No cuddling, no board games, no sitting opposite each other for dinner...

I don't know whether I move in strange circles but the vast majority of people I know follow about 97% of the guidance about 97% of the time, at least, maybe more. I don't know anyone doing it 100% x 100% of the time, and I don't know anyone who is just 'doing what they want', but if there are those people, then we just have to accept that society isn't perfect. I mean people go round murdering and raping etc, some people aren't in it for society and whilst its terrible, its nothing new and its certainly not worth getting stressed about as we have no control over those people. I would suggest that its a small enough number to have a relatively small impact on society.

You only have to look back at the vilification of 'sunbathers' in the summer, which most scientists have now conceded probably had negligible impact as per most outdoor interactions. Sometimes people aren't really doing much wrong, but will be chastised for it nonetheless. That's the world we live in now.
 
Last edited:
"It is believed that up to 80% of cases are contracted from people going into other people's homes."

This is correct. Up to 85% in fact, but the Government can't police that, so they target the remaining 15%. Even then, schools and colleges take up the majority of those cohorts.
 
uncle_rico said:
It is believed that upto 80% of cases are contracted from people going into other people's homes. Many did and contine to do so when they aren't supposed to. The government guidance has been shocking and T&T is a farce. But far too many people didn't do what they needed to, and continue not to do so. We are where we are because of that as much as anything else, and is the reason why you feel that you need to lock yourself away for a for fortnight to be able to see your family at Christmas. How many others will be doing that?
Click to expand...
The figure for home infection is probably quite right, however I am not sure it supports your assertion that it is as much the public's fault as the governments and here is why.

Firstly you would expect a large number of infections to occur in the home. How many of the 80% infections were from family member either living together or bubbled together? I don't know the answer to this, but I suspect a fair number. These cross family/bubble infections would not have been prevented by people adhering to the guidelines.

Secondly, for those infections that occurred in the home between non-family members, a reliable T&T system would have prevented many of them, how many I don't know. But when you only contact about 20% of contacts, it's pretty worthless in stopping infections.

Finally a large proportion of deaths were in care homes, and whilst mortality is not the only metric to use, it is the most significant one. The government are solely and wholly responsible for seeding a deadly virus into care homes.

It would require about 80% of mortalities outside of care homes to be down to folks ignoring guidelines to apportion blame equally between the government and reckless behaviour from the general population, and that I do not buy.
 
atypical_boro said:
Pubs are open in many areas of the country. Is that “killing people”? Limiting yourself to two other households is arguably reducing your likelihood of spreading or becoming infected, provided you’re taking precautions and not going to the pub etc. Where you’d potentially be mixing with several other households on consecutive days.

I simply cannot imagine a world where people aren’t given a choice about seeing their families at Christmas. Christmas is extremely important to some people, notably grandparents, for religious reasons, mental health or otherwise. Having this guidance in place does not mean anyone should HAVE to see their families if they are not comfortable with the idea. It is purely about being given a choice and being trusted to take responsibility for your own actions. We don’t live in an autocracy (yet).

If people have elderly family members then they have a choice a) play it safe and avoid affecting them b) deprive them of their potentially last ever Christmas.

Not such an easy choice is it? I don't think 'selfish' even comes into it though. No one knows other people's circumstances.
Click to expand...

I think - if your position is lockdown saves lives then the logic flows
It isn’t my position tho
 
You c
uncle_rico said:
It is believed that upto 80% of cases are contracted from people going into other people's homes. Many did and contine to do so when they aren't supposed to. The government guidance has been shocking and T&T is a farce. But far too many people didn't do what they needed to, and continue not to do so. We are where we are because of that as much as anything else, and is the reason why you feel that you need to lock yourself away for a for fortnight to be able to see your family at Christmas. How many others will be doing that?
Click to expand...
You cannot lock up people without: entertainment, sport, family, enjoyment, libraries, hospitality for almost a year without a reaction. The attitude to the elderly and to care homes is a disgrace, to call people who want to see their parents or grandparents selfish is 1984 speak. Risk is everywhere cancer seems secondary.

We are having our outlaws for Xmas dinner, we pick them up, spoil them and let them remember they are humans.
 
Same_as_before said:
You c
You cannot lock up people without: entertainment, sport, family, enjoyment, libraries, hospitality for almost a year without a reaction. The attitude to the elderly and to care homes is a disgrace, to call people who want to see their parents or grandparents selfish is 1984 speak. Risk is everywhere cancer seems secondary.

We are having our outlaws for Xmas dinner, we pick them up, spoil them and let them remember they are humans.
Click to expand...
Nobody is calling people who want to see their parents or grandparents selfish.
 
RandySavage said:
Then why does it sound like you have an issue with those who don't want to be alone at Xmas?

Not wanting an argument but that's how some will see it.
Click to expand...
I have an issue with those who will be spreading a deadly disease at christmas.

I don't know how I can be more clear about why I don't think people should be selfish and not care about the current restrictions to try and save us from Covid
 
Laughing said:
Some "genuine opinions" are best left unsaid, your opinions may have a seriously detrimental effect on someones wellbeing and will make not one jot of difference to the final outcome, but crack on.
I consider your uncaring rhetoric to be selfish.
I find your ballot for the tories selfish

We can all play that game ST, it doesn't get us anywhere, perhaps stop and think before you plaster your, quite frankly, ridiculous opinions on a public message board. It can and does effect people.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's ridiculous at all to not want a deadly disease to be spread around the country.

Not ridiculous at all to want people to actually think about their actions and realise that meeting up at the end of this month is going to prolong things for the months that follow. I find it amazing people can't understand this, after 9 months of living with the virus. I can't understand why some are either being so slow to realise how bad things are, or just not caring
 
SmallTown said:
I don't think it's ridiculous at all to not want a deadly disease to be spread around the country.

Not ridiculous at all to want people to actually think about their actions and realise that meeting up at the end of this month is going to prolong things for the months that follow. I find it amazing people can't understand this, after 9 months of living with the virus. I can't understand why some are either being so slow to realise how bad things are, or just not caring
Click to expand...
Do you really expect no one to, despite the governmental endorsement, meet up for a day or so over Christmas with loved ones, some of whom they may have barely seen all year, for the good of their mental health?
 
FatFrank said:
"It is believed that up to 80% of cases are contracted from people going into other people's homes."

This is correct. Up to 85% in fact, but the Government can't police that, so they target the remaining 15%. Even then, schools and colleges take up the majority of those cohorts.
Click to expand...
It is rather unavoidable as I can testify. One person brings the infection into the household (perhaps from a trip to the supermarket) and inevitably everyone else in the house catches it. So in a sample of one average household of four that is 75% of those cases contracted in the home. You have to understand how statistics work to properly understand the efficacy of "lockdown".
 
SmallTown said:
I don't think it's ridiculous at all to not want a deadly disease to be spread around the country.

Not ridiculous at all to want people to actually think about their actions and realise that meeting up at the end of this month is going to prolong things for the months that follow. I find it amazing people can't understand this, after 9 months of living with the virus. I can't understand why some are either being so slow to realise how bad things are, or just not caring
Click to expand...
Not wanting a virus to spread isn't ridiculous, clearly. Categorizing people who want to see loved ones as "putting a few sherbets above safety" and "using religion as an excuse to get hammered" clearly is ridiculous.

You carry on ST, I'm done with trying to moderate your insulting viewpoint.
 
Laughing said:
Not wanting a virus to spread isn't ridiculous, clearly. Categorizing people who want to see loved ones as "putting a few sherbets above safety" and "using religion as an excuse to get hammered" clearly is ridiculous.

You carry on ST, I'm done with trying to moderate your insulting viewpoint.
Click to expand...
You don’t need to moderate my viewpoint. I’m happy that I want to stop the spread of the virus and aware of what that will take
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top