Forum menu
We (my immediate family) came to the conclusion this is pretty simple, all the rules and advice just complicates things. Stay away from people and stay home as much as possible.
Transmission is mainly person to person not teleportation so avoiding people/going out must reduce everyone's risk. We've stuck to that throughout - cancelled trips/holidays/dinners etc.
All the 'can I do this/that/the other' is just people looking to justify their actions by doing just what they want. Everyone seems to think it's everyone else at fault. It's not. You are in control of you and you MUST take responsibility for your actions. Regardless of the sometimes muddled and developing Govt advice - stay at home and stay away from people as much as possible.
There's no good reason to be going on holiday just now however you justify/package it.
There’s no good reason to be going on holiday just now however you justify/package it.
If you're not interacting with others then there's no reason not to either. Guidance is just that, free to be followed or ignored as you see fit. As this is a UK based mountain biking forum it's hardly likely we even follow all laws either.
It's no problem for us to stay home (still to find out if our cancellation this late means we lose the money), but we've a London-based friend with a disabled daughter in her thirties who will miss Christmas with her for the very first time. Someone else mentioned that their 85 year old mum was due to go them in Kent for Christmas, their carer's been cancelled, they're low on food as they weren't expecting to be home alone over Christmas and there's zero chance of getting a delivery now. I'm sure there are thousands of similar stories - it's easy for us, but what do they do, it's dropped people right in the poop.
If you’re not interacting with others then there’s no reason not to either.
How will you travel whilst eliminating all incremental risk?
How can you be sure the destination rental is Covid free?
How can you be sure you're not taking a covid with you and leaving it for the next renter?
How will you travel whilst eliminating all incremental risk?
* Turns to look at the government's former special advisor * "How did you do it, Dom?"
* Turns to look at the government’s former special advisor * “How did you do it, Dom?”
That's the important bit about personal responsibility. I'll not follow the playground philosophy of copying the lowest common denominator.
It also reinforces the point that the average bod hasn't the intellectual maturity to decide 'what is right' so has to be given explicit instructions to avoid silly wriggle room (as per the OP) <sigh>
I
I’m with Rik on this one – zero change to risk for anyone if you are still just staying in with the same people but in another house. If you’re out buying food or bumping into others then Drac has a point.
Do you actually believe what you've written here?
This also assumes that the property you are staying in is being run in way to minimise risks. That isn't always the case. I live in a holiday area. We manage a single, family owned, Airbnb. We have a policy of no same day changeovers, our gusts open all of the windows before they leave, we are out of the property many hours before the next guests arrive. We have done this all year. Contrasted with a flat that is in the same building that I live in. It is run by a commercial company, they have had near full occupancy all year. Same day changeovers, no airing of the the property, low paid cleaning crew (with their children in tow) dashes around 1 hour before the guests arrive. Not sure how you know exactly what you are getting when you go away.
I’m going to reserve almost all of my anger for them, I think.
Despite that impressive palmares of **** wittery, you overlooked the incredible damage to the economy and mental health that the resulting extended lockdowns have created. Truly the worst of all options.
Loathing Boris for his incompetence, hubris, ineptitude, ignorance, selfishness and downright stupidity isn't mutually exclusive from realising we have a highly transmissible virus, particularly in the South (which after the way we've been treated we'd rather not have in the North, although it's inevitable looking at the pictures from train stations last night) and behaving accordingly.
That’s the important bit about personal responsibility. I’ll not follow the playground philosophy of copying the lowest common denominator.
Hey, we're going nowhere, but if you want to know why people are ignoring rules, it's because they're following the goverment's example.
Taken as a microcosm, school drop off/pick up. Scholl has one way system and asks people to wear a mask and stay two meters apart as well as not letting kids run about. About twenty percent of people don't wear a mask, let kids run a out and just barge past people to get their kids, school doesn't have any power and relies on good will, multiple this by the whole country and we've got no chance.
The person in Pondo's example could either establish or might already be in a support bubble with their lone relative, especially if they need care. A support bubble is the same as being in the same household and is exempt and, I think, this still applies in T4. The government make that exemption because their health advisors WANT people to take care of people who need taking care of no? However, I would be scared of giving my elderly relative COVID if I was asymptomatic so, if it was me, I would try and get a test, isolate and then work out a plan.
I won’t be allowed into her house to see her open her presents from me. God I love BoJo
Thought with dependent children in different households, this was allowed? Or is that just for single parents?
Looks like the OP didn't quite get the affirmation he was seeking and is perhaps trying his hand on another forum near you...
Tell us more boblo 🤔
No rule is going to perfectly achieve its underlying objectives whilst having no other effects.
Thus there will be some courses of action within the scope of both rule and guidance that are more dangerous than some that comply with neither. It may even be the case that such activities can be easily identified.
There is also a social benefit associated with complying with rules and guidance which is independent of how well or poorly framed the rules and guidance are (and the associated social detriment in not complying).
Thus in deciding whether to comply, an individual has to weigh up actual harm (or lack of it) together with the social factors. It is an individual decision with moral and practical elements. Fundamentally everyone has the freedom to disobey (but not the right to avoid the consequences, obviously).
Personally, I wouldn't judge others on their decisions unless egregiously bad (I am glad to see that the word "egregious" has been getting quite an outing recently).
Fundamentally everyone has the freedom to disobey (but not the right to avoid the consequences, obviously).
This is something I've, rather unexpectedly had to deal with.
Every year my mum (in her 70s) goes to my sister's for Christmas. This year was going to be the same, until more recently, and we've been arranging shopping etc for her so she can spend Christmas at home.
Long story short, my sister is travelling the 200 mile round trip from an English tier 4 to tier 3 and back to pick my mum up and bring her to her house, making the same trip to drop her back on boxing Day.
While I'm pleased that she'll not be alone at Christmas, I'm pretty annoyed at how that is being achieved.
However, there bugger all I can do about it without upsetting everyone and being accused of spoiling Christmas.
It'll certainly spoil 2021 if I lose my mum.
:-/
TBH i'd choose being accused of spoiling xmas in your position however the number of people coming to me for advice on inter-personal relationships is zero. i'd rather spoil xmas for a few more years of life for your mum. in fact quite a few more years:
Do you actually believe what you’ve written here?
I do mate, I'm an adult and can read medical journals/articles myself to understand how it transmits.
I do mate, I’m an adult and can read medical journals/articles myself to understand how it transmits.
Clearly you do not. There is an increase in risk both to the person traveling and the people living there. Obvious, clear, valid risk. It may not be large but its there
Clearly you do not.
I get it TJ, you're a health worker so you're on a crusade because you're pissed at people's behaviour. I do appreciate that.
The reality here is, a family that live together, go to another house with no one in, do not leave (as per my original statement), then go home. No change to risk.
The reality here is, a family that live together, go to another house with no one in, do not leave (as per my original statement), then go home. No change to risk.
Unless, God forbid, you are involved in an accident or one of you is taken ill and needs hospital treatment while you are away.
A very fair challenge well put Allan.
The reality here is, a family that live together, go to another house with no one in, do not leave (as per my original statement), then go home. No change to risk.
As per the post from robola, other people (guests, cleaners, owners) could be in the property immediately before or after. So not no risk, perhaps low risk.
No change to risk.
This statement is simply wrong. Have a think about it. If you think there is no change in risk you show your ignorance. Covid could be in the building they travel to. they could take covid in. someone is going to have to clean the rental - they are at risk. Then there is the travel. Stopping for petrol - another risk.
You may judge the extra risk to be small but to deny its existence is stupid.
Bit of an attack TJ, I could quite easily call out your intelligence, but you are right that very very very small does not mean none.
When you say stupid things you must expect to be called out. I do.
so you now accept there is increased risk both to the traveling family and to others. thanks
Increased as in remaining imperceptible? Correct.
Watch out for branches on that high horse.
Increased yes. remaining imperceptible? I am not qualified to state that - are you? I doubt its imperceptible in the first place given the rate of infections all I know is its an increased risk and you did not like being called out for making stupid statements.
Basically deploy Hattertsleys rule. When in a hole stop digging. Its an increased risk and its unquantifiable. You have been called out for your stupid statement by me and others. accept you were wrong
Imperceptible as in, the cleaner prior to entry would have to have it, it would have to transmit to a surface, live on that surface, transmit to the family, the family would then have to have a highly unlikely severely negative reaction to it for it to be of note.
I'm a numbers guy so for me it is all based on probability, which is very very low I this scenario. Depends on your view of risk I guess.
Not trying to incite an argument anyway, completely take onboard what you and others have said TJ. My view was very black and white before so not time wasted. Also get why you're emotive, but trying to insult my intelligence is misguided.
Basically deploy Hattertsleys rule. When in a hole stop digging. Its an increased risk and its unquantifiable.
Quite quantifiable my friend. Stop being condescending you are in no position.
Tee hee - you really are making me laugh. I especially love the projection. 🙂
Quantify it then - you are a numbers guy put up or shut up.