It's clear to me that, much like the guidelines for pregnant women, the government

[Monty92]

advice is designed to deter idiots from doing reckless things, not sensible people.

Let's face it, if healthy 70+ year-olds are being allowed (encouraged, in fact) to congregate at supermarkets, then the idea that we all desperately need to self-isolate to get through this can be considered *******s.

I'm planning to get my dad to move into a local Airbnb for a month or so to keep him from going mad. The kids and ourselves will be effectively self-isolating from tomorrow and as long as he does the same then there's no real risk in us mixing with him if we're sensible about it.

[Burney]

advice is designed to deter idiots from doing reckless things, not sensible people.

Let's face it, if healthy 70+ year-olds are being allowed (encouraged, in fact) to congregate at supermarkets, then the idea that we all desperately need to self-isolate to get through this can be considered *******s.

I'm planning to get my dad to move into a local Airbnb for a month or so to keep him from going mad. The kids and ourselves will be effectively self-isolating from tomorrow and as long as he does the same then there's no real risk in us mixing with him if we're sensible about it.

But surely the point is that you need to give yourself a long enough period of social distancing to ensure you don't develop symptoms before you can then be reasonably sure you're not carriers?

[Pat Vegas]

advice is designed to deter idiots from doing reckless things, not sensible people.

Let's face it, if healthy 70+ year-olds are being allowed (encouraged, in fact) to congregate at supermarkets, then the idea that we all desperately need to self-isolate to get through this can be considered *******s.

I'm planning to get my dad to move into a local Airbnb for a month or so to keep him from going mad. The kids and ourselves will be effectively self-isolating from tomorrow and as long as he does the same then there's no real risk in us mixing with him if we're sensible about it.

This is the problem it's all contradictiory information.
Also now that Boris is doing these daily briefings I assume he feels compelled to make at least 1 change a day.

Apparently I am not supposed to be going to London but you can still get there, the office is still open, the pubs are still open, :shrug:

[Monty92]

But surely the point is that you need to give yourself a long enough period of social distancing to ensure you don't develop symptoms before you can then be reasonably sure you're not carriers?

Of course. My plan is to ensure we are all (me, the missus, the kids and my dad) virtually house-bound for 7-14 days and providing none of us have symptoms I'll green light him to pack his bags and drive down for a few weeks.

[Monty92]

This is the problem it's all contradictiory information.
Also now that Boris is doing these daily briefings I assume he feels compelled to make at least 1 change a day.

Apparently I am not supposed to be going to London but you can still get there, the office is still open, the pubs are still open, :shrug:

It's vague more than contradictory, but the vagueness is a feature not a bug of the strategy.

[Burney]

Of course. My plan is to ensure we are all (me, the missus, the kids and my dad) virtually house-bound for 7-14 days and providing none of us have symptoms I'll green light him to pack his bags and drive down for a few weeks.

That seems fair enough. The whole problem with this lockdown stuff is that it simply isn't sustainable for more than a few weeks.

[barrybueno]

This is the problem it's all contradictiory information.
Also now that Boris is doing these daily briefings I assume he feels compelled to make at least 1 change a day.

Apparently I am not supposed to be going to London but you can still get there, the office is still open, the pubs are still open, :shrug:

Pubs still open? Disgusting, fancy a pint P?

[Monty92]

That seems fair enough. The whole problem with this lockdown stuff is that it simply isn't sustainable for more than a few weeks.

It doesn't need to be sustainable for everyone for it to work. They are banking on sufficient numbers adhering to it for it to achieve the required results. I think that as the sense of risk remains high (and that sense will continue rising for the foreseeable as death stack up) most people will simply be too spooked to not do it.

Also, lockdown doesn't stop you leaving the house for a walk or run, or even seeing friends/family as long as you're sensible. And we all have plenty of home comforts to keep us busy/entertained.

[Burney]

It doesn't need to be sustainable for everyone for it to work. They are banking on sufficient numbers adhering to it, which I think they will as the sense or risk remains high (and that sense will continue rising for the forseeable).

Lockdown doesn't stop you leaving the house for a walk or run, or even seeing others as long as you're sensible. And we all have plenty of home comforts to keep us busy/entertained.

Oh, I know it's a mitigation game rather than an attempt to actually stop the virus. And the fact that they're not shutting pubs and such suggests to me that they do actively want the virus to spread through the younger and healthier part of the population now while older, more vulnerable people are hidden away. It's all about controlling the rate of spread.