Am I The Asshole for Asking Somebody Else in My Apartment Block Not to Get in The Elevator with Me?

LTovers93 on 15/04/2020 - 20:52

On my way out of my apartment block this evening, the lift stopped on the floor below me where there was another resident waiting.

My girlfriend and I asked this person if they would be okay to wait for us to send the lift back up (5 floors, probably 40 seconds wait in total).

The person tried to barge into the lift saying "for god's sake are you serious?" before changing their mind, telling us to "B*****r off" and then they took the stairs.

Is this a reasonable request on my part? Would you do the same in this situation? I'm not a hypochondriac but I have been pretty careful in keeping my distance and reducing the risk. It'd be daft to then enter a confined space with someone.

Context - lift is approx 1.5m x 1.5m, space enough for about 4 people pre social distancing.

Poll Options

  • 72
    Unreasonable Request, Let Them In
  • 6
    Let Them In But Go Back To Back
  • 298
    Fair Request, Ask Them Politely To Wait
  • 841
    You Should Get Out, Let Them Go Down and Ask They Send It Back Up
Health & Beauty

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 15/04/2020 - 20:55
    +382

    You don't want to be in the lift with someone else, you get out.

    • Hybroid on 15/04/2020 - 20:58
      +35

      End of post.

    • fossilfuel on 15/04/2020 - 20:58
      +11

      YTA OP

      • [Deactivated] on 15/04/2020 - 21:02
        +23

        I wouldn't either so I'll take the stairs.

          • [Deactivated] on 15/04/2020 - 21:05
            +67

            @Tovers93: Not sure what to tell you. It's a communal lift. You have absolutely no authority to deprive someone else from the timely use of the facility.

            • abb on 16/04/2020 - 09:30
              +30

              @[Deactivated]: OP doesn't have authority to do so, but the government does, and has.

              • hypie on 16/04/2020 - 10:16
                +38

                @abb: He has a point, if the elevator is less than 4m2, OP is in the right as per government regulations…

              • [Deactivated] on 16/04/2020 - 14:31
                -3

                @abb: …and…?

                • abb on 16/04/2020 - 14:46
                  -1

                  @[Deactivated]: The attempted entry of others into the occupied lift being illegal, OP is therefore well justified in asking the others not to enter.

                  Like if the other resident attempted to enter OP's unit without permission, OP would be in the clear saying "oi mate you can't come into my unit". You can say 'OP has no authority to deprive someone else of occupying a unit' or 'you don't want your unit invaded then you invite them in' but that's a silly interpretation of the situation.

                  (This analogy, like all, is flawed, and would break down if, for example, OP was conducting a DOS attack against other residents by riding the lift all day)

                  • nobro25 on 18/04/2020 - 18:40

                    @abb: That's use of a wrong analogy. You're comparing apples to oranges. The lift, hallways and stairs are common shared property. Whereas the individual units themselves are private property, this includes storage cages and parking spots.

                    • abb on 18/04/2020 - 20:20

                      @nobro25: Of course it's a wrong analogy, all analogies are essentially wrong by definition.

                      The relevant part is that OP is asking another party to cease breaking a law. The law differs in each scenario.

              • usmanyousaf on 17/04/2020 - 14:04

                @abb: 1.5 X 1.5 lift should have 1 passenger if U follow the Government regulation.
                Also, it should be implemented by corporate body not by individual resident.

            • uedamasaki on 16/04/2020 - 13:20
              +15

              @[Deactivated]: This isn't about whether or not someone prefers to socially distance himself from others during this pandemic. So I can't agree with the idea that the op needs get off the lift because he's somehow made a personal choice to distance himself from others. This is about following social distancing directives to reduce the community spread of COVID. EVERYONE should be abiding by this, not just people to prefer to.

            • ripesashimi on 16/04/2020 - 13:41
              +15

              @[Deactivated]: If OP is already in the lift, the next person steps in there is in breach of the social distancing guideline.

            • Ghost47 on 16/04/2020 - 14:00
              +3

              @[Deactivated]: How is requesting someone not do something the same as depriving them?

              The word deprive implies OP intentionally prevented someone from having or using something else. Asking them not to do something is not the same as depriving them.

              • [Deactivated] on 16/04/2020 - 14:27
                -3

                @Ghost47:

                Asking them not to do something is not the same as depriving them.

                Asking is not. Effectively prohibiting someone is.

                Anyone can ask anything. The question obviously isn't about the act of asking. It is the act of prohibiting in which case, a resident of the building does not have that right.

                • Ghost47 on 16/04/2020 - 15:03
                  +3

                  @[Deactivated]: From Google and Wiktionary:

                  formally forbid (something) by law, rule, or other authority.
                  To forbid, disallow, or proscribe officially; to make illegal or illicit.

                  I don't think the OP was prohibiting the other person from entering the lift simply by asking them take the next one.

                  The question obviously isn't about the act of asking.

                  It isn't? From the original post it's clear to me it is about whether or not asking someone to take the next lift to maintain physical distancing is a reasonable thing to do.

                  OP did mention they had their rubbish bags near the door, if they blockaded the entrance then yeah maybe that could be considered as an act of deprivation or prohibiting others from using the lift, but simply asking someone to take the next one is not depriving nor prohibiting.

                  I think of the times where I've been at work and the lift has been largely occupied or people are transporting large items in it and I've been asked to wait for the next one (even if I could fit in) — I don't blame everyone in the lift for "depriving" me of using it.

                  • [Deactivated] on 16/04/2020 - 15:38
                    -4

                    @Ghost47:

                    simply asking someone to take the next one is not depriving nor prohibiting.

                    Of course not.

                    It seems like you're fixated on the literal question so to answer the literal question, yes, OP is entitled to ask anything they want to, the person trying to get into the lift is entitled to think whatever they want to.

                    And that's a wrap.

                    • Ghost47 on 16/04/2020 - 16:03
                      +2

                      @[Deactivated]: I don't know how you can interpret their question any way other than literally.

                      And that's a wrap.

        • lgacb08 on 15/04/2020 - 21:49
          +3

          based on the number of neg, i'm surprised at the number of ocd on ozbargain

          • whooah1979 on 15/04/2020 - 21:57

            @lgacb08: People fear what they don’t understand. They show it by neg.

        • JTTheMan on 17/04/2020 - 00:42
          +1

          "The chance of getting infected is low." -> That's only as a result of social distancing, such as not crowding in a lift.

      • p1 ama on 15/04/2020 - 21:27
        +7

        Yeah, agreed.

        Don't back peddle. The reason you started this post is because you had the opposite view. Own your views. Given your self-aggrandising rants telling other people what to do around here, why don't you set a good example. Be gracious, step out of the lift, let the other person go, then go.

        But of course, morally lecturing other people is only fun when they're the ones who will have to wait and be inconvenienced right?

        • Tovers93 on 15/04/2020 - 21:30
          +4

          Thanks. I did include the 4th option as probably the most sensible thing to do but not what I would want to do. I'm willing to take on other people's thoughts as social norms are a bit skewed right now and maybe I'm out of sync

          • p1 ama on 15/04/2020 - 21:39
            +11

            @Tovers93:

            I'm willing to take on other people's thoughts as social norms are a bit skewed right now and maybe I'm out of sync

            Just do some simple math. There are just less than 3,000 active cases of COVID-19 in Australia. Let's say that's an underestimate by 10 fold and 30,000 people are currently active cases (being kind to you). There are 26 mil people in Australia. The probability that one particular guy has COVID-19 is 0.00115385. Let's say that there's a 10% chance that being in a lift with someone infected will lead to you being infected. The probability of you getting infected is then 0.000115.

            Even with the worst estimates, you are 99.999% sure you're not going to get it. That's not to mention that the probability of you dying is around 100 times smaller.

            In other words, you probably have a higher chance of dying from the lift cable snapping than you do from catching COVID-19 from some random guy in the lift.

            Now, does this mean that we shouldn't be practicing social isolation and distancing? Of course not. On a societal basis this is extremely important because it prevents spread across geographic areas (e.g. you go to work, you take your kids to school, you go shopping). There's also the issue of the thousands of people you come across and surfaces you may touch.

            If there were 1,000 people trying to get into the lift with you, your fears may be justified. But one person, no, mathematically it really isn't.

            • Tovers93 on 15/04/2020 - 21:44
              +26

              @p1 ama: *Maths

              The probability of contraction is small, my survival likelihood is high, the overall risk is low. However, I'm trying to do what I can to lower that risk where possible

                • Tovers93 on 15/04/2020 - 21:51
                  +10

                  @p1 ama: The lift is weight rated and maintained by an engineering expert. If the lift had say 12 people in and it said max 8 I wouldn't get in.

                  Driving licenses come with tests which are designed by road safety experts. The road rules are actively enforced. I follow the rules set by those experts when driving to minimise risk to myself and others.

                  Governments have set social distancing rules from consultation with medical experts. Again I follow those rules.

                  • whooah1979 on 15/04/2020 - 21:59
                    -5

                    @Tovers93: Do these medical expert tell you how long you have to remain in the aerosol to become infected?

                  • p1 ama on 15/04/2020 - 22:05
                    +1

                    @Tovers93:

                    Again I follow those rules.

                    That's a cop-out from the discussion. I'm glad you follow the rules. I follow the rules too. Either way, there are no rules against taking a lift with someone inside it.

                    So we have to make our own decision. You will make your decision based on the probability of harm to you. I calculated the probability of harm to you. You said that probability of harm is significant. However, when I pointed out you doing things where the probability of harm is even greater, you say that is not significant.

                    That's an untenable position.

                    Also,

                    experts

                    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-…

                    • Tovers93 on 15/04/2020 - 22:12
                      +5

                      @p1 ama: I think you've arrived at a different conclusion to my consistent explanation that I follow the rules set out by experts which they have determined based on their professional assessment of risk. I've used a little judgement in applying it here, as they don't specify all scenarios, however it'd be hard to argue that it's the right thing to do to have 3 people from 2 different households in a confined space based on the social distancing laws.

                      If we cop back on to the discussion, the concensus is that you should give way to the less risk adverse and accept the time / effort that requires.

                      • whooah1979 on 15/04/2020 - 22:19

                        @Tovers93: Australian medical experts says not to use face masks in public while the Singapore government makes it compulsory. Are their medical experts wrong or are we wrong?

                        • emoticon on 16/04/2020 - 01:32
                          +17

                          @whooah1979: Our medical experts are wrong. Think about it, why would medical staff and essential personnel like police benefit from using masks but not regular Australians?

                          It’s obviously an effective preventative tool like hand sanitiser.

                          Possible reasons why Aus gov might want to discourage its use:

                          • Reduce fear and panic over seeing heaps of people wearing masks in public.

                          • Try to maintain illusion of normalcy; see above + “economic reasons” etc.

                          • Prevent “further” mass buying of masks so VIP’s and essential personnel like medical staff have access to them.

                          • Or they might just be stupid who knows.

                          The excuse that it won’t help or people don’t know how to wear them properly is stupid and contradictory.

                          Why have doctors and nurses asked for more ppe/masks?

                          • It’s a bloody mask, I’ve used a P2/N95 mask, it’s not that difficult to put on. Tonnes of people used them during the bushfires and had no issues then.

                          If people are wearing them incorrectly why not teach them how with a PSA or something rather than telling them nope you tied your shoes a little weird, you shouldn’t wear shoes.

                        • trapper on 16/04/2020 - 11:29
                          +2

                          @whooah1979: Masks do help lower the transmission risk obviously, but they still may not be necessary in Australia.

                          See how well our social distancing is working.

                          I mean we have almost eliminated this virus now, while at the same time keeping half the economy still running and most people not wearing masks.

              • htc on 16/04/2020 - 08:38

                @Tovers93: good to minimise risk, but should not be at the expense of someone else's inconvenience.

                • uedamasaki on 17/04/2020 - 07:59

                  @htc: So people should follow public health directives only when convenient to do so? I would think managing this pandemic takes priorities over other people's minor inconveniences.

            • whooah1979 on 15/04/2020 - 21:50

              @p1 ama: I’m changing my post to the chance of getting infected is very very low.

              • geoffs87 on 15/04/2020 - 22:45
                +6

                @whooah1979: My opinion: bad attitude.

                What if (albeit a very VERY small risk) mr/mrs annoyed elevator patron decided to get in the lift, and had covid-19.

                What if OP didn’t show symptoms but went into work on Monday, bought a coffee, got their haircut, invited one friend over to do a workout (catching my drift, all legal things to do)… how many people have they then spread to.

                It’s a pretty complacent attitude, because if they decide to avoid just one interaction, that removed interaction could in fact save lives - that’s a simple fact,

                All your arguments about driving, elevators etc are all managed risks, catching the most contagious virus in recent history can only be managed by assuming everyone could have it.

                But sure, do go about your business assuming “no-one has it”, you’re really doing your bit to help save lives.

                • p1 ama on 16/04/2020 - 00:39
                  +5

                  @geoffs87:

                  What if OP didn’t show symptoms but went into work on Monday, bought a coffee, got their haircut, invited one friend over to do a workout (catching my drift, all legal things to do)… how many people have they then spread to.

                  Yes, but why are you singling out that one person in the lift? What about OP's colleagues at work, who could have also had it. Or what about the barista at the coffee shop, who could have also had it? What about the friend who came over for a workout, who could have also had it.

                  It’s a pretty complacent attitude, because if they decide to avoid just one interaction, that removed interaction could in fact save lives - that’s a simple fact,

                  Okay, let's not get into moral proselytising here. The flaw in your logic is that you've simply just multiplied up OP's risks. The reason why we have social isolation policies in place is so that people don't interact with thousands of other people on a day to day basis.

                  The logic of your statement is basically if I said "winning the lottery is low probability", and you just said "not if you buy thousands of tickets". That's literally what you are saying in another context.

                  All your arguments about driving, elevators etc are all managed risks, catching the most contagious virus in recent history can only be managed by assuming everyone could have it.

                  You can assume what you want, but it doesn't change the fact that 99.99% of people do not have it. The overwhelming majority of cases in Australia are from people who have returned from overseas already infected. The rates of community transmission (i.e. what OP is talking about here) is extremely low, almost negligible.

                  But sure, do go about your business assuming “no-one has it”, you’re really doing your bit to help save lives.

                  I'm actually genuinely concerned about this sort of mentality because it shuts off any potential discussion or debate about how we should manage the risks associated with this. By your logic, should we also assume that everyone is a serial killer, rapist and an armed madman? Because hey, if I assume everyone is a murderer, that will reduce my 0.00001% chance of getting murdered?

                  Of course, that's ridiculous. We need to actually study the numbers and understand the methods of transmission so that we can manage our risks, protect ourselves, our healthcare system (and of course, save lives - but I hate the moral proselytising). Just saying that "assume everyone has it" is absurd because it's factually untrue.

                  We need to communicate that this is the "lottery paradox". People I know who play the lottery every week never win, but every week there's always a lottery winner. It's exactly the same thing going on here. Your personal risks are very small (the numbers tell you that), but collectively the risk is large because of the great number of people, NOT because everyone is infected, as you say.

                  If you want to be more technical, it's because your number of trials is high, not because the probability of a "success" (i.e. catching COVID-19) is in itself high. This is why the number of people you come into contact with daily is the real kicker. I'm a statistician at a major Aus uni and I've been involved in a modelling project with some of my colleagues. Just by varying the number of people you come into contact with, you can see how the rate of spread increases dramatically. At the lower end, it's rather insignificant. However, as you increase the number, you start to see this "super-spreader" phenomenon.

                  Therefore, what we should be doing is avoiding contact with large numbers of people, i.e. what the laws tell us to do and what I hope we're all doing. The semantics of catching an elevator with someone is literally insignificant in this discussion. As are the concerns of "this person walked past me on a footpath…" On top of that, being in an elevator with someone for 20s is insignificant in terms of the other risks that are already taking place. For example, going shopping, opening letters that may have been handled by someone infected, receiving deliveries…etc. We need to understand it in context. That's my point.

                  • geoffs87 on 16/04/2020 - 08:54
                    +2

                    @p1 ama: Putting all of that aside, how do you know the person you have just asked to avoid the elevator with hasn't been in contact with a large number of people?

                    Yes, but why are you singling out that one person in the lift? What about OP's colleagues at work, who could have also had it. Or what about the barista at the coffee shop, who could have also had it? What about the friend who came over for a workout, who could have also had it.

                    Each of those are calculated risks. I assume the OP also doesnt travel in the elevator at work with people (edit, or those buildings have restrictions on the number of people in the lifts)… (i know i wouldnt, i'd take the stairs), most workplaces have vastly reduced the number of people in their offices and are separating workstations so you aren't sitting within 1.5m from another colleague (if they haven't, well thats just stupid). Your friend coming over for a workout i imagine you put a little bit of trust in (and can probably trust, you would know a little bit about what they have been up to), and the coffee shop, well if you choose to do that, again thats a calculated risk. But from all of the above, if thats all you did in a day, the riskiest ones are the coffee shop and the guy in the elevator. If you avoid the guy in the elevator, well you're a statistician, you know you've just halved your chances of coming into contact with someone who has the rone. I certainly would prefer to minimise?

                    Okay, let's not get into moral proselytising here. The flaw in your logic is that you've simply just multiplied up OP's risks. The reason why we have social isolation policies in place is so that people don't interact with thousands of other people on a day to day basis.

                    Maybe, maybe not… the idea of social distancing is not just to avoid "thousands of other people", its about reducing the number of interactions you have with other people, for you never know if that person has in fact avoided interacting with "thousands of people".

                    I'm actually genuinely concerned about this sort of mentality because it shuts off any potential discussion or debate about how we should manage the risks associated with this.

                    Really? One person 'allegedly' ate a bat and now >2m people are infected, >100,000 have passed away. For as long as there is no immunity, no vaccine, or still one person with the disease and everyone complacently thinking "oh i won't get it because only 0.02% of people in Australia has this disease, doesnt it simply spread? I mean, statistics aside - what has happened everywhere else around the world?

                    Lets assume OP let the guy in the elevator, and he that person did have the rone. I'm sure your modelling shows complacency results in greater spread.

                    Any way you poke it, I'd personally rather minimise risk than take it on, and if OP wants to reduce the risk of contraction by avoiding people he does not know or trust - I'd say thats probably better for the health of our nation than thinking, oh that person has a 0.02% chance of having the rone.

                    • andresampras on 16/04/2020 - 10:43
                      +2

                      @geoffs87: Agreed.

                      It's that attitude of 'what are the chances this particular person is infected' that causes spread. When people are dying in droves, why bother trying to assume/calculate/figure out the level of risk on a case by case basis? By that logic, every person you meet should be given the benefit of doubt.

                      There's a reason experts are warning to assume everyone outside your household is infected, and to act accordingly.

                      This isn't hypochondria, it's basic sense under the circumstances.

                      My local Westfield has/had the elevators turned off, for exactly this reason. People are too scared to be seen as crazy, so they'd just pretend everything is normal and cram into an elevator. Because convenience and not wanting to stand out.

                      It's not pleasant, but I think OP took the correct option on this occasion by requesting (not demanding) the other person wait. In future I'd suggest OP wear a mask when taking out the rubbish. That way you protect yourself and don't have to stop people jumping in from every floor. If still uncomfortable, get out and wait for the next one, I'd say.

                    • p1 ama on 16/04/2020 - 14:42

                      @geoffs87:

                      Any way you poke it, I'd personally rather minimise risk than take it on, and if OP wants to reduce the risk of contraction by avoiding people he does not know or trust - I'd say thats probably better for the health of our nation than thinking, oh that person has a 0.02% chance of having the rone.

                      I agree, so don't leave your house, don't go to the shops, don't walk on the streets, don't have a mate over to work out, don't get a coffee, don't order takeout food, don't take the lift and don't check your mail.

                      I'm not saying we shouldn't be minimising contact with other people. That's common sense and nobody is arguing that.

                      I'm saying that it is an inconsistent position to say it's fine to go to the shops, fine to check your mail, fine to have a mate over, fine to have a coffee, but somehow "oh no, I'm gonna catch it from the guy in the elevator". All of your other activities are far higher risk, so if you want to reduce your risks, you're better off focusing on reducing the higher risk activities first.

                      You're strawmanning my argument to say that I'm saying we should be "complacent", not at all, I'm just saying we should contextualise the risks and use that to make informed decisions. If you're still going to the shops, maybe you should stop that first before worrying about the elevator.

                      • geoffs87 on 16/04/2020 - 15:53
                        +1

                        @p1 ama:

                        I'm saying that it is an inconsistent position

                        I think the information that is consistent, is being within 1.5m of someone, bit hard to do in a 2x2 elevator.

                        As i mentioned in my previous post, calculated risks can be somewhat understandable - a friend that comes over to do a workout, can do so in an open space, further than 1.5m apart, without touching, without breathing each other's air. You also should know whether that person has been overseas, or in a crowd of people, if they haven't told you that, why would you have them over.

                        Same for the coffee guy/girl, you don't come within 1.5m of their breathing space, and even though i agree with you re: coffee/retail etc, this one remains a calculated risk. If you choose to go buy a coffee, you're taking that risk. You can elect to not take that risk by not getting the coffee, just like you can elect to not take the risk by avoiding mr/mrs elevator.

                        I think you're missing the point though, the things you can't avoid, you can't avoid. The things you choose to avoid, will decrease the number of times you dip your feet in the 0.02% pool. If you have 10,000 M&M's in a bag, and one of them will give you the virus - how many times do you buy that bag an eat one? If the gain is you eat an M&M (or in this case some unrelated party gets to ride the lift with you), but the downside is potentially getting the rone, i think i'd avoid buying those M&M's unless i was starving.

                        Avoid unnecessary interactions, for every interaction could be contagious… Obviously we can't avoid everyone, but until this sh!t is cleared out, why can't people just reduce interactions to only those necessary to survive the day.

                  • Sneeze on 16/04/2020 - 15:50
                    +1

                    @p1 ama:

                    By your logic, should we also assume that everyone is a serial killer, rapist and an armed madman? Because hey, if I assume everyone is a murderer, that will reduce my 0.00001% chance of getting murdered?

                    Statistically you are many times more likely to be murdered by a family member or someone else that you know rather than a complete stranger.

                    …Enjoy.

              • JTTheMan on 17/04/2020 - 00:45
                +1

                @whooah1979: "The chance of getting infected is low."
                In Australia, because of social distancing

                • uedamasaki on 17/04/2020 - 08:02
                  +1

                  @JTTheMan: exactly right? These posts justifying breaching social distancing rules "because it's low risk" are frustrating.

                  Similar to antivax logic: "I don't need to vaccinate my kids because the current risk of disease is low." These measures only work effectively if everyone practices them.

                • bomhee13 on 17/04/2020 - 12:45

                  @JTTheMan: Is it though? Places like Korea have a much higher population density and they aren't even in any sort of lockdown. Just be sensible and wear masks (appropriately) if necessary.

                  • lonewolf on 17/04/2020 - 16:36
                    +1

                    @bomhee13: Korea has one of the best results from most countries and thats for a no. of reasons. They have been through this before so knew what to expect, responded quickly and everyone was on board. Everyone started performing social distancing as well as glvoes , masks etc and they are also a younger population than some of the other countries that have been hit bad by this.

                    Singapore also had a good track record, but they have since had a second outbreak once they started easing up on things and i believe have started to go back into lockdown again.

                    • bomhee13 on 17/04/2020 - 17:50
                      +1

                      @lonewolf: I agree, but to me I think that the better performing countries just have better social etiquette(?, in terms of hygiene) when it comes to these things. "Social distancing" as they call it should be practiced in our daily lives anyway due to other diseases as well - it's common sense that people should have been educated on growing up. Cover your mouths when you cough, wear a mask if you're sick, wash your hands, don't put your hands in your mouth - these are very basic things. The fact that we have to resort to a confined set of rules like the 1.5m distance rule is pretty sad to me because it means people can't execute that.

                      It doesn't help in places like Italy where their culture is to basically to kiss each other upon greeting.

                      • lonewolf on 17/04/2020 - 18:20

                        @bomhee13: Yeah, I think its because we have never had to do this so never learnt about it as well. As well as i reckon some of it is also the whole aspect of "freedom" " I dont want the government telling me what i can or can not do" type rebellion that makes some people just keep doing whatever they feel like. Whereas in Singapore there were much harsher penalties for people who didnt follow the rules. I mean here even when the police give out fines, people have an uproar about it and it gets over turned when the party in question was in the wrong and did not follow the rules so the penalty should have applied. But with that kind of attitude, people just dont follow the rules.

            • trapper on 16/04/2020 - 11:23
              +5

              @p1 ama: Yes the individual chance is very low, but if everyone takes the same very small risk the total chance is high.

              It only takes one new cluster and say hello to another two weeks of lockdown. Don't be that guy.

            • lonewolf on 16/04/2020 - 12:34
              +3

              @p1 ama: Thing is though, these probabilities will exponentially increase if no-one practices social distancing or says…well the chances are so low i may as well be the one who doesnt practice it…If everyone thought this way, then it will over time get out of control.

            • zine21 on 16/04/2020 - 13:21
              +4

              @p1 ama: Using this logic gatherings/socialising visiting friends and family/ basically life in general - would be completely fine since the overall risk would be quite low unless as you put it - 1000 + were gathered up at a time. This is also the same mindset that has resulted in the outcomes seen in Europe and America. They waited for that risk to grow before taking action which essentially resulted in significant mortality and stress on the medical systems

              This isn’t just some random fear or statistics it’s an infectious disease that spreads exponentially and can be asymptomatic. When taking risk into account - it’s too late to take action after millions have been infected resulting in a risk that you deem reasonable. The whole idea of social distancing and removal of non essentials is to - prevent that.
              Also as per regulations small lifts have max 2 people allowance to meet the new distancing laws so op isn’t being unreasonable. They were also the first ones in so logic dictates the next person can wait for the lift to return rather than force themselves in.

            • MalTurny on 17/04/2020 - 14:54
              +1

              @p1 ama: I have a response to this:
              If someone gave you a bag of 1000 Peanuts and said that one of them would possibly kill you; would you still eat from the bag?

              • geoffs87 on 17/04/2020 - 16:27

                @MalTurny: yeah i used that argument earlier, except as M&M's… if you're reaaaaallly hungry you might hit up that bag of M&M's or Peanuts, but as i have a choice to eat them or not, i probably wouldnt touch that bag…

                Just like i probably wouldnt get in a small elevator with someone knowing theres a strong chance they have the rone.

        • bejahi on 16/04/2020 - 20:35

          Pedal.

      • abb on 16/04/2020 - 09:27
        +3

        Many other apartment buildings have signage to the effect of "only take the lift with people from your apartment".

        You should ask your building manager to out some up :)

      • gromit on 16/04/2020 - 21:26
        -2

        You are surprised at someone's reaction when you act like an entitled Ahole to them? really? If it concerned youa it really was up to you to get out, not asking them to wait.

    • elgrande on 15/04/2020 - 22:08
      +5

      My appartment has a sign stating that govt requirement is max 2 person per lift.

      I've been waiting for OP's scenario to occur ..

      • [Deactivated] on 15/04/2020 - 22:49
        +1

        What would you do?

    • iDroid on 16/04/2020 - 00:56
      +5

      Naa, time to change our behaviour here.

      Right now it's more offensive than wanting to share a public cubicle to take a dump.

      People need to take this seriously and not expect others to do it for them.

    • cameldownunder on 16/04/2020 - 09:49
      +8

      Disagree: OP manoeuvre was forced by the person trying to get in to the elevator. Person trying to get in was the Dick ( under current circumstances ) not the OP. That is my opinion.

    • zol on 16/04/2020 - 19:08
      -1

      I was in a similar position, it was quite a rude request. I gave them a look and they realised how ridiculous that request was and apologized and asked me to come in.

      • sidesw1pe on 18/04/2020 - 18:20

        The reality was they cared more about your feelings than all of our survival. They decided to appease you rather than briefly explain the circumstances we are all faced with and which you seem to be oblivious to. Unfortunately their mental illness endangers us all. You should have thanked them for thinking of your safety.

        • zol on 19/04/2020 - 11:06

          The reality is that they took the lift. If you really want to go all the way you would say that it wouldn't matter because in lifts the air circulation is an issue (if someone sneezes the germs will be flying around for a while), people are touching the same button holding the hand rail etc. They don't get cleaned except a few times a week and there is no chance for it getting disinfected from sunlight etc.
          So of all the different attributes 2 or 3 people in a lift won't make much difference at all.

    • ganymede on 16/04/2020 - 22:38

      FPNI

    • Montyjpm on 17/04/2020 - 09:08

      Or you can turn into Ip Man part 3.

    • whooah1979 on 18/04/2020 - 08:23

      +1

    • this is us on 18/04/2020 - 10:07

      350 positive votes? Is that a (*) joke? Researchers should study how COVID-19 is affecting people's intelligence. We have to keep distance but that's fine to share a small lift with other people? How can someone justify that?

      I'd go even further and recommend OP writes a formal complaint and make sure the "max 1 person, families excepted" becomes a rule in the building as we clearly cannot count on common sense anymore.

      • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 10:13

        There's a difference between abiding by clearly printed rules and implementing rules at the expense of someone else.

        …recommend OP writes a formal complaint and make sure the "max 1 person, families excepted" becomes a rule

        Even you have conceded it isn't a rule yet.

        Researchers should study how COVID-19 is affecting people's intelligence.

        Irony.

        • this is us on 18/04/2020 - 10:20

          Yes, because people clearly can't correlate social distancing with sharing a small lift with the neighbours. Cool!

          In addition to the general rules, they need the Government to specify all the possible situations in which people might be too close, because people can't see that?

          You've just proven my point.

          • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 10:24

            @this is us: Cool.

            By your logic, we have now been indoctrinated as enforcers of law and order and each individual tenant now has the power of the entire body corporate.

            Why bother with laws, rules, due procedure when you can use the power of correlation and common sense.

            • this is us on 18/04/2020 - 10:29

              @[Deactivated]: There is an official rule of keeping distance, I'm not creating it. I actually believe the building/owners corporation might be fined for not reinforcing the official rules depending on the State.

              • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 10:32

                @this is us: Then the due process is reporting the body corporate for negligence. One report and it potentially changes the attitude and actions of every tenant/resident.

                Deciding to enect and enforce any rule on the spot against a single individual is both pointless and open to abuse.

                Go back and read the comments. No one bar the exceptional few is actually against breaking any posted rules. (Further making my point re due process and wider target.)

                • this is us on 18/04/2020 - 10:40

                  @[Deactivated]: My point is that we are supposed to follow the official rules (social distancing) without having to create additional rules for every situation in which people are breaking the basic rules.

                  If people were intelligent, they wouldn't need the building to tell them the obvious.

                  What's next? The speed limit is 60km/h and I know that… I was driving at 65km/h and didn't know that 65km/h was considered speeding… WTF?

                  • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 10:45

                    @this is us:

                    What's next? The speed limit is 60km/h and I know that… I was driving at 65km/h and didn't know that 65km/h was considered speeding… WTF?

                    Speed limits are posted and unless signed, it is 50kmph. State variations are further thought when applying for a license.

                    You don't just know about speed limits. You actually take a test.

                    You're at the point of an argument where you're minimising your ill attempt at mockery by making false equivalence.

  • [Deactivated] on 15/04/2020 - 20:58
    +2

    Be an adult…and hold your breath. It's fun.

    • Donaldhump on 15/04/2020 - 21:45
      +14

      I think everyone does this in supermarkets as they walk passed people

      • iDroid on 16/04/2020 - 00:57
        +9

        Passed out today.

  • whooah1979 on 15/04/2020 - 20:59

    Are they in self isolation?

    • CheapskateQueen on 15/04/2020 - 21:11
      +27

      I'm surprised by the poll answers. as long as you were polite, I think you were fine to ask. if they said no, I'd get out.

      most elevators have signs now, one person/ household per lift. maybe ask strata to put up signs

      • Tovers93 on 15/04/2020 - 21:15
        +8

        We aren't in self isolation and I don't know their situation.

        My expectation was that other people wouldn't want to get into a occupied lift.

        If it had come down to our floor with somebody else in it, we'd have waved them on and waited our turn. Maybe we're the anomalies…

          • Tovers93 on 15/04/2020 - 21:31
            +22

            @whooah1979: I can't guarantee that I'm not infected (could be asymptomatic) and how can I be sure of their situation? This is my understanding of why we are being asked to social distance and minimise contact opportunities.

              • CheapskateQueen on 16/04/2020 - 07:42
                +9

                @whooah1979: and we'll all repeat that the most dangerous part of this virus is being sick and contagious and having no idea and passing it on to someone else.

                  • CheapskateQueen on 16/04/2020 - 08:32
                    +3

                    @whooah1979: unbelievable.

                    the chance of winning the lotto is very low, but someone wins. may not be me, but someone eventually wins. until the rate is zero, someone will get infected.

                    many of us are doing the right thing and isolating and the longer this goes, the harder it gets. it's people with your attitude that are still catching up with people that are going to prolong this.

                    my mates housemate went and visited his bro when he returned from NY (during the voluntary quarantine phase). oh we didn't hug, the risk is low he said. idiot.

            • jetblack on 16/04/2020 - 08:01
              +8

              @Tovers93: I agree with this view 100%. Everyone knows the social distancing rules, whether they're law or not. You have every right to suggest they wait, I'd only get out if they're being aggressive and enter despite the polite request.
              You shouldn't have to bow to pressure from people ignoring these incredibly clear safety measures. Screw 'em, I say.

              Kinda surprised the popular vote is to allow someone else to walk all over you because they don't agree with these incredibly clear social distancing rules that have been explained a million times.

              I have been reminded a lot lately of that quote; 'consider how stupid the average person is. Now consider that half the population is even dumber than that…'

              • Tovers93 on 16/04/2020 - 08:05
                +1

                @jetblack: Looks like we are the 2 anomalies! I'm not making up my own rules in this situation, just following those given to us

              • jojo13 on 18/04/2020 - 08:06
                +1

                @jetblack: To a "T".
                Whole heartily agree.

          • this is us on 18/04/2020 - 10:11

            @whooah1979: Yes, because infected people immediately change their skin colour to green so everyone knows they are infected. That's why nations need the State to legislate: people are dumb.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join