Confused over children and outdoor exercise. Help?

[TheWindBeneathMyPits]

I was texting a friend sounding off about how challenging DS8 behaviour has become recently so she suggested we get the children out for some exercise tomorrow with a walk.

I’ve agreed and I think DS will really benefit as he’s been so very down lately. But I’m now wondering if it’s actually ok to do what we’re planning. I know you can meet one other person outside for a walk but what happens with the children?

She has 1 DD8 . I also have a DD4. Neither of my children are old enough to be left at home alone so they would both have to come along.

Are two of the children classed as meeting one other person and then friend and I as meeting one other person ? Or is it one household can meet one other person ?

I was really looking forward to it as my DC haven’t seen any other children for months but I’m worried about breaking the rules (morally!).

@Delatron

For those saying it’s wrong because of the ‘rules’.

So it’s ok for two adults and two 4 years olds to meet. But the minute they have their 5th birthday this suddenly becomes a huge Covid risk?

Maybe apply a bit of critical thinking here. It’s a sad state of affairs where everyone blindly accepts rules and laws that make no sense..

Absolutely.

I despair at the stupidity of people following rules so blindly. In some countries it's illegal for women to drive cars..... doesn't make it fucking right though.

@Delatron

Pleased people are doing this and I agree the 5-9 year olds have completely been forgotten in all this. They should be able to meet a friend too and get fresh air and exercise.

Common sense should prevail.

Well said.

Everyone I know is doing this. I would never put the mental health of my child at risk for a stupid rule that makes no sense. You could go out with a friend with as many kids under 5 as you like but you take two 8 year olds and suddenly it’s more risky? Absolute nonsense. We shouldn’t just blindly follow rules that make no logical sense.

@Weekends

I wouldn't as it's against the law. If everyone bends the rule that affects them the most, it would take even longer to get through this. I do agree there may be times when you need to, but really only when absolutely necessary. In most cases it's not reasonable, in my opinion. Hope everyone is getting through half term ok!

Do you have children, and how old are they?

@kowari

I agree with others that the rules have ignored the needs of 5 to 9 year olds. It seems the only option for this age group is to 'run into' each other at the playground.

my kids were very lucky to run into some of their pals at the park today. They had a great time playing with each other and some other children. I struggle to see how a walk could be more dangerous.

Two 8 year olds do not need constant close supervision at all, they can meet in the park for some exercise.

At the same time, you can do some exercise in a different place in the park either alone or with your 4 year old and their friend.

There is nothing against the rules or the guidance with this, it is entirely legal.

My 5 year old meets his 5 year old friend for a walk. I remind them about looking for cars when they cross the road and sometimes they are gone for half an hour or more but I can't go with them and neither can another parent because that would break the rules, each person can only meet another person 1:1 for exercise.

Just go.
Presumably both the families have been at home with little contact with others? The chances of passing something on are small.

Most people near us (S London) seem to be interpreting this rule pretty loosely. It's obvious that children need to play. Two children playing together outdoors is probably the lowest infection risk of any interaction.

Of course I do it. My 11 year old can meet a friend alone and go for a walk but I'm not comfortable with my 7 year old doing the same. So I go with a friend and we take all 4 children and no one has said anything.

I also have same family's older child in my house who has been finding lockdown very difficult to the point their parent was despairing. So child comes and hangs out here and does school work. If I were child's grandparent that would be fine (I think) so why not a healthy younger person who can help another family through this difficult time.

I wonder why the cutoff is 5? It's not like a 6 year old can go for a walk with their friend without an adult, nor can they be left home alone while their parent meets their friend for a walk!

I wonder why the cutoff is 5? It's not like a 6 year old can go for a walk with their friend without an adult, nor can they be left home alone while their parent meets their friend for a walk!

The cutoff is 5 because the people making policy have never had to care for children on their own in this sort of situation (they either outsource to someone else - paid or unpaid - or don't have kids). They really don't get it. At all. For other evidence of this - see Cummings - who thought it reasonable to break all the rules because he couldn't consider caring for his child by himself when ill like millions of other parents have done.

Its so silly because in fact I think it could be reasonably and logically argued there is MORE actual viral transmission risk if the child and adult pairs from the same family are further apart because in the scenario where one child gets injured/ falls over and is crying, the other non-related child is likely to help them rather than maintain social distancing if the parent is too far away (which wouldn't happen if family groups together).

They've obviously been lobbied by someone (quite rightly) pointing out the damage to under 5s of trying to get them to social distance but they just haven't bothered to think it through for older children.

I have 2 boys aged 2 & 9, we now meet my friend (the kids godmother) once a week for a walk, yes it's breaking the rules but it's pretty much the only thing the kids (& me) have to look forward too, I can't very well leave the 9 year old home on his own. I won't be stopping our weekly walk anytime soon my kids have missed out on enough already.

This whole thing is totally ridiculous. I am fairly sure I read recently that they don't think there has been any significant spreading of Covid outdoors, even on the packed(ish) beaches last summer. Just take your kids for a walk with their friends. It will do everyone the world of good (until they start moaning about the cold anyway).

@huggzy

I wonder why the cutoff is 5? It's not like a 6 year old can go for a walk with their friend without an adult, nor can they be left home alone while their parent meets their friend for a walk!

The rule in England of being able to meet outside with one person not in your household first appeared in the November lockdown. Initially, all children were included in the total. But there was some pretty swift lobbying from a parental support group (can't remember who though) which was supported by a few MPs (think Nadine Dorries was one of them) and the rule was changed to exclude under 5s from the total. At that time, the focus was more on the impact on parents than children's socialisation, though. Parents at home with under 5s would have been unable to meet anyone outside if all children were included, unless they were a single parent who could meet their support bubble.

Of course, at that time schools were open so the issue hadn't really materialised for primary aged children. When the schools closed for all but key worker children, it should have been clear that the age rule needed to be changed. But as has been said, the government consists almost entirely of people with no concept of the reality of caring for children day to day so they just don't get it.

I have to say we’ve broken this rule during half term - a walk with one friend each time and our respective dc (2 each, nine under 5).

I think it’s a calculated risk now.

We have done this a few times and will continue to do so.

Weekends, whilst I respect everyone is able to have their own opinion, I can’t see any more risk from two eight year olds meeting than I can from six under fives! I don’t have children of this age, mine are old enough to go out by themselves or under five so we can see people legally yet I really feel for people with kids in the in between ages as it is not fair or logical. It worries me when people follow rules so blindly and don’t stop to consider that they don’t always make sense. Op I hope your son got out and his mental health is better for it, mental health is so important just as important as sodding covid.

On a similar note I imagine we will be back to the rule of 6 outdoors at some point. Which again is massively limiting for children who are older than 5 but not old enough to be out alone.

It effectively barrs two families with two children each meeting together yet 6 adults from 6 different households can? Ridiculous

After reading this it makes you question why there are ANY limits on outdoor contact.

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/19/how-the-beach-super-spreader-myth-can-inform-uks-future-covid-response

From that article:

“We have known for some time that only about 10% of transmission events are linked to outdoor activities,” said Dr Müge Çevik, a lecturer in infectious diseases and medical virology at the University of St Andrews.
“Even those events generally involve either prolonged close contact or a mixture of indoor and outdoor time. We had a lot of existing knowledge even when the pandemic began about respiratory viruses and how they transmit in general, and everything directs us to the conditions in people’s homes and workplaces.”

We have been meeting up with friends throughout. The 10 year olds walk ahead. We do a 10k walk finishing in the park and a hot chocolate for the journey home. It has saved our sanity, particularly the two girls and they look forward to it all week. My teen goes out with her friend 3 or 4 times a week. I often meet another friend to walk our dogs.

Am amazed anyone is prepared to accept an adhere to a rule which has no evidence behind it.

@Frazzled2207

On a similar note I imagine we will be back to the rule of 6 outdoors at some point. Which again is massively limiting for children who are older than 5 but not old enough to be out alone.

It effectively barrs two families with two children each meeting together yet 6 adults from 6 different households can? Ridiculous

Daily Mail actually saying this morning that rule will be two households rather than 6 people which makes so much more sense.

But yes you do wonder about the point of any outdoor restrictions having read that Article

I’ve followed the rules all the way through but this week have started meeting a friend for a walk along with their child and my 8 year old, so four of us. Have seen loads of others out doing the same. Like PPs have said, what’s the difference between two 4 year olds meeting and two 8 year olds? It’s madness.

@Sockbogies

After reading this it makes you question why there are ANY limits on outdoor contact.

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/19/how-the-beach-super-spreader-myth-can-inform-uks-future-covid-response

I started a thread based on that article. There are 60 posts and I think only one is negative (and that's anti-guardian rather than against mixing outdoors). Which is very heartening.

I think probably adults do still need to social distance outside, if you consider how viruses spread, and kids who can easily (i.e definitely not under 5s and then I think it's a bit of a sliding scale).

It's close contact that's the problem outside. As long as you're distancing (which is usually fairly easy on a walk, with a few moments when you need to be closer in pinch points etc) then I do think outdoor risk is very low.

To the point that I'd really like my daughter to go back earlier to outdoor school activities (e.g. PE, forest school) which would benefit her mental health hugely and I think have pretty much zero impact on rates of covid and transmission. But the government is so clueless about kids and doesn't want to spend any money on them, clearly.

It also really doesn't make any sense to say playgrounds open, no restrictions at all but two children aged 5-12 can't go for a walk with their respective parents. It actually makes it more likely that playgrounds will become overcrowded and higher risk because that then becomes the only option for those with children aged 5 up (for those who don't want to break the nonsensical rules).

I still think playgrounds are low risk but one near us was absolutely heaving with kids the other day - it's one with a fence around it and it was really crowded (to the point I ended up taking my younger DD for a run around the nearby playing field instead). If there's going to be transmission in an outdoor environment it's probably in that scenario, but technically all those people were following the rules and two parents taking two 8 year olds for a walk aren't. Madness.