Taking responsibility for our own risks *title edited by MNHQ at OP's request*

[hulahoopqueen]

Sorry for the DF link: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9194443/FOUR-members-family-died-Covid-met-Christmas-bubble.html

So the woman's fiance (a supermarket worker) met up with his parents for 2 hours on Christmas Day. His parents and uncle tested positive within the next week. Another uncle then had it passed on to him when one of the family went round to assist when the fiance's mum was in hospital.

This is obviously heartbreaking for the family - but how can you say that this is entirely the fault of the government? The writing was on the wall, mixing over Christmas was obviously going to spread the disease, but they took the risk of meeting up and now this has happened. I'm not sure the government could have made it any clearer that meeting up over Christmas WOULD cause deaths.

Frustrating as hell listening to people who took the risk and are now suffering the consequences, when our family decided it wasn't worth risking it and put a million socially distanced measures into place to protect my grandma in her 90s - he passed away in June from undiagnosed stage 4 ovarian cancer, with none of us having seen her since March.

You took the chance, you knew the risks.

If they broke the rules you can blame them

Really?

Often they are, yes. @itsgettingweird, and the speed limits for that piece of road are reduced.

There is a mindset that if the rules allow it then it is safe and if the rules say no then it isn't. You see it enough on here.

If the rules allowed this to happen then the rules designed to stop the spread of covid are not stopping the spread of covid, therefore they are inadequate.

The fault lies with the inadequate rules if the family followed the rules and did nothing wrong.

If they broke the rules then they share the responsibility.

@PrincessNutNuts

Often they are, yes. *@itsgettingweird*, and the speed limits for that piece of road are reduced.

So why do motorways remain at 70 when there's so many accidents.

There isn't always blame. People take calculated risks.

No one forced meeting at Christmas. We were told it was a risk. We also all know about isolation etc and could have isolated beforehand if we chose.

This is just a tragic incident where it was fatal for one family. But government aren't to blame for allowing mixing.

They are to blame for lots though!

Motorway speed limits are a political and economic decision, the same as the covid rules.

Would the family have done it if it was against the rules?

Would they have broken the law to do it?

Would these deaths have been prevented if the mixing had not been allowed?

The rules are the problem. Not the people.

@knittingaddict

I won't click on a DM link, so did anyone die? Are they grieving?

www.nottinghampost.com/news/uk-world-news/four-members-same-family-die-4936698

I agree with you OP. Especially if you look at the profile of the people who sadly died - they had many risk factors between them - they should have been more careful.

Still very sad though.

People really do think that being "careful" and "taking it seriously" and "sticking to the rules" is going to stop them catching it, don't they? This thread pretty much proves it.

Good covid sufferers = key workers (extra points if you add "Frontline").
Bad covid sufferers = people who met their family on Xmas day.

Got it.

@PrincessNutNuts

Motorway speed limits are a political and economic decision, the same as the covid rules.

Would the family have done it if it was against the rules?

Would they have broken the law to do it?

Would these deaths have been prevented if the mixing had not been allowed?

The rules are the problem. Not the people.

the problem is that obviously we do not know the answer to any of those hypothetical questions. the issue is that despite the warnings that mixing was a dangerous thing to do, this family chose to do so. why should the responsibility for that choice lie with anyone other than the people that made it?

it's not illegal to drink to excess or to smoke, but those things carry an inherent risk and danger to one's health. if a person were to die of health conditions exacerbated by drinking or smoking, would it be fair to blame the government for not making either of those things illegal? no, because the person made the choice.

@LucilleTheVampireBat the partner who passed away was both a front line key worker (supermarket), and someone who met with their family on christmas day. what's your point?

I thought exactly the same after reading this article this morning.

Irrespective of government SD rules over Christmas, the onus was always on the individual to make an informed decision whether to mix or not, on the assumption that any social mixing increases transmission risk.

These are adults. They made a decision to push ahead with socialising over Christmas and very sadly people died as a result. This does not mean that the government has “blood on their hands”. We can blame the government for a lot of things, but personal autonomy should still carry with it some responsibility.

Following the rules does not make you immune to COVID. The rules are put in place by the government to reduce other peoples' risk. They are not there to prevent any risk of catching COVID in an individual. It is up to each individual person to protect themselves whilst not breaking the rules that may infect others. The government said you could meet up at Christmas it is up to each individual to determine if that risk is one they were willing to make

Thanks for that CoffeeandCroissant.

In that case I will give them some slack for grieving and maybe unreasonable because of it.

We took a calculated risk at Christmas. We are in a support bubble with our eldest and her children. We also saw our other daughter and her partner on Christmas Day. We hadn't seen them for weeks/months before that and probably won't see them for a few more months. All but my eldest have been working from home and following the rules completely.

It felt relatively safe, but if any of us had gone down with Covid it would have been our fault completely. It might have been slightly easier to say no if the government had put a blanket ban on meeting up, but our decision to get together was on us.

Thankfully we got away with it and I feel very sorry for the family in that story. The guilt must be awful to live with.

As if people have not been taking it seriously?

Lots of people haven't. Chin masks. Massive weddings in lockdown. Etc

But these people are morons and not reachable by stories like this

Sigh. It's almost like I got a full house in the predictions for December after the November lockdown thread where I posted:

^Shops open again 3rd December.

Pubs and restaurants open a week or two later.

Schools closed for 3-4 weeks between mid Dec and early Jan.

Restrictions eased completely from Christmas Eve to NY Day with the warning 'be careful'. Everyone spends the entire Christmas period as if covid doesn't exist.

Huge spike in cases early January, back to full lockdown and sad face stories in the tabloids in late January about families with multiple bereavements because they had mass gatherings at Christmas 'because they were allowed to'^

Apart from pubs and restaurants staying closed in many areas, a slight shift in the initial dates for Christmas easing and how they dealt with schools, that's pretty accurate as predictions go, right down to the 'sad faces in the tabloids in late January due to multiple fatalities caused by Christmas mixing' .

The restrictions have taken away people's autonomy when it comes to risk assessment.
Yet they are expected to do this when it suits the government to both permit (to be popular) and discourage (to be 'safe') an activity?

They haven't taken away my autonomy.

At one point the government said I could eat in a restaurant, go to the pub, join a gym and take my grandchildren to soft play. To hell with that, I thought.

I've thought for myself all along, but it's fortunate for others that I'm fairly risk adverse and what I do, or rather don't do, doesn't hurt others. Going the other way and meeting people left, right and centre does impact others in a pretty big way. Sometimes it kills people.

Just noticed that I implied that my eldest hadn't been following the rules in the post at 14.06. She has been following every rule, but has been working outside the home.

@knittingaddict

They haven't taken away my autonomy.

At one point the government said I could eat in a restaurant, go to the pub, join a gym and take my grandchildren to soft play. To hell with that, I thought.

I've thought for myself all along, but it's fortunate for others that I'm fairly risk adverse and what I do, or rather don't do, doesn't hurt others. Going the other way and meeting people left, right and centre does impact others in a pretty big way. Sometimes it kills people.

They have, because now they are saying you can't do any of those things. You don't have the choice to risk assess them and decide, that's been done for you.

The fact that your risk assessment is at the moment in line with the restrictions currently in place is a matter of coincidence not autonomy.

I understand what you are saying OP, this is a tragedy but no one is to blame here, I’m not a Boris Johnson fan but the blood on his hands isn’t from this particular case.

I'm convinced by your post User2921.

I don't support autonomy and restrictions are what we need at the moment. What we don't need is everyone doing what the hell they feel like. Hope that helps.

I see both sides of the argument. Personally I think the government shouldn’t have allowed mixing at Christmas. They could see the numbers rising, knew about the new variant, SAGE etc warning against mixing, and yet they allowed mixing to happen. Yes, people could risk assess themselves and decide it’s too much of a risk, but why legislate the stopping of mixing for some festivities (Eid) and allow it for others (Christmas)? The mixed messaging and frank gaslighting- such as the insistence that schools are safe when they so obviously aren’t - and it’s no wonder people have no idea what to do and if they aren’t following the news or numbers may have no idea how to risk assess for themselves.

I think we all know people putting themselves and their families at risk, which is their choice. However it affects all of us. It's bizarre that for some the possibility of causing a loved one serious illness isn't enough to stop them socialising.

I know of adult grandchildren who visited their grandparents whilst positive for covid, but being asymptomatic thought it was an acceptable risk.
Both grandparents became extremely unwell with covid, one hospitalised. Now both recovered whole family still behaving as before, but blaming " the public" for catching the infection . Do people such as this not realise that they are included as "the public"?
I simply don't know if it's a case that people simply do not understand or are just choosing to ignore the facts, or have no fear of legal consequences?

Very frustrating for those adhering to rules, however tough they may be, and nhs staff who have to pick up the pieces.

@testingtesting321 very good point. my immediate instinct is to say no, how ridiculous, how can anyone not be following the news and numbers at this time - but realistically of course there are those who are not able to for whatever reason, and it is reasonable for them to be able to rely on the government for suitable advice.