Squeak wrote: ↑
Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:34 am
Chris Preston wrote: ↑
Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:20 am
discovolante wrote: ↑
Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:40 pm
I'm not arguing against lockdown for mental health reasons. It was something I internally battled with for a while but now think that lockdown is needed. But unfortunately, in the UK, it isn't a solution any more either. So I understand people's desire to bend the rules when things get tough.
I understand some people will always bend the rules. Perhaps I am mixing in the wrong circles, but the people I know with fragile mental health are all hunkering down at home, rather than trying to break the rules. One of them I am calling daily to check on how they are. It may not be the best for their mental health, but they are following the rules. The people in the earlier lockdown who broke the rules were for the most part entitled knobs who thought the rules should not apply to them. Currently, I have no patience with such people.
I suspect the mental health implications of Australian-style short, sharp, and actually effective lockdowns are quite different from the lackadaisical salami-slice lockdowns that Europe has seen. I have a lot of sympathy for people who are losing their social supports long-term and without getting an obvious compensatory increase in safety because their society has done it so badly.
Even in Melbourne's three month confinement, there was a sense of heroism, with Melbournians taking one for the Australian team, and, slowly, eventually, seeing the case numbers drop.
Yes. If you get to see lockdown working, it's easier to judge isolated incidents. For what it's worth, the breaches I'm aware of generally relate to visiting sick family members, going to friends' houses to use their computer/internet connection, childcare etc (some of that might technically fall within the 'support bubble' rule but I haven't asked).
I'm not really trying to make a punchy point here. I know lots of people have made sacrifices where others haven't, and I'm probably displaying quite a lot of cognitive dissonance, but that's kind of my point - semi-lockdowns don't obviously achieve very much* so there seems to come a point where your decision to pop round to someone else's house, technically in breach of the rules, seems far less risky than the people who are legally sitting around in busy pubs - and lots of pubs were busy not all that long ago.
It's not really so much that I think everyone should just get a free pass, more that I can see how a situation has arisen where following the letter of the law doesn't really seem any more logical than carrying out an individual cost/benefit analysis. And again I'm talking fairly specifically about countries that haven't managed to keep things under control and are rumbling along with lots of half-arsed semi-lockdowns.
*yes I know there is a big difference between trundling along at the same number of cases per day v exponential rise, but they can still *feel* pretty much the same compared to no cases at all.