In all honesty. Do you think people will follow Mondays rule.. Honest truth

[DidSheReallySayThat20]

Everyone I have spoken to, or seen on SM have said how stupid it is and they will not be following the rule /law.

My dbs manager who owns the workplace. Was due to have a get together at home next sunday for their teens birthday.
They are now doing it at work. ( a garage.)
Has now said by doing it there and ' booking in the relatives cars for a visual inspection /safety check ' whilst waiting they could get together on forecourt spaced out, Because they would be 'customers' and they would be at work. And it's no different to it being random customers just because it's family.
So there would be 2 cars' booked in' one of. Which is a couple., one a family Of 3. Plus their own household of 4 (the teens work there weekends cleaning etc anyway)

Which made me think how silly the rule is. They can't do that in their garden but can on a forecourt (the garage is not on a main road or anything and out the way so unlikely to be seen)

Do children under 12 count as a 'person?'

@bottomdrawer

Do children under 12 count as a 'person?'

In england yes.

In scotland no.

In wales - Ages 0 - 11 no. Age 12 year yes.

The attitude of some posters on here makes me think that it won't be long before there are a lot more restrictions in place. At the moment they're trying to do what they can without damaging the economy and keeping schools open. It may not work but surely it's worth trying to reduce the spread so that schools and everything else can stay open.

I don't think that many people will follow the new rule of 6 religiously though. It is just too idiotic for words. Kids can be in school all day in bubbles of more than 30 but outside of school they can't mix in a group of more than 6!! Utterly ridiculous.

They may be in bubbles of 30 but each child will not be in close contact with all 30 children every day. If they socialise with six different children outside of school the risk of being infected will be higher. It's additive.

I think (hope) most people will. Otherwise, I'll have to go back into shielding. Which is a deeply depressing thought.

I'm already resigned to having Christmas alone with DH. We missed seeing family last year because I had the flu. I've also had to cancel both of our holidays.

Whatever you think of the rules, please, please follow them.

Jaxhog, I'm with you on this, please follow the rules.

@MarshaBradyo

Nails it’s not about a particular number being safe or not.

It’s about restricting where we can to ensure maximum chance of businesses and schools staying open.

The easiest place to do that is private socialisation. It’s also where the virus often gets passed on.

The big problem is what is being evidenced on this thread not everyone will be willing to do it.

Whereas if you close a school people can be unwilling but they can’t do anything about it,

I know that it takes barely anything to close a class. One or two cases. So incredibly low as a threshold. I also know there’s only a few cases in my area, and I want it to stay that way to give dc best chance to go to school.

If it’s not about safety, what’s the point?

I understand that people in your position want your children to go to school, I work in one and think it’s important too. But for you to feel like you have the best chance of your children’s school staying open, you’re asking people like me, who are massively underpaid, to take the risks for you at the same time as not being able to be around their own friends and family.

Not only does it make no sense from the perspective of containing a virus, it’s also a government asking us as individuals to make unreasonable sacrifices while they still get what they want at our expense. It’s not ok for them to do that.

Whatever you think of the rules, please, please follow them.

No.

Nails as I said the point is to keep the economy and education functioning as a priority, the virus won’t go away but we can lower the R.

In particular it makes sense that you would want me and other parents to follow it. It lowers the chance of a child being sent in as a positive.

Do you want other people on this thread to follow it or just do whatever?

BTW I have two shielding relatives, both of whom have categorically said they want to see family. They're adults, it's up to them.

FFS, yes the rules have been all over the place BUT we should all be doing the right thing to protect each other.

So many selfish twats about at the moment, all they care about is what they want.

Honestly, I won't. Not going to have any gatherings larger than us and one other household but if we as a family of 4 meet another family of 4 I don't see how that's any riskier than if 2 of us stay at home.

Marsha personally, I don’t mind what they do, that’s up to them. If they’re worried about the virus and want to keep to themselves then fine, if they want to get back to as much normality as possible because they’ve had enough, then that’s fine too. I’d have rather had all my class back as normal at the start of term instead of some being at home because of quarantine. I’ve seen lockdown (NOT Covid) take too much away from too many people now to think it’s acceptable to ask them to continue for the sake of other people’s children going to school.

if we as a family of 4 meet another family of 4 I don't see how that's any riskier than if 2 of us stay at home.

That's because it isn't, not that any of the rule obeyers on this thread have acknowledged that.

To them apparently having a rave of 25 people and the situation you describe above are the same thing.

@NailsNeedDoing

Marsha personally, I don’t mind what they do, that’s up to them. If they’re worried about the virus and want to keep to themselves then fine, if they want to get back to as much normality as possible because they’ve had enough, then that’s fine too. I’d have rather had all my class back as normal at the start of term instead of some being at home because of quarantine. I’ve seen lockdown (NOT Covid) take too much away from too many people now to think it’s acceptable to ask them to continue for the sake of other people’s children going to school.

Nails But it’s their own children and you too.

If they have children they’ll be increasing the likelihood their own schools will shut. Not mine tg, as I don’t live in same area as the vocal people on this thread (I reckon).

I can’t make people do anything but I find it so very odd that they can’t understand the reasoning. It’s easy to understand.

Also if you’ve seen lockdown take away too much surely you’d prefer to not go back there?

I must have missed that post missnorris, who suggested that was the case?

@mrsnorrismeow

BTW I have two shielding relatives, both of whom have categorically said they want to see family. They're adults, it's up to them.

So they are not shielding.

I must have missed that postmissnorris, who suggested that was the case?

Have you seen any acknowledgement that it is, in fact, of zero increased risk if two households of four apiece meet, as opposed to two members of those households staying at home? No?

So they are not shielding.

They were told to but are not. But you know one of them was raised under a dictatorship in which his friends and relatives were imprisoned, tortured and murdered. So would rather die than have his freedoms curtailed.

I’d love to say fuck the lot of them, I’m not following the rules (because it’s just all ridiculous now) but honestly, I’m a bit of a hermit and never with more than 5 people anyway 🙈

No, I just wondered who had suggested that two families meeting was akin to 25 gathering for a rave? If you have invented it in order to rail against it then I think that's in bad faith.

@mrsnorrismeow

Personally, I don’t fancy catching COVID19 going to Pret, even though we’ve been told to go to Pret and spend money

The difference is there is no law which forces you to go to Pret.

For now ! The way we are going prob will be :-)

Inside it is still 6 people but only 2 households? is that right? (from Mon)?