Meeting 1 person - what's possible for kids?

[eleventy3isthemagicnumber]

It seems increasingly clear this government haven't a fucking clue (or don't care) about the human side of lock down, nor do they have any idea about the reality of DC.

So, they're sending DC back to school so adults can go to work and get the economy going, and they're allowing "the staff" back into houses (nannies, cleaners, tradespeople). But no thought about how to facilitate human connections beyond 2 people meeting at a time (like a business meeting). But there are lots of reasons family members might not find it easy to get to or be at a meeting on their own.

I'd like to work out what is possible within the rules.

It strikes me, if 2 households want to see each other, they could both go to the park, then one member from each household could move away to "meet" with each other in pairs, separate from the main 2 family groups.

If the 2 family groups kept far apart, and people from each group only met in pairs, keeping 2m apart, then that would be within the rules, wouldn't it?

We did this last week in a way - my 11 year old wanted to meet a friend. We all went to the park, then he met his friend away from us. We could see them both, but they were separate to us. But it meant we could drive to the park and home as a group. (Not with his friend obviously).

Similarly, how about this scenario - I met my friend in a field near ours.

We both brought our 7 year old DDs who'd been dying to meet each other. They're both pretty sensible for 7 year olds and had been thoroughly briefed about social distancing!

My friend and I sat in a pair, 2 metres apart, and our DD's were down the other end of the field and played together while keeping apart. They did really well at staying apart. We'd talked beforehand a lot about what games they could play without being close (lots of imaginary games basically).

They both got so much out of it, I think it was really good for them. And for us mums.

Did that break the rules? We weren't in a group of more that 2 at any time and no one got close to each other. Has there been any guidance about how old the people in the "meetings" of 2 must be?

When it was time to go, we called our DDs and went off in different directions.

You were following your instincts and being a good parent, and so completely within the rules. Perhaps you needed to test your eyesight by watching your children across the field?

I take my kids and meet a friend with kids for a walk. We walk in pairs, spaced out. There’s one child we have to keep reminding, but it works.

You were following your instincts and being a good parent, and so completely within the rules. Perhaps you needed to test your eyesight by watching your children across the field?

Haha, well, quite!

I'd like to work out what's within the rules though as they're still fining people for breaking the rules I think, and also to reassure my friends who are afraid of rule breaking that it's OK!

I take my kids and meet a friend with kids for a walk. We walk in pairs, spaced out. There’s one child we have to keep reminding, but it works.

That sounds lovely.

I must admit I am highly suspicious of the government saying they want DC to go back to school for their own well being when there's sod all in the guidance about how DC who aren't in the years which are going back, can meet friends or extended family safely.

Also, why on earth are they counting babes in arms as an extra person? What risk is it to anyone if a mother meets another person at 2m apart with a 4 month old in a sling, for example? But under the current guidance this is counted as 3 people meeting AFAIK. Are single mums supposed to not meet anyone at all, then?

What risk is it to anyone if a mother meets another person at 2m apart with a 4 month old in a sling, for example? But under the current guidance this is counted as 3 people meeting AFAIK.

I suppose if the person that the mother and baby are meeting with is infected, then there's a risk that their virus particles could land on either the Mum or the baby and that might increase the risks a bit, but it's maybe not a massive increase in risk.

The rules are pretty illogical if you think about them. I can be infected and meet loads of people as long as it's all through separate one-on-one socially distances outdoor meetings, but can't meet two people at once. They are banking on people not having many such meet-ups though.

However, to be fair to the Government, I'd rather the economy keeps going and can cope with just seeing friends and relatives over Zoom for a while. My child is coping too, although I'm lucky that he's just a toddler. The virus is extremely contagious so there are limits to what they can advise people to do whilst keeping the R0 low. The national debt has doubled already and things are going to get worse.

Technically it's not within the rules but the police aren't to know that your family weren't sitting in the park when your friend and her family coincidentally turned up.

I've seen quite a lot of families meeting up with others. 2 picnic blankets 2m apart, each bring their own food and drink so no touching and the kids play nearby. I think it should be the next step in unlocking things perhaps the meet-up could be limited to 10 so 2 families of 5?

We've done something similar as adults. My husband's oldest friend is married to my oldest friend (guess how they met!). We met near fields, I went off walking with my friend, DH with his. We did have a bit of banter waving and shouting over the fields at eachother, but we kept to the rules (I guess we could have got closer as we all passed other people out for a walk).

Please don't refer to us, nannies, as 'the staff' it is rude and offensive. Also, nannies are not suddenly allowed back to work, we have been able to continue working throughout.
Anyway, aside from that, I do agree with you. I've seen groups of people meeting up who are from 2 households. I think if you were a single parent, particularly with very young children who you have to have an eye on 24/7 then it would be difficult to not meet anyone. So long as everyone keeps their distance then i don't see the problem.

Please don't refer to us, nannies, as 'the staff' it is rude and offensive

I'm sorry if it offended you, this is where tone is lost online!

I worked for many years as a nanny myself, it certainly wasn't meant as a dig towards nannies. And, if you think about it, cleaners and tradespeople are even less accurately described as "the staff" as they're self employed; nannies are employees.

It was meant as a dig however: not towards any of the people in the job roles mentioned, but towards the Eton-set government who do see people like us as the staff.

The guidelines for relaxing the rules make their priorities clear - where we're of use to the upper classes, the risk is worth it. Piffling, unimportant things like human interaction, family, community and good mental health for us plebs is way down the list and not even worth assessing to see if we could do these things relatively risk free.

Don't worry - I'm sure you didn't mean offence, and like I say, I overall agreed with your points. I just feel like our job isn't respected widely so get a bit touchy when people say things like the staff!