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?

@NorbertMeubles

It’s the same point that keeps reappearing. The point isn’t that work is safer than seeing your friends or that school is safer than going to a party. It’s just that work and schools are essential and we can’t afford the risk of doing both.

@BarkandCheese

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.

@BarkandCheese yep, you’ve hit the nail on the head right there.

I’m not happy about the new rule in all honesty. I can see why the government thinks it’s necessary - if you accept that the aim is to slow the spread (which makes sense IF you’re holding out for a decent vaccine) you have to reduce contact between people. They want to do this with minimum damage to the economy if possible, so businesses HAVE to open, schools HAVE to open. The reduction in contact must come from somewhere, private gatherings are pretty much all that can be targeted.

From the point of my own life, it sucks. I am quite likely to break the rules on some occasions - we have a 3yo and are expecting twins, so will be a household of 5. Will I tell my parents that they can’t come together to see the twins once they are born? No. It wouldn’t make sense - because I have to have a c section, they will be doing school run for DD for several weeks, and she’ll be staying with them while I’m in hospital. So I’m not going to panic and tell DH he has to go for a walk to avoid us being a house of 7 occasionally.

I’ve been hearing some pretty bonkers suggestions for what larger families should do e.g. if you want to visit grandparents, half of you go in while the other half go for a walk, then swap over. Madness. From a disease-spreading point of view it’s no different to all of you going in at once. Some common sense needs to be applied.

Also seconding those that are saying there needs to be a little more thought going into the mental/physical health Impacts of long term social isolation. For those saying this is the “new normal” forever, a bit more thought needs to go into just how much isolation and poor mental health ends up costing the economy in the long run. There has been plenty of research in the past into why the government should support children’s centres, early intervention etc because it costs the country much less in the long run, and leads to more positive outcomes for people. There’s also the very obvious problem with people virtually having to self-diagnose over the phone to their GP because they aren’t being examined - in the long run there will be plenty of avoidable deaths as a result of this. It’s not sensible to isolate people forever.

crazychemist

I understand where you are coming from and I sympathise, but as a nation we are financially digging ourselves a massive hole and we have to try and stop that.
Everyone would rather meet their family than go back to work. Some of the pictures over the summer (eg the beaches) showed that people will massively bend the rules for their own special circumstances, but wants everyone else to stick to them, or wants the Covid rate to drop without any inconvenience to them.

Yes it is gonig to inconvenience us, and yes I am sure that many families of 5 will continue to meet grandparents, but we all have to reduce our contacts. We have to restrict our social interactions.

My kids are year 11 and 13. I am desperate to keep them in school all year. If that means that we all have to not socialise, then please, let's not socialise. You can still have a friend over. It isn't the same as lockdown.

One bright spot of this pandemic is that I have reassured myself that my intelligence level must be above the average British resident, because it's really not that hard to understand the guidance. Although the media don't help by rushing to publish their own interpretation which turns out to be wrong.

EVERYTHING is a tradeoff. The safest thing we could all do to halt the spread is to lockdown in our own house, receive food packages, don't go to work, don't go to school. All shield. But that's no way to live and in a free society that won't last for long due to civil unrest and lack of money.

So it's a trade off. Yes, limit your social interactions, but still go to school. Still spend money in the shops and restaurants. Have your wedding, your (perhaps) once in a life time, legally significant event. 30th birthday party? A shame but not lasting impact on your life.

The main difference with these rules is the fact that they are simplified, and that they are now legally enforceable. They are not necessarily stricter for those who were following the guidance to the letter.

Whether you agree with the limits that have been decided or the need for them is another matter (I'm not sure I do). But it makes it much easier to enforce when you see a group of 12 people together - the chances they are all one household is very remote.

It’s not mandatory for larger families only ever to see grandparents or friends with everyone present. If you live within reasonable distance I cannot see the huge problem with taking it in turns or splitting the family. Or, if it’s nice, half the group go for a walk for an hour or so and then swap over.

crazychemist

You can see five other people at the same time - how is that isolation? Maybe think about how isolated the shielded will be if shielding is brought back by selfish people not following the law.

Shielding is true isolation - having to eat and sleep alone, separated from everyone, not even able to go out for a walk, and that's what will happen if numbers continue to rise.

Socialising six at a time is not isolation.

It's easy to enforce and understand. They can't possibly accommodate all scenarios. You're much more likely to spread it in your home, where everyone is everywhere touching surfaces, using loo etc, versus sitting in a pub. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

FFS use your common sense. Look after yourself, look after your family look after others. The rules have come in as some of the public have not been adhering to the rules and we are getting an increase in numbers.
We want kids back in school so something has to give.
You might argue that it is riskier grandparents seeing school age children then adults going to a pub.

It's bonkers, the youngsters with no kids will be fine. I now can't legally meet up with my friends and their kids every now and again because we go over 6 and it's illegal! I mean wtf!!! I think families with kids should have been given more slack.

People had been working from home, which in many cases was working fine. It was more difficult to ensure children had access to relevant learning materials (methods and classmates obviously were not available) but using zoom and other means of communication, people could keep in touch.
It seems strange that pubs and restaurants are open for people to do into, and schools/workplaces are open, where far more than 6 households are in close proximity for long periods of time.

I'm not saying I don't understand what we're being asked to do, but I genuinely don't understand the logic. Are we saying that our economy is founded on rents from business premises, bills for business premises utilities, and people going to the pub? Our local pubs and restaurants were offering take-away services, so were not particularly losing out financially, which may be skewing my thinking.

@onedayinthefuture

It's bonkers, the youngsters with no kids will be fine. I now can't legally meet up with my friends and their kids every now and again because we go over 6 and it's illegal! I mean wtf!!! I think families with kids should have been given more slack.

But then adults without children might equally argue why should their lives be curtailed to ensure the schools stay open.

We are a society and all have responsibilities to each other and yes, sometimes that means we can't do exactly as we want to do for the greater good.

@rainbowscalling

I refuse to accept that I or my family are at less risk getting trains to works and sitting in offices that we are sitting in our living rooms with the 7 of us

I don’t think the idea is that you are at least risk but that if you catch it on the train etc you are less likely to pass it on if you don’t then sit in a house with lots of people who aren’t members of your household. It’s about collective risk, not individual risks.

Jenny Harries on This Morning has said because in public we can be watched over and reminded what to do. In our own homes are we uncontrolled.

@onedayinthefuture

It's bonkers, the youngsters with no kids will be fine. I now can't legally meet up with my friends and their kids every now and again because we go over 6 and it's illegal! I mean wtf!!! I think families with kids should have been given more slack.

It has to be a balance. Essentially people with kids have to curtail their socialising to do their bit to keep schools open. People without kids have a bit more leeway, but still have curtailments to help keep the schools open.

Also this puts the pressure on pubs and restaurants to not take the piss. The restrictions have been tightened to help them stay open. Now they need to do their bit by sticking to the rules

I think families with kids should have been given more slack

Given the amount on MN and in real life who seem to subscribe to the theory that if they are mixing in large groups at school with no SD then they can do the same outside of school, I’m not surprised at the new measures.

Everyone has to play their part. Six people is plenty and they don’t have to be the same six people.

The limits apply to meeting in a pub / shop etc too although there can be more than one group of 6 in those places they must be separated according to the guidelines

A friend asked me if I understood the rules last nights. I said it didn't matter to me because I don't follow the rules. I then had to clarify that what I meant was that I was keeping my socializing miniscule. One friend or my partner or a few friends outside. Its a fact that the more people you see the more the risks are.
It sucks but in my opinion its necessary. Just because you could have seen 20, 30 or however many people it doesn't mean you absolutely had to.
Its the same as four households meeting indoors. Its permitted where I live but will not meet people in homes for a while. The risks are still there.

People had been working from home, which in many cases was working fine. It was more difficult to ensure children had access to relevant learning materials (methods and classmates obviously were not available) but using zoom and other means of communication, people could keep in touch.

Really?
Where have you been for the last 6 months? Parents on their knees trying to WFH and educate kids at same time.
75% of kids have done less than an hour per day
education of eveyr child estimated at 3 months behind
teenagers suffereing massive anxiety due to isolation.
massive gaps between the haves and the have nots emerging
Domestic violence rates throgh the roof

No, it was not working fine.
Schools needed to go back, we need the economy to get going, and we need to also restrict somewhere to stop the virus running away out of hand.

@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)

How is letting 6 people from 6 different households meet who can then each go on and meet people from a further 6 households, who can then go and meet 6 different people from a further 6 households etc. etc. stop the spread of the virus more effectively than letting two households of more than 6 people who only really mix with each other meet? Makes no sense at all.