Is it really safer for us to have our parents tag team over an afternoon rather than see them both together???

[NellyJames]

Family of 5. So new rules mean we can’t have the DGPs to visit together as this takes us to 7. But we could have one come over spend a few hours then tag the other one at the door who then comes in for a few hours then they both return to same house. I can’t understand how that’s safer than both coming in for the same 3hours. Not sure what I’m missing.

Yup. It's crazy.

No it is total bollocks

Any confidence left in the government is out the window.

They are a laughing stock

No it’s not safer, it’s just ridiculous and a massive infringement on normal family life, not frivolous socialising ☹️

Wow 100% YANBU at the moment. One vote. That was me

Um, searching for possibilities here - perhaps you can social distance better indoors with 6 rather than 7?

But no, not really. I’d just get on with it. Cut down on a contact somewhere else to make up for this one?

Thanks everyone. I just can’t understand the logic. In Scotland they’re not including younger children in the number but sensibly limiting the ‘6’ to two households which makes far more sense. I can’t comprehend how 6 unrelated adults from different households meeting up is deemed safer than 2 households from the same family who already see each other regularly.

But @JellyBabiesSaveLives, we’d be breaking the law.

It’s not safer.

But the more nuance they add to the rules the more likely people break them in a bigger way.

Six people, indoors or outdoors, is a simple rule.

Don’t overthink it - it’s not safer to see your parents in two sittings. But it does mean you’re not breaking the law.

They’re just trying to have one rule for all situations. Which clearly you can’t. If they said kids under 12 didn’t count, families with 3 teenagers still can’t see grandparents together. If they said it was 8 people, you’d get groups of 8 people from different households which is really too much.

Yes, you’d be breaking the law. Our beloved leaders say it’s ok to break the law in specific and limited ways, so that’s ok. They also say it’s ok as long as you’re using your common sense and taking care of your children. All good.

@NellyJames

Thanks everyone. I just can’t understand the logic. In Scotland they’re not including younger children in the number but sensibly limiting the ‘6’ to two households which makes far more sense. I can’t comprehend how 6 unrelated adults from different households meeting up is deemed safer than 2 households from the same family who already see each other regularly.

Obviously the number 'six' is arbitrary.

This is why in Scotland children are not included.

But a limit did need to be drawn.

I think we've lurched from too much nuance to not enough!

Yeah it's stupid.

If you're going to stagger it on the same day, then personally I'd just go with the original plan because you're not doing anything to increase the risk to anyone.

I agree as well it's crazy you cant see your two parents together when you're already exposing their household by seeing one of them or both separately, but you can expose 5 other households by meeting up as a 6 indoors in a pub etc.

Its mad.

I assume you'll be using your common sense and ignoring this yes?

@NellyJames

Thanks everyone. I just can’t understand the logic. In Scotland they’re not including younger children in the number but sensibly limiting the ‘6’ to two households which makes far more sense. I can’t comprehend how 6 unrelated adults from different households meeting up is deemed safer than 2 households from the same family who already see each other regularly.

And I just can’t understand why people seems so surprised that arbitrary rules can’t be logical in every single case.

You say Scotland’s rules make sense, with discounting younger children. Does it? I have an 11yo who is 12 next week. Why does it make sense to exclude her today, but not a week on Tuesday? It doesn’t, on an individual level. But in terms of creating a simple rule with an arbitrary age - it makes perfect sense.

You can’t have a simple set of rules that don’t throw up anomalies.

2 parents, 3 kids, 2 grandparents?

• yeah, tag team the oldies
• or the parent who isn’t the child of the oldies goes out
• or decide the risk is the same for 7 and go ahead, assuming that you’re very unlikely to be noticed let alone prosecuted

In fact, technically it will work out less safe I think with one parent walking into town for 2hours.
@NoSquirrels, I get the nuance thing but the Scottish rule that’s 6 not including children but from just two households seems much more sensible and dare I say, led by science.

I think you need to use common sense here. Both or neither. Unless you are in a job which would then discipline (eg Police).

Like I say, you’re overthinking it. Scotland’s rules seem more practical for families, but they’re not as Keep It Simple, Stupid as England’s rules. Meh. Doesn’t matter. It’s not about the absolute risk of every variation- it’s about simplicity.

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz, thanks. Not quite police but I’m in a job where I would 100% face dismissal if I received any form of criminal record.

It's not safer. It's an arbitrary number stemming from a ridiculous demand for a 'rule' that will apparently fix the unfixable, which we are all being told if we dont follow we are akin to murderers. There is no logical or scientific reason why seeing DGM in the morning and DGF in the afternoon is better than seeing them both together, but we are sheep, and sheep must be seen to baaaa when we should baaaa, or your neighbours could (and are encouraged) to rat you out to authorities under the premise of 'the betterment of society and the eradication of a virus ..... that cant be eradicated'.

it doesn't make sense, we are a family of 6 which means we can't see anyone!

It’s idiotic

We're a family of 7. We can't meet anyone!

But we could all go out individually, in 5 groups (2 are too young to go out independently) and meet 5 others each, and come back together at the end of the day.

Oh yes, it must seem more ridiculous if you’re a family of 6+

You are not going to get a criminal record for seeing both parents at same time. We are in same situation and will be using common sense.

I think it’s just a fixed number for ease of enforcement tbh. The police can’t be walking up to a group of 7 people and hearing all the explanations about those 2 being in the same bubble, and those 3 being in the same household etc etc. They need to just have a blanket rule that 6 is the maximum regardless of circumstances.