I genuinely don't get why people are so offended by small rule breaks at this point

[Flower234]

I'm not trying to be goady and this is not a thread about a thread, but inspired by admittedly

So basically, 1/3 or there abouts (maybe more?) have had first vaccine which we now KNOW reduces transmission. Everything is trending downwards. We've been doing this for a year- Many of us are financially, mentally and emotionally drained, but things are looking up. It's safer than it's been in a while, and it's time to consider 'opening up. I'm not anti-lockdown, but I am pro proportionate covid restrictions with the minimum restrictions to liberty necessary.

That said, how do some people genuinely take time out of their day to have a go at people for the tiniest rule breaks which will make NO impact or very little impact on transmission?

Like a single person going to a second home, someone meeting two people outside instead of one, someone driving an hour to meet a partner they haven't seen in four months for a walk... All genuine examples I've seen people go irate over

It scares me how quickly people will cite "the rules," even if they are nonsensical. Some of my 'friends' would scream at me for meeting two people outside today but if the gov said you could meet thirty people indoors tomorrow legally, would go to a house party no question.

I suppose my question is does anyone else feel like people use "because the government made it a rule" as a reason to control and rebuke others, without any aspect of critical thinking or actual science? They're not scared of covid- They don't care about transmission. They just like the powertrip.

Does anyone else feel they know a lot of people like this?

Kazzy. Not really. It's mainly patients who spread it in hospitals, not staff.

It’s bizarre to me that people are so willing to follow the completely nonsensical rules. A couple of weeks ago someone I know asked on my local facebook group if they were allowed to take their children for a walk to a massive forest which is thousands of acres, about 5 miles from where we live. Most people replied saying no, stay home stay safe etc. I commented of course they could, a bit of critical thinking would tell them there was no problem with this whatsoever, and that it was sad that anyone even had to ask.

As someone who was in a terrifying relationship for a few years with a diagnosed psychopath, I’m finding the parallels between that and what is coming from our government really scary, and triggering for me. Controlling our movements, even when it makes no sense. Isolating us from friends and family. Constantly shifting the goalposts so that you can never get to where you think you’re going. People are questioning the logic and the data, but because people are so scared they feel it’s safer to believe what they’re being told, rather than not. One rule for them and another for us. It’s exactly how I lived for years, and I’m not doing it anymore.

Personally I’ve been breaking the rules, not in any major ways, no parties or anything but yes I have been spending time with family and close friends. No one has become ill, in fact I only know of possibly 3 who have tested positive (not close friends), all had very minor symptoms, and they’re not local people. In my particular area there were no excess deaths at all in 2020. I’m not saying covid isn’t real, but I think the danger of it has been massively inflated by the gov/media for the purposes of controlling us.

@Totallyfedup1979

I don’t care anymore. I’m doing as I please.

I’m back at work without PPE soon as a teacher and the government don’t think I need to social distance, stay home or wear masks. The government deem it perfectly safe for me to mix with hundreds of teens everyday ... why would I break my neck to follow the rules and not see the people I actually want to see?

I’m not a disposable robot. I’m not just going to put myself at risk when the government says it’s OK. So I’m looking at it differently....when I return to school (and right now I can’t wait), I will also return to as much of a normal life as I can get without shops etc being open.

If I’m ok to be around all those kids day in day out; then it’s perfectly fine for me to have my sister and her family over for dinner etc.

It's a shame that part of your tea her training didn't include critical thinking & how to risk assess.

Good job some others appear to have had that training.

I think it should be taught in schools...starting with the staff.

The beaches were responsible for not a single outbreak.
www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/19/how-the-beach-super-spreader-myth-can-inform-uks-future-covid-response?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1613722352

I'm doing what suits me from now on which means no new people in my house that I haven't already mixed with throughout, but I'm meeting who ever I like out and about and can't wait for shops cafes and pubs and restaurants to open

@DavidsSchitt

"There was so much emotions at them all being together we weren’t going to stop them hugging. They have been SO careful and responsible for the last year. The birthday girls mum hesitantly cashed me and said “ please don’t think I’m being an irresponsible monster but can she come into our house for cake? Just my daughter and the three girls as it’s started raining “

Of course I said yes. And three hours later when my daughter called, sounding deliriously happy and hearing her friends laughing in the back ground I knew id made the right choice. Can she have a sleep over? I’ll drop the pjs off now."

You've perfectly explained why one small rule break snowballs into a situation where perfect conditions for passing the virus on.

The girls walked together - small rule break
Went into the garden - small rule break, becoming more relaxed.
Hugs - social distancing completely out of the window
Pop in for cake - bigger rule break, relatively small
Popping in for cake takes 3 hours - risk of transmission is high if anyone is asymptomatic.
Yay, sleepover - anyone now infected will have a much higher viral load and chance of worse illness. Anyone not infected during the 3 hour cake visit probably will be now.
Go home - to 4 different households, one with CEV parent who could now become severely ill and need hospitalisation.

Sleepovers by teenagers were identified as a cause of spread. This is exactly the type of behaviour that is helping to drag this out for everyone.

Yep & the risk to many, is there now. They could have dropped the presents off at different times, had a chat outside & been given a slice of cake. Minimal risk.

IF they really needed to...& id be surprised if they all NEEDED to (rather than wanted to).

Going inside the house was unnecessary
Staying for 3 hours was completely unnecessary
Sleep over was beyond, completely beyond, irresponsible.

The beaches were responsible for not a single outbreak

Yet 8 weeks later Southend had the worst coronavirus figures of any LA in the county.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/southend-sea-could-centre-second-4302472.amp.

Bear in mind papers report what they want to. For every news article with one opinion you can find another with the opposite.

I totally agree op. I think there's three broad groups:

• Some people like to follow rules for the sake of following rules
• Some people try to make sensible risk assessments
• Some people don't give a shit at all.

Unfortunately the second group gets conflated with the third group.

The risk assessment group, it works both ways don't forget. We put our own restrictions in place too. So for example, DH and I stopped slightly vulnerable grandparents doing childcare 2 weeks before lockdown last March as we felt the risk was unacceptable. We wore masks before they were mandated. We avoided crowded places, especially indoors, even when it was allowed (restaurants, pubs) because we felt the risk was too high. We generally kept the circle of people we saw in the summer small, and outside as much as poss.

However this weekend I saw a friend outside at the park with both my kids, even though DS is 5 so technically that wasn't allowed. I'm doing the same next weekend with a different friend so my 5yo can play with his 5yo friend. We drive 30 mins to the beach to walk because it's less crowded than the local area and because the actual law doesn't state to stay in local area, only the guidance does.

The above examples are small rule breaks that some of the same people who flocked to indoor, unventilated restaurants during the summer would have a hissy fit about now. Those are the 'follow rules for the sake of it' people, who will do stuff that risky as long as its within rules but will avoid something patently low risk because it is not within the rules. It's dumb.

Some people try to make sensible risk assessments

Thing is, most people don’t have the knowledge or expertise on virus transmission and epidemiology to be able to make “sensible risk assessments”

They make the decision based on perceived risk to themselves, not to the population as a whole.

@tarapinn

Pink tonic

Well luckily nobody at work knows what I get up to at home so that really won't happen

Do you not give a damning if you infect the patients on your ward or the people in shops?

I noticed today more groups of a older people were out lots stopping to chat also a group of 4 at a picnic bench having a coffee. They've probably all been vaccinated so good for them. However, teen DD raised an eyebrow at this saying if her and her mates did were doing this those very same people would be berating the for selfishnes

Vaccination doesn’t exempt people from the rules. Many people seem to think vaccination is their free pass to do as they please. It’s not.

@tarapinn

Kazzy. Not really. It's mainly patients who spread it in hospitals, not staff.

Yes because it's patients going from one bed to another all day....

Oh wait...

*Pink tonic

Well luckily nobody at work knows what I get up to at home so that really won't happen smile*

Not so great when you face a dismissal hearing for breaking rules if caught.

Is that worth the risk?

Most govt depts- nhs, police, civil servants etc face severe consequences for breaking lockdown rules.

1. Because some people are so driven by their own irrational fear that they’re terrified of other humans outside their little bubble.

1. Because some people are jealous but they’re too compliant to do what they really want to do which is go and see their friend outside for half an hour, and if they can’t then they want to make sure nobody else can.
2. Because some people have created a whole emotional edifice to cope which includes sticking rigidly to rules and not questioning anything, and if people start disobeying rules and the world doesn’t end the edifice will crumble, one doubt will lead to the next and then uncomfortable questions will start to raise themselves.

@bluebluezoo

Some people try to make sensible risk assessments

Thing is, most people don’t have the knowledge or expertise on virus transmission and epidemiology to be able to make “sensible risk assessments”

They make the decision based on perceived risk to themselves, not to the population as a whole.

You don't need to have expertise on epidemiology to read the evidence about how covid spreads and make sensible risk assessments based on that. Which takes me back to my point that even when it was within rules I wouldn't go to a crowded indoor area because that's where most super spreader events happened, and the risk of contracting the virus is much higher. It was always a risky thing to do even in the summer. Meeting a friend with a 5 year old at the park is clearly much lower risk based on how covid spreads. Not no risk, but lower. 'Experts' disagree which is why even among government advisers and decision makers there's disagreement and conflicting advice. The WHO was insisting covid wasn't airborne and masks did absolutely nothing for months after all. But there is steadily increasing evidence in the form of research papers about how covid spreads that even a layperson can make a level of risk assessment. It's common knowledge now that indoor, poorly ventilated spaces are worst for transmission so why anyone would choose to be in those spaces at the moment is beyond me - yet if our shambles of government OKs it, people do.

I also mean the risk assessment has to be based on covid risk. The people like pp who say well they had a sleepover because my kids mental heath is important isn't really risk assessing covid risk, or they wouldn't have done it. They're basing their decision on other factors.

@tarapinn

Kazzy. Not really. It's mainly patients who spread it in hospitals, not staff.

Evidence?

I see it with my own eyes in a day treatment centre. Patients are say 2 metres apart and stay in their seats during their infusions. Staff wonder from patient to patient, don't change their gloves/gowns, and don't even wipe down the equipment between patients, i.e. blood pressure cuffs, finger oxymeters etc taken from patient to patient. The PPE they wear is to protect themselves, not their patients, otherwise they'd change it between patients!

@bluebluezoo

I noticed today more groups of a older people were out lots stopping to chat also a group of 4 at a picnic bench having a coffee. They've probably all been vaccinated so good for them. However, teen DD raised an eyebrow at this saying if her and her mates did were doing this those very same people would be berating the for selfishnes

Vaccination doesn’t exempt people from the rules. Many people seem to think vaccination is their free pass to do as they please. It’s not.

Agreed, also made me think that schools returning will blamed for a spike in cases when it could also be likely to be due to the newly vaccinated throwing caution to the wind.

Kazzy I agree, infection control in hospitals is appalling. Nothing is wiped down and cross-infection risks are simply ignored.