Covid & Relationships

LegacyUser

Hi

Like a lot of people I presume I don't live with my partner so haven't seen her since the week before St Patrick's. Looking at the Covid roadmap looks like we can meet up on July 20th (we're more than 20km apart as she's gone home for the duration of this - before people get high horsey long before travel restrictions were in place and she also isolated on arrival)

However the guidance still mentions social distancing. Genuine question how can one meet their partner under social distancing? Has anyone else thought about this?

Thelonious Monk

I mean no one can tell you what to do, officially you're not supposed to do it though. If she lived alone and you lived alone I'd see no problem with it, but there's a small chance one of you spread it to her parents who may be at an at risk age, and who knows where it goes from then. I mean if everyone was to flout the rules we'd be f*cked for a lot longer than the current timeline. As tough as it may be, you probably shouldn't, but anything could change between now and July, people are already ignoring the rules at this stage.

Caranica

Oh I've thought about it and in light of yesterday's announcements I've raised it with journalists and politicians. Hoping for clarity in the next few days, as are thousands of others.

It's so hard to go through all of this without the one who would make it easier. I actually cried last night at the lack of mention of people in our situation. It felt like they included everyone else.

leggo

I mean I don’t think I need to explain your actual question: no touching, kissing, hugging, hand-holding and obviously sex is what it means in laymen’s terms. But you’ll be able to spend time with them in person, go for walks and be in their presence. It’s **** but it’s the same situation for probably millions worldwide.

And, in truth OP, if lack of intimacy is your biggest problem during COVID, then you’ve got it lucky. I don’t mean that in a smart way, it’s just worth getting perspective. The whole world is suffering for a few months so it doesn’t become a few years and we don’t end up losing a lot of people we love. But it won’t be forever and now, at least, we’ve got an end in sight (IF we stay the course and stick to recommendations).

Caranica

But Leggo the point is that only a certain group are denied physical contact. Not children, not married or cohabitating couples or groups. They can touch, kiss, hug, whatever as much as they want. People who live on their own and/or couples who don't live together, or for some reason didn't at the time of lockdown, can't.

This is an incredibly difficult time mentally. I'm a hugger, touch is really important to me. I have not touched another human in over 6 weeks. It is torturous.

I'm currently living alone as is my OH. I'd be safer going to his house than going to the supermarket. We've been doing everything by the book and all the government appears to be offering is "you can look but not touch" at some time in the summer. That's next to no improvement on video chat. We need clarity.

I know it's all about saving lives but why does one group have to sacrifice so much more? This is why many are breaking this rule and many more will.

Hopefully we'll get further information soon.

Caranica

Caranica wrote: »

But Leggo the point is that only a certain group are denied physical contact. Not children, not married or cohabitating couples or groups. They can touch, kiss, hug, whatever as much as they want. People who live on their own and/or couples who don't live together, or for some reason didn't at the time of lockdown, can't.

This is an incredibly difficult time mentally. I'm a hugger, touch is really important to me. I have not touched another human in over 6 weeks. It is torturous.

I'm currently living alone as is my OH. I'd be safer going to his house than going to the supermarket. We've been doing everything by the book and all the government appears to be offering is "you can look but not touch" at some time in the summer. That's next to no improvement on video chat. We need clarity.

I know it's all about saving lives but why does one group have to sacrifice so much more? This is why many are breaking this rule and many more will.

Hopefully we'll get further information soon.

Can you move in with your other half until things relax?

Caranica

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can you move in with your other half until things relax?

As things stand, not legally. We are both suitably housed in terms of health and safety so would have no justifiable reason for the journey or the visit to another household.

Hannibal_Smith

I read some where recently, something that resonated.
We're not all in the same boat. We're in the same storm, but not the same boat.

I can't imagine how hard it must be to not be able to be in contact with your boyfriend or girlfriend and how difficult it is.

But you're not on your own. When you see grandparents meeting their new grandchild through a window. And my own parents only dying to hug and kiss their grandchildren. It almost breaks your heart too.

People dying and loved ones not being able to hold their hands.

So you're not on your own, there are people who are really suffering because of the social distancing. Its all very unnatural. It has to make it more of a struggle. But don't feel forgotten or alone. We'll be out of this eventually.

leggo

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to downplay or minimise anyone’s struggles. We all have similar needs but every individual will place a different importance on certain things to cope, so I am totally sympathetic. It just is important for all of us to ground ourselves and focus on what we do have rather than what we don’t, and when we do focus on what we don’t have, to remember that others will have it worse.

If you’re healthy, safe, live under a happy roof and none of your loved ones have passed away throughout all of this? That’s become the new definition of winning in COVID times. This is the world we live in now and acceptance of that is crucial to getting on day-to-day. It’s absolutely okay to miss things that we perhaps took for granted when things were ‘normal’, and to have a rant about missing them too. But it’s not healthy to live in that misery permanently, because the situation isn’t changing for the time being so you’ll just torture yourself unnecessarily, when it is still possible to create a functional and happy life within the new normal around what you do have. And the good news is that we can now at least plan and look forward to a viable end date when these things will be possible again.

bitofabind

Caranica wrote: »

But Leggo the point is that only a certain group are denied physical contact. Not children, not married or cohabitating couples or groups. They can touch, kiss, hug, whatever as much as they want. People who live on their own and/or couples who don't live together, or for some reason didn't at the time of lockdown,can’t .

It’s not personal. It’s not about denying any one group unfairly. It’s about the nature of this virus and trying to prohibit the spread by reducing risk. Families and couples living together pose a lower risk of spreading than couples apart making efforts to be together from two different households and the domino effect of all the people they come into contact with along the way.

It’s hard, it’s really hard. I’m single, isolating alone, abroad, and I’ve felt a particular wave of grief with it this week. Grief for the life plans and the hopes and dreams for 2020 but that loss at any touch, skin on skin and intimacy for almost 2 months now and for the foreseeable future is especially hard recently.

But we can do hard things. They won’t kill us. They might help us to hone our coping skills (mine certainly were a little rusty) and just learn how to care for ourselves when all we have is ourselves. Try to focus on those things that you CAN do, rather than those that you cannot. The lack of clarity is frustrating but also entirely appropriate given how much is unknown about the trajectory with this virus and how the country will look in the next few weeks.

eaglach

leggo wrote: »

I mean I don’t think I need to explain your actual question: no touching, kissing, hugging, hand-holding and obviously sex is what it means in laymen’s terms. But you’ll be able to spend time with them in person, go for walks and be in their presence. It’s **** but it’s the same situation for probably millions worldwide.

And, in truth OP, if lack of intimacy is your biggest problem during COVID, then you’ve got it lucky. I don’t mean that in a smart way, it’s just worth getting perspective. The whole world is suffering for a few months so it doesn’t become a few years and we don’t end up losing a lot of people we love. But it won’t be forever and now, at least, we’ve got an end in sight (IF we stay the course and stick to recommendations).

Unfortunately there is no real end in sight. The risk is always going to be there (until there is a vaccine), regardless of the restrictions. If the government said tomorrow that social distancing measures are no longer in force, that doesn't mean that the virus is gone and people are no longer at risk. Similarly, in two months time when the 20km restriction is lifted, the virus is not going to behave any differently than it is at the moment.

There will always be a risk until there is a vaccine, it's just whether you are willing to take that risk. People can't, and shouldn't be expected to, put their relationship and dating lives on home indefinitely.

leggo

We're being restricted to stop the spread of the virus so as to not overwhelm hospitals and allow for adequate treatment of those most in need. This is based on the R0 number continuing to drop, the amount of people in ICUs and the facilities we have available to us among other variables. We aren't being restricted to stop people getting the virus, you can't stop that, that'd be like trying to 'stop' the common cold or a flu. But you can treat it and ensure that the facilities are in place to manage it so the least amount of people die. So yes, it is tangible, because the guidelines are based on actual figures, targets and projections. And I trust them because so far what they have said has come to pass, as we enter our third day with hopefully less than 100 people in ICU.

What you're saying is a misconception people are telling themselves either as a genuine misunderstanding or as a way to talk their brains around into breaking restrictions. Breaking restrictions would mean that restrictions not only don't get lifted, but they get stricter and you start getting stuff they have in other countries like curfews, spot fines and criminal charges coming to pass for non-compliance. Not abiding by these is the one way to ensure they stick around for the long run and possibly get worse.

Put simply: if your problem is, "I'd like to see my partner again", then doing the one thing that will make it more difficult to see your partner for a longer period of time isn't the solution.

eaglach

leggo wrote: »

What you're saying is a misconception people are telling themselves either as a genuine misunderstanding or as a way to talk their brains around into breaking restrictions. Breaking restrictions would mean that restrictions not only don't get lifted, but they get stricter and you start getting stuff they have in other countries like curfews, spot fines and criminal charges coming to pass for non-compliance. Not abiding by these is the one way to ensure they stick around for the long run and possibly get worse.

Put simply: if your problem is, "I'd like to see my partner again", then doing the one thing that will make it more difficult to see your partner for a longer period of time isn't the solution.

I'm not sure if you're directing that at me, but I'll respond anyway!

I'm not suggesting breaking restrictions, at least in the short term. The government will no doubt advise social distancing for the foreseeable future. I don't think it's fair on anyone to impose that kind of restriction for an extended period of time. A couple of months is manageable, but there comes a breaking point no matter how committed to the cause you think you are.

LegacyUser

My parents spent 18months apart when my dad went over seas for work. It sucks but people make it work.

You aren't being singled out or punished by the measures. They are blanket measures in place on everyone. And the Grass is always greener as they say. Plenty of families on lockdown together who are desperate for some personal space or parents with very young kids struggling to explain to them what is happening without scaring them. Kids whose parents are separated may not being see one parent. Many kids are not seeing grandparents or other older relations they are use to seeing regularly.

There are very few who are effected by this. I didn't think I would be as I work from home already, live alone and didn't feel I went out much but once you are told you can't you suddenly see how much interaction you really had with the rest of the world. It sucks for everyone but once we start making exception for some cus they think they have it harder then we may as well stop the whole lockdown and see if the health system can survive!

leggo

It’s not a matter of fairness though, nobody decided to have a pandemic like. It’s a case of this is here, it is killing people we love, and the only way to ensure that we get through it without thousands of more preventable deaths is to follow these restrictions. You getting to resume your dating life before we’re ready could mean that someone doesn’t get to ever see their grandparent again. THAT’S not fair, because like it or not, human life preservation is far more important than people’s relationship or dating life satisfaction. So if I’ve got to choose between someone dying or not getting my hole for a few months, I’m gonna suck it up and deal with it.

People suffering with this deserve sympathy, they’ve every right to vent frustration, but once you start logically trying to make the case that it’s ‘fair’ to resume your dating life over people dying before we’re adequately set up to treat this...that’s crossing the line. And, to be fair, you’re probably a decent person who knows all of this already but is frustrated, but for god’s sake catch yourself when you’re trying to convince yourself of these notions.

nthclare

Put it into perspective, if you're missing your partner that's endearing.
But if they're the right one for you, they're worth waiting for. And visa versa.

I bought my girlfriend a few gift's on Amazon and had them sent to her home. A few books and summer t-shirts. I know her size, she's 5"6 size 8 and and what size fits say in a t-shirt...or shorts etc
Bought her a hardback book from America that she couldn't source, it arrived after two weeks.
Her favourite chocolates too.
I'm living alone spending fck all,so why not brighten up someone's morning with a parcel at the door....

eaglach

leggo wrote: »

You getting to resume your dating life before we’re ready could mean that someone doesn’t get to ever see their grandparent again. THAT’S not fair, because like it or not, human life preservation is far more important than people’s relationship or dating life satisfaction. So if I’ve got to choose between someone dying or not getting my hole for a few months, I’m gonna suck it up and deal with it.

I'm not sure I would agree. You have to do a cost-benefit analysis. It sounds cruel to weigh up someone's life over people's dating / relationships, but it happens all the time. Should everyone's quality of life be reduced indefinitely to save a single life?

And by the way, I don't think the majority of people are thinking of it as "getting my hole" as you eloquently put it. People want to be close with their partners and not feel alone through this.

leggo wrote: »

People suffering with this deserve sympathy, they’ve every right to vent frustration, but once you start logically trying to make the case that it’s ‘fair’ to resume your dating life over people dying before we’re adequately set up to treat this...that’s crossing the line. And, to be fair, you’re probably a decent person who knows all of this already but is frustrated, but for god’s sake catch yourself when you’re trying to convince yourself of these notions.

I'm sure you didn't mean for this to sound condescending, so I'll just skip over that!

The point is that there is currently no foreseeable end to being disconnected from your partner or potential future partner. The government plans always stress social distancing, even beyond the final phase in August. You have to admit that for a single person on non-cohabiting couple that is not feasible.

Turtwig

Breaking it down then to risk/benefit.

There's the individual risk of serious illness to yourself, your partners risk, the risk to you and your partners's circle of very close people and the random individual in the wider population's risk.

Simply put, how willing are you to suppress your own needs/wants to reduce the risk of serious illness to both yourself and others? Have you accurately quantified this risk for all categories of social contacts? If you got COVID-19 how likely would you be die? How likely would you be to get serious illness with potential lifelong complications? Do you know this? If you asked your doctor would they know your medical history well enough to be able to tell you? When did you last have a thorough medical evaluation done to screen for any existing conditions/ailments? Does the medical community have enough information yet to be able to quantify the individual risk to a reasonable degree of accuracy?

Now apply all these same questions to everyone else from your partner to both yours, theirs social circle and the random individual. Do you really understand the risk you're exposing yourself and potentially others to? What would those other people wish you to do? What would you want yourself to do if you were in those other people's shoes?

That's a partial illustration to questions to ask when considering the risk.

Now write down the benefits. These are obviously personal to you. But perhaps also there are benefits to your partner, your social circles etc?

Now for the final yardstick. Before the stress, anxiety, lonliness of the pandemic afflicted you what would be your opinion of what you should do right now in this moment? Are you still behaving the way you'd want yourself to behave before this pandemic ever began or have you made alterations to your behavior. Are you overly cautious about things you shouldn't? Are you being overly complacent about other things?

6 months ago, now, and 6 months from now, what would be or have been your own assessment of your own situation, and more importantly, why?

Caranica

The number of variables is huge. People living in shared accommodation v people who live alone v people who live with or need to associate with high risk people.

In my case, I live alone, he lives alone. We've both only gone out for shopping and exercise so would be low risk.

Looking at pictures of people hugging in Italy today broke my heart.

leggo

eaglach wrote: »

I'm not sure I would agree. You have to do a cost-benefit analysis. It sounds cruel to weigh up someone's life over people's dating / relationships, but it happens all the time. Should everyone's quality of life be reduced indefinitely to save a single life?

Happiness is a privilege, not a right. We’re lucky to grow up in a society where our mental health and wellbeing is considered important, and that should be the case in any modern, developed society. Again, though, that’s all a privilege and it is only selfishness and entitlement that would place your personal happiness over the right of another person to live. People do unquestionably have a right to live. So there is no risk/benefit analysis, it’s an open and shut case, and now it’s written into law to back it up. Your personal stance on this doesn’t actually play into things, it is but the mere disgruntlement of someone at their most desperate or selfish hour. Nobody can stop you from breaking these guidelines, unless the Gardaí everywhere for this exact purpose were to catch you, but to actually do so would make you an extremely selfish, repugnant individual putting your personal, sexual needs ahead of the lives of others.

I want to also be clear that I do sympathise with those who are having these thoughts and doubts though. These guidelines are tough and the feelings are natural. But you need to come down on the side of allowing vulnerable people the chance to live, every single time, when you weigh it all up. If you don’t, not only will you know you’ll go down in history of mixing the logic of Donald Trump with the entitlement of Gemma O’Doherty, you effectively have blood on your hands. It’s an awful choice for us all to have but it’s the harsh reality of the situation we’re in. You’re deluding yourself if you think otherwise, simple as.

qwerty13

Caranica wrote: »

The number of variables is huge. People living in shared accommodation v people who live alone v people who live with or need to associate with high risk people.

In my case, I live alone, he lives alone. We've both only gone out for shopping and exercise so would be low risk.

Looking at pictures of people hugging in Italy today broke my heart.

The variables are huge. And somewhat unknown. And that’s why we all suck up our own needs for the benefit of others.

Some people live alone, who haven’t seen another friend or family member for close to 2 months now.

Some people share a house with people they may not be happy that they’re the only people they see (threads on Boards about that going back at least a week, including housemates going to see their other halves, and ignoring the wishes and needs of their isolating housemates).

Some families are together 24/7 finding it hard to get along.

Some separated parents can’t see their kids.

Some grandparents can’t see anyone, let alone their grandkids.

Some elders who may have had issues with loneliness who are now truly isolated.

Some people are trapped in abusive relationships, stuck in close contact with their abusers.

Some people find not being able to work / have a defined routine detrimental to their mental health.

Some people are on the breadline financially, with all of the stress that brings.

Some people’s workplaces will be touch and go as to whether they’ll ever re-open.

Some people may never find jobs again, due to their age (similar to the last recession).

Some frontline workers are doing insane hours and putting their physical and mental health at risk.

Some frontline workers have died.

Some necessary workers are terrified that they’ll spread the virus to their family.

Some people will never be able to see their loved ones before they die.

Some people are idiots: barging up a shopping aisle, rather than wait 30 seconds.

Some people don’t bother observing coughing hygiene.

I get that you’re in pain. We all are, in different ways. I’m not dismissing your pain, just as I hope you wouldn’t dismiss mine. But there’s far bigger and more important things than that at stake. We all have to make sacrifices to help people who are at higher risk of contracting the disease. Or dying.

I don’t think you have it any harder than anyone else. You just have it ‘different’. We can all wallow from time to time. God knows I’ve had up and down days. But your situation is not an unusually victimised one - it’s just different.

You’re trying to rationalise breaking the guidance for the good of all, in order to get what you want personally. While I get that from an emotional point of view, it’s not fair or rational. What if you were asymptomatic and carried the virus to your other half? What if they spread it in a rare trip to their shop or a delivery person? What if you crashed your car / had a different reason to be taken into hospital and spread the virus? - or contracted it?

You’re not being excluded. You’re being asked to observe the guidance of not going outside your own household (whether that’s parents & kids, a house share, cohabitating couples, married couples, engaged couples - it doesn’t matter). The point is not to move the virus from one household to another, and by extension, not from one geographical area to another.

You’re not being treated differently or unfavourably. It’s just that your circumstances don’t lend themselves to meet up as you’re a potential virus spreader. You’re not being treated differently because of your personal circumstances/living arrangements. You’re being treated differently because you’re not part of the same household who were in constant contact anyway, and therefore you are a spreader risk.

Can I venture to say that you’re focusing on the wrong thing: you’re focusing on why you (misguidedly, in my opinion) feel victimised; but you should be focusing on ‘well how do we make it work until we can see each other again’.

Emme

If you do what expert Neil Ferguson did you could have your girlfriend come to visit you right now.

Seriously if she doesn't need to be with her parents get her to come visit you for a few days when people are allowed to travel 20km. Life is too short to stick to draconian unreasonable guideliness when experts break the very rules they impose on others.

I'm not talking about the elderly the the vulnerable, they should take all precautions necessary. But there is no need for two young healthy people to stay apart if they are careful not to put others at risk. So if she can, get her to come visit you for a few days after the 18th.

LegacyUser

Problem is she presumably lives with her parents as the op said 'shes gone home'....so yeah, she'd be risking bringing it back to them.

I think it depends on both your living circumstances...if you live alone and so does she, and are not interacting with others, and will be driving directly to the others house and staying there, then risk of spreading to the wider community is low.

If she lives with her parents or others, then she has to weigh up the risk of bringing it back to her folks/flatmates, and that risk goes up the more contact you or her have with other people.

Turtwig

Expert advises people to use condoms.
Expert doesn't use condoms himself
Therefore, everybody should ignore the medical community and nobody should use condoms.

The problem is two people living apart can't guarantee they won't infect others. Unless they spend the rest of their lives in a cave. If every healthy couple that lives apart does what you want to do OP there is a very considerable risk the virus will surge and a lot of people will die. It's just a question of what collective you want to be part of.

kg703

OP & the other who are dealing with this. I think a common sense approach is best. If both of you are living alone - why not just move in together? One trip for one of you in the car might break the distance rule but if your only contacts are each other and it might make this a lot easier on both of you - the 20km comes into force in a month too.

If like OP you are both living with parents - it would be very unfair on the parents if you were to meet up and then go back unless you can find a way to both continue lock down together, you could be stuck with social distancing visits for a while. A lack of intimacy can really take its toll though so I wish you both the best with whatever you decide to do. I havent seen my family in 10 weeks but if they lived near me I would have definitely paid them a visit over the garden wall at distance.

I dont believe either of you would be selfish and repugnant people with 'blood on their hands' (like - seriously?!) - there is plenty of coronavirus threads for people to scream at each other over who knows best.

leggo

kg703 wrote: »

I dont believe either of you would be selfish and repugnant people with 'blood on their hands' (like - seriously?!) - there is plenty of coronavirus threads for people to scream at each other over who knows best.

Now hang on a second, you’re quoting my words here but not in the context I’m using them. Point out where I said that someone isolating with their partner if they both live alone during restrictions, and the really specific scenario you painted yourself in a post after the quote was made, was ‘selfish’. If anything your solution is common sense. I made the exact same suggestion myself to a family member that they needed to choose one spot where they isolated and stick to that.

Whereas, yes, when you have people getting desperate and telling themselves that the restrictions are wrong and unreasonable as a way to justify breaking them...that is a selfish mindset. For one because if you convince yourself that the restrictions are wrong, why follow any of them? So that’s a stance that needs to be clamped down on entirely because if the entire country held it then we’d risk effectively wiping out an entire generation of people. And secondly because it’s just not true: we’re getting the results we hoped for from people complying to these. People just struggle with not being able to see those results because you can’t see someone ‘not dying’, so they talk themselves into these ridiculous notions.

Breaking restrictions directly leads to deaths, and if you know all of this consciously and still do it, then you’re literally responsible for deaths happening. We’re not responsible for Coronavirus but we are all responsible for our own behaviour in reacting to it. So while the phrase ‘blood on your hands’ can often be used dramatically, it’s actually applicable here. It’s mental to think that we’re in a situation where that’s the case, but here we are. And, while empathising is the decent thing, there needs to be a line and we shouldn’t be using empathy to help people rationalise a course of action that will cause others to die.

eaglach

leggo wrote: »

Breaking restrictions directly leads to deaths, and if you know all of this consciously and still do it, then you’re literally responsible for deaths happening. We’re not responsible for Coronavirus but we are all responsible for our own behaviour in reacting to it. So while the phrase ‘blood on your hands’ can often be used dramatically, it’s actually applicable here. It’s mental to think that we’re in a situation where that’s the case, but here we are. And, while empathising is the decent thing, there needs to be a line and we shouldn’t be using empathy to help people rationalise a course of action that will cause others to die.

Well that's a bit melodramatic! You could apply that kind of attitude to anything you disagree with. You drive a car? You're directly causing the deaths of people due to air pollution. You buy cheap clothes produced in China? You're directly enabling slave labour. You're buying products from Amazon? You're directly causing small businesses to close.

If you have an agenda you can spin it however you want. I'm not saying you're wrong, but everyone makes these kinds of decisions everyday and you have to be comfortable with whatever choice you make, even if it's objectively wrong.

I'm on two sides of the fence on this one. I'm very much in favour of following the restrictions as we need to do as much as we can now so that the lockdown isn't extended, but on the other hand feel for those in relationships and wouldn't think harshly of them if they broke the rules. Everyone reaches a breaking point at some stage. If the government said that you cannot meet your partner or date anyone for 2 years until a vaccine is found, would you fully accept that?

It's also much easier for people who are living with their partners or are happy being single to go along with the restrictions. Not saying that's the case with you, but some people don't cope very well in solitude and it can be more difficult for those not in that situation to relate.

Hannibal_Smith

Mod note

I think the OP has got enough to go on here. Given that they haven't been back, I'm going to close the thread now.

OP if you need the thread reopened you're welcome to PM me and I'll reopen it for you.

Thank you to all who replied.