Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

kabbes said:
So people do their best in the circumstances they have been shoved into. I’m therefore not going to make it their failure when they inevitably get things wrong.

Creating a system that has the certainty of failure baked into it is on the creator of the system, not the points of failure. I don’t blame the wood for splitting.
Click to expand...
I don't really think that flagrant breaches of the "rules" - the kind of breaches which en masse have a significant effect on transmission rates - are a result of the rules being confusing. They are a result of people choosing not to follow them, or to take a small amount of time to check them.

That's not to say that making the rules less confusing wouldn't be helpful.
 
kabbes said:
Is it physically impossible for me to prioritise knowing the latest version of the rules? Of course not. So to that degree, it’s a choice. But it’s the classic neoliberal attitude to make it all about personal responsibility to keep up and personal failure if that responsibility isn’t met, rather than recognise the social context of the way the knowledge of what to do has been created, disseminated and maintained. Who are the ones that make the rules and why are these not the ones also responsible for making them in a way that makes following those rules inevitable? It’s a strange inverse of the power hierarchy to put the onus on the public rather than the government to keep up.
Click to expand...

When you think about how much this government is 'following the science' and how this science was allegedly behavioural science you'd think this might be the one area they'd perhaps perform a little less badly. Of course maybe people are behaving exactly how they intended.

Also I would say once you see the govt as untrustworthy and not worth listening to when they ignore the rules or urge people back to offices needlessly then why bother following them on any of the other guidance.
 
teuchter said:
I don't really think that flagrant breaches of the "rules" - the kind of breaches which en masse have a significant effect on transmission rates - are a result of the rules being confusing. They are a result of people choosing not to follow them, or to take a small amount of time to check them.

That's not to say that making the rules less confusing wouldn't be helpful.
Click to expand...

TBF even to talk about people breaking these rules being responsible for transmission rates going up is to play the Government's game.

Opportunities for infections were always going to go up as more of normality (holidays, work, socializing) came back, and we were always going to need an effective track and trace to identify people who might have this quickly enough before they infect too many people. Accompanying that, we were always going to need ways to ensure that people who might be ill stayed in quarantine for the required period (which means support for them far more than enforcement, though enforcement would be needed) in order to keep those increases as low as possible.

They've not done that, nor do they appear to want to do it even now, and so here we are again - except this time they are blaming us for it going up.
 
teuchter said:
I don't really think that flagrant breaches of the "rules" - the kind of breaches which en masse have a significant effect on transmission rates - are a result of the rules being confusing. They are a result of people choosing not to follow them, or to take a small amount of time to check them.

That's not to say that making the rules less confusing wouldn't be helpful.
Click to expand...
I think it's because the rules seem completely inconsistent and prioritise the economy over relationships.
And things like being able to meet in a pub or restaurant but not at home. I understand it but if I can't afford a pub or restaurant I'm not going to agree with it.
When my partner teaches in a school and my child is at school it feels pointless.
When I live in a houseshare and get public transport to work.

I don't think partial measures work because it feels like nonsense.
 
I can guarantee that if I ask any of the approximately 10 people within shouting range of me at the moment, not one of them will know of potential rule changes, or local rules (not that there are any for Sheffield as yet). This is because they are normal people who don't consume a lot of traditional news sources... Just expecting people to regularly check the guidance is, frankly, fucking ridiculous. It is not how people work. In fact conversely this government has spent the last few months reinforcing exactly the opposite idea; that we are on a gradual but inevitable path to returning to normal. And people will always tend to selectively focus on things that are beneficial to their general situation over things that are likely to place restrictions on them.

quimcunx also just mentioned another aspect; trust in this government is low. Engagement with its messaging is low. It is a situation where people are just going to default to 'sod it. I'm just going to crack on with life'.

The wider implication of that is that you're going to get a lot of people who might ordinarily follow new guidance being unaware of it, or unengaged with it. Those who do watch the news, or check stuff are going to feel at odds with those who don't. Are going to feel out of place in the behaviour of their social groups... and that too creates an enormous degree of pressure that works against compliance. We are social animals. We like to do what our friends are doing, and going against that is something that takes real effort and can have real effects on our relationships.

So, in that context, yes, communication is important. Absolutely there's going to be a small number of people who don't comply. But you want them to be the ones who feel insecure, or feel that they're running against what their wider social groups are doing. Currently it's kind of the opposite.
 
cupid_stunt said:
I agree. There's some suggestion that doing it this way was to scare the cabinet members & Tory back benchers that are against any further restrictions, and allow it to sink in before Johnson comes forward to announce further restrictions.
Click to expand...
That makes sense.
 
BIB does suggest we could be hearing more later today...
Pubs may be shut across England by the weekend, it is feared, after Health Secretary Matt Hancock refused rule out further lockdown restrictions.

Speaking on ITV's This Morning, the Health Secretary was asked whether landlords would be told to shut.

"We will be absolutely clear about the changes we need to make in the very, very near future," Mr Hancock said. "It's not a no, and it's not a yes," he said.

He also said that we must act now to save Christmas. "The more we can control the virus now and stop the spread now, the easier it's going to be to have a Christmas that's as close to normal as possible," he said.
Click to expand...

www.telegraph.co.uk

Pub curfew set to be announced as Covid threat level raised

www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

elbows
UK Inquiry Module 3: Impact on UK Healthcare Systems
2
Replies
37
Views
606
InArduisFouette
I
elbows
UK Inquiry Module 1: Resilience and preparedness
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
165
Views
5K
elbows
elbows
elbows
UK Inquiry Module 2: Decision-making & political governance
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
173
Views
4K
elbows
elbows
frogwoman
Shanghai lockdown
2
Replies
55
Views
2K
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
editor
Professional football and coronavirus
Replies
6
Views
526
elbows
elbows
Back
Top Bottom