Kids mixing after Thursday

[Singlebutmarried]

So, if the kids are in school together, in the same class and they live next door to each other. Would you let them play together outside of school?

@Singlebutmarried

I’m not advocating a mass bundle of kids.

These two spend the school day together, so why not play outside together after school?

You can meet one person from another household for exercise.

So this would be fine surely?

If you are talking about England, this is 100% allowed within the rules BUT they should be social distancing whilst they play.

Think of it like unprotected sex - the more often you do it, the greater your chance of getting pregnant or acquiring the std your partner is carrying...

Yes I absolutely would - common sense IMO.

Kids mixing with school friends outside of school will make no difference to the transmission rates of the virus. They already spend 35 hours a week together.

They are unlikely to spend 35 hours a week together in the same close contact as 2 children playing together.

And of course 2 children playing together makes a difference!! Any interaction can potentially spread the virus. Of course on an individual level 2 children playing together might have only a very small impact on the transmission risk. But by the time 10 million parents have decided that this is perfectly fine, the additional risk actually gets quite large ...

Yes, absolutely. My kids will be playing with their friends outside.
I’m using my brain this time around.

@Mintychoc1

Yes, absolutely. My kids will be playing with their friends outside. I’m using my brain this time around.

Same

Do what is best for your children but try to stay within the guidance. It all depends on vulnerability of households, age of children and length of lockdown. For 4 weeks I'd try to avoid, if lockdown extends then I'd review.

@DBML I think raves are against the rules 😉

It’s against the rules. The more contact the more risk. Children in the same class don’t automatically pass it on to each other, so by meeting outside your are increasing the risk.

How many people seriously think that an initial 4 weeks of not playing with their friends outside, when they've been at school, is going to be that damaging to their kids?

The actual extra risk of transmission surely depends on the ages of the children.

Two five year olds in the same class at school, who are in a classroom together with no PPE or social distancing, have 30 hours a week of close contact in which to spread the virus, and then inevitably take it home to their parents.

Those same two five year olds, with parents, meeting outside at a playground do not in any way increase risk, those two individuals and their families are already swapping germs in circumstances that favour transmission far more than being outside do. The risk is actually lower when meeting out of school!

For older children, who are more socially distanced at school, and more likely to be standing close to each other chatting if they meet socially, rather than running around, the extra risks of transmission from meeting outside of school are greater.

But we have a blanket rule that doesn’t take account of actual risk in individual circumstances, so those in the first scenario are expected to restrict themselves for no benefit.

I guess it’s probably the only practical way to write the rules, but it sucks if you’re in a situation where you’re restricted for no benefit. And it also leads to less compliance across the board when people can’t see the point of the rules. I can understand why people want to bend rules when they don’t make sense.

@Singlebutmarried

I’m not advocating a mass bundle of kids.

These two spend the school day together, so why not play outside together after school?

You can meet one person from another household for exercise.

So this would be fine surely?

If you let your child and the child next door off on their own to exercise in a public place, and they distance the whole way, that's absolutely fine.

You cannot meet another person from another household in a private space (so no playing in the back garden) and it is ONE person meets another, not one household meets one other person.

So as long as you're willing to let your small child wander off to a pubic place to play on their own with this other child, by all means carry on.

If the children are old enough to play unsupervised this is fine. If they need an adult to supervise I think you could supervise one day and other mum the next and that would be within the rules too.

In Wales they made the rules explicit.

Only go out for:
*food
*work
*education
*medical
*to exercise alone or with members of your household

I hope England makes the rules this explicit so people can’t flaunt them.

My teenagers will meet a friend for a kick around in the park. No chance I will stop them. Even if I discover later that four other pairs of friends from school just happened to be in the park too and they all played together.

My comment applies if the children are playing outside in park or street.

So as long as you're willing to let your small child wander off to a pubic place to play on their own with this other child, by all means carry on.

Plenty people live on streets where dc can safely play outside of their gardens still in view of respective homes

Yes I have done op.

@beelola 😂 have you actually seen inside a primary school at the moment? Do you honestly think there is the space for adequate social distancing? Do you honestly think children don't huddle together on the playground and whilst walking between areas? Do you think they don't chat closely together? That is not social distancing!

Don't people understand that when they break the rules in small ways that they think are ok for them, it encourages other people to break the rules and so on?

Although the government have messed up if people had all concentrated on the rules and maintained social distancing, washed hands, worn masks when they should have we would have had fewer cases. Yes, people would still have got it in certain situations but every new case leads to more cases and each of those leads to more cases.

So tired of selfish people just doing their own thing and putting others at risk.

My DC dont attend school yet, my close friends DD doesn't either, so I will still be holding playdates.

We are In for a miserable winter, like hell will I go along with some of the ridiculous rules.

But this isn't a loophole surely, meeting one on one is allowed in the same way as other things (exercise outside, visitkng the supermarket) are. If its a loophole I won't do it but that's not how I read it, it formed part of the overt rules.

'My DC dont attend school yet, my close friends DD doesn't either, so I will still be holding playdates.'

So you'll just carry on, mix households and have 'playdates'. How lovely

Don't people understand that when they break the rules in small ways that they think are ok for them, it encourages other people to break the rules and so on?

Meeting others outside isn't breaking the rules. At the moment.

@Doyoumind

Don't people understand that when they break the rules in small ways that they think are ok for them, it encourages other people to break the rules and so on?

Although the government have messed up if people had all concentrated on the rules and maintained social distancing, washed hands, worn masks when they should have we would have had fewer cases. Yes, people would still have got it in certain situations but every new case leads to more cases and each of those leads to more cases.

So tired of selfish people just doing their own thing and putting others at risk.

Why should a majority be sacrificed for a minority? I’ll do what I like thank you. I’ll use my brain to judge risk, and I’ll take account of human rights. I’m not a sheep, and this is not a cult.