Covid-19 and purity spirals

[DreadPirateLuna]

Covid-19 is a very serious illness which threatens our most vulnerable and risks overwhelming the NHS. We should all do what we can to flatten the curve and save lives. People whose behaviour risks lives (e.g. urban residents traveling out to holiday homes in rural communities) should face criticism and sanctions.

However, I can't help feeling that some of the outrage at some behaviours is less about reducing the spread and more about getting caught in a "purity spiral".

Take all the outrage about people in parks. Fresh air and sunshine is good for physical and mental health, it improves the immune system which is particularly important during an epidemic! Many urban residents have no other source of open space except the local park. The ability to get outside can be lifesaving for victims of DV. Risks of contracting disease are very low if you keep your distance from others outside your household.

Yet I've seen photos of walkers and family groups in parks, keeping far away from others, but accused of selfishness and killing the elderly and disrespecting the NHS. Parks in London have been closed, meaning more congestion of other areas and residents confined to homes, which is damaging for reasons outlined above.

And it's usually (though not exclusively) women and esp mothers who get blamed. Those selfish Karens and their broods.

A more sensible solution would be to allow restricted access to the parks. Maybe allow only locals in nearby flats without gardens. But it seems we're not doing sensible these days.

I agree with you that there should be an easier way to manage people going out, such as issuing passes to those living in flats etc. However I also accept this will be very difficult to put in place and police. It's so difficult and I feel so sorry for those living on top of each other at the moment with no outdoor space.

I think it's an understandable (though unreasonable) sentiment; the current restrictions feel something like a group punishment and the longer they're ignored, the longer they'll last. People are suffering in a myriad of ways so are more likely to lash out when they perceive that others are prolonging their suffering with transgressions.

I wouldn't class it as a traditional purity spiral, though there are commonalities.

What an interesting perspective I'll be sure to look out for this

You're not being allowed out for fresh air and sunshine but for exercise (walk/run/cycle only, no games) and you do not need to be in a green space for it, just anywhere outdoors.

Unless you are proposing a wholesale change to the lockdown rules, then intermittent park closures are inevitable because of frequent breaches. At least one London borough is appealing to people not to travel to them, so that local people can use their local park, but they will close if people do not heed the warning.

There is so much criticism floating around of walkers, cyclists and runners who are not breaching lockdown; it's hardly surprising there is even more of people who are in large groups, sunbathing, etc.

You don't actually need to be somewhere pretty to exercise, you don't even need to be outdoors.

If people cannot follow the guidance (and some people seem to be hellbent on nitpicking and carping and whatabouting) then further restrictions may well become necessary.

It's been mainly groups of teenage boys that I have seen flouting the no mixing from households rule. Some people get overly worked up about the regulations and don't seem to think anyone should leave the house ever where as we need fresh air and exercise , and older people who aren't in the extremely vulnerable shielding group need to keep walking to retain their muscle mass so they don't become frail and at risk of falls and fractures.
Most people near me are being sensible.
I've heard about the Karen insult but not seen it anywhere apart from on mumsnet and Twitter and there it's people complaining about seeing others use it.

A more sensible solution would be to allow restricted access to the parks. Maybe allow only locals in nearby flats without gardens. But it seems we're not doing sensible these days

Well, ye, but sadly many people proved that left to their own devices they weren't capable of being sensible, didn't they? Hence the crowds at the beaches and national parks, the 3000 in a London park this weekend and so on.

In many of the photos I saw, people were obeying rules (keeping more than 2 metres apart, except for couples and families who already share a household), but there was still outrage.

There are real costs to restricting open air access, and some of these will make the epidemic worse rather than better. Poor health due to shut-ins means people will be more susceptible to the virus. Shutting parks mean some people will gather indoors instead, which can't be policed, thereby increasing rates of transmission.

Some people seem to be under the impression that if we're all good this will end in a month. It won't. We will have to live with restrictions for at least a year until a vaccine is approved. These restrictions need to be reasonable ones, not ones that just satisfy our need to "do something" while making the situation worse.

I have a garden and a medium-sized house, so my family can cope. Others are not so lucky.

No one could think that cramming 3000 people into a park, even if they were two metres apart is ok.

For a start off, research is coming out now showing that two metres may well be insufficient and that coughing and sneezing propel the virus much much further than two metres. Secondly, when have you ever sat on a crowded beach or park and not had anyone walk across your blanket or bump into you or kick a ball into you.

I don't see how you can try and claim health risks to staying indoors. Long term sure. Not for just a few weeks.

My husband works around parks and towns etc. Yesterday he said he'd never seen the park so busy, sunbathers, cyclists, runners etc.
I don't think it's ok. People have a choice, some don't and still have to mix with the general public.

No one could think that cramming 3000 people into a park, even if they were two metres apart is ok.

That's why access should be restricted.

Not for just a few weeks.

This is not going to be over in a few weeks.

Here's an article that makes the argument for keeping parks open better than I can:
www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/closing-parks-ineffective-pandemic-theater/609580/

Anyway, my main point (which may have gotten lost) was about moral outrage, and how the line can get blurred between objections to harmful behaviour and the need to prove one's own virtue.

No one could think that cramming 3000 people into a park, even if they were two metres apart is ok

But they weren’t - this was a total figure over one day, which would normally, have 10,000 in similar weather. It was featured in a Radio four programme yesterday ( More or Less, maybe) . At any one time, they calculated it would be about 400 people and, as a very large park, plenty of space for everyone.

That's why access should be restricted.

How?

Anyway, my main point (which may have gotten lost) was about moral outrage, and how the line can get blurred between objections to harmful behaviour and the need to prove one's own virtue.

I think it's understandable for people to be outraged if they see people flouting guidelines that have been put in place for the greater good. I can understand it even more if you, or someone you know, is a healthcare worker or is being put at risk by this behaviour.

I think you could equally ask why anyone should be outraged at anyone breaking rules or laws more generally. Most of us would be outraged if someone we knew drove whilst drunk wouldn't we? We you accuse them of being in a purity spiral or needing to prove their own virtue?

It takes a particular kind of individualism that’s the forte of our government to -

1. Delay action from the top asking individuals to sing happy birthday and wash hands till too late and making things an individual responsibility for what is a collective problem

1. And then, when the outcome of that behaviour starts manifesting in huge deaths 3 weeks later, start blaming invidividuals for misbehaving and threatening draconian blanket actions such as no outdoor exercise.

Those with large gardens will suffer less than those in inner city tower blocks. Already in the USA stats are coming out about the disease being far from a great equaliser and affecting minority ethnic communities far far more for long-standing socio economic reasons.

This was never an individual problem and it cannot be solved by punishing individuals. The government should have acted quicker, earlier and stronger.

How?

If there's a gate, you can have a one-in one-out system, same as with supermarkets.

I think it's understandable for people to be outraged if they see people flouting guidelines that have been put in place for the greater good.

People should criticize those idiots who flout real guidelines. But what I see is people getting outraged at others flouting "guidelines" that just exist in their heads. Like someone sitting in a park a long way from anyone. Or someone buying "inessential' Easter eggs along with their other groceries. It's a "twitching windows" situation that doesn't help.

Namesgonenow, I completely agree.

Agree, OP. You can tell it's a purity spiral because its fiercest adherents have no interest in the actual risk level of the activities in question (Brockwell Park is enormous, someone worked out that each of those 3000 people could have had 100 square metres to themselves).

The other classic sign is the level of outrage - which ramps up immediately to "you are killing people!", which come to think of it is reminiscent of the hardcore transactivist approach.

JellyfishandShells, you're right, it was the brilliant More or Less, available in BBC Sounds, a programme that is a beacon of sanity in a post-truth world. The park in question is huge, the number was a whole-day total and at the busiest time held 1400.

The surrounding area has lots of flats, so... Let's not be judgy. Not every child has their own bedroom and not every home has a garden.

If there's a gate, you can have a one-in one-out system, same as with supermarkets.

There are plenty of parks with no gates, or with multiple gates. You've got to have people staffing gates plus some way of working out how long a person has been in the park, restricting time spent in the park and a way of turfing out those who have over stayed. How is that workable?

Like someone sitting in a park a long way from anyone.

No one should be sitting in a park though so anyone doing that is flouting the rules so should be challenged.

The outrage going on right now reminds me of children in the first few years of reception in primary school.

I remember one of my daughters being outraged that one boy had said “poopoo” to another, AND THE TEACHER DID NOTHING.

I think, as we are all adapting to new rules, individuals policing others is inevitable. We all have different ideas about what the rules mean, or should mean.

From a social psychology perspective, it was also inevitable that, once rules were introduced, people would shift from a mode of thought about what would be safe, risky or dangerous, to thinking about what they are allowed to do, and what they can get away with.

Some people will instantly have shifted their thinking into how they can bend the rules or justify breaking them. Which then loops into others being outraged that some people are bending the rules.

The rules are inevitably crude, and cannot consider everyone’s living conditions equally, so some rule bending will have to happen, anything else seems a bit Marie Antoinette ‘let them eat cake’-ish.

All that being said, I do wonder if we should put experienced reception year teachers in charge, as they usually get their children into an understanding of which rule-breaking is a major issue, and which are annoying but not quite worth dealing with in detail.

If you close the park then you are asking those 3000 people to exercise by walking along pavements in the surrounding area where it will be much harder to maintain even 2 metres distance.

"No one should be sitting in a park" - what about people with reduced mobility who need a sit down in the middle of their daily walk? Or parents watching their toddlers running about?

what about people with reduced mobility who need a sit down in the middle of their daily walk? Or parents watching their toddlers running about?

But the guidelines are very clear. Does the virus know that you are sitting because you need a rest or are watching children play and so doesn't infect you?

Why did the scientists issue these guidelines? Was it for shits and giggles? They obviously think there's a chance of transmitting it and so they've said we can't do it.

Look at the rules for those of us being shielded. We can't go out at all, even for a walk. If there's no chance of catching it from walking outside why aren't we able to do so? There must be risk from doing it because they've told us not to.

If you close the park then you are asking those 3000 people to exercise by walking along pavements in the surrounding area where it will be much harder to maintain even 2 metres distance.

Well, if that's what will happen they'll stop us going out at all then won't they?

The 3000 people in a park thing was completely overblown. Brockwell park is huge, there are normally 10,000 people there on a given day. Radio 4 program More or less completely debunked the council's overreaction.

Does it matter if it was 1000 or 3000? If it was ok for the 1000 to go to the park then why can't everyone who wants to go turn up? How do you stop 10,000 people going? If it's ok for one then it's ok for all. Might as well just end lockdown.

Everyone can go, if they follow the guidelines for social distancing. What's the problem with that?

I have no issue with the police chastising groups, but closing parks is ridiculous.