Let me get this right?

[NorbertMeubles]

I can go to a pub with 5 friends from 5 different households but I can't have my parents to my home because I have 3 children and a partner? So basically if your a grandparent to 3 or more children you can't see them?

Purpledaisies They can do so from Monday, inside. But two families with three kids can't meet in the park or for a walk.

Palacegirl Where is your evidence for that statement.

@palacegirl77

Comparing being in a pub which (should) have strict social distancing in place to having grandparents over for several hours where there wont be any social distancing in place is pointless. 6 30 year olds sitting apart from others (and each other) in a pub is far less risk than grandparents in their 70s sitting with a child (probably now at school) in a house. If you want to see both your parents at the same time go to their house and leave your partner at home. Not rocket science.

When I say "less risk" I mean the 6 30 year olds are at less risk of becoming ill with Covid than the 70 year old Grandparents.

I can't follow it either. My child can go to school and be in a year group mix of 100 or so other children and that's okay.
I have a 'bubble' with a friend who is vulnerable and that's okay.
My family can't meet with my sibling and their family because there are 4 of them which would take us over the 6 people limit.

But in the meantime because of school attendance, DC could contract CV and be asymptomatic and give it to me, DH and my friend who is in a bubble with us.

Six 30 year old teachers from different schools, sitting in the pub, breathing and talking, and then each meeting with several other adult friends over the week would have a pretty big impact should one of them catch Covid.

Palacegirl but that's not why we are doing this. Apparently the fact that there is little individual risk is irrelevant. It is supposed to stop the spread within the community. We are all told that most people wouldn't even know they have Covid as it is asymptomatic in something like 60% of cases. (but don't get a test unless you are symptomatic obv)

@Treesofwood

Purpledaisies They can do so from Monday, inside. But two families with three kids can't meet in the park or for a walk.

Six households or six people? There’s a big difference.

Six people from six different households can meet indoors from Monday. That is not the same as six households meeting indoors.

Rift Yes. And put 120 other children under house arrest for two weeks. And that's OK.

It is because you can mix at school or at work or in a pub or shop that the rules outside those environments have been strengthened . What they are effectively saying is that you can either mix at school/ work/ pub or restaurant OR you can have big family groups mixing .

The government rightly or wrongly have prioritised school, work or the economy .

Purpledaisies They come from six households. They take the virus back to 6 households. Their imaginary children take the virus to 12 different schools.

@Treesofwood

Palacegirl Where is your evidence for that statement.

What statement? That the virus is spreading in private houses? I guess statistics and the fact the deputy medical officer said so - I kind of hope he knows what hes talking about.

It only makes sense if you look at it from the government’s point of view. Cases are going up, they knew they had to do something and preferably something which doesn’t cost them anything.

They didn’t want to close the schools again, they’ve just managed to persuade people to go back out to restaurants and pubs and shutting them again would harm the economy further and cause howls of protest from the hospitality industry, they’re trying to get people away from working at home and back into offices so they’re not going to touch that. What one place won’t cost money, jobs or cause unions or industry lobbyists to be up in arms? Private socialising is the only thing left to squeeze.

@Treesofwood

Palacegirl but that's not why we are doing this. Apparently the fact that there is little individual risk is irrelevant. It is supposed to stop the spread within the community. We are all told that most people wouldn't even know they have Covid as it is asymptomatic in something like 60% of cases. (but don't get a test unless you are symptomatic obv)

Completely agree - just trying to explain to some posters why comparing a pub to grandparents in the house isnt relevant. Most homes arent covid secure - most Grannies wont be wearing a mask or a visor and keeping 2 metres away from their grandkids.

@Treesofwood

Purpledaisies They come from six households. They take the virus back to 6 households. Their imaginary children take the virus to 12 different schools.

Yes I’m not disputing that.

It’s important to be clear that the new rule is six people, not six households, that can meet.

It’s illogical in some ways but simpler in others, and stops people taking the piss with large gatherings.

I can’t believe people are comparing the commemoration of weddings to birthday parties.

They've allowed some social interaction, albeit limited, for morale and emotional reasons. Presumably, it would be much better to ban any non essential contact, from containing spread perspective so why can't we all just accept that needs must right now instead of stamping our feet because "s'not fair"?

They are trying to make sure that people aren't isolated but also trying to keep the economy running as best it can, schools open and the NHS functioning. I can't believe that I'm defending the government because I disagree with so much that they've done. I actually think the new rules are still too relaxed but I can understand that they're trying to get balance here.

Six people from six different households can meet indoors from Monday. That is not the same as six households meeting indoors.

It’s exactly the same. If six people from six households sit together in the hypothetical living room of a single adult that’s allowed.

Five guests go back to their own households infected. Give it to their kids/spouses/workmates over the next few days before symptoms. And so it goes on, but nobody’s broken the rules.

I can’t believe people are comparing the commemoration of weddings to birthday parties.

Some people get married once a year...:)

It’s exactly the same. If six people from six households sit together in the hypothetical living room of a single adult that’s allowed.

I mean that’s not what the law says. Six households could be thirty people.

We need to be clear about what is allowed now. Six people. Not six households.

The numbers aren't limited to six if you're doing organised sport.

Chess is classed as a sport. Download a chess app on your phones and have ongoing games between different people present.

I'm joking of course... Unless playing chess is what you feel is the best way to test your eyesight.

Obviously six people from six households is riskier than two households. But it has to be balanced against the benefits of a significantly simplified messaging, and being able to spot and disperse large gatherings.

I live in a covid hotspot where the term ‘household’ is wilfully taken to mean ‘family’ and nobody gives a fig for the socialising rules, especially when they leave on the same street as their cousins/aunts etc.

Just follow the new 'rules' (they appear to be written in a way that 99.9%of adults should understand) and crack on. Why do some people always have to argue the point or look for loopholes? It's now easier to understand (apart from some on mn obviously) and easier to enforce.

@lifestooshort123 I never said at any point I wouldn't be following the rules. I just want to understand them.

@BabyLlamaZen Why Christmas?

Ah but the cash register spreads Covid immunity around the room!