Rule of six - sleeping child

[Spaghettio]

I've read that if a child is asleep upstairs they're don't count towards the 6. Is that right? Can anyone paint me towards official guidance about that? I can't seem to find it anywhere.....

@EarlGreyJenny

Are we allowed 7 people in our house in different rooms? www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/4033038-are-we-allowed-7-people-in-our-house-in-different-rooms

Discussed at great length on this thread.

Ah yes thanks, this was the thread I was referring to! Everyone got very angry. Ultimately I think it's down to people who want to know where they stand vs the actual law if the police turned up (no prosecutions yet so impossible to know but if you read the legislation most likely ok) and people who put value on what they believe is the spirit of the law and all doing our bit etc. The latter, outside the boundaries of the former, is fifty shades of grey as people have different judgements themselves on what is "safe" behaviour and some judge those who differ. It's a bit similar to drink driving (being within the legal limit but still having had a drink) - some will say, you're within the law, you're fine, others will say - well you shouldn't drink at all, it's not safe. Not everyone will agree and a lot of people will get quite upset with those who disagree with them.

Common sense should prevail. There is no magic meaning to the number six.
It's my friends birthday next week. The options are six of us go to a restaurant where there will be a couple dozen other people plus staff, sitting on chairs and at tables that may have been wiped but hardly sterilised, or have six in her house with her son and husband at least one floor above. The first is legal, the second technically not. But common sense is the latter is safer, so that's what she's doing.

@teenagetantrums

It's all rediculous. I won't cost sleeping kids. I went to see friends in London at weekend. Just so happened we stayed in rule of six as people were coming and going. But l saw 11 different people that night...why did it matter if we did it in shifts.

Because we are meant to be limiting social interactions to reduce the spread of the virus. It's hardly clever to see 11 people.

In Belgium we can see 5 other people. The same 5 people, not a different 5 on shifts. They are advising now to move this to 3.

I break the rules just living in my house 🤯

It's all rediculous. I won't cost sleeping kids. I went to see friends in London at weekend. Just so happened we stayed in rule of six as people were coming and going. But l saw 11 different people that night...why did it matter if we did it in shifts

I don't think that's the right way to think about it. We all want to reduce the number of infections happening. But the govt also understands that detailed and complex rules about social distancing don't work because too many people can't remember them. So they came up with the simplest rule they can instead as a compromise.

It's true you can still legally act in really risky ways. It's just a very irresponsible thing to do.

@iusedtohavechickens

I break the rules just living in my house 🤯

Of course you don't if your household has more than 6 people.

I’m expecting that the do’s and don’t are going to be tightened up significantly due to the cases continuing to rise and more areas causing concern.

If the kids are upstairs asleep and won't be mixing with the other people in the house, then they shouldn't count. The 'rules' are ridiculous.

I expect that soon we'll be told not to have any one to visit in the house. As we are a household of 6 people we rarely have anyone visit anyway (unless someone is out).

I was asking only as it was mentioned to me, and I wondered if it might be a way to see adult friends in the evening. But I'm happy to have a blanket "no visitors" rule. It certainly makes it easier when telling the 15yo that his girlfriend can't visit.

I was asking only as it was mentioned to me, and I wondered if it might be a way to see adult friends in the evening. But I'm happy to have a blanket "no visitors" rule. It certainly makes it easier when telling the 15yo that his girlfriend can't visit

I think that's most sensible. You don't want to be like trump and infect 24 people at the same time :)

6 is the total number including all children whether they are in the same room or not.

@Mindymomo

6 is the total number including all children whether they are in the same room or not.

If they're not in the room they're not gathering though.

It's stupid, but it's 6 in a house. if it was 6 in a "gathering" then people would be twisting the rules to have 6 in the kitchen, 6 in the garden etc. So it's a simple, blanket rule of 6.
It's illogical and stupid, but that's the law.

If they're not in the room they're not gathering though

This is not the intention of the law.
If it was 6 per room, everybody would be having parties with 6 people in each room and the garden. So the law intends for 6 people per private dwelling only.

@WinifredSanderson

If the kids are upstairs asleep and won't be mixing with the other people in the house, then they shouldn't count. The 'rules' are ridiculous.

I agree. It's ridiculous. Scotlands approach of not counting under 12s is much more sensible.

@LadyLoungeALot

Scotland don't let you have anyone at all in your house so it doesn't matter how many under 12s there are. And thank goodness because we avoid all these debates.

I've been fine today. 6 people in the house (sensibly distanced, windows open for a ventilated wind tunnel). 3 more on the roof fixing it.

Never the twain did mix nor mingle

It's stupid, but it's 6 in a house. if it was 6 in a "gathering" then people would be twisting the rules to have 6 in the kitchen, 6 in the garden etc. So it's a simple, blanket rule of 6.
It's illogical and stupid, but that's the law.

Er... I don't want to be rude but have you actually read the relevant legislation? You seem quite happy to boldly state what it says, but what you are saying is blatantly wrong. It is the "6 people in a gathering" that the law bans.

The bits of the legislation that are relevant are:

During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering which consists of more than six people unless [certain exemptions apply]

And

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

It would be far too great a stretch for the courts to interpret sleeping children as being within the definition of gathering.

I do think a court could potentially interpret the definition of gathering broadly to cover multiple groups meeting within the same property. The individuals in such a scenario would be in the same place in order to engage in social interaction with others, and arguably there's no requirement that every single member of the gathering should be interacting with every other member of the gathering. In which case, the 6 in the kitchen, 6 in the dining room, 6 in the hall example would not be legal. It is an entirely different kettle of fish to a situation where you do not have more than 6 people socialising because the 7th person at the property is unconscious upstairs.

Can you count two little kids as one whole person? Or a couple of shortie adults equals one large adult?

I think people are finding ways to manipulate the figures 6 is 6.

Are people really following the rules that obsessively?

@OpheliasCrayon

Oh I would not be counting my children in a gathering of 6 in my home if they were asleep upstairs ! What could they possibly be adding to the situation if they're two floors away and asleep !

They could add coronavirus obviously, if they have it and wake up and come downstairs.

It is an entirely different kettle of fish to a situation where you do not have more than 6 people socialising because the 7th person at the property is unconscious upstairs.

The problem is that in the real world children get up and parents go to check on them.

@Pipandmum

Common sense should prevail. There is no magic meaning to the number six. It's my friends birthday next week. The options are six of us go to a restaurant where there will be a couple dozen other people plus staff, sitting on chairs and at tables that may have been wiped but hardly sterilised, or have six in her house with her son and husband at least one floor above. The first is legal, the second technically not. But common sense is the latter is safer, so that's what she's doing.

This x 1000.

Only on Mumsnet are people hysterically head counting and pushing one relative out into the street in favour of a child asleep upstairs. Is no one capable of critical thinking or risk assessment anymore? The rule of six is designed to be an arbitrary cut off which gives authorities the ability to clamp down where people are being seriously stupid. It means literally nothing in itself.