UKH

So, I was not going to post anything on this rubbish situation, but I now feel I have to (got no-one else to talk to anyways ) So, we (hubby and I) are working from home with bad internet whilst teaching our wee man (surely the new norm). So I thought he might want to skype with one of his best pals' - whose family has just had the Corona virus. So they think now that they are symptom free it is ok to let their kids play with others in the village and they now send them to childminders where they are all mingling with others. Yes, they might be symptom free, but there are others and we just have to keep away (and we don't know if you can get re-infected). They actually asked if our son wanted to come and play, too. Really??? Next thing husband goes for the one allowed outing for a bike ride at lunch and he meets a retired guy we know on a walk with six other pensioners having a great time. Then I look out the window and our other neighbours with children the same age as our son are having a playdate with another child. What is the point of all these measures if no-one sticks to it?

The mind boggles at people of retired or pension age flouting the new rules. I wonder, how common is this across the UK??

BTW I was not having a go at retired people at all, just at people who think they are above the rules.  Young people who go climbing, families who let their kids mingle because it doesn't  affect them allegedly and  people who want to get their retired fun tasks etc happening . People just think it doesn't apply to them ...

Don't know, but I know, that many people (educated or not, whatever age) are not sticking to it even in the slightest!

People are selfish and have a sense of “entitlement”. Look at the the thread where Lord_ash2000 sort of claims (whilst quite deviously not explicitly claiming it!) that he HAS to be allowed to go climbing 

I haven't yet come across any explanation of sanctions against people who flout the new restrictions; am I missing something or are they effectively still voluntary measures on account of there being little or no implication to the individual of ignoring them?

The usual fine in France is €135, which I think is working as a very effective disincentive for people who may think they have better ideas than to stay away from others.

It doesn’t appear to be covered in the coronavirus bill likely to become law today.  BBC are reporting Parliament will close after the bill gets royal ascent so no new bill will be going through.  Options for enforcing “stay home” rules on individuals who are not suspected or proved infect I can see are:

• Covered by an existing law (which one?)
• Covered by something I’ve missed in the new bill (where?)
• Legally toothless

It seems clear that if it’s toothless, a lot of people are going to continue to make bad, selfish decisions.

There was another irksome thread the other day called “Stay at home martyrs” where someone explained why their “ability to do risk/reward assessment for myself” meant they could do things “martyrs” were avoiding.  A surprising number of people just seem unable to generalise from themselves to the population; unless that improves dramatically and soon it seems likely those of use who follow the rules are going to get hammered with every more severe restrictions. 

This is a toxic situation which undermines the motivation of and breaks trust with individuals committed to doing their part.   The government either have to accept a half arsed effort that goes on to be self defeating or they have to start making harsh examples.  

What I really don’t understand is that when I explain my take on this I seem to get accused of “wanting” harsher measures.  Of course I ******* well don’t.  I don’t want to watch the world go to **** around me.  I’m telling these people how to avoid harsher measures.