Are we allowed 7 people in our house in different rooms?

[Firefliess]

DSD and her BF have come to stay this weekend. We also have DD and DSS and me and DH at home, so that makes 6 of us. DD wants her BF to stay over tomorrow night. I can't figure out whether that's allowed or not. It would mean 7 people in the house, but in no sense would we be "gathering" DD and her BF would get in late and go straight to her room. Rest of us probably we wouldn't even see him. Is that allowed? Or are people considered to be "gathering" simply by being in the same house? We're in England by the way and not in an area with any local lockdown

[quote avenueq]@spinningaround72 what? First people are attacked for trying to interpret the law, now you're doing the same and you're still in the right? [/quote]
What happened to END OF? 😂👋🏻

@notevenat20 but in a pub you’re sharing toilets and entrances and exits with loads of other people - the rules aren’t about doors, they’re about gathering. They reckon transmission from contact (door handles etc) is much lower than transmission from being in close contact with people, so (again using some common sense) the OP is fine with having 2 extra people upstairs not talking to anyone else in the house

*@spinningaround72** you're wrong
I'm not wrong. The advice is conflicting.

The advice might be conflicting, like the advice on this thread. The government advice though is clear - you do not need to distance from someone you are in a relationship with.

@raddledoldmisanthropist

It's just that when I tried to look at both the legislation (pretty impenetrable) and summary they both talk about "gatherings" in private homes, rather than "people" in private homes, so seems more to be saying don't have a party with 7 people. Can anyone point me to somewhere where they spell out that it's just the number of people in the house that matters?

I think they imagine that people who genuinely don't understand that this means no more than 6 people in a house will be looked after by someone who can explain it to them.

🤣

Guidelines are not the law. Guidelines are a suggested way in which to comply with the law. If you follow the guidelines, you are normally following the law.

If you choose to act differently, it is up to you to demonstrate that you are complying with the law.

The law is that you can't have a gathering of more than 6. As no sane person would think that you are in a gathering with a person that you cannot see, are distant from, are not sufficiently close to talk to and there is no chance of cross contamination because you are not using the same facilities or touching the same things it is reasonable to conclude that such people are not in the same gathering for the purposes of the 'rule of 6'.

OP it sounds like you've decided that you are special and as such you can interpret the rules in whichever way suits you best.

You must be very important.

What is confusing about the rule of 6?

Its maths. Seven is a larger number than six. HTH

6 + 1 = 7

The rule of 6 should be followed.
7 is more than 6.

In terms of the law this will only be clear once cases have gone to court. If everyone is sharing any part of the house including a bathroom and maybe even the entrance/exit I think you would be on risky territory myself.

Indeed.

But really you are just increasing the risk the whole country will be locked down by trying to stretch the rules. It is grossly irresponsible in my view. It’s also worth remembering that when you take a risk with covid, it’s not just your life you are playing with. If you are infected this increases the chance that someone else will be infected too.

I disagree with this. For a start, I don’t agree that it’s stretching the rules. I think it’s sticking to the rules but not going further. But regardless of the legality or not of this particular case I don’t think that people honestly sticking to the idea of a gathering where people really are separate in a home is going to be a big factor in increasing spread. It’s going to be people gathering lots of households together in one room with poor ventilation and people failing to self isolate when they have symptoms.

notevenat20 but in a pub you’re sharing toilets and entrances and exits with loads of other people - the rules aren’t about doors, they’re about gathering. They reckon transmission from contact (door handles etc) is much lower than transmission from being in close contact with people, so (again using some common sense) the OP is fine with having 2 extra people upstairs not talking to anyone else in the house

No this is wrong. Pubs are under different rules. Not because they are magically safe but because people need to go to work and earn money so there has to be a compromise. They then try to make them as safe as possible.

Having a lot of people in your house is not vital to the economy and your house is also not subject to all the work place rules. I am guessing you don’t wear a mask when serving drinks or have an app for getting food or disinfect all surfaces regularly.

This whole set of threads (there are a few like this) could be replaced with another one called “How can I infect as many people as possible and probably not get sent to jail?”

It’s a game you can play but I won’t join in. Sadly that still won’t protect me from the consequences.

Just heard on the radio there, Kings College have done a survey of 30,000 ppl who are self isolating and revealed 20% are not following guidelines, we really won’t see numbers decreasing if this is the attitude along with OP allowing visitors/bf etc 😔

Just heard on the radio there, Kings College have done a survey of 30,000 ppl who are self isolating and revealed 20% are not following guidelines, we really won’t see numbers decreasing if this is the attitude along with OP allowing visitors/bf etc 😔

t.co/tjoRG9x6OO?amp=1

“ Results: Only 48.9% of participants (95% CI 48.2% to 49.7%) identified key symptoms of COVID-19. Self-reported adherence to test, trace and isolate behaviours was low (self- isolation 18.2%, 95% CI 16.4% to 19.9%; requesting an antigen test 11.9%, 95% CI 10.1% to 13.8%; intention to share details of close contacts 76.1%, 95% CI 75.4% to 76.8%; quarantining 10.9%, 95% CI 7.8% to 13.9%) and largely stable over time. By contrast, intention to adhere to protective measures was much higher. Non-adherence was associated with: men, younger age groups, having a dependent child in the household, lower socio- economic grade, greater hardship during the pandemic, and working in a key sector.”

@notevenat20 no I get the economy is different which is why there’s different rules. But the OP doesn’t have to wear a mask to serve drinks to the two extra people because she won’t even see them. People are fixating on the number and not on the word gathering - you can’t gather with people you’re not in the same room as!!

@raddledoldmisanthropist

It's just that when I tried to look at both the legislation (pretty impenetrable) and summary they both talk about "gatherings" in private homes, rather than "people" in private homes, so seems more to be saying don't have a party with 7 people. Can anyone point me to somewhere where they spell out that it's just the number of people in the house that matters?

I think they imagine that people who genuinely don't understand that this means no more than 6 people in a house will be looked after by someone who can explain it to them.

👏🏻

“How can I infect as many people as possible and probably not get sent to jail?”

If you want to do that you can just have lots of gatherings in your home with lots of different groups of 6 people from different households. Different people each time. No one else in the house. Totally within the majority reading of the rules on this thread but a terrible idea for containing spread.

Seeing your regular boyfriend, however, in a manner where he isn’t sharing air for a significant amount of time with more than one person, even though, sometimes, you do so in a building with more than 6 people in it, is not an attempt to infect as many people as possible.

If your daughter is old enough to have a boyfriend sleeper over, one would hope that she can count to 7 and she is familiar with the fact that it is more than 6.

You’re already taking the piss a bit with the different households IMO but that hasn’t been made law (yet)

It’s six, what’s difficult to understand?

As my friend said to someone asking a similar question "If you are having trouble counting to six, just count to three twice,".

If you are in Scotland and you have kids under 12 then they don't count. Everywhere else, they do. I'm pretty sure it is only suppose to be two households mixing indoors as well.

So, one solution is to kill one, who is your least favourite

I am so sick of people trying to find loopholes in these regulations Dead people count too ffs

As my friend said to someone asking a similar question "If you are having trouble counting to six, just count to three twice,".

:)

@Chessie678

I think if this got to court a court would find that since, in law, “There is a gathering when two or more people are present together in the same place in order to engage in any form of social interaction with each other, or to undertake any other activity with each other" your circumstances would not breach the rule of six. This is because you do not intend to engage in any social interaction or activity with your DD's BF. I don't think a reasonable person would interpret gathering, in its usual sense, to mean groups of people in different rooms not interacting with each other.

Adam Wagner's (a human rights lawyer) opinion is that if children are asleep in bed they are not part of a gathering. I'm also a solicitor and think this is correct and would apply in your circumstances.

The police and government might disagree but the courts have overturned many of the covid related fines issued so far and I can see the same applying here.

Interesting. I was going to say if the boyfriend arrived weren't straight to bedroom with no interaction with anyone except your DD and left in the same way ( no using kitchen) , used a separate bathroom or cleaned it after use , then I'd say they were not part of the group or gathering.

Not sure if it is good or not that some lawyers agree