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)

@CrocodilesCry

I truly cannot understand anyone who thinks the "rule of six" or the local restrictions being imposed in some places are some sort of punishment.

You're being told to not meet up in large groups (or to go inside other people's homes in some areas) to stop the spread of the virus.

What is it that's so hard to understand? These aren't punitive measures. If people carry on this way, schools and businesses will close.

Respect the rules. Try not to get infected or infect the people you love by limiting the number of people you have close contact with. It's that simple.

Yep, I can't understand it either. Like all the lunatics who cite Cummings as the reason they won't follow the rules. They're completely deluded into thinking it's some kind of weird punishment rather than pretty simple/easy steps to stop the Pandemic taking hold again resulting in another lockdown. At the end of the day, some people just want to do what the hell they want and make up all kinds of excuses to justify their own poor behaviour.

@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)

The law says you can't 'mingle'. Although loads of people here on mn were posting this morning that they don't know what 'mingle' means - it's bloody obvious that in this case if anybody from one group of 'customers' stands chatting with another group that IS mingling. So no, he can't do that unless they're all going to ignore each other.

Blimey, to listen to some of you, you'd think there was some actual scientific basis for the 'rule of 6'.

I will be observing the law.

I can't understand why people have been mixing in big gatherings anyway.

I have been meeting in small groups, maintaining distance, going to well managed environments like restaurants where tables were far apart and precautions in place. But I am sick of the idiots who crowd in, come close and shout to others, go to packed pubs and then go shopping without a mask.

People need to act with more social responsibility and less individual self-interest. We can still live our lives.

@OpenlyGayExOlympicFencer

Blimey, to listen to some of you, you'd think there was some actual scientific basis for the 'rule of 6'.

Why do you disagree with decreasing socialisation? What would you do?

Why do you disagree with decreasing socialisation? What would you do?

Why have you made that assumption?

@OpenlyGayExOlympicFencer

Why do you disagree with decreasing socialisation? What would you do?

Why have you made that assumption?

Well what do you suggest should happen?

You're going to need to find a way your question is actually relevant to my point before I even think about answering it.

Bloody hell, expand on what you mean. You think the rule of six is not based on science? Is that it?

What would you do then instead?

Half term isn't going to be much fun as me and the 3 children often meet up with another nanny (I'm a nanny) and I don't know many with only one child. It's ruined one of our meet ups but other than that I can live as I myself live by myself so technically I can have up to 5 others in my flat yet my work family can't have anymore than 1 in their big house! Madness.

The director of the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine at the University of Oxford doesn't, but by all means let him know about any scientific evidence he may have missed.

Now, as that's literally the only point I made, I'm still waiting for you to tell me how your question is relevant, and why you felt the need to make that assumption.

Openly you don’t match your username.

If it’s not based on science what would do you think we should do? Or do you just want to make a superior general comment.

And what do you think about Belgium tracking differently after bringing in five?

It’s just writing what you think. It’s not that precious.

What I think we should do is not make comments that suggest there's any scientific rationale for the rule of 6. I say 'we', but some of us had been doing a good job of that already. I suspect from the tone of your recent posts that the information I provided about Carl Heneghan was unwelcome to you, but that's tough shit really.

As for your question, I'm still waiting for you to explain why it's relevant and what it has to do with what I wrote, rather than trying to swerve because you've evidently realised you made an assumption. There will be no answer until you have done so satisfactorily.

You are a joy.

I don’t mind Carl Heneghan but he’s just one view point. There’s no doubt there is a mix on any given topic. Belgium has re-tracked significantly with lower socialisation hasn’t it? Or is he the only guy you listen to. Any other scientists names you know?

If you can’t answer what would be better then really then that’s your own problem. Thankfully there’s other posters of greater interest to engage with.

@MarshaBradyo

You are a joy.

I don’t mind Carl Heneghan but he’s just one view point. There’s no doubt there is a mix on any given topic. Belgium has re-tracked significantly with lower socialisation hasn’t it? Or is he the only guy you listen to. Any other scientists names you know?

If you can’t answer what would be better then really then that’s your own problem. Thankfully there’s other posters of greater interest to engage with.

Bit of a self-own to only now be affecting lack of interest in someone you've spent several posts attempting to pursue because of your own misunderstanding. And just to be clear, I don't have the remotest problem with your inability to come up with a rationale for your question. If anything it's been a geg. The implications of that are on you.

You do realise a question can just be a question right? Why do you need a break down of it. Strange.

But let’s end it there as v tiresome.

It can just be a question, yes, but it evidently wasn't in this case. You made an assumption. I pointed that out.

Do you think doing it when it’s not based on science is a good idea?

Sometimes people come up with good insights on here. You could have had some around what to do next

Blimey, to listen to some of you, you'd think there was some actual scientific basis for the 'rule of 6'

It is not that hard openly you scale down socialising, you scale down the spread. It is not rocket science. It is not based on 'Pick a number any number' and lets go with that. SAGE will have carefully considered the safest number, the optimal choice and agreed by committee.

It is incredible that we have so many (wanna be) scientists on here, you seem to be missing the point. So perhaps we will try again, if we don't get the infection rate down we F*ed, is that better?

I don’t want to because we are a family of 5 but I definitely will observe the rules. Some people never did and never will.

Anybody wanting a meet up just take a gun and cite you are grouse shooting that's allowed in groups up to 30.

Yes I’ll follow the rules even though I commute into London to work in the nhs - with covid + contact. I could easily make excuses like I have seen on here and sm. we know the higher risk of transmissions in households. Lady of bbc news now complaining she can go in a pub etc etc people are choosing not to understand.