So a family of 6 can't have any visitors to their home?

[covidconfusion]

"From Monday 14 September, when meeting friends and family you do not live with you must not meet in a group of more than 6, indoors or outdoors"

Does this mean a family of 6 cannot have any visitors to their home?

Source: www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-meeting-with-others-safely-social-distancing/coronavirus-covid-19-meeting-with-others-safely-social-distancing

On a related note, I really think the government need to improve the clarity of their communication. I don't usually struggle with reading comprehension but I find the guidelines so hard to follow and I know I'm not the only one. Usually I would use my common sense but the guidelines do not follow common sense. If the guidelines are saying what I think they are saying, it means a family of 6 cannot have any visitors but a single person household can have 5 visitors from 5 different households? Really? You have to laugh.

There's six of us in our household so now the in-laws can't visit us anymore. Shame that

@NewAutumnName

It's all really confusing to me!

I am surprised that the restrictions don't just apply to the areas with the most infections though.

The infection rates are rising everywhere. The areas with the most infections still have their local lockdowns, which are more harsh than these rules.

I really don't get this and think it is penalising families unnecessarily. It is a joke that you can go to the pub, go to church, children go to school yet you can't have more than 6 people in your house. If they are trying to stop young people having parties/raves then just say so and pass something to stop that. The problem here is that the people who should be adhering to this probably won't.

Surely it's also ridiculous that some posters have said the police can arrest you. Really? the police have time to come around my house and check how many people I have at home. Are they going to check on Christmas day? Besides I dont' think they have a right of entry anyway so how are they going to check?:

*In general the police do not have the right to enter a person’s house or other private premises without their permission. However, they can enter without a warrant:

when in close pursuit of someone the police believe has committed, or attempted to commit, a serious crime, or
to sort out a disturbance, or
if they hear cries for help or of distress, or
to enforce an arrest warrant, or
if invited in freely by the occupant, or
under various statutes which give the police powers of entry (not necessarily by force) into a number of different kinds of premises.*

Scotland have a 6 person rule now.

It sounds crazy that you can only have 6 in your home, but your child can be at school all day in a room with 30 other children, a teacher & a TA.

No it makes sense. Each thing you do has risks but what we don't want to do is add risks on top of risks. So the govt made a choice and said those risky things that are essential are allowed and those that are not are banned.

People were only recently saying that they wanted schools open full-time at any cost. Schools are open full-time and it's been decided that the cost is socialising as a whole family.
It's good that single parents can maintain a support bubble without penalty.
The media and the government hinted that they would sacrifice pubs and non-essential retail as the cost of all schools open full-time but I guess this decision was made before the weather got colder and most activities shifting indoors.
As with all restrictions, there are winners and losers and 6 is arbitrary but if they'd set it at 8 then 5 people families wouldn't be happy and more people would be unhappy.
Lots of countries saw spikes when universities returned. They've reacted before most students have gone back which is a surprising change Better this than universities going back and restrictions being imposed in reaction to an increase in cases in university locations.

@BigMamaFratelli

There's six of us in our household so now the in-laws can't visit us anymore. Shame that

My MIL lives with us in a household of nine. This morning in the chaos of school and nursery runs she said "Mary and Fred can't visit their grandkids as theres is too many of them...." She sounded almost temporarily jealous

I really don't get this and think it is penalising families unnecessarily. It is a joke that you can go to the pub, go to church, children go to school yet you can't have more than 6 people in your house.

I don't think it is. Following your reasoning you would either ban everything or nothing. The govt needs to make the country function as closely to normal as possible without killing us all through covid. This involves deciding what is most important and banning the rest.

@Notonthestairs

Scotland have a 6 person rule now.

It's slightly different though. It's 6 people from a max of two households, indoors or outdoors.

Under 12s don't count toward the maximum numbers.

@Notonthestairs

Scotland have a 6 person rule now.

But in Scotlands rules its 6 from 2 households and children under 12 don't count which is so much more sensible.

Ah did not spot that - serves me right for scanning BBC front page Yes a lot more workable for most then.

@PuppyMonkey

So could you have a gathering of 6 in your living room, and another gathering of 6 in your kitchen and another gathering of 6 in your garden and possibly yet another gathering of 6 in the kids’ bedroom?

No.

@picklemewalnuts

The rules don't work when individuals are considered. They only work population wide. That means that for any individual they don't look rational, sensible or fair. Across the board however, if followed, they will have a big positive impact.

But we are individuals and struggle to process population wide measures.

I don't really understand what you mean - how can it be better on a population level for 6 individuals from 6 different households to mix and therefore potentially spread the virus between 6 different households who can then go on and potentially individually spread it between another 6 households the next day, and again to a further 6 households the following day etc, than have two households of more than 6 people mixing who only really mix with each other on a regular basis?

I'm a rule follower and will do as I'm told. But it is a bit bonkers. I don't see why the 'rule of 6' is any clearer than "2 households" and I don't really see why it's considered a tightening of rules rather than a relaxing of rules.

People mentioned that it might be to avoid university students socialising in large groups - well how did the "2 households" rule not already cover that?!

My teenage dd, who only had one friend round since March, can now have 5 round (as long as the rest of us go out and leave them to it) , who will then all go back and potentially spread germs to all their families (and their bubble of 250 at school ).

In March I had to cancel the private class I teach at home (of 4 fairly elderly people). Under the new rules they can start coming here again.

It really doesn't make much sense.

Cross-posted - exactly, CeibaTree!

It is a common misconception that the average family size is 1.9. This is the average number of children per woman. In fact, given about 20% of women remain childless the average family size is more than 2.

Matt Hancock has 3 children same as me. Can only assume he is also not a great fan of hosting the GPs. Nicola has no children and so has quite a lot of flexibility especially since she can pick and choose whether she classes her primary residence as Govanhill or Bute House. Poor old Jacob Rees Mogg and his 6 children look to have a long winter of serial self isolations ahead - good job he has an estate and staff.

Not getting at any of them particularly but examples in the public eye to illustrate the disconnect with actual policies as opposed to those designed to support community help and cohesion.

Unless your family are joined at the hip the average family of 4 will between them have significantly more interactions with people outside of the household that individuals living alone which means it is more likely that at least one person in the family has come into contact with the virus (and considering the vectors of spread within a household if one person has caught it it is likely the others will go on to catch it). Those in bigger households also have the opportunity to have unrestricted interactions with those that they live with in a way that those living alone do not and therefore the level of benefits gained from external interaction is greater for people living alone. The combination of these factors means it makes perfect sense to have a limit on the absolute numbers of people interacting together and not just the numbers of households. It also makes sense to include children in the numbers as while it is likely that the spread between children is lesser than between adults it is not non-existent and also because the potential risk from a child who catches the disease (who is likely to be in a relatively large bubble at school) is likely to be greater than the risk to most relatively young adults.

We are a family of 6. I have only seen my mum.once since March. I am going to see her again before Christmas. I just leave some of the kids at home.

My mum.is 76. She doesnt have years left in her to be blunt.

those risky things that are essential are allowed and those that are not are banned.

The problem here is that the government has decided what it thinks are essential, just as they decided letting Cheltenham go ahead etc was essential. How is going to church or to the pub more essential than family getting together? It just isn't and there's a way highter risk of catching Covid. The majority of people have complied, those very people have watched and are now watching certain groups flout the rules and yet they are the ones that are being most penalised. I would like to see this played out in court actually, given a right to family life is a human right.

@lazylinguist
A rule of six is much easier to enforce than '2 households' as the police cannot assume what makes up a typical household and essentially have to take peoples word for it in the absence of glaring evidence.

This is about the total number of social interaction each household has and trying to reduce them. Each time a single person meets a single other person thats an interaction and that increases your exposure risk as a household as transmission once in a household is difficult to stop.

This also means that in lots of cases, babies and toddlers WILL be having their own unique interactions if they are cared for by people outside your household.

Therefore thats why they are included in The Six in England.

By the same token, I can see the argument that if you have a very young baby that is cared for exclusively within your household and therefore has only exactly the same contacts as you (so can't be a fresh out of hospital newborn in case they've had any tests etc when you weren't there), you are only very minimally increasing the risk (higher risk is baby could catch something even if you don't at the same interaction).

However it remains the case that legally speaking if you have a family of 4 which includes a newborn but you meet with another family of 3, then yes you are breaking the law.

I guess it depends on whether you feel willing to take that risk. If the other family tests positive and you are flagged up on track and trace you might have an issue - and thats really where you are most likely to fall foul of the law, rather than be reported by a neighbour with twitchy curtains.

The behavioural experts will factor in a certain level of adherence to the rules - they won't expect 100% complience. But at the same time enough people need to accept social responsibility and suck up the law for it to work too. If every found loopholes and excuses to allow 7 rather than 6 people you are multipling the risk 6 times by every single social interaction that extra individual has had.

Each extra person has a whole chain of contacts that are multipled by every person they meet. It is important that number is kept as low as possible.

It sucks but it does need high rates of compliance to work especially since children at school are having such a high number of potential chains of contact they are being exposed to.

Matt Hancock has 3 children same as me. Can only assume he is also not a great fan of hosting the GPs.

Well, at least not both of them at once. Because if Matt and his kids give Covid to grandpa, I'm sure there's no risk of him going home and giving Covid to grandma.

Think this has definitely been done before the first years all return to campus over the next couple of weeks, without a doubt. My DD is off to uni soon and there are 14 in her flat. If the original ‘two households’ rule applied then there could be potentially 28 people socialising, whereas now they won’t be allowed anyone else to visit if they’re all in. It makes sense with her situation.

@whatswithtodaytoday

Kids are in packed schools and going to works, where sometimes you cannot socially distance, I have an office based job where we have to touch same stuff and sometimes gi close so I'm sure it's fine for someone to pop in for a cuppa.

I think people will have to get used to 'doing the rounds'. Half the household out visiting whilst half the household entertains then swap at half time. A senior relative could 'hold court' and people book appointments to have 'an audience' with them throughout the day...