To think this is not really in the spirit of things?

[tinkywinkyshandbag]

So my in-laws who are both in their 80s live about 20 minutes walk from our house. Pre-lockdown we would often get together with them on a Friday evening for a gin and tonic or glass of wine.

Since lockdown we haven't seen them apart from briefly to drop off some shopping et cetera and we have been strict about maintaining social distance.

I know my mother-in-law has found a lockdown down hard as she is very sociable and it took us a few weeks to convince her that she had to take it seriously.

Anyway, this evening my DH and our 15-year-old daughter went off for a walk for their daily exercise, fair enough. At the same time or 18-year-old daughter took yourself out for a run, again fair enough.

About half an hour later the phone rang and it was my mother-in-law. It seems that my husband and daughter had magically just arrived at their house, our other daughter was on her way, and the plan was for them all to stand out in the street and have a drink and a chat. By drink I mean bottle of wine et cetera.

I was invited over to join them. mulled it over and then called back to say that I wouldn't join them, to a somewhat frosty reception, They clearly thought I was being a bit of a killjoy.

However I don't think this is really in the spirit of the lockdown. We live in a very touristy area and there has been a lot of publicity about keeping the tourists away and everybody staying at home. I think that I was all standing out in the street drinking wine and having a laugh is not really the thing to do in this situation. Even if social distance is maintained, it still doesn't sit right with me.

I am now expecting that when they eventually get home I will get stick from DH about being antisocial. However I think I am in the right. AIBU?

I don't think YABU. I'm surprised you weren't too upset about them 'going out for exercise' only to have actually planned a get together. That would make me feel very uncomfortable. Sorry OP. I've dealt first hand with selfishness recently regarding going out and meeting others, and I've been told I'm being neurotic. It's so frustrating, if I didn't have MN to talk to then by now I would have genuinely believed I was being neurotic and overbearing because I'm scared of this virus x

Posts like this make me genuinely worried that when lockdown rules are relaxed (as they will have to be, sooner rather than later) people will just refuse to leave their houses. People seem to have themselves so convinced that just talking to people, even at a safe distance, is a risky activity that all logic seems to have been completely lost.

In order for someone to pass on the virus they have to 1) actually have the fucking virus in the first place 2) be in close enough contact to pass it on. Sitting near someone is NOT a risky activity.

Dear lord, I think the impact of the lockdown isn't going to be economic, it's going to be on the very sanity of the whole population. If everyone gets paralysed by nonsense self-imposed rules we're fucked.

"government projections aren’t based on 100% compliance"

True, but I've read about 95% compliance for lockdown to work in other countries

I've never read 50% anywhere, but I'd be happy to read a reliable reference to this ?

My problem with people being ‘clever’ and getting round lockdown like this, is that whilst perhaps this family were ultra cautious, will all the people who saw them and think they will break lockdown too be cautious?

Maybe I’m just tired and bitter from losing my bank holidays and potentially starting to lose my weekends off though. As long as people are enjoying themselves then that’s all that matters, right 🙄

Jesus Christ Gutterton, you're hysterical.

I feel I also need to state that unless you're prepared to stay in your house permanently until the end of next year, you have a very high chance of getting the virus at some point. Yes, it's better not to get it now, but don't kid yourself that you can avoid it indefinitely.

@TheDailyCarbuncle I don't understand? How is this a self imposed guideline? The government has made it very clear what is acceptable to do and what is not regarding meeting people outside of your household during the pandemic lockdown. Drinking wine with others not from your household at a reasonable distance isn't an exemption . Am I missing something?

We live at the bottom of a cul de sac. Two lots of neighbours, this afternoon for three hours we six of us sat on our own drives 12 feet apart with our own bottles of wine, own crisps, nuts, got through two bottles of fizz and a bottle of red between us in the sunshine. Was lovely to catch up. I am sure here will be some pursed lips on here at our action. To me it was safe, harmless and good for our mental health

I can't see anything wrong with that. Just as some people stand on their balconies and chat to their neighbour on the next balcony.

I'm really careful but if I was in my own driveway I wouldn't think I'd catch something off my neighbour in their driveway.

I never said anything about self-imposed guideline. I'm saying that people are acting like the OP's family are out setting out landmines, when in fact the risk of what they're doing is virtually non-existent. I also said that if you ever once in your life have gone over the speed limit, or if in fact you've been in a car, you've subjected yourself to far greater risk than the risk posed by safely having a drink with family.

What I'm concerned about is how people seem to have lost all logic and sense of proportion - what's going to happen if the government says 'the risk is still there but you must all go back to school and work?' will people just refuse?

I also don't understand how people can accept that it's fine to say hello and exchange pleasantries with a friend that you happen to see in the street but it's absolutely FORBIDDEN and WRONG and MURDER if you happen to arrange that meeting first? It's so incredibly odd.

YANBU. It's weeks since the rules were solely social distancing. Now they're that we should avoid unnecessary social contact, and that wasn't necessary.

It seems like people have fixated on entirely the wrong thing. The government has to give clear guidelines so as not to confuse people, and it's easier to say no meet ups rather than 'meet up but stay apart.' But meeting up and staying apart, while it isn't in the guidelines is safe - being around human beings hasn't suddenly become the most dangerous thing in the whole world.

And no, being around human beings doesn't make you a serial killer. The fact that anyone has to state that shows how utterly bonkers this situation is.

@TheDailyCarbuncle the potential ramifications of the lockdown on people's behaviour when this all ends will certainly be interesting to observe. For now, I don't see any value in getting annoyed at how other people are enforcing the government rules. Even with your example of speeding, of course the cumulative effects of going a couple of miles over the limit would have a negligible effect but the point is to not encourage people to push boundaries, because that just leads to people breaking them.

There is no logic at all in saying that it's fine to be in the supermarket. possibly very close to people you don't know who could be infected, rather than somewhat near family members who you at least know don't have symptoms and who you can trust to maintain distance.

I'm worried that in trying to be clear on guidelines the government has actually made things worse by short-circuiting people's ability to assess risk on their own and that that'll have major consequences when the restrictions are relaxed.

Serial killers? WTF.

Also @Carbuncle the restrictions are being imposed so heavily that people (including some posting on Mumsnet) are not able to see their relatives as they are dying, and York this morning banned funerals altogether. When the lockdown is over people may be timid but right now flaunting/bending the rules to drink wine 20 minutes down the road whilst others are living in their own personal hell just seems cruel and unnecessary.

What I'm genuinely surprised at @SuckingDownDarjeeling is the extent to which some people have taken the restrictions on board without ever putting any brain power into thinking how to apply them to sensibly. Most people break speed limits - it's why there are so many speed cameras around - because they think a few miles over will not make any difference and because they're in a hurry. They know the law and they break it anyway - sometimes they get caught, most of the time they don't, often because they know how to break it 'sensibly' - ie they only go 2 or 3 miles over, not 20 miles. In fact, the cumulative effect of everyone breaking the speed limit is enormous - it's very hard to quantify of course, but it's true to say it makes road travel measurably more risky for everybody on the road, not just the speeders. People still do it.

Yet in this circumstance, people are taking a guideline and not only sticking to it to the detriment of their own happiness and sanity but also policing other people with all the vigour of a secret police informant. At no point do they stop and think 'how does this apply in this circumstance?' People are passing each other in the street and in the supermarket all the time. If those people happen to know each other, stop at a safe distance and chat or god forbid have a drink THE SITUATION HASN'T CHANGED, it is still as safe/dangerous as it was before the chat/drink. Does that make sense?

The fact that other people are suffering @SuckingDownDarjeeling is awful, but it is really scary that you think because some people are suffering, everyone has to suffer. When does that thinking end?

@TheDailyCarbuncle yes that does make sense. This is the most convoluted social situation I've ever heard of let alone experienced. I feel like the country will need a thorough debriefing after all of this is over.

I don't believe I have to suffer because somebody else couldn't visit their dying relative. I believe that out of all the people who are desperate to try to find a workaround to the rules, the people experiencing those things would be top of the list. I feel that if they can observe and stick to the guidelines then it should be easy for me. And when all this is over I'll reassess.

It seems obvious to me that what people are objecting to is the fact that people are enjoying themselves, not that they are doing anything dangerous. I think there's an added layer of 'if I can't see my family then you can't' which is so extraordinarily petty that I wonder how people aren't ashamed of it.

Also can I point out that if neighbours sharing a drink at a safe distance are fine, then family sharing a drink at a safe distance are also fine. I mean, that should be obvious but hey ho.

I believe that out of all the people who are desperate to try to find a workaround to the rules, the people experiencing those things would be top of the list. I feel that if they can observe and stick to the guidelines then it should be easy for me.

I understand this thinking even though I don't agree with it.

FWIF, I spoke to my friend today, a firefighter.

His job recently has been moving dead bodies out of houses. Full time. One after another. Nothing but moving dead bodies.

Your family are idiots.

People will have to get their heads around mingling with other people in a limited way. They will have to stop thinking in absolute terms all the time and engage their brain to understand how to function in the world again, with the virus still present. I think the government should be starting the work needed to make this happen now because there is some serious effort required as far as I can see.

@justasking111

We live at the bottom of a cul de sac. Two lots of neighbours, this afternoon for three hours we six of us sat on our own drives 12 feet apart

The difference between what you did and what OP's family did is that you didn't leave your property, and therefore didn't break the law.