Do you judge people for 'minor' rule breaks?

[Light233]

So ten months into a pandemic- whether you agree with the harshness of the rules or not- I think most people would agree that the average person is likely to struggle with lockdown fatigue and wavering compliance.

So my question is, do you judge people for minor rule breaks? ie:

• someone seeing their partner who lives in another household, indoors (whether this be for mental health, or the fact most adult romantic relationships require physical contact)
• parents visiting uni students in halls
• grown adults visiting elderly parents who are lonely and isolated

If you think about it, if you live in some places up North, it's been illegal to see your partner who you don't live with for six months, providing you're not in a support bubble. And I know you can see people outdoors, but that's not conducive to a normal relationship. Or, in the case of the elderly, not healthy or comfortable.

So would you judge people for the above rule breaks, if it was genuinely they only tine they mixed with another household? And there is no support bubble?

This thread is mostly pointless, however I am simply wondering if anyone else is finding it hard now!

The above scenarios are all ones I know people in real life have done and I do not judge them. Apart from that, they wear masks, limit contact and mostly WFH.

Not bothered. As long as it's not big parties or mixing all the time with friends.

I live in a secluded cul de sac, which has the added complication of a communal path between houses and back gardens. As a result, children play together and move freely from one garden to another, or ride their bikes up and down the cul de sac. In the first lockdown, there was a point where the parents with children of the same age obviously agreed that the children could continue to play together outside. I didn't judge at all - they were doing so within a small and controlled area, they were being very good at keeping away from older and more vulnerable people on the terrace, and it meant that some of the parents could get on and do some work whilst one parent kept an eye on the younger ones.

No I don't judge others for minor breaks because there is no way for me to know the full circumstances of that person and their decision.

I have been very careful and consult the ever changing guidelines before doing anything nowadays. I also apply a bit of common sense to making risk assessments.

So for me that includes not seeing a friend, even outside, because she is a primary teacher and her DH has been shielding. The rules in our area mean we could meet outside but I'm too much of a risk for her as my DS is at a secondary that seems to have been a bit of a hotspot (though he has never been tracked as a close contact)

I don't just think about me when I make decisions, I think about the person I might wish to see and then their immediate circle (that I'm aware of). My choices don't just affect me. They affect others in a ripple.

I have WFH since July 2019 (not a typo), am rarely on public transport and have followed a much reduced life since March 2020.

I will follow any rule or guideline needed so that the schools remain open.

My DD has found the independence to walk home now so is minimising her contact with others at after school club (and missed being tracked and traced as a contact as a result!). I do take her to meet friends in her class bubble outside in a park (I wait in the car to keep an eye on them, but stay away from them) and we have twice had a class bubble friend play date for informal childcare (allowed where we are) and took extra precautions.

I don't judge, I use common sense, I follow rules and I always think of others when making decisions.

@garlictwist

I break the rules. I see my sister and her children and also my parents. They also see each other and my parents sometimes have the children overnight. My sister and her husband both work in hospitals and the kids are at school so I guess high risk, though both have had covid already. My parents are in their 70s.

I have a partner who works outside the home at his own business and long hours. I wfh and don't really see anyone else.

I realise this is exposing myself and is not allowed. But I have decided to do this and I am sticking with it.

Yes, you have capacity to make the decision to expose yourself to risk if that's what you decide to do. But how dare you decide to expose others to that risk too! What about the people who will look after you and your family should you all fall ill? What about those that you would have exposed in the days before you become symptomatic but were still shedding virus everywhere? The people in the shop when you were, the teachers and other pupils in your children's school. Some of whom may have vulnerable people in their household. If you are really at breaking point then pick ONE family household to have physical contact with (preferably outdoors / socially distanced where possible). But mixing amongst the whole lot of you is both stupid and selfish. We're all feeling the strain.

You are allowed to care for vulnerable people and if you are seeing elderly parents who are isolated and lonely that is tending their mental well being. I can not see that that falls into banned contact. That is care for vulnerable people.

@AverageContents

Yes. The rules are clear and its selfish to break them.

My friend had her parents over on Christmas Day - all fine. Pics on social media of them all together after the rule change on boxing Day, outdoors, but hugging!

And the risk of that is non existent since they just spent a full day inside with each other.

Honestly. People need to use their heads here.
It's scary how nazi like people are becoming. Snitching and spying on their neighbours and friends!

@Horehound

Is amazing how ignorant people are being disregarding rule designed to stop deaths Covid and non Covid and trying to justify themselves to ease their guilt.I agree that caring for venerable people is exempt.

It's not designed to stop deaths. Everyone is going to get it anyway. The whole point in these rules is not to overwhelm the NHS. Which had been underfunded by the Tory government.

But can you tell me what the risk is of the example above? They spent all day with each other. I imagine they stayed over. What's the difference? The risk didn't increase it was the same risk and they were allowed to do it on that day.

It's a non issue. People getting worked up and not thinking logically.

The ones who work in hospitals and then mix with umpteen people are our superspreader events waiting to happen!

I expect if anyone in that group was infectious then the increase in time spent in close proximity would increase the viral load...so if infected they could potentially end up more unwell and potentially put further pressure on the NHS than had the meet up been brief.

I have a hospital appointment in February which I'm dreading so lackadaisical hospital staff do worry me

@DecemberDiana

The ones who work in hospitals and then mix with umpteen people are our superspreader events waiting to happen!

This. I have two close family members who work in healthcare settings and couldn’t give a stuff about their behaviour outside of work at the moment. One has consistently broken pretty much every rule there is since the start ☹️

@Horehound

Did you medical degrees teach you that?
Yea it is as it stops the NHS being over loaded for Covid and no Covid deaths

I guess the 70,000 is a dream and a vaccine/spectate will slow it down. That means less deaths.

Please do not talk utter rubbish with no facts.
It embarrasses yourself.

No. I dont judge anyone in the hope that they dont judge me. Society is too judgemental as it is without someone getting on their high horse because someone went to see their mother.

[quote Justa47]@Horehound

Did you medical degrees teach you that?
Yea it is as it stops the NHS being over loaded for Covid and no Covid deaths

I guess the 70,000 is a dream and a vaccine/spectate will slow it down. That means less deaths.

Please do not talk utter rubbish with no facts.
It embarrasses yourself.[/quote]
No, just having a brain lets me know that. Are you stupid?
You've still not explained how the example above increased the risk even though they broke the rules. Oh that's right. It didn't. Idiot.

I must say I agree @Horehound. Peoples grasp of logic seems to have gone down as they have become dependant on being told what to do. Seeing ymand hugging your parents on christmas day and then staying til boxing day carries the exact same risk over both days. That's not opinion, it's a scientific fact, but many dont think of the science because it breaks the rules, so therefore it must be wrong and risky. The risk was already taken when they saw them on christmas day. It's strange but fascinating to see how people think.

Yes, exactly @MummaBear4321. Well it's good to know at least one other person out there has a soupçon of intelligence. Phew.

@Missfelipe

I expect if anyone in that group was infectious then the increase in time spent in close proximity would increase the viral load...so if infected they could potentially end up more unwell and potentially put further pressure on the NHS than had the meet up been brief.

If they were staying less than 15 minutes maybe. But they stayed for a day to have Christmas dinner which was "allowed" so if there was any damage it's already been done. What I'm saying is it makes not a single bit of difference if they stayed over as well yet their friend posting on here is up in arms about it.

@Missfelipe

I expect if anyone in that group was infectious then the increase in time spent in close proximity would increase the viral load...so if infected they could potentially end up more unwell and potentially put further pressure on the NHS than had the meet up been brief.

@Horehound Risk does increase with the time spent in close proximity and the longer you are with an infected person, the more virus you breathe in so viral load and risk of the illness being more severe increases.

Having said that we all have to assess these risks sensibly. My DGM is 90 and complied with the first lockdown and shielding but from there has decided she wants to see her children and grandchildren (so that's around 5 or 6 people rather than choosing one person to "bubble" with) rather than risk dying of any cause not having seen her family. We go one at a time so no big groups and keep a distance, as we all agreed hugging increased the risk unnecessarily, and I suspect it is the hugging in the post you were replying to that the poster objected to, either that or them being daft enough to post it online!

@AverageContents

Yes. The rules are clear and its selfish to break them.

My friend had her parents over on Christmas Day - all fine. Pics on social media of them all together after the rule change on boxing Day, outdoors, but hugging!

You're a sad individual.

I do my best not to judge, but sometimes flicking through Instagram stories I see the same people over and over who aren’t even trying. Can’t help but eyeroll.

Christmas Day was a weird one for us, I assume I broke rules at that point, but we took in one under 18 relative and her baby. She lives in a unit, and the other two residents had gone to their relatives/boyfriends. The staff had no intention of wanting to stay around for our relative and there was no way we wanted her to live out Christmas Day alone.
That’s all I’m stretching to, I haven’t broke other rules and won’t be.

I see my partner now as, realistically, by the time this is legally permitted again, it'll have been banned for over a year. I also became very depressed and suicidal when I could not see him, so this might come under 'care' possibly. I haven't broken any other rules - realistically, not many relationships would survive an indefinite amount of physical separation.

No I don't. As pp's have said massive parties etc. Yes. But I think if people hadn't been doing these sort of things we'd be having a huge mental health crisis.

I do judge for more simple stuff like wearing your mask under your nose. Or being impatient and not social distancing in a supermarket. Because there's no real benefit but is a risk.

Nope, as I've done it myself. Used more than one person to help me with childcare so I can work, and if school closes again I'll do the same. I have no one who can commit to a regular childcare bubble so I have to use whoever is available in my family. I can't work from home and as a single parent me working is essential to keep the roof over our heads so I could not care less about "breaking the rules" in those circumstances.

@Waxonwaxoff0

Nope, as I've done it myself. Used more than one person to help me with childcare so I can work, and if school closes again I'll do the same. I have no one who can commit to a regular childcare bubble so I have to use whoever is available in my family. I can't work from home and as a single parent me working is essential to keep the roof over our heads so I could not care less about "breaking the rules" in those circumstances.

I think your circumstances are slightly different to others who break the rules for social reasons. If there is no other option, then you have to do what you have to do.