Parents think I'm being ridiculous - rule of six and baby

[Putmynewshoeson]

Before the rule of six we had arranged for family friends to come and sit in the garden for a socially distanced coffee with my husband and I, our nine month old and my mum and dad.

I mentioned in the week we would have to cancel because there will be seven of us but everyone keeps saying oh it's fine babies don't count.

We haven't been anywhere - the poor little one hasn't been ANYWHERE except out on walks outside since this whole thing began - but babies DO count don't they? (This is UK)

Would you still go ahead even though it's breaking the rule? They're all being very dismissive and saying because he hasn't been anywhere and isn't mobile he doesn't count

A baby counts.
One person’s “common sense” is another person’s “irresponsible idiocy”, so that is not a good indication.

I wouldn’t.

It is the law and there is no good reason to do so except ‘we want to’. The law may be ridiculous but it is still the law.

It is all the bending (breaking) of the law that will cause numbers to go up.

People are using common sense that the increased risk by having a baby who belongs to one of the house holds present is minuscule.

Presumably only true if no one picks up the baby and gives them a kiss and cuddle.

Babies are included in the 6, part of the reasoning behind the new rules is to make it simple. So 6 people, any age, any place.

Could you time it so you meet when babies napping? And one of you takes little one for a walk if they wake up before your guests leave? Or just stays inside with baby so they're not mixing in the group.

@notevenat20

People are using common sense that the increased risk by having a baby who belongs to one of the house holds present is minuscule.

Presumably only true if no one picks up the baby and gives them a kiss and cuddle.

No one should be doing that anyway no matter what the numbers as social distancing still applies in the rule of 6.

Actually it would be a time when baby is napping but to be honest I can't guarantee he will stay asleep so probably best just to give it a miss this time or one of us stay inside with him while the others stay out in the garden

He wouldn't be held by anyone and would be on the other side of the large deck but I agree, if everyone bends the rules a little bit...the affect can be severe

Have your day. The police will not be knocking on your door to arrest the baby so I think you’ll be ok.

In England children are included. However I don’t know anyone who counts babies. People are using common sense that the increased risk by having a baby who belongs to one of the house holds present is minuscule.

This assumes no one picks up the baby and cuddles it.

The real difficulty here is that this isn't a new rule or guidance, it is law, so it should leave no room for personal interpretation of it. The fact is, if you are in England and meet in a group of 7 - even if one of those 7 is a baby - you are breaking the law.

Whether you agree with it or not is immaterial, if you meet as a 7, regardless of age, you are doing so illegally. Will you get away with doing it anyway? Probably. Still illegal though.

These restrictions are a joke whilst thousands of kids are in secondary schools, spreading it

The children are in school because them getting an education is actually rather more important than a meet up and coffee with friends in the garden.

I can't believe you aren't actually able to work out that yourself really.

I'm afraid baby does count OP. I would personally stick to the rule of 6 as very soon, with too many people meeting in larger groups, we will soon have the same rule as Scotland where there is no mixing outside of your own household.

"The law is ridiculous. But it's still the law."

Does anyone else find statements like this really scary. Slippery slope and all that.

In England children are included. However I don’t know anyone who counts babies.

The government does!

Do people actually think the number of 6 people was agreed upon for any actual reason? It could have been 5 or 7 or 8.
And do people actually think that Scottish and Welsh children are any different to English children? That should be the only reason why the law is different. It's not. Matt Hancock was the one pushing 6. Others wanted 8. MH got his way.

You could always all fly to Italy and have a much larger meet up there if you wanted to.

@Treesofwood

"The law is ridiculous. But it's still the law."

Does anyone else find statements like this really scary. Slippery slope and all that.

Yes. It scares me every time I see someone say it.

The count in England. The fact the baby hasn’t been anywhere is completely irrelevant. They could still pass the virus to the baby. More people = more chance of someone passing it on.

One person’s “common sense” is another person’s “irresponsible idiocy”, so that is not a good indication.

This is why we have laws. So we don't have to rely on someone else's 'common sense'.

Jaxhog Do you think the people who make the laws have any common sense?

If everyone follows the rules then it’s possible to see what ACTUALLY impacts transmission. It might, for example, spread faster in areas where “children don’t count” and then they will have to lock down harder BUT it might make no difference to outcomes and then we can ALL stop counting children. Follow the rules and we will find the way. Fuck around on every teeny detail and we’re not going to.

Thanks everyone

FWIW I'm not trying to find a loophole here, I'm very much going to stick to the rules but felt like I needed a sanity check as everyone else was making out like I'm being way OTT

I do find it scary, all these new laws that impact our socialisation and freedoms but these are unprecedented times I guess. The whole thing is worrying on many levels

Itisbetter That's only true if we ran it with all variable controlled for. I could have 10 people in my garden. None of us have covid. No one is going to catch it. Or I could see no one socially, but catch covid from work and bring it home to infect 3 of my 4 children. They are guessing at what to do, what works and what doesn't. They have no clue.

@ekidmxcl

These restrictions are a joke whilst thousands of kids are in secondary schools, spreading it.

But whilst everyone continues to break the rules and mix households the likelihood of children getting an education this academic year is getting more and more remote! If people stopped mixing then cases wouldn't have gone up for kids to start catching it and bursting bubbles.

I think you are being very OTT. I agree with your parents.

I think you’re being a bit ridiculous

I don’t think that’s true @Treesofwood of course it’s not a controlled experiment with total compliance and all known variables. Infection control isn’t like that. But in order to draw conclusions on what is likely to slow the spread it is necessary to observe different scenarios and how effective the conclusions drawn are is highly dependent on how rigidly the guidelines/laws are followed, the different regions of the United Kingdom are our closest and most “like” populations. By having slightly different rules in each we can try to get to optimum impact on spread faster.

I live in wales near the border. I have 2 kids and so can’t meet my sister and her 2 kids at my mums. So we just have to meet at mine or my sisters house where we can have my mum, sister, myself, my oh, mums oh and 4 kids and still have a space for one more adult in our extended bubble. Mad how it’s so different. I wouldn’t count the baby op. I’d still have your friends over.