Talk

Advanced search

Birthday parties, picnics, playdates...

(34 Posts)
lockedown Wed 24-Jun-20 22:01:28

Just had a birthday party of a little kid we know. We were invited but didn't go. There were 4-5 families with kids. The party was outdoors. But couldn't see people maintain even the 1m distance from the pictures. There is another picnic happening on weekend with two year groups - one back in school and one not. Again, the children or even parents won't maintain any social distance.
People aren't as cautious as they used to be when on pavements. It's life back to normal.
Last weekend we went to a park where the playground gates had been broken and kids were playing as usual on slides and swings etc.
How is it in your area?

I think if the second wave doesn't happen in the next few weeks, it won't happen.

OP’s posts: |
OnlyFoolsnMothers Wed 24-Jun-20 22:04:33

Tbh I think it’s better to get the second peak over with now- keeping everyone apart until September and then having it coincide with winter will be awful!
Kids are definitely hanging out together- playgrounds open next week so social distance won’t happen. As long as adults limit interaction and no mass gatherings then I’m find with it.

lockedown Wed 24-Jun-20 22:16:17

@OnlyFoolsnMothers, tbh I don't know if it stops with the second wave. I have read no scientific advice to rush into second wave since it will be worse in winter.
Second wave - more people die

OP’s posts: |
Qasd Wed 24-Jun-20 22:19:27

I think you need to also take into account the massive life changes so many others like me are making every day that dwarf a few play dates to be honest. If there was no covid today I would have
- had two children at school
- had two children in wrap around care
- taken the tube to an office with around 100 workers
- gone to an external meeting (another tube) met with Another about thirty people
- gone to a sandwich shop for lunch
- back to the office
- home to pick up kids
- husband would have also travelled by tube, give to office, possibly attended other external meetings

Oh and as it Wednesday one child would have gone to orchestra!

We did none of these things, two kids at home, everyone working from home and we did a short bike ride this evening as a family! I appreciate a few parties and play dates seem “the same as March” but to most of us the lifestyle that led to the original high infection rate is so far from reality I cannot see how we can get a second wave given the complete lack of social interaction compared to before! In the bigger picture the change in life is huge!

lockedown Wed 24-Jun-20 23:30:05

@qasd, good point. Life certainly has changed in more ways than one. And the tubes are not running like before but still quite a few of them are running packed - london.
Playdates is alright - with one family. But having a picnic open to two whole classes?! And with one of the classes in school, the "bubble" just widens and widens. Birthday party with over 15 people (including kids) with common play equipment, sharing food and everything. I think it's a bit much and completely avoidable. And it is just two events I know of happening this week where our child has been invited to. There must be ofcourse many more happening around us.
I understand few kids getting together to play but being mindful of not meeting a lot of different kids. I understand meeting family you haven't met since long. I also understand the need to meet a few friends.
But I think these unnecessary events are a bit much, completely avoidable and not really responsible for the community.

OP’s posts: |
cologne4711 Thu 25-Jun-20 11:28:00

having a picnic open to two whole classes

so much for the groups of up to six thing

Bubbles in school are one thing, outside school the 6 person limit applies.

lockedown Thu 25-Jun-20 12:42:22

@cologne4711, right! Even the birthday party had easily over 15 people with no social distancing maintained 🤷‍♀️

OP’s posts: |
Redolent Thu 25-Jun-20 12:50:12

Indoors is where the vast majority of transmission happens. 3-6 weeks from the reopening of pubs, restaurants and other indoor venues is when we’ll see cases really rise.

TheDailyCarbuncle Thu 25-Jun-20 12:57:29

Covid is going around no matter what we do - it's not going away. So even if you're super super careful, at some point you may go to hospital and catch it or catch it from the one and only family you interact with. So at some point you have to decide that as you can never guarantee you won't get it, you'll have to just get on with things as best you can.

If you aren't willing to get on with things, that's fine, but you can't expect everyone to live in fear. You may not want to join in with parties etc but other people have made the decision for themselves, like the thinking people that they are, that they do.

EarlGreywithLemon Thu 25-Jun-20 13:13:30

If you aren't willing to get on with things, that's fine, but you can't expect everyone to live in fear. You may not want to join in with parties etc but other people have made the decision for themselves, like the thinking people that they are, that they do.

First of all, as these things are currently illegal, it isn’t their decision to make. Are you going to apply the same principle to, say, theft?

Secondly, when they make that decision they are also making it for the people who are being careful. Because if there are lots of cases around the latter can be infected on their one supermarket trip of the week, or their one urgent GP appointment. Not to mention the bus drivers who are driving the infected around, the teachers who are teaching their kids, the supermarket workers who are serving them, and the doctors and nurses treating them.
So if we all lived in isolation then sure, it would be everyone’s right to go get Covid if they fancy taking your chances with it. But we don’t, and it’s also others’ not to be infected with it.

EarlGreywithLemon Thu 25-Jun-20 13:15:17

*taking their chances
* others’ right

tactum Thu 25-Jun-20 13:17:17

I share your frustration, but am trying to get my head around it.

But the 'guidelines' from July 4th are very confusing - "You should only be gathering in groups of up to two households (including your support bubble). It is against the law to gather in groups of up to more than 30 people, except for the limited circumstances to be set out in law"

I interpret this to mean they don't want you to meet in groups of more than 6, but groups between 6 and 30 are against 'guidance' rather than against the law. Am I right?

JassyRadlett Thu 25-Jun-20 13:20:45

Second wave - more people die

Source?

OnlyFoolsnMothers Thu 25-Jun-20 13:36:21

There comes a point when lockdown restrictions cause greater harm than the virus. I admit it’s a balance every country is trying to find. With sensible measures: masks on transport, no mass gatherings and track n trace, we should be able to start getting back to normal. It’s unreasonable to expect more from people sacrificing their education, mental health and finances enough already. This virus kills we can’t stop that, on a personal level it’s tragic but we can’t keep everyone locked away.

JassyRadlett Thu 25-Jun-20 13:40:14

Second wave - more people die

Sorry I’ve just realised I may have misread this. I interpreted as ‘more die than in the first wave’ rather than ‘the overall number of deaths increase.’ Apologies.

EarlGreywithLemon Thu 25-Jun-20 13:55:16

tactum

I share your frustration, but am trying to get my head around it.

But the 'guidelines' from July 4th are very confusing - "You should only be gathering in groups of up to two households (including your support bubble). It is against the law to gather in groups of up to more than 30 people, except for the limited circumstances to be set out in law"

I interpret this to mean they don't want you to meet in groups of more than 6, but groups between 6 and 30 are against 'guidance' rather than against the law. Am I right?

Could that mean that two households can meet, as long as that isn’t more than 30 people in total? Can’t imagine there are too many households of 15 or more though???

lockedown Thu 25-Jun-20 15:26:35

@OnlyFoolsnMothers, I didn't say anything about economy or schooling. I was just pointing out that while we open the economy, there are events like these which can be avoided for the society. Of-course celebrate the birthday with your family and perhaps another family maintaining social distance and being mindful of the things being shared. If your kid goes to school and is in a bubble of 15, try having playdate with kids from within that bubble. Small steps like that.

OP’s posts: |
lockedown Thu 25-Jun-20 15:28:36

Thanks @EarlGreywithLemon, exactly my thoughts. We need to be mindful not only for ourselves and our family but for the society right now. It's not about never getting out of house. But just being mindful to not mix groups of children from two different years together, or have a party with just another family.

OP’s posts: |
TheDailyCarbuncle Thu 25-Jun-20 16:07:18

EarlGreywithLemon

*If you aren't willing to get on with things, that's fine, but you can't expect everyone to live in fear. You may not want to join in with parties etc but other people have made the decision for themselves, like the thinking people that they are, that they do.*

First of all, as these things are currently illegal, it isn’t their decision to make. Are you going to apply the same principle to, say, theft?

Secondly, when they make that decision they are also making it for the people who are being careful. Because if there are lots of cases around the latter can be infected on their one supermarket trip of the week, or their one urgent GP appointment. Not to mention the bus drivers who are driving the infected around, the teachers who are teaching their kids, the supermarket workers who are serving them, and the doctors and nurses treating them.
So if we all lived in isolation then sure, it would be everyone’s right to go get Covid if they fancy taking your chances with it. But we don’t, and it’s also others’ not to be infected with it.

I genuinely do not understand is mindset, sorry.

Seeing friends is in no way comparable to theft and I find it utterly bizarre that you would make that comparison. If there is any comparison to be made I think speeding is a good one. While I think there are some drivers who always drive with utmost care - never get too close to another vehicle, never make a manoeuvre without total care and attention - the vast, vast majority of people will have broken the rules in some fashion at some point. Driving is a very dangerous activity - 1.25 million people are killed in car accidents across the world every year. Add to that the people who are injured, some of them seriously and you have millions and millions of people affected. There are some very dangerous drivers out there - people who majorly break the law - but most accidents are caused by people who aren't as careful as they should be - they're going too fast, they're too close to the car in front, they shift lanes without looking.

If it was suggested that we should all stop driving to save those millions of lives, and prevent those millions of injuries, I doubt that most people wouldn't accept that. And yet, if there were no vehicles on the roads, those 1.25 million lives would definitely be saved, for sure. But the argument (rightly in my opinion) would be that preventing driving because some people have accidents isn't a sensible reaction.

Another example - 11 million people a year die of sepsis, around the world. Sepsis is caused by infections, when the immune system overreacts and causes organ damage. So we could say, in order to prevent 11 million deaths, we should lock everyone down, prevent people from doing anything that could cause infection (eg stop them from using knives which could cause a cut, which gets infected) and never let anyone get an infection ever again. 11 million lives saved. An enormous number. The price of it is that no one ever gets to do anything, ever.

Again, I think most people would argue that even though 11 million lives would be saved, it's not a sensible reaction to the problem. And I would agree.

Seeing friends isn't like theft. Seeing friends is like accepting that driving is dangerous and doing it anyway because wrapping yourself in bubble wrap at some point just suffocates you to death.

TheDailyCarbuncle Thu 25-Jun-20 16:08:42

It should say 'If it was suggested that we should all stop driving to save those millions of lives, and prevent those millions of injuries, I doubt that most people would accept that.

OnlyFoolsnMothers Thu 25-Jun-20 16:54:37

Sorry OP my last post wasn’t directed to you but rather the poster claiming it was selfish to continue to do things that risk others. Tbh I see no difference if people choose to mix with family and those whose kids mix with friends. I’m socially distancing from my friends but still seeing them, my daughter can mix with as many friends as she can, the risk even of spread in children is so low- lower than a family rushing to a crowded beach imo.

EarlGreywithLemon Thu 25-Jun-20 21:40:16

@TheDailyCarbuncle, seeing friends in general is not against the law. Seeing friends in the format which OP was mentioning (no distancing, large groups, etc) is. The reason is that if cases pick up pace again that will both cause a great number of deaths and wreck the economy further. So yes, it can be compared to theft. In any case my point was more that you don’t get to pick and choose which laws you obey and which you don’t. It’s not a question of being “thinking people”.
And yes, we do do our best to prevent deaths from both sepsis and dangerous driving. Which is what we’re found with Covid right now.

EarlGreywithLemon Thu 25-Jun-20 21:41:39

*which is what we’re doing

TheDailyCarbuncle Fri 26-Jun-20 10:51:17

EarlGreywithLemon

**@TheDailyCarbuncle**, seeing friends in general is not against the law. Seeing friends in the format which OP was mentioning (no distancing, large groups, etc) is. The reason is that if cases pick up pace again that will both cause a great number of deaths and wreck the economy further. So yes, it can be compared to theft. In any case my point was more that you don’t get to pick and choose which laws you obey and which you don’t. It’s not a question of being “thinking people”.
And yes, we do do our best to prevent deaths from both sepsis and dangerous driving. Which is what we’re found with Covid right now.

We do our best to prevent deaths from sepsis and driving, yes, within reason. We don't keep people at home and prevent them from living.

You seem to have missed the point I was making.

EarlGreywithLemon Fri 26-Jun-20 11:07:22

I didn’t miss the point, I just don’t think they are remotely comparable, since neither sepsis nor dangerous driving are contagious.
The graph below is a good illustration why the whole “x y z kill so many more than Covid a year” argument doesn’t work so well
public.flourish.studio/visualisation/2634167/?fbclid=IwAR2M50t1T9FAF4LqKbdU10sMGOxfra1GXWKVMZCHpxg9Y5Kv7cT1y2clFq0

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 »