Does the Government know how people are behaving

[PHILIPE]

I often wonder`if Government Ministers and others who keep thanking us for playing our part in reducing the transmission of the virus are aware what happens in real life outside their own bubble. For example:-

Wholesale failure to observe social distancing (2m or 1m to come) measures.
Refusing to wear masks where required on trains.
Large gatherings, even raves, taking place.
Travelling further than limits imposed.

These are just a few examples but it goes to illustrate that many people are in general just ignoring the rules. Nor everybody I know , but what seems to be quite a proportion of people. Are the government aware of this situation or just detached from the real world.

 

[Freightmaster]

I'm sure that they are 100% aware of what is happening 'on the street', but are pragmatic
enough to realise that absolutely nothing can be done about it.




MARK

 

[adc82140]

Original lockdown modelling was based on about 70% of people complying, so I doubt they care.

 

[Huntergreed]

Good question.

There's two possibilities

(1) They know fine well compliance is lowering and are simply turning a blind eye to it. This can have benefits. The government will, if cases do not start to rise, know that they can confidently relax more measures without risking a spike in cases. If things go wrong for them and cases start to rise again then they have the public to blame and can blame a lack of compliance instead of their measures.

(2) They don't know that people are not complying and are planning around 100% compliance, which would be quite deluded, but I wouldn't put it entirely past them.

Their initial approach of scaring everyone inside worked well and compliance was higher than they expected, so it's possible that they are still assuming this is the case.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Original lockdown modelling was based on about 70% of people complying, so I doubt they care.

Precisely. The measures will be set based on an expected level of compliance which is easy to work out by watching what people have done in response to earlier measures.

So yes, they know, and no, they don't care.

For instance they know full well, having said "two households or 6 people" from 4th July, that in fact any number of households will meet indoors and outdoors with immediate effect in some cases, but 6 does prevent e.g. large organised group activities taking place with many households involved which may have more effect.

 

[bramling]

I often wonder`if Government Ministers and others who keep thanking us for playing our part in reducing the transmission of the virus are aware what happens in real life outside their own bubble. For example:-

Wholesale failure to observe social distancing (2m or 1m to come) measures.
Refusing to wear masks where required on trains.
Large gatherings, even raves, taking place.
Travelling further than limits imposed.

These are just a few examples but it goes to illustrate that many people are in general just ignoring the rules. Nor everybody I know , but what seems to be quite a proportion of people. Are the government aware of this situation or just detached from the real world.

I’m not sure about the govt as a whole, however I do get the feeling Boris himself is rather out of touch with reality. His whole strategy seems to be based on keeping people happy by throwing out pleasers like pubs opening.

I think the biggest delusion is not so much with the distancing, but thinking that paying people furlough would lead to people patiently staying at home and following guidance, as opposed to some treating it as several months of bonus bank-holiday-style leisure time to be enjoyed to the maximum extent.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the biggest delusion is not so much with the distancing, but thinking that paying people furlough would lead to people patiently staying at home and following guidance, as opposed to some treating it as several months of bonus bank-holiday-style leisure time to be enjoyed to the maximum extent.

I would be absolutely amazed if what happened wasn't what they expected to. Indeed they said compliance had been far better than expected.

 

[RT4038]

I’m not sure about the govt as a whole, however I do get the feeling Boris himself is rather out of touch with reality. His whole strategy seems to be based on keeping people happy by throwing out pleasers like pubs opening.

I think the biggest delusion is not so much with the distancing, but thinking that paying people furlough would lead to people patiently staying at home and following guidance, as opposed to some treating it as several months of bonus bank-holiday-style leisure time to be enjoyed to the maximum extent.

I don't believe that. Paying people furlough was to make sure 1. that they didn't undermine lockdown and go to work because they needed the money 2. that there was not civil unrest caused by poverty stricken people.

 

[nlogax]

I’m not sure about the govt as a whole, however I do get the feeling Boris himself is rather out of touch with reality. His whole strategy seems to be based on keeping people happy by throwing out pleasers like pubs opening.

It could be argued that he's been out of touch with reality for the bulk of his political career. His handling of the pandemic feels like he's reached the pinnacle of his departure from what's actually going on.

 

[Ivor]

I often wonder`if Government Ministers and others who keep thanking us for playing our part in reducing the transmission of the virus are aware what happens in real life outside their own bubble. For example:-

Wholesale failure to observe social distancing (2m or 1m to come) measures.
Refusing to wear masks where required on trains.
Large gatherings, even raves, taking place.
Travelling further than limits imposed.

These are just a few examples but it goes to illustrate that many people are in general just ignoring the rules. Nor everybody I know , but what seems to be quite a proportion of people. Are the government aware of this situation or just detached from the real world.

I’ve commented similar on other threads promoted by my views working at a main line sea side station.

The Government has turned a blind eye to demos everywhere & didn't even pass comment.....gutless!

Whilst most of us have adhered to ‘the rules’ it seems now it’s a case of throw open the doors & crack on!

But the Number 10 view is very apparent.......

“we haven’t noticed demos, street parties, raves, large multiple household groups together, politicians breaking the rules.....has this happened? no surely that’s fake news?”

 

[bramling]

I would be absolutely amazed if what happened wasn't what they expected to. Indeed they said compliance had been far better than expected.

If that is the case (and you may well be right) then the expectation must have been extremely low!

Another point which springs to mind, compliance was perhaps better once things like pubs were forced to close. We all remember the scenes of packed pubs during the “advisory” period.

 

[MikeWM]

I often wonder`if Government Ministers and others who keep thanking us for playing our part in reducing the transmission of the virus are aware what happens in real life outside their own bubble. For example:-

Wholesale failure to observe social distancing (2m or 1m to come) measures.
Refusing to wear masks where required on trains.
Large gatherings, even raves, taking place.
Travelling further than limits imposed.

These are just a few examples but it goes to illustrate that many people are in general just ignoring the rules. Nor everybody I know , but what seems to be quite a proportion of people. Are the government aware of this situation or just detached from the real world.

If they didn't expect things like that to happen then they don't understand human nature very well. I'm not sure they do, actually, though I hope they're not entirely detached from everything else.

Same with the rave/riot in Brixton last night. Certainly not to be condoned, but anyone who thought there wouldn't be trouble during a heatwave after the horrors of the last few months is living in a fantasy world.

 

[mmh]

I’ve commented similar on other threads promoted by my views working at a main line sea side station.

The Government has turned a blind eye to demos everywhere & didn't even pass comment.....gutless!

Whilst most of us have adhered to ‘the rules’ it seems now it’s a case of throw open the doors & crack on!

But the Number 10 view is very apparent.......

“we haven’t noticed demos, street parties, raves, large multiple household groups together, politicians breaking the rules.....has this happened? no surely that’s fake news?”

That's just not the case. The Prime Minister did pass comment and did say people shouldn't attend demonstrations.

 

[bramling]

That's just not the case. The Prime Minister did pass comment and did say people shouldn't attend demonstrations.

I think ultimately they knew the demonstrations would happen no matter what, and that it was probably the lesser of two evils just to let it happen.

Rightly or wrongly, this laissez-faire approach will have further alienated those attempting to work and whose work will have been affected by the protests, not least the police no doubt.

 

[Ivor]

That's just not the case. The Prime Minister did pass comment and did say people shouldn't attend demonstrations.

Well it worked really well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If that is the case (and you may well be right) then the expectation must have been extremely low!

Another point which springs to mind, compliance was perhaps better once things like pubs were forced to close. We all remember the scenes of packed pubs during the “advisory” period.

It's actually quite possible that "we asked you, now we're grounding you" worked better than just closing stuff straight off.

 

[pdeaves]

I don't believe that. Paying people furlough was to make sure 1. that they didn't undermine lockdown and go to work because they needed the money 2. that there was not civil unrest caused by poverty stricken people.

I have worked right through, albeit at home. Plenty of people I know seem to have thought 'woo-hoo, free holiday', even those not on furlough and supposed to be working, and were quite indiscreet about it.

 

[bramling]

It's actually quite possible that "we asked you, now we're grounding you" worked better than just closing stuff straight off.

I can see this viewpoint, but against a background where it now seems fairly universally accepted that lives would have been saved had lockdown been implemented a week or so sooner, I’d say this has to go down as a mistake. Ultimately people might have been a little more peeved off, but ultimately with pubs closed they wouldn’t have had much choice but to comply.

In retrospect it seems completely crazy for the message to be “we’re keeping X open, but we strongly advise you not to go there”.

 

[underbank]

If they didn't expect things like that to happen then they don't understand human nature very well. I'm not sure they do, actually, though I hope they're not entirely detached from everything else.

Most government ministers (of all parties) and senior civil servants are living in a Westminster bubble detached from the real world.

Gordon Brown brought in tax breaks for limited companies only and was then surprised when huge numbers of sole trader plumbers, window cleaners and dog walkers converted to limited companies to benefit from the tax breaks - his paymaster general (Dawn Primarolo) is on record in Hansard when challenged about it saying that she didn't believe people would convert to limited companies just to save tax - how deluded can you get. That stupid naiveity has caused today's widespread tax avoidance amongst small businesses by using limited companies - once people converted, they don't change back again once Brown realised what a mistake he'd made.

It's as if they're missing the "common sense" gene.

 

[mmh]

Well it worked really well.

What would you suggest should've been done? Suggestions which include the army will fail at whatever you want them to do.

I didn't agree with the (causes, not existence of) demonstrations, but I think options for preventing them without inflaming the situation are very limited. And, unintentionally, they've helped those who want a quicker removal of the restrictions. That won't be unknown to or unconsidered by the Government.

 

[DelayRepay]

I would be amazed if they didn't know what was going on.

At the start, they said that people would only tolerate lock down for a limited period, so it had to be introduced at the right time so people didn't start breaking the rules just as the virus peaked.

I think rules such as 'no more than six people' probably realise that there will be some rule breaking - people will think 'well one extra person can't do any harm'. They will have factored in that a rule of '6' means there will be gatherings of '7' and '8'. If there was a real danger associated with having more than six, the rule would probably say no more than three.

There's also the other side - while some people break the rules, some are still complying with very strict rules that were never really in place. If you have one person meeting 7 friends instead of 6, but you have another family who are still refusing to leave their house, maybe one cancels the other out at a macro level. The people who wear masks in shops (not a rule, but relatively common) are probably partially off-setting people who get within 2m or 1m or whatever the permitted distance is now.

Then there's Cummings. To be honest, that's when they lost me.

 

[Ivor]

What would you suggest should've been done? Suggestions which include the army will fail at whatever you want them to do.

I didn't agree with the (causes, not existence of) demonstrations, but I think options for preventing them without inflaming the situation are very limited. And, unintentionally, they've helped those who want a quicker removal of the restrictions. That won't be unknown to or unconsidered by the Government.

What would I have done?

Yes I would have had the army out to ‘enforce’ as enough death & suffering has been imposed on the world without ‘others’ breaking the rules spreading the virus & in some cases ultimately more deaths.

I make no apologies for my views having lost someone very close in the early days due to the virus & witnessing their suffering, of course this virus would have taken lives but so many? I don’t know, all I can say is when I witness the ‘activities’ of the selfish minority (I hope it’s a minority but don’t know) I despair.

Perhaps if people had been walking about with noticeable hives or rashes or dropping in the streets we may have all said “oh”

No....we can’t see ‘it’ so never mind!

 

[Mag_seven]

I often wonder`if Government Ministers and others who keep thanking us for playing our part in reducing the transmission of the virus are aware what happens in real life outside their own bubble. For example:-

Wholesale failure to observe social distancing (2m or 1m to come) measures.
Refusing to wear masks where required on trains.
Large gatherings, even raves, taking place.
Travelling further than limits imposed.

These are just a few examples but it goes to illustrate that many people are in general just ignoring the rules. Nor everybody I know , but what seems to be quite a proportion of people. Are the government aware of this situation or just detached from the real world.

I suppose it inevitable that such things will happen after a prolonged period of lockdown. People will see how the health service was not overwhelmed as a result of their actions (the reason for the lockdown) and will now start to question how seemingly silly and unenforceable the "rules" are becoming and will start (rightly or wrongly) to ignore them. And yes I'm sure government are perfectly aware of this!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes I would have had the army out to ‘enforce’ as enough death & suffering has been imposed on the world without ‘others’ breaking the rules spreading the virus & in some cases ultimately more deaths.

The second you had a British soldier point a gun at a British citizen, you would have had civil unrest that would have made the "Black Lives Matter" protests look like a meeting of 6 people 2m apart in a park.

It is just not viable. The only way it was being considered was to pair an unarmed soldier up with a Police officer to boost numbers a bit (basically using them as faux-PCSOs under the Police Officer's command).

 

[Bantamzen]

What would I have done?

Yes I would have had the army out to ‘enforce’ as enough death & suffering has been imposed on the world without ‘others’ breaking the rules spreading the virus & in some cases ultimately more deaths.

I make no apologies for my views having lost someone very close in the early days due to the virus & witnessing their suffering, of course this virus would have taken lives but so many? I don’t know, all I can say is when I witness the ‘activities’ of the selfish minority (I hope it’s a minority but don’t know) I despair.

Perhaps if people had been walking about with noticeable hives or rashes or dropping in the streets we may have all said “oh”

No....we can’t see ‘it’ so never mind!

So, in short you would have had the army shoot people? Seems fair...

Whilst I am sorry for your loss, you are not alone, nor is covid the only thing killing people. That doesn't mean any of us have any reason to want to enact reprisals on others. When my sister died as a result of flu at the age of 30, should I have demanded that all her work colleagues, fellow commuters and residents of the town be held accountable because they might have passed the virus on that ultimately caused her death?

The second you had a British soldier point a gun at a British citizen, you would have had civil unrest that would have made the "Black Lives Matter" protests look like a meeting of 6 people 2m apart in a park.

It is just not viable. The only way it was being considered was to pair an unarmed soldier up with a Police officer to boost numbers a bit (basically using them as faux-PCSOs under the Police Officer's command).

I would have been one of those taking up my protests.

 

[DelayRepay]

The government were reluctant enough to impose on our liabilities by introducing lock down.

Any suggestion of deploying the army onto the streets is fantasy. Things would have to be very, very bad before the government considered that - they didn't deploy the Army during the 2011 riots and they won't now.

 

[underbank]

Any suggestion of deploying the army onto the streets is fantasy. Things would have to be very, very bad before the government considered that - they didn't deploy the Army during the 2011 riots and they won't now.

No, but they could have made more use of the army thus freeing up police to actually do their core job, of policing the streets. Don't know about other areas, but around here, there've been endless social media reports proudly showing police taking selfies in empty parks, using police vans to distribute food parcels to the elderly, 10 police cars and vans outside the local hospital clapping at 8pm on Thursdays, etc. Seems police have plenty of time on their hands, so why haven't they been dealing with enforcing the lockdown rules? We could have had the army helping distribute the food parcels - there's lots of things they could have been doing that doesn't involve patrolling the streets with machine guns in riot gear which would have enabled more police available to deal with raves etc.

 

[bramling]

I would be amazed if they didn't know what was going on.

At the start, they said that people would only tolerate lock down for a limited period, so it had to be introduced at the right time so people didn't start breaking the rules just as the virus peaked.

I think rules such as 'no more than six people' probably realise that there will be some rule breaking - people will think 'well one extra person can't do any harm'. They will have factored in that a rule of '6' means there will be gatherings of '7' and '8'. If there was a real danger associated with having more than six, the rule would probably say no more than three.

There's also the other side - while some people break the rules, some are still complying with very strict rules that were never really in place. If you have one person meeting 7 friends instead of 6, but you have another family who are still refusing to leave their house, maybe one cancels the other out at a macro level. The people who wear masks in shops (not a rule, but relatively common) are probably partially off-setting people who get within 2m or 1m or whatever the permitted distance is now.

Then there's Cummings. To be honest, that's when they lost me.

I’m not sure there was that much opposition to lockdown at the time. In fact, by the second half of March the mood ISTR was more along the lines of “for goodness sake we need lockdown”. And it wasn’t like the terms of it were particularly harsh - some people being paid up to £2.5k per month as an incentive.

 

[Bikeman78]

I’m not sure about the govt as a whole, however I do get the feeling Boris himself is rather out of touch with reality. His whole strategy seems to be based on keeping people happy by throwing out pleasers like pubs opening.

I think the biggest delusion is not so much with the distancing, but thinking that paying people furlough would lead to people patiently staying at home and following guidance, as opposed to some treating it as several months of bonus bank-holiday-style leisure time to be enjoyed to the maximum extent.

Agreed. Ironically there would be fewer people wedging out trains to the seaside if people had to work.

 

[mmh]

I’m it sure there was that much opposition to lockdown at the time. In fact, by the second half of March the mood ISTR was more along the lines of “for goodness sake we need lockdown”. And it wasn’t like the terms of it were particularly harsh - some people being paid up to £2.5k per month as an incentive.

Indeed the prevailing mood on this very forum in mid March was pro-lockdown. I well recall a thread where I would give my observations as someone going to the local pubs after work most afternoons. Some thought that was outrageous behaviour and akin to being a murderer. I was in my usual pub when it was ordered to close. With each day leading to closure it had become quieter and quieter - the atmosphere of fear in the nation was well advanced by the time lockdown happened.