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.....

Out of interest is anyone on here aware of any police action or fines being issued to small at home gatherings that are just over six people? I assume a fine for day two families totalling seven people would have been in the media if it were happening anywhere? I’ve only heard about fines for big parties (and rightly so). Just thought there would be absolute revolution from certain quarters if it became apparent that people in a group of seven were actually being fined?

Oh god. Not again there’s a massive thread in this that just ran and ran. Please. Just use your common sense.

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.

I don’t agree. The cut off is arbitrary only in the same sense the speed limit is. The larger a group , the more the chances of infection spreading. At the moment it feels like everyone wants to do 60mph down a country lane “because it’s legal”.

Oh god. Not again there’s a massive thread in this that just ran and ran. Please. Just use your common sense.

The thread will be repeated over and again until the govt gives up and announces no social mixing indoors, I suspect.

amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/04/leak-reveals-possible-harsher-three-tier-covid-plan-for-england

@notevenat20

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.

I don’t agree. The cut off is arbitrary only in the same sense the speed limit is. The larger a group , the more the chances of infection spreading. At the moment it feels like everyone wants to do 60mph down a country lane “because it’s legal”.

I really disagree with the last part of this. There are plenty of things that are legal which I don’t feel comfortable doing like meeting people from six households in a busy pub. Its not like I and others are pushing the boundaries of everything that is technically allowed. It’s about applying a level of common sense (as boris has basically told us to do) to the rules which by their nature have to be black and white, and making our own assessment of what the actual risk is in any given situation. I believe there is far more risk of me walking away with Covid from a group of six from six households compared to a group of seven from two households. And I’m not prepared to actually increase my risk of getting Covid just to be able to say that I have followed ‘the rules’ to the letter.

I believe there is far more risk of me walking away with Covid from a group of six from six households compared to a group of seven from two households.

I am afraid I don’t think this is a useful approach. The question isn’t whether one is worse than the other, it’s whether it’s wise to do either. It’s much more dangerous to drive down a country road at 60 drunk than sober. But neither is a good idea.

Even if people have said it wouldn't stand up in court would anyone really want things to get that far - isn't life stressful enough right now? If you have a six person gathering at home and ignore sleeping kids and are unlucky enough to be issued a fine, are you really going to want to go to court to fight it which would be the only way to not pay. There may be a disparity between what's broadly being said (rule of 6) and what the courts would do in any individual set of circumstances but I wouldn't fancy risking a huge fine and having to fight it in court just to find out who's right. Surely right now it's better to air on the side of caution and just accept its 6 in total inside a dwelling with its own front door and be done with it. Now is not really the time to be using semantics to suit the situation.

@notevenat20

I believe there is far more risk of me walking away with Covid from a group of six from six households compared to a group of seven from two households.

I am afraid I don’t think this is a useful approach. The question isn’t whether one is worse than the other, it’s whether it’s wise to do either. It’s much more dangerous to drive down a country road at 60 drunk than sober. But neither is a good idea.

Agreed, but one of the factors that I balance when assessing risk is my mental health and wellbeing. No socialising at all, basically locking down myself and my family, isn’t an option for me because for us the risks of that approach outweigh the risks of meeting people in a considered and careful manner.

...and we’re a Family of four so it doesn’t take much of a ‘gathering’ to hit six people. Almost all our friends are families of the same size. It’s not like I’m talking about wild clubbing, it’s socially distanced cups of tea and chatting.

Agreed, but one of the factors that I balance when assessing risk is my mental health and wellbeing. No socialising at all, basically locking down myself and my family, isn’t an option for me because for us the risks of that approach outweigh the risks of meeting people in a considered and careful manner.

Mental health is a serious issue and I wish you well.

But I should add two things (sorry). First, you can still meet people in smaller groups. Second, and most unfortunately, the risk you are taking is not your own. If you infect 6 people including yourself, the chances of one of the 6, including you, infecting someone else then goes up and the general risk to the community and critically vulnerable people goes up too. It's difficult, but true. It's more like driving down the road with your eyes closed than taking a drug overdose. Although you may harm yourself, you are also very likely to harm others.

@notevenat20 people who have families can only meet in smaller groups if they have someone to leave children with, and children need to see faces other than their parents sometimes. Sounds to me like you’re advocating basically a voluntary lockdown for families who number more than one or two because entirely separate socialising just isn’t practical for most families. I think our views just differ on what level of harm it’s acceptable to ask the majority of people to suffer in order to reduce risk for the minority. Some sacrifice yes. But taking actions that I know for a fact will be harmful for me and my children in order to possibly, fractionally, reduce risk to others? Sorry but that’s a no from me. And again I’m not asking for a crowded rave, I’m talking about meeting another mum and her two kids in the park for a run around. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on the acceptability and level of risk of that.

As pp said, there were several long threads about this issue a week or 2 ago. They basically ended with only lawyers posting and arguing legal points about sematic use of the word 'gathering'.
Unless you have access to these lawyers to defend you when the police come (highly unlikely) then my advice will be that if you need a loophole then what you are proposing is probably not right. But the lawyers seemed clear that the sleeping DC upstairs were not 'gathering'.

people who have families can only meet in smaller groups if they have someone to leave children with, and children need to see faces other than their parents sometimes.

I just meant that you can see people, just not in groups in your house while everyone else is there.

But the lawyers seemed clear that the sleeping DC upstairs were not 'gathering'

I was not convinced by their arguments however and they ignored some of the simple counterarguments.

@notevenat20

But the lawyers seemed clear that the sleeping DC upstairs were not 'gathering'

I was not convinced by their arguments however and they ignored some of the simple counterarguments.

Same - but I wasn't going to argue with one particular famous MN poster about legal issues!