Couples who don't live together but can't bubble as don't live in single households

[avenueq]

...are now condemned to another three months of not seeing each other. Theoretically. Really?
I'm thinking of eg students in their twenties. Or young workers in London.
How many do you think will stick to
this?

that's what I thought, but the guardian's summaries of what was/wasn't allowed seemed to suggest the opposite (www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/26/what-tier-am-i-in-covid-rules-coronavirus-lockdown-restrictions-england-local-map).

Tbh, i will break that rule...3 months on my own in lockdown 1 was bloody miserable and I'm not doing it again. Don't' see what difference it makes if i can go into the house during the day, or stay over, and apart from that I basically don't do anything.

I still think it means overnight stays where you're both away from home, one can still travel to the other's house, but in T3 you can't both stay in a hotel for example???

[[http://Sex ban for couples living apart in Tier 2 areas WILL continue
mol.im/a/9002657]]

It's an absolute joke, it really is

Matt Hancock avoided the question yesterday

I'm seeing my boyfriend.

Because he didn't dare to say no

It is an issue yes. If I'd been in this situation in my 20s I would have broken the rules. I also have friends in their 50s who are in the same boat.

And I will let my daughter break the rules in my house. It goes too far.

Oh gosh, just do it! Why would you not??

The 'professionals' you speak of have made sure tier 1 area covers the majority of their second homes so none of these 'rules' apply to them. Convenient eh?
Whose second homes are in a tier 1 area?

DH currently works away during the week on a military base with hundreds of people and comes home on a weekend. How is that different to couples who don’t live together seeing each other?

I think the fact that Scotland for instance have made couples living apart an exemption from the rules hasn't helped our resolve! We have carried on seeing each other, luckily we were T1 until lockdown, but continued throughout this one. We are now legally allowed to bubble but would have carried on anyway, we are being careful everywhere else and with all other interactions. I wouldn't judge anyone for breaking this rule, even in the first lockdown when we stuck to the rules I still understood why others broke this rule

There needs to be a line drawn somewhere with restrictions, and wherever it is people point just over the line to declare it's unfair because of their own unique circumstances. A tiny rule-break where both partners have one adult child at home, and everyone is working from home - clearly this isn't creating huge additional risk.

The problem is when it turns out there are 4 adults in each house, all going out to work and other mixing, then you mingle them with another house of 2 adults and 2 kids, so what started as one person getting infected becomes 8 infected plus 2 year groups isolating along with their teachers.

Then there's the young adult / student issue. DN is in a house share of 8. Do you suggest they all should be allowed a boyfriend/ girlfriend to stay, and each of those flatmates can also go to the boyfriend/ girlfriend flat with another 7 flatmates plus boyfriend/ girlfriend? Then when they break up, it stands to reason they can start dating someone else! What if some of those people are dating 2 people, surely that's ok too?

Meanwhile, how do the police enforce fines for excessive numbers of people in the house when everyone can claim in court it was people they were dating?

@wishfuldreamer Where in the Guardian's article does it suggest that you can't stay overnight at each other's houses if you're in a support bubble? "Overnight stays" surely means having a mini break in a hotel or whatever, nothing to do with support bubbles, which are still considered as one household, even in Tier 3 ( No mixing of households indoors, or most outdoor places, apart from support bubbles ).

To be honest, if that is the correct interpretation of the rules, I'm breaking it and I don't care. Anyone can come at me with the whole "you think you're special" etc., whatever. I have lived an extremely low-contact life since March and followed all the rules but not seeing my partner is a step too far. I spent the first month of the first lockdown basically in solitary confinement as I work from home anyway (then moved in with my partner until support bubbles were introduced in June). There's a reason they use solitary confinement as a punishment in prisons. I'm not ever doing that again, whatever rules they bring in, not when so many people are out partying and mixing households freely without a care in the world (and yes, I know there are also plenty of people following the rules and/or being sensible).

It annoys me so much that they didn't bring in the idea of support bubbles right from the start. Apparently they did in New Zealand, and look what a disaster that country is now, absolutely riddled with the virus And yes, I know there are/were lots of other factors at play there, different population sizes, geography etc. but I'm pretty sure there wasn't a massive spike in cases in the UK either when support bubbles were introduced (happy to be corrected if wrong).

@Tigerente - it might just be a bad explanation on their part. In the equivalent row for tiers 1 and 2 on overnight stays it says you can with your support bubble, and then tier 3 it just said 'no overnight stays'.

@MRex - and yes, you are right...and I was willing to make the sacrifice for three months. but i don't think i'd be able to do it for a year...that would be miserable. my partner moved out of his shared house, and I live on my own, but not everyone can realistically afford to do that. so yes, those big shared houses are a problem (for lots of reasons, not just covid imo...) and the fact that these rules are difficult to observe if you don't live in a static family bubble are probably part of the reason why the 20-29 age group have the highest rates of infection. I miss hugging my friends, but i can still socialise with them almost the same way by going for a walk, or having a coffee outdoors or whatever. but a romantic partner is different, and asking people to make this sacrifice for an indefinite period of time is unrealistic.

It's always posters who live with their partners who think it's reasonable to expect partners not to be able to see each other with no end in sight, and then they come out with just move in together then as if it's that easy.
There are reasons people might not be able to live together and just because people live apart doesn't mean they are less committed because they are unable to move in together for whatever reason.

This affects my 20 something co worker, his GF lived with him in kick down 1 but she moved back in with her parents over the summer to save money. He got a lodger to be able to afford his mortgage. He now can only see his GF outside. He and his flatmate both WFH and have taken the restrictions very seriously. They are not wild partying 20 something's and I feel really sorry for them and to be honest, wouldn't blame them for meeting up indoors. They can't even have a nice meal together in tier 2 or the 3 we are in.

Also re moving in together - my dd and her boyfriend are 19. Too young to make such a commitment- but should they really be expected to only see each other outside for months on end?

People who are against couples seeing each other when they don't live together, are always people who aren't in that situation

I lasted 5 weeks during first lockdown, no way would I do that again.

Yes in Tier 3 you can still see support bubbles and stay overnight, as you are classed as one household. What difference would it make if I could spend all day in my DP's house right next to him, but then couldn't possibly stay overnight

@HarrietOh - definitely ! Same with people saying they don't see the difficulty with lockdown are often those with spacious accommodation, their own outside space etc.

We stuck to it the first time, I didn't see him at all for about 8 weeks then only walks outside until bubbles were permitted. I didn't even bother looking this time. I'm not doing that to myself, or him.

If I was in the position I wouldn't be sticking to the rules

I've ignored it.
We both see hardly anyone.
And I agree, it's the ones that have a family unit to fall back on that seem most vocal about how incredibly selfish it is.
I don't care any more, I felt bad until I noticed how socially distant the kids at the high school in the next road are.
I can't see the guy that I love, but teen girls can link arms to piss about outside the school?
Fuck. That.
Oh. And living together isn't an option before someone drags that back up.

@Skipsurvey

Matt Hancock avoided the question yesterday

He didn’t avoid it, what a weird thing to say. He answered it. The answer was “no,” they can’t meet up.

I'm letting DD see her BF. I just don't feel it's reasonable to expect them to stop their relationship for weeks, and probably months. Apart from that we're following all the rules, but that one is not a reasonable thing to ask. Relationships matter. If it's ok for under 18s to see both parents, it's ok for those who don't live with a long term partner to see them. All of DD's friends are being allowed to see partners too, and I don't personally know if any living-apart couples who are not doing so.