Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

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

106 replies

Putmynewshoeson · 25/09/2020 07:58

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

OP posts:
Toastycornflakes · 25/09/2020 10:09

Meant to add my mum lives across the border in England

Treesofwood · 25/09/2020 10:10

Itisbetter OK then we can draw the conclusion that stricter controls and more restructions for longer are worse in the long run (Scotland v England) The different rules are not about that. They are political statements first and foremost.

SmileyClare · 25/09/2020 10:14

An easy compromise is to alter the arrangements. Have your family of 3 meeting up with your parents on one day, the 2 family friends another day.

No need to cancel everything!

You can also have a get together inside, you don't have to sit shivering outside as we head towards winter.

Itisbetter · 25/09/2020 10:17

I don’t think that’s the case @Treesofwood I think they’re presented as political but are really scenario testing. There are no “u turns” in policy, there are observations (usually in fairly obvious two week periods) and then there is a move towards the most advantageous behaviour modification.

GhostOnTheHorizon · 25/09/2020 10:18

We have the same in our family and will not be following this law for the sake of a +1.

The virus will still be here in 6 months, 6 years, 60 years, how long are you going to do this for ?

GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER · 25/09/2020 10:30

Given that it was Ok for son in law and 4 other blokes to go to an invariably busy pub very recently, I will definitely not be counting
8 month old Gdc 3, who goes nowhere without dd. Dh and I will still visit together.

Stuckinadream · 25/09/2020 10:36

@GhostOnTheHorizon

We have the same in our family and will not be following this law for the sake of a +1.

The virus will still be here in 6 months, 6 years, 60 years, how long are you going to do this for ?

So....... if everyone in the country completely ignored the law and had 1 extra person to their gatherings that ok then
timeisnotaline · 25/09/2020 10:43

So....... if everyone in the country completely ignored the law and had 1 extra person to their gatherings that ok then
Honestly if that one extra person were a member of the same household then it doesn’t change the risk. We are allowed 5 visitors soon and I’m not going to say to my friends with 4 young children that 6 is too many so they are off the visiting list. They all share a risk level, leaving one child out doesn’t make me safer and it won’t change the case numbers.

Treesofwood · 25/09/2020 10:44

Stuckinadream Yes it really would still be Ok
Six is a relatively arbitrary cut off, one of a number of possibilities.

Lemonsyellow · 25/09/2020 10:48

Honestly if that one extra person were a member of the same household then it doesn’t change the risk. We are allowed 5 visitors soon and I’m not going to say to my friends with 4 young children that 6 is too many so they are off the visiting list. They all share a risk level, leaving one child out doesn’t make me safer and it won’t change the case numbers.

How do you work that out? It’s completely possible for some members of a household to have different risks. It is very wrong to say one extra person from a household doesn’t change the risk.

SqidgeBum · 25/09/2020 10:50

The risk of 7 people from 2 or 3 households is no more than 6 people from 6 households, so clearly the law isnt about risk.

Stuckinadream · 25/09/2020 11:02

@Lemonsyellow

Honestly if that one extra person were a member of the same household then it doesn’t change the risk. We are allowed 5 visitors soon and I’m not going to say to my friends with 4 young children that 6 is too many so they are off the visiting list. They all share a risk level, leaving one child out doesn’t make me safer and it won’t change the case numbers.

How do you work that out? It’s completely possible for some members of a household to have different risks. It is very wrong to say one extra person from a household doesn’t change the risk.

I agree. I have 2 dd's at different schools. I think dd1 is more of a risk in our household, if I make the gathering up to 7 with her I'd be being a bit foolish
Treesofwood · 25/09/2020 11:03

I agree sqidgebum. If it was about risk, the same restrictions wouldn't apply outside as inside. The chance of outdoor transmission is something like 3 in 1000 if someone actually has it. Obviously if no one has Covid the risk is a big fat Zero anyway.

GhostOnTheHorizon · 25/09/2020 11:46

@Stuckinadream

Yep fine with me - it's just a made up number not based on anything.

The restrictions being put in place will do nothing, they are just kicking the can down the road.

cologne4711 · 25/09/2020 12:04

Technically a babe in arms does count but nobody is going to report you for it, and I would argue that a baby is an extension of its mother until it can crawl/walk/bottom shuffle or goes to childcare.

LilyPond2 · 25/09/2020 12:22

In England babies do count towards the limit of six, which makes perfect sense as babies can both catch Covid-19 and pass it on to others. I despair of all the posters who think it's OK to break the law for their own convenience. OP, you are absolutely doing the right thing by refusing to have a gathering that breaks the law.

LilyPond2 · 25/09/2020 12:31

Technically a babe in arms does count but nobody is going to report you for it
I would report you for it, as I am fed up with people making exceptions for themselves, thus ensuring that the virus will continue to spread and more people will die.

GhostOnTheHorizon · 25/09/2020 12:56

Then Scotland & Wales must want it to spread and kill more people as in Scotland under 12's are exempt and in Wales under 11's are exempt.

Maybe we could have some consistency in rules/laws between England, Wales & Scotland.

BogRollBOGOF · 25/09/2020 13:06

@SqidgeBum

The risk of 7 people from 2 or 3 households is no more than 6 people from 6 households, so clearly the law isnt about risk.
This.

Especially when a baby has had no additional exposure to the virus beyond their parents.

The virus is not spreading more rampantly than it would because family gatherings are exceded by one baby.

BogRollBOGOF · 25/09/2020 13:08

@LilyPond2

Technically a babe in arms does count but nobody is going to report you for it I would report you for it, as I am fed up with people making exceptions for themselves, thus ensuring that the virus will continue to spread and more people will die.
I'm sure the police will appreciate your concern when they get there and can't make more than 6 arrests/ issue more than 6 fines because the baby is below the age of criminal responsibility.
SqidgeBum · 25/09/2020 13:32

@LilyPond2 if the police even bothered to respond to it.

I bet those with twitchy curtains are just loving spying on their neighbours and counting how many people go into the house, desperately hoping it over 6 so they can call and 'report' them.

But of course, law is law. It must be followed and we must encourage reporting of these criminals having tea in their back garden.

Just out of curiosity, did anyone see where BJs other half is currently?

Notverygrownup · 25/09/2020 13:42

Can your husband go out, whilst you have coffee with your mum and dad and family friends, rather than cancel the whole thing?

Then next time, you and he and baby can meet up with either your parents, or your family friends?

Stuckinadream · 25/09/2020 15:36

[quote GhostOnTheHorizon]@Stuckinadream

Yep fine with me - it's just a made up number not based on anything.

The restrictions being put in place will do nothing, they are just kicking the can down the road.[/quote]
I think you'll have to explain your logic to me, surely the fewer people who meet less chance of passing it on? If the number was 7, 8, 9 or even 10 some people would just add an extra person on as it's just one person right where would it stop? I personally don't want the the vulnerable people around me put in danger so I shall follow the 6 rule.

LetsPlayAGame20 · 25/09/2020 15:44

They do however I have inlaws on way with dsc. And will make 8 of us.
As I'm here with my 3 dcs and dsis (who's in our bubble)
They pick dsc up from school as that's all dsc mum allows other than dh who's at work.
Im not going to not offer a cuppa as they would have left home at 1.30 to collect due to distance and then to here. Then home by 5pm.

LetsPlayAGame20 · 25/09/2020 15:46

No way would I make my husband leave his home to accommodate others.. And he wouldn't expect me to.
Thankfully I only have 1 neighbours who wouldn't ' grass'
And I wouldn't on them.
I have an unpopular option of the rule of 6 compared to those on here but in RL many have same view.