majority, "Use your brain and actually think for yourself about what is sensible to do".

My mother used to tell me as a child that if you were ever in doubt about whether to say something to a friend, you should ask yourself "is it true? is it kind? is it necessary?" and that it needed to tick two of the three to be worth saying!

The same idea could apply with doing things Covid. Ask people to think, "is it safe? is it necessary? is it desirable?" And it has to be two of the three to be worth doing!

To my knowledge everyone I know is sticking to the restrictions but I know many who would jump at the chance to meet in other people's houses again and get back to their clubs and activities, go out for meals and to cafes etc, if the restrictions were relaxed again. Sensible people who know the risks but are willing to take them to get back to normality but aren't because it's not allowed.

I agree that personal responsibility would be brilliant but if people don't take it then it forces the government's hand in shutting things.

There are always going to be people who don't care and perhaps for the moment it's best they meet in each other's houses than the local.

I like the idea of asking "is it safe, is it necessary, is it desirable" but I think that if you honestly ask that question about any of the things you can't currently do during this lockdown then you wouldn't do them as none are safe or necessary at the moment, just desirable.

[quote movingonup20]@frozendaisy

And there were very few cases here and still are. Main problem was the university students and now only place it's spreading is schools [/quote]
Yeah same here.

So because there is inevitable spread in schools other things have to be curbed. Because shutting schools over pubs was not a popular move.

It's such a difficult calculation. And if parents send their children into school when they should isolate what can you do?

But then parents might not be able to go to work.
So transmission rises.
So things are shut.
Meaning more parents and others might lose income and jobs.
And even if things do reopen if transmission is high consumer confidence won't be.
And on and on it goes.
Round and round and round.

I get it I do.

People aren't being responsible though. We have parents sending in their kids whilst the kid themselves is waiting for a test result and then it turns out they are positive. We have groups isolating and their parents are dropping them off at their boyfirend/girlfriends house so they can have a sleep over. We've actually reported a family that held a party after the second lockdown with Year 11's in it, and guess what year group now has students isolating after some positive tests? Some of the positives where at that party, and a now positive sibling in Year 13 has triggered a group to go into isolation as well.

People are not just responsible for themselves; this is a contagious airborne virus that will be spread no matter how 'responsible' you think you are being, short of not leaving the house in full medical grade PPE.

@pipnchops

I like the idea of asking "is it safe, is it necessary, is it desirable" but I think that if you honestly ask that question about any of the things you can't currently do during this lockdown then you wouldn't do them as none are safe or necessary at the moment, just desirable.

To some extent I agree - going to the pub, for example, is maybe desirable but neither necessary nor entirely safe. But for other situations, there could be sense in taking this approach.

For example, my husband taking my 5 year old son, who is going stir crazy in 14 day quarantine without a garden to play in, for a run about in the park early this morning. Not necessary, but definitely desirable and, realistically, pretty safe (as by going early it was very quiet and they didn't really risk coming into contact with anyone).

Going to shop for groceries: less safe (risk of transmission indoors), but both necessary and desirable.

Going for a random browse around the shops that are open: desirable, but not necessary and not entirely safe.

Yes OP, going to the park for exercise I'd agree is desirable, necessary and safe. It is also allowed within the current restrictions. Take the restrictions /guidelines away and I think many people would go back to doing desirable things that are not safe or necessary in a heartbeat.

Oh sorry I missed the bit where you said you're on 14 day quarantine obviously not safe or allowed at the moment.

In theory, personal responsibility would be exercised. People would ensure they are not responsible for unnecessary risks in contracting the virus or transmitting it to others.
In reality, people are selfish idiots who go on Christmas threads shouting that they will do what the F they like (always swearing in their posts) and F everyone else. Or replace Christmas with foreign holidays, socialising, sending DC to school while awaiting test results, etc.

But actually, is it not the case that people who aren't behaving responsibly won't behave responsibly regardless of whether or not there are restrictions in place?

True @jourdain11 but without restrictions, people who are currently adhering to them would also start to take more risks because there would be nothing to stop them. So there would be a lot more spread.

I get what you're saying and I also don't think that having mo restrictions at all would be the path to go down. But at the same time, I find it so surprising that people are willing to allow the government to dictate to them who they're allowed to see, who they're allowed to hug, etc. Especially since it is completely unenforceable!