souljacker
innit
Exactly. They aren't doing this to 'save our christmas' or to give everyone something to be happy about after a tough year, They are doing it to keep the money flowing.
Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion
- Thread starter Sasaferrato
- Start date
Exactly. They aren't doing this to 'save our christmas' or to give everyone something to be happy about after a tough year, They are doing it to keep the money flowing.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
The prevailing attitude to the virus on these forums (that generally, restrictions have not been strong enough) is way out of sync with what I see in many places elsewhere (online and in real life). This doesn't just apply to Christmas; it's applied right the way through.
That doesn't say anything about what's "right", it's just a reality. We can sit here and talk about tragedy of the commons, but to some extent we just have to accept that a lot of people don't agree. They might believe the risk is over-stated, or they might simply be prepared to take the risk, do stuff and know that a bunch of people will die anyway.
Criticising someone for considering a risk-managed visit to their family at Christmas has to be in that context, especially if there's no official guidance that specifically says not to. If there's no guidance that says not to, then the fact is, a load of people are going to go and mix at christmas, and yes a load of people will be ill/die as a result. That'll happen whether or not someone with a relatively cautious attitude does a family visit where there is indeed some risk but in relative terms it is small.
That doesn't say anything about what's "right", it's just a reality. We can sit here and talk about tragedy of the commons, but to some extent we just have to accept that a lot of people don't agree. They might believe the risk is over-stated, or they might simply be prepared to take the risk, do stuff and know that a bunch of people will die anyway.
Criticising someone for considering a risk-managed visit to their family at Christmas has to be in that context, especially if there's no official guidance that specifically says not to. If there's no guidance that says not to, then the fact is, a load of people are going to go and mix at christmas, and yes a load of people will be ill/die as a result. That'll happen whether or not someone with a relatively cautious attitude does a family visit where there is indeed some risk but in relative terms it is small.
AverageJoe
...
We're just going to have Christmas in March
maomao
普費斯
July might be a better bet. March is still winter.
maomao
普費斯
I don't think family Christmases are going to affect consumption in the way people think it is. There'll be more small turkeys sold rather than less big ones but they seem to have thought of that already. People will post presents (or have them delivered) rather than taking them to houses and the pubs will likely still be shut.
That doesn't really follow does it? Everyone knows there will be an increase in transmission because of Christmas. When it happens it's more or less priced in.
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
We'll still get blamed.
We'd get blamed when there's a rise in infections because of christmas if they don't relax the restrictions too though. More in fact.
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
True.
maomao
普費斯
Depends. Schools will be closed. Will family visits produce more transmission than schools do?
yeah, loads more, and to more vulnerable demographics.
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
I'm not sure you can separate the two. Family visits will bring kids from different schools into contacts that wouldn't otherwise be made.
I am looking forward to buying a lot of discounted turkeys
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
I've encountered this attitude a bit from older people. At the risk of being patronising, I think it represents a failure to understand the threat to them, like they've decided not to adjust their worldview to this big new thing because it would be too much work.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Another way of stating it, which is not gung ho but pragmatism, is that they are happy to take a risk in order to see their family this christmas when they know there's a chance they won't be around next christmas, with or without Covid's intervention.
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
I've heard it from grandparents who have a good ten years left to live. I think they just don't want to understand the situation.
Yossarian
Get thee behind me, Santa
Marchmas isn't a bad idea - it's Thanksgiving in the US next week and from the way things are going there, it seems like it will be followed by a truly horrendous explosion in cases within a few weeks, which might influence government decisions elsewhere on Christmas restrictions.
I think a lot is going to depend on how the timeline for the vaccination program is looking in a few weeks, people might be less inclined to take risks over Christmas if the end is in sight within months, at least for those most at risk.
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
I'm far more concerned about the possibility of transmission over New Year rather than Xmas, I think people taking the kids to see grandpa and grandma will at least show some common sense and take some precautions. After all these are people you care about or you wouldn't go and visit them anyway.
I think people especially younger people are going to want to celebrate New Year especially given 2020 has been a complete disaster for many people. Are the pubs really going to close at 10pm on New Year's Eve or even be shut completely? Even if there are no official firework diplays, I think we are going to end up with large crowds in important public spaces.
I can see restrictions being lifted on the 24th, being imposed again on the 27th and utterly ignored on the 31st. It's a lot harder to care about infecting complete strangers and even more so after you've had a few drinks.
I think people especially younger people are going to want to celebrate New Year especially given 2020 has been a complete disaster for many people. Are the pubs really going to close at 10pm on New Year's Eve or even be shut completely? Even if there are no official firework diplays, I think we are going to end up with large crowds in important public spaces.
I can see restrictions being lifted on the 24th, being imposed again on the 27th and utterly ignored on the 31st. It's a lot harder to care about infecting complete strangers and even more so after you've had a few drinks.
wemakeyousoundb
hopefully not gimboid
Sounds like my mum.
these are mostly healthy older people with decades of life left.
My elderly father goes to Mass every Sunday, or he did until all of this. None of the rest of the family goes, apart from on Christmas Day. The Christmas morning Mass is just as much part of our family Christmas tradition as the dinner, watching the Queen and all getting sozzled. All churches say that they all have more people in on Christmas day than any other day, so I presume my family is far from unusual in this once a year attendance.
If they let families get together and they permit services on Christmas Day, that will be a pretty serious set of spreading events up and down the country. Orchestrated national plague transmission, courtesy of the Christian faith. On Jesus' birthday. Bugger.
I really hope that they will say that there can't be any church services on Christmas Day, but I don't see it, somehow.
If they let families get together and they permit services on Christmas Day, that will be a pretty serious set of spreading events up and down the country. Orchestrated national plague transmission, courtesy of the Christian faith. On Jesus' birthday. Bugger.
I really hope that they will say that there can't be any church services on Christmas Day, but I don't see it, somehow.
Well us humans are notoriously terrible at assessing risk. Its easy to be gung ho when we know deep down it won't be us.
That being said I do understand it and for the older the grandparent the more it makes sense. My g/f last her last remaining grandparent over the summer (not covid) and she hated the virus because it took her life away. She was elderly and knew she would die soon so just wanted to live life as best she could until then,. which we'd all understand. Fortunately our last memory of her was last Christmas and lovely hour or two down the pub on Christmas day.
I totally get why people would say ...to heck with the virus. Some things are important!
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
You'll be like the guy in the old Pizza Hut advert, endless variations of Turkey for weeks afterwardI am looking forward to buying a lot of discounted turkeys
I can’t help noticing there is a lot of talking about risk either in:
A) a very abstracted way (or, more precisely, in a reified way, ie where “risk” is a thing in its own right abstracted from what it is a risk of); or
B) in a localised way, in which families are taking risks only on behalf of themselves (“we accept there is a risk that grandma will catch it”)
I think it’s worth remembering, however, is that when we “accept that a relaxation over Christmas means we will see cases rise again”, what that means is that we are accepting that thousands of additional people — people who may not have wanted to “accept” this risk — will die. Cases going up doesn’t just affect the direct relative that catches it on Christmas Day; they will go on to infect others. It means thousands of additional tragedies, affecting tens of thousands of grieving people. I’m not glib about that side of the equation. I think there should be something better to account for it than people’s desire to make personal contact with their loved ones literally a handful of months earlier than vaccines will allow for anyway.
A) a very abstracted way (or, more precisely, in a reified way, ie where “risk” is a thing in its own right abstracted from what it is a risk of); or
B) in a localised way, in which families are taking risks only on behalf of themselves (“we accept there is a risk that grandma will catch it”)
I think it’s worth remembering, however, is that when we “accept that a relaxation over Christmas means we will see cases rise again”, what that means is that we are accepting that thousands of additional people — people who may not have wanted to “accept” this risk — will die. Cases going up doesn’t just affect the direct relative that catches it on Christmas Day; they will go on to infect others. It means thousands of additional tragedies, affecting tens of thousands of grieving people. I’m not glib about that side of the equation. I think there should be something better to account for it than people’s desire to make personal contact with their loved ones literally a handful of months earlier than vaccines will allow for anyway.
Obviously most people will have read the stuff in the press today about trade offs for a few days over Christmas. As this is a standard (and frankly disgusting) way for this Government to communicate I'm going to hold off thinking too much about it until we hear actual policy announcements.
What I will say though is that trading a few days over Christmas for a month of lock down is probably the most 'UK response' thing I've heard so far. Neatly sums up why we're in such a mess.
What I will say though is that trading a few days over Christmas for a month of lock down is probably the most 'UK response' thing I've heard so far. Neatly sums up why we're in such a mess.
I totally recognise that fwiw. I think there is a wide understanding that lots of people will die as a result of christmas mixing, but that it probably won't be us.
So fuck those guys?
Similar threads
