Current rules really are bonkers. Presumably though there is a rationale, what is it?

[Nevertime]

I'm a rule follower. I've complied with everything asked of me but I'm not someone who makes up heavier restrictions for myself than those advised .

On Friday I was told I'm back to WFH. I travel to work by car and share an office with one other person.

Yesterday, I wore my mask on a quiet train to meet a group of people for a walk. We ended at the pub, that was rammed, no masks in sight.

Yesterday evening I was at a party, people all over each other, the organisers specifically told not to cancel.

It's obviously my choice to be in these places and TBH I'm at a point now where I'm going to do a bit living while I can, but the restrictions are completely pointless in the face of what is allowed. Or every little does genuinely help?

Being generous to the government, any rules made on the hoof are going to have inconsistencies. If most people stick to them then it should in theory slow the spread.
Being not so generous, they are pointless other than for them to tick a box to say that they did something, then they can blame us for not sticking to it.

@Stiffcondomhat

Being generous to the government, any rules made on the hoof are going to have inconsistencies. If most people stick to them then it should in theory slow the spread. Being not so generous, they are pointless other than for them to tick a box to say that they did something, then they can blame us for not sticking to it.

But in my examples I have stuck to everything, to the letter.

They can't afford to tell businesses to shut so let people going to the pub / restaurant / theatre risk it. Really unfair on the staff.

Ok, what you’re seeing here is the element of personal responsibility. You’ve experienced migrations and restrictions in places that are considered essential and a lot of people have no choice to be.

Parties and pubs aren’t essential (although I wonder about a the staffing in each venue), you don’t have to be there. You’ve made a conscious choice, knowing the current state of infections and associated risks, to attend a venue.

They could also be paving the way for more severe restrictions.

@megletthesecond

They can't afford to tell businesses to shut so let people going to the pub / restaurant / theatre risk it. Really unfair on the staff.

More unfair than closing them, either by law or by just telling people not to attend?

I was talking to the Landlord yesterday, he's (naturally) thrilled to have a busy pub, but his staff would rather be working than not too.

There are limits to what can be restricted without needing to bring back furlough though, which they clearly don’t want to do. December is a huge month for hospitality, that has already had a hideous couple of years. Putting limits on it now would have a huge impact.

I get that it doesn’t seem logical that you should wfh but can go to the pub with your colleagues, but people working from home will make public transport quieter, when you do meet at the pub you’ll presumably be relatively safer than if you’d been on public transport all week etc. And unless you bring in a full lockdown, or have no restrictions at all, there’s always going to be an example of “why can I do x but not y, it doesn’t make sense.” If they restricted pubs/restaurants it would be “why can’t I go to a restaurant with a small group but can have a massive house party?”

For everyone taking risks and not following rules there is another who isn't taking risks and is following the rules. I refuse to wfh and am in office. I travel by car and we are seated 2m apart and have window open. I take my mum to supermarket every week and we wear masks (Scotland and never stopped). We have been to the pub but judged occupancy accordingly. We socialise in generally a set group of 8 so we don't have large risk factor. This is probably why out of the 8 only one person has had covid - they work in vaccination centre.. This suits us, it won't and shouldn't suit others. Everyone should be free to do what they want and to vaccinate or not.

Everyone should be free to do what they want and to vaccinate or not

Was it really necessary to shoehorn that into the discussion???

The plan is simply to reduce the overall amount of social interaction. From a disease control viewpoint you would ideally reduce them by 100%. But clearly that’s just not practical. So you do what you can to reduce it by 10%, 20%, 30% whatever. And in doing that there will always be some inconsistencies.

We’re not trying to halt Omicron in its tracks, we are just trying to slow down the spread.

Any efforts to reduce contacts will have some effect. It doesn’t have to be completely logical.

Being in a crowded pub is obviously more risky to you, as an individual, than in a socially distanced well ventilated office.

But if taking people out of offices reduces spread by say 10-20%, that’s all helpful at a population level.

And people WFH are still doing their job and getting paid for it. Shut down hospitality etc and you have to bring back furlough.

In any individual situation there will be inconsistencies

On a national scale, these measures slow the spread.

It's a bit like exceptions proving the rule. Occasionally it's e before i, but generally 'I before e except after c' works.

It’s also about behavioural science. No great benefit in banning celebrations and parties if only a small, responsible minority would comply (particularly after the news this week). WFH is less painful for the majority and more likely to see compliance, especially as employers have a duty of care. But agree economic factors will be high on the agenda eg avoiding furlough.

As others have said WFH reduces social contacts with minimal obvious impact on the economy (although there is an impact from less use of public transport, lunches and drinks after work but its hard to measue and prove).

Placing restrictions of pubs, restuarants etc, whether table service, group size limits or closure reduces trade, in a measurable way and businesses will be asking government for money to cover the loss of trade.

Current rules are the cheapest measures for the Government to slow down covid. If ihospitalisations increase though they might have to spend some more £££

I think a lot of the measures are stupid, but wearing masks on quiet trains and in shops still makes sense because they are essential places that many vulnerable people have to make use of, many of these won’t be going to parties etc, but by wearing your mask on trains it helps protect them, I think that bit is quite obvious. Your risk may still be higher because that’s your choice, but someone else’s is slightly lower as a result. Not really sure about the working from home one, other than it keeping more vulnerable people safer on commutes.