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.

it doesn't matter what you have or haven't bought

Right, so you are back to the Thought Crime again aren't you?

I think you are showing us who you are very well.

It's people like you I have 'outrage' for. And I will pushback against it. Always.

Go on, give me another example of how my thoughts are literally killing people.

And btw, you are on the Feminist board. We have been used to accusations of literally killing people for some time.

Do show me where I have said your thoughts are killing people?

If you are spending time in a shop then you are delaying the next customer from coming in. That means the responsibility is on you to be in there the least amount of time possible. The shop assistants also shouldn't have to risk infection just for customers to buy cushions and candles.

If you can't see that, and still think it's right to argue for shoppers to buy whatever they want then yes, I judge you and I don't much care whether you like it or not.

Above. Read your posts.

Anyway, I'm bored with you now. I am off to perform thought subordination elsewhere.

Again to be clear, I will always says no to people like you. The answer is no.

If people just did what they were asked then there would be no need for stricter lockdown or tighter rules.

But it's blatantly untrue that people aren't sticking to the rules. Some people might not be, but they aren't going to stick to any rules, no matter how strict you make them. There are always people who think that rules are for others (see speeding, using a mobile phone whilst driving and the like). If people weren't sticking to the rules then there wouldn't be long queues around supermarkets because everyone would be ignoring the signs and crowding around the doors demanding to be let in. People, by and large, aren't doing that.

Good for you.

Personally, I find refusal to follow rules that benefit everyone particularly immature and I'm sure that if it were you or a loved one desperately ill with this you wouldn't be calling for everyone to break the rules would you?

In my experience, most people are complying with regulations. The queues at supermarkets are mainly because numbers inside are restricted and people are trying to buy in bulk so as to reduce the number of times they have to shop. The vast majority are keeping in their bubbles when outside, even crossing the street to do so.

I did buy wine and face cream last time I was in Tesco's. It was for my elderly mother who's sheltering. I'll tell her next time she needs to do without for the greater good.

My main worry is that we could squander this goodwill and take counterproductive measures. For example, stop teenagers going to parks, where they can be seen and split up if they start congregating, and some of them will meet indoors where they can't be policed and where transmission is more likely. Stop women from leaving the home they share with a violent partner, and murders might well result.

Eh? I didn't call for anyone to break rules. Pointing out that some people do so is not me giving them a pat on the back.

isabellerossignol

The supermarket where I work have had to employ a team of security guards to make people join the queue.

This weekend will be telling I think and will determine what happens next.

The supermarket where I work have had to employ a team of security guards to make people join the queue.

And hundreds of shops, thousands even, don't have to have security guards to make people queue.

I did buy wine and face cream last time I was in Tesco's. It was for my elderly mother who's sheltering. I'll tell her next time she needs to do without for the greater good.

I'm sheltering. You don't need wine or face cream if it means someone else can't get in to buy food. My hair desperately needs dyeing. I'm not about to ask someone to buy hair dye for me though because I can get by without it.

And yes great idea. Let's tell teenagers that they can congregate in parks rather than at home. No chance of them spreading the virus and then taking it home to infect others is there? Clearly, the virus will understand that Draconian rules are tough on teenagers and so will pass them by.

And hundreds of shops, thousands even, don't have to have security guards to make people queue.

Really? They do here. Even the little Tesco express has security to over see the queue.

Perhaps we should just abandon lockdown completely. It's obviously too difficult to follow the rules and it's unfair to make some follow the rules and not everyone so let's just crack on then shall we? Obviously that's what you all want.

I'm not objecting to following the rules and I'm not advocating for abandoning lockdown. I am however, refusing to pay attention to made up rules.

And no, none of the shops where I live have got security guards forcing people to queue in the appropriate way. They have got signs up around the car park with places marked out where it is safe to stand, and everyone is doing as they have been asked.

Then what's the problem? If people are doing it voluntarily that's great isn't it but what would you want to happen if they weren't? A kind of survival of the fittest?

I don't see the choice. If people don't abide by the rules you either enforce them or abandon them don't you? What else can you do?

Let's tell teenagers that they can congregate in parks rather than at home.

Did you actually read what I said. I said don't let teenagers congregate in parks, break up groups, which is possible if they are meeting in public. If forced out of public places, some of them will congregate in private places where they can't be controlled. They shouldn't, but some will because teenagers.

The answer to "some people are disobeying the rules" should be to enforce existing sensible rules, not invent new arbitrary ones that can't be enforced.

I don't see the choice. If people don't abide by the rules you either enforce them or abandon them don't you? What else can you do?

Earlier you were objecting to people doing things that are perfectly acceptable within the current rules, such as walking in an area where other people are walking, or buying wine with their supermarket shop.
You seem to want people to not be allowed to do those things.

Sorry, posted too soon.

You don't punish the entire population to enforce the rules on a small minority who break them. It's like in school, where the whole class get detention because one person won't stop talking. It doesn't make everyone behave better, it makes everyone rebel more.

Some of this is down to a grasp that the rules are inadequate.

With regard to running, cycling and general outside exercise, there is some evidence that people undertaking strenuous physical exertion cast droplets further than those who aren’t.

So if someone runs past you at a distance of 2m, breathing heavily, it isn’t as safe as if someone was standing 2m away from you.

There is also evidence that runners running/cyclists cycling the slipstream of others are at high risk.

www.runnersworld.com/uk/news/a32094750/coronavirus-runner-slipstream/

In crowded urban areas with limited green space, the fact that the safe distance from someone who is exercising is more like 15-20m than 2m is a real concern.

I think some of the concern about outside exercise is down to some people having an intuitive grasp of this and being unable to articulate it properly. When someone exercises, they are working their respiratory system harder, so it’s not rocket science to guess that the safe zone in that situation is larger.

Some of it is also just down to people rightly realising we don’t know the full story with the virus yet as it is so new, so better safe than sorry. Especially as recent weeks have seen people being told “It’s safe to shake hands, no, bump elbows, no stay 2m apart, hold on should we all be wearing masks?”. So something we were explicitly told was safe recently turns out not to be.

Then there is the fact that some people naturally see laws as a minimum, that being good/polite/responsible actually means you need to go further than the law, some people see the law as the limit of what is reasonable to expect and some people think that laws are there to be broken. Everyone is aware that there are other approaches to the law, and in such an emergent situation everyone feels nervous that not everyone will respond in the same way they do, the way that makes them feel safe. This is as true of people who see social fascism in social policing as it is of people who see recklessness in acting to the letter not the spirit of the law.

Earlier you were objecting to people doing things that are perfectly acceptable within the current rules, such as walking in an area where other people are walking, or buying wine with their supermarket shop.
You seem to want people to not be allowed to do those things.

No, I was objecting to people going to the park for extended periods of time. Spending the day at the park sunbathing, even if two metres apart, is not in keeping with the rules. As for buying wine, I think we should all be restricted to buying essentials. It isn't fair on shop assistants or other shoppers if we all spend longer in a shop than we need to.

TheStarryNight

That is exactly my position, expressed much better than I can do.

As for buying wine, I think we should all be restricted to buying essentials. It isn't fair on shop assistants or other shoppers if we all spend longer in a shop than we need to.

I honestly don't follow your logic with this. How long it takes someone to do their shop is much more dependent on the layout of the shop and the system that the shop has put in place, than on what they actually put in their trolley once they are in there. Not to mention other things such as how fast they can walk, or how good or poor their eyesight is, or even just how well they know the shop. My local huge Tesco has put a system in place where there are markers on the floor at two metre intervals and you have to follow a one way system. No one can move forward until the person in front does. If I'm standing in the wine/crisps/chocolate/cake aisle waiting for the queue to move, how can I possibly be putting anyone at risk by lifting a bottle down and putting it in my trolley?

The objection to wine is because that means that some one could be, gasp, enjoying themselves for a few hours. And we cant have that can we?

You will be fucking miserable and grateful for it.

There is no logic to the thought control policers.

It's all petty minded, envious, curtain twitching, with a smattering of Drill Sergeant

Some people also seem to know a great deal of what is going on locally, while simultaneously shielding. Must have lots of informants.

(Curtains twitch, secret phone tip line activates)

We just got back from St James Park (very local to us before anyone goes off on one). So so beautiful. I stopped to take this photo.

Everyone was distancing. A few people sitting individually on the grass. I cannot get upset about that. It’s central London. Most people who live in Westminster will be in flats. Cheek by jowl with neighbours. Often no outside space. They are literally affecting Covid 19 infection rates by sitting in the middle of a park alone by 0%.

The only reason for the limitation to ‘exercise only’ is to make it simpler and easier for the police to enforce. Sitting on the grass alone is clearly no risk to anyone. I’m prepared to tolerate the police moving people on for sitting on the grass if it makes an overall policing of the lockdown easier but let’s not pretend there is any other reason not to sit on the grass alone.

The police were there in number by the way. Enthusiastically moving people on. Shame we don’t see them on our troubled main high st day dealing with the knife crime in our area. A neighbour took some pictures last year of knife mugging taking place in the middle of the day. Very clear and recognisable photos. Police apparently had no resources to make an arrest. We got our MP involved and the perpetrator - obviously known to the police - was arrested that week. I hope all of this prompts a rethink of what people want from policing.

Thanks for that picture, Binterested, the flowers are lovely.

Yes it was so cheering to see. So pointless. So lovely