When will we be allowed inside houses?

[FallenSky]

As above. If pretty much all shops are opening, pubs, hairdressers etc logically we must be allowed inside people's houses as well? I've been reading lots about the pubs and reducing the distance from 2 to 1m but nothing about visiting family inside etc. Has anyone seen anything indicating when this might happen?

[Lostnameperson]

The papers are saying that Boris will announce these on Tuesday. We will all be allowed to make a bubble with another household and go inside, stay overnight etc. I think the plan is just one other household, everyone else will have to be outside, 2m's away as we are doing now.

I thought the change was only going to be in relation to families who live so far away from each other that a socially distanced visit in the garden isn’t practical.

So many people push the boundaries and bend the rules, I can’t really see it being that straightforward without making sure that people don’t start having big indoor gatherings.

[manicinsomniac]

Use your own best judgement and risk assessment. The government won't do that for you

Yes it will! That's exactly what the government is supposed to be doing - applying judgement and risk assessment for the country as a whole. We need it because individuals won't assess objectively - we'll assess according to what we want or need, not what the country wants or needs.

Yes and all you need to say is 'I'm here because I had a fight with my partner' or 'I'm the cleaner/babysitter' and boom not illegal any more. Which illustrates how ridiculous the law is in the first place

No, it doesn't.

The rules have (I assume) enough wriggle room in them to allow people who are suffering at home or who need childcare to be allowed to break them. They have been planned to allow for people to work in conditions they can't socialise in them.

Of course the risk to an individual happily married person going into their parents' home is no more than the risk of an individual who is going through marital break down going in. But there are far fewer people going through break ups at the moment than there are people in couples or already separated. It's not about an individual risk, it's about a societal one. We've got to limit the rule flexibility to those who need it, not those who want it or we might as well not have any guidance at all and watch the cases rise.

Humans will always see themselves as the exception to the rule. That's why we need guidelines and laws to tell us who actually is the exception and who just wants to be.

[Lifeispassingby]

Love the ‘risk assess the situation’ posts when most don’t understand the risks involved in having people in their home, eg the stay 2m apart posts. And people having lost sight of the bigger picture here. OP I am the same as you, having followed the rules unlike most of MN, I am waiting to be able to go to another house, as haven’t seen my parents since beginning of March x

[TheDailyCarbuncle]

@manicinsomniac

Use your own best judgement and risk assessment. The government won't do that for you

Yes it will! That's exactly what the government is supposed to be doing - applying judgement and risk assessment for the country as a whole. We need it because individuals won't assess objectively - we'll assess according to what we want or need, not what the country wants or needs.

Yes and all you need to say is 'I'm here because I had a fight with my partner' or 'I'm the cleaner/babysitter' and boom not illegal any more. Which illustrates how ridiculous the law is in the first place

No, it doesn't.

The rules have (I assume) enough wriggle room in them to allow people who are suffering at home or who need childcare to be allowed to break them. They have been planned to allow for people to work in conditions they can't socialise in them.

Of course the risk to an individual happily married person going into their parents' home is no more than the risk of an individual who is going through marital break down going in. But there are far fewer people going through break ups at the moment than there are people in couples or already separated. It's not about an individual risk, it's about a societal one. We've got to limit the rule flexibility to those who need it, not those who want it or we might as well not have any guidance at all and watch the cases rise.

Humans will always see themselves as the exception to the rule. That's why we need guidelines and laws to tell us who actually is the exception and who just wants to be.

I find this way of thinking genuinely terrifying. The idea that a government should have this level of control over people's lives, that they can tell one person they can see their parents and another person they can't, as a matter of law, is beyond any sort of dystopian grimness I could ever have imagined. The fact that people not only accept it but welcome it and desire it is so incredibly bizarre that I can't get my head around it. I really can't believe people are willing to just hand over their lives like that, to Boris Johnson of all idiots.

[TheDailyCarbuncle]

I also find it disturbing the extent to which people are entirely and totally fixated on one illness and are so willing to trash everything else - the economy, their own wellbeing, children's education, everything - to avoid a risk that for so many people is absolutely tiny.

[HeresMe]

Some of the regs have never passed into law so what some people think is actually illegal isn't.

At the beginning in England people thought you could only ever go out for exercise for a hour or shopping once a day which was never the case that was guidance.

A lot in government don't respect the rules look at Matt Hancock last week stood right at side of someone and put his hand on them, and obviously Cummings.

Risk assess your own situations don't wait for the government.

[HeresMe]

@TheDailyCarbuncle
I also find it disturbing the extent to which people are entirely and totally fixated on one illness and are so willing to trash everything else - the economy, their own wellbeing, children's education, everything - to avoid a risk that for so many people is absolutely tiny.

It is scary that people are so terrified of a illness that has a tiny chance of death, and have probably caused more deaths than covid ever will in the next twenty years.

It also showed how easy people would slip into a totalarian state, being told who they can and can't see, how long they can be out, and snitching like the stasi on the neighbours.

[eeeyoresmiles]

@TheDailyCarbuncle

I also find it disturbing the extent to which people are entirely and totally fixated on one illness and are so willing to trash everything else - the economy, their own wellbeing, children's education, everything - to avoid a risk that for so many people is absolutely tiny.

I find disturbing the number of people who don't seem to understand that the uncontrolled spread of a new illness such as covid 19 will itself trash the economy, our wellbeing and our children's education.

With low to zero levels of infection, those things are just about OK or have some chance of running. If levels go back to what they were in April, or beyond that, then they'll be screwed. It won't matter that most people won't die in the end, because just having to go through the process of high numbers of people being ill at once and lots needing hospitalisation will cause huge problems for our economy, education system, nhs etc.