This is a Premium feature
To use this feature subscribe to Mumsnet Premium - get first access to new features see fewer ads, and support Mumsnet.Start using Mumsnet Premium
AIBU to think the support bubble principle might be excluding a large portion of people?(26 Posts)
Only households with one adult may form this bubble. So single adults on their own or living with children.
What about adults who live with another adult because they are their career?? What about adults living at home with an elderly relative and providing all care? I know of one woman for example, who lives alone with her severely disabled daughter - who is in her 30s - but can’t do anything for herself at all. Is there a provision for these people?
There are lots of people the bubble system won’t assist. It’s not ideal but as far as I know the government has never claimed that nor that it will help everyone so YAB somewhat U.
The rules aren’t going to suit everyone for a long while. Those without cars are still disadvantaged by some of the rules. Those who have children and must continue to work. Those who must attend hospitals but can’t get access to face coverings.
I think in a lot of these cases the person being cared for is vulnerable and the 'adult' not' forming a 'bubble' with others is the best thing anyway.
If they're comfortable with additional risk they'd be exposing their 'vulnerable' person to and really want to 'form a bubble' I Think they will & I think most people would understand and they're certainly not going to get in trouble for it.
Big question is - is it worth the risk?
I'm locked down separately to my OH because I have underlying issues and it's 'safer' for me, I don't see anyone except the Tesco Delivery man at a distance. I take shopping to my Aunt in her 90's. Doorstep delivery. But I have been in her house a few tunes to do things she needed doing but couldn't do herself. (Old fashioned fuse required/back door that wouldn't lock that type of thing).
My OH is upset I won't 'bubble' with him, but as I explained, just because Boris now allows it, it doesn't change the risk he is to me.
@BestOption have you reviewed the actual risk data for your particular condition? Many ppl are vastly over estimating their personal risk thanks to the Boris needing to terrify the nation into submission.
Not bubbling with your partner sounds extreme unless you are over 90!
YANBU - but then, is anyone still following these rules to the letter? I'm certainly not
Each change in lockdown has has those who it has helped and those it hadn’t. When people were able to meet one on one- single parents with small children were excluded from that one. So for me it is nice that they have been considered with this change with its outset. I’m not a single parent but have spent a lot of lockdown on my own with my baby due to OH working away so can see how hard it has been. But I’ve had adult company from him when he is home so can only imagine not having that for the whole of lockdown. Sounds like your friend has it very tough but would she want to bring risk in if her daughter is vulnerable.
I know my local MP is asking for clarity as to whether military families where one member is away on duty for sustain periods of time would be allowed to use this for support. You could raise this with you MP to ask consideration/clarity for people such as her.
The thing with each change in guidance is that there will be those it misses as everyone’s circumstances are different in many ways and you cannot possibly cover everything.
I wasn't sure what to do about bubbling. I'm a single parent, working in the nhs and my children go to school. Anyone I were to bubble with would be in indirect contact with a lot of people.
I'm not particularly lonely or bored, and I'm not reliant on family members in usual times, although it would be nice to have friends round.
I might leave it a bit longer.
Yes, there's still lots of people waiting to be allowed to meet friends and relatives, in all sorts of difficult circumstances. Let's hope the R stays below 1 and the unlocking continues.
I came to the same conclusion Bangin. Although I’m not totally sure it applies to people in the at risk group anyway.
I think just use your best judgment? I've just done as I see fit throughout. If the police want to carry me off they may do so, but it seems an unlikely event.
The person I look after has 24h 2:1 so they've got loads of people coming in and out, including nurses rotating off Covid wards on a 7 day gap. We just use threshold practice and infection control as usual.
@bluebellpainting - seriously? Why would anyone bother checking with their MP in these circumstances? The government has no moral authority to make thar decision. Of course military families should bubble if they wish. We're adults, we don't need hypocritical liars giving us precise instructions.
Your MP is delusional if she thinks the government have any right to comment on this issue or if anyone with any sense will care what they say.
Of course each change in rules is going to exclude people. I'm hoping that eventually something will change for me, but in the meantime if things can change for some people, that's good. I don't think we can expect everything all in one go.
I don't have anyone to bubble with. I can't see my parents as they're in Wales and their rules are different. I can't go for walks with my best friend or sit in her garden as she's still shielding. But at some point I suppose that will change.
@Grobagsforever Yes my MP has asked the government for clarification. He is raising an issue that effects a large number of his constituents due to the nature of his constituency (large number of armed forces personal due to nearby bases) That is his job. According to his post on this matter- a number of his constituents wrote to him asking for this to be raised. If no one raises a situation with them it doesn’t get considered. Someone has to bring it to their attention. The government makes the law- yes there are issues around enforcement etc but while some of what is said is guidelines other parts are law so if people want it to change or their difficulties to be considered then it has to be raised to begin with.
@Bluebellpainting it genuinely blows my mind that military families who have been struggling along alone throughout this crisis would be remotely interested in what the government thinks. No wonder the government get away with so much.
I hope they ignore the government if they say they are excluded from the bubbles.
I wish the rule had taken into account disability too. It doesn’t effect me but I can imagine you would feel very isolated as the carer of someone who is struggling, especially as most of the residential colleges and special needs colleges have shut (around here anyway).
But you have always been able to visit and see other people if its medical need. Which includes mental health. So if a carer needs to iurside support they have been able to seek it
If the vulnerable person you are caring for is shielding, visiting another household isn't a great idea though.
No change is going to give everyone something they want.
They can't accommodate all peolle I all circumstance.
@Grobagsforever I’m only sharing what my MP has said and what his constituents have asked. I haven’t written to him myself. Set ups for military families can be very complicated- they have not necessary been on their own for the whole of lockdown but can be away a lot of it. Some personal are based away from their families and usually travel back and forth between family home and bases every few weeks for a weekend. Why in particular does it blow your mind that military families might want clarification from the government- why would they in particular not care about understanding what they are allowed to do within the guidelines.
My take on thus is that the new bubble rules are not fir the benefit of families, or cohabitants. Rather it's for people who live alone, whomare now allowed some human contact. Provided they do it only with one other household, and that no-one is shield level vulnerable.
Shielded singletons are the people who have missed out the most. Though they can see someone outdoors as long as they distance by a minimum of 2m.
I think those people have tondo their own assessment of the risk. If their are caring for a vulnerable or elderly person it might well not be suitable for them to mix with another family.
Agreed. I must say, I'm a bit confused by the logical fallacy you see again and again on here that contends that if we can do x, we should also be able to do y and z.
It makes perfect sense to make limited changes to the rules to phase back to normality and check the impact of those changes (note, that doesn't mean I agree with the order or conduct of this government in making those decisions!).
As someone who lives with my husband, no kids who can fully work from home with full pay, it just so happens that almost none of the easing has benefitted me so far.
In fact, the coffee van delivering fresh brewed coffee to my door has gone away to return to his usual pitch in town.
I'm seeing my parents in a month, for the first time in seven months. I hope by then I'll be permitted to hug them.
Copying my post from another thread as it applies here too:
People in very difficult circumstances have been quietly bending the “rules” all along
Of course they have. Which is partly why the Gov set them so stringently in the first place.
We (as a nation) were always going to push the boundaries so they set the boundary further back to allow for it.
I am surprised more people don't realise this.
Usually I'm a big critic of the government, but I'll cut them some slack on this one. Sure, the bubble principle is messy. In our family, it works well - we can bubble with a widowed parent and everyone is happy. It wouldn't work if both my parents were still alive. It wouldn't work if my sister and her family lived close enough to form a viable bubble (how do you choose between your children?). It wouldn't work if we had two widowed parents close enough to form a viable bubble (how do we choose which parent?). And, as always, some people will fall through the cracks. And that sucks.
But, hopefully, large numbers of people will start to gain an enhanced level of interaction with someone else. Which is a good thing. To deny that because the system isn't perfect seems unreasonably cruel.
I think we are at the stage now where people have to interpret the rules in a pragmatic way, in fact isn't that what we've been told since Cummings? To use common sense.
So, my sister lives across the road from her ILs. MIL is very badly affected by dementia, so DSis has said that as far as she's concerned, FIL is effectively a single parent and she will be supporting him.
*@BestOption* have you reviewed the actual risk data for your particular condition? Many ppl are vastly over estimating their personal risk thanks to the Boris needing to terrify the nation into submission.
Not bubbling with your partner sounds extreme unless you are over 90!
Yes, I have. I'm sure you meant it kindly, but honestly being treated like I'm too stupid to tie my own shoelaces is getting very tiresome.
I was concerned about Covid 19 well before Boris was even shaking hands & licking door handles. I follow the science not the clowns
No,I'm not over 90 (I just feel it!!), but my Aunt who I am shopping for & helping is.
I have several of the underlying conditions top two being Diabetes & High Blood
Pressure. I'm over 50 & over weight.
My diabetes is well controlled via diet & exercise, but it blew the roof off when I had a minor op last year.
My OH has children who move between him & his ex all week at Will (which is usually lovely). His Ex is nice, but has not Followed lockdown at all, she's been socialising and the kids are in school (and playing at friends). He's still working (key worker) lots of people contact with no PPE & no social distancing (nature of the job). He's also not as careful as I am with other (Social) contacts & shopping etc.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Get started »
Please login first.