Household gatherings

[daffodil10]

As we trail towards the next deadline, truthfully are people sticking absolutely to the no household mixing etc? Or are people sneaking round to each other's for meals etc

I am sticking to it but only because my husband keeps me on the straight and narrow which is obviously the right thing to do. Just wondered?

I've asked these two questions on a lot of threads and no-one ever answers but I will keep asking on the offchance that someone will:

• Maintaining a 2m distance from your partner and kids would also bring down infection rates significantly. If this was made part of the rules - would you do it?

• How long would you obey this rule? If the government said you couldn't see your friends and close family for 2 years, 5, 10, would you continue to do it and say the rest of us are selfish?

Please just consider that those breaking rules are not selfish but consider the rules to be outrageous and unacceptable at this point.

Mostly. I haven't met up with friends apart from occasionally meeting one friend at a time outdoors for a walk.

Me and DP have been visiting his DM, who lives alone. Technically not allowed as me and DP don't live together, but we both live alone and WFH so hardly any riskier, and it wouldn't be nice for him to have to choose which of us he leaves completely alone for months!

Sticking to it 100%.

Mostly because i work for an organisation who saw what was coming and sent anyone who could, to WFH long before the first UK lockdown.

Since I am so fortunate that I can continue to earn my living without any risk, I would be embarrassed to pick up covid from leisure activities.

I have been for walks with one other person (at a time) and fine the usual round of zoom etc.

Almost everyone I know is in a similar position. I don't know anyone who is breaking the rules but then I'm not checking up on anyone, either. I'm quite surprised by the results on this thread.

It makes absolute sense to me however that anyone exposed to the virus through their work might easily feel differently about not being in touch with friends and family while being at risk anyway.

@Tootsey11

To those who have/are mixing. How many of you has been affected by covid directly or had someone die in their family? Im guessing not many.

To those who are making comments like this, how many of you have suicidal loved-ones? I’m guessing not many

I am sticking to the rules - I’m fortunate that my circumstances allow me a support bubble otherwise I would have been in a very bad way. I have also lost two family members to covid, have shielding vulnerable loved-ones and parents working in the NHS. I also have several friends suffering deeply with depression and anxiety due to isolation in their circumstances, but who are too far away for me to help them in person.

Some people seem entrenched in “rule breakers are selfish fuckers” and “rule sticklers are unfeeling bastards” but it’s possible to have much more nuance in feeling and opinion

Final Here I disagree about those with potential exposure at work, logically they should be far more careful about social exposure than someone who wfh.

At this stage I see social isolation as a major health risk for some people too.

Very marginal pushing of the rules. I'm not mixing indoors with anyone. Two days ago I had two friends round for a drink in the garden. Fairly distanced. I know we are only supposed to see one person and it is still supposed to be in a public space. But as I understand it the chance of infection outdoors is very very low. Also they have both been vaccinated. I haven't.

Definable sticking to it, I have seen my kids once since last March, I seen them outdoors in August last year when the restrictions were lifted slightly. Not going to start breaking the rules now there appears to be an end in sight.

@OldRailer

those with potential exposure at work, logically they should be far more careful about social exposure than someone who wfh.

Sorry , I didn't mean my comment in terms of what logically people should do. I appreciate that in terms of infection control, WFH makes you less of a risk when mixing socially.

A friend is a primary schoolteacher, whose work involves her having small children crawl all over her all day long. She is currently not allowed to mix indoors with her first, very much loved and only recently arrive grandchild.

Like so many things, It isn't fair.

Met one local friend out of doors on Saturday and another on Mondy. They are both living alone. Would love to see DDs and grandsons but they've gone back to school this week so that is too risky even though I've had one vaccination. Meanwhile neighbours have different people over every Sunday!

@toocold54

I’m sticking to it but luckily I’m a single parent so I get to bubble up with my parents.

It is frustrating when other people are not sticking to it as they are usually the type that can afford to pay the fine but those who struggle financially aren’t able to.

Good for you, just like you say, you're lucky.

I live in a 4 bed house share with people that I met for the first time when we moved in in September. I don't dislike them but equally it would be no great loss to my life if I never saw them again. We exchange polite small talk if we happen to pass in the kitchen but we're in no way friends or actually provide any support to each other. Yet somehow you living with your family who you presumably like qualified for a support bubble within the rules and I don't.

So yes I'm breaking the rules and seeing my best friend (who lives with her boyfriend) and my boyfriend (who lives in another 4 bed house share but he's known these people for years). And it's really frustrating when other people in nice situations can't see how much some of us have been shafted and forced to break the rules that accommodate them so well.

Depends what you mean by sticking to the rules. There are loopholes galore.

I am visiting my mum today (a) she isn't in a bubble with anyone and neither are we and she lives alone, and (b) as she's over 80 I think it's reasonable to use the care exemption anyway.

I don't recognise the stories on here about everyone breaking lockdown though. Where I live people are still petrified of coming within 2m outside (even when I am walking) and my teen ds has seen nobody outside college.

Nope. Only person that's been in my house was my neighbour who watched by children whilst I was in labour. Stuck to the rules hardcore as two of us in our household of 7 are clinically vulnerable

Hope all of you are doing well and looking forward to a better future after this awful pandemic!

We've been sticking to the rules mainly because dh is CEV and I don't want him to get sick and die, almost everyone I know are still sticking to the rules . The only people I know who aren't had a huge family get together at Christmas, everyone of them got covid two ended up in intensive care and one died, he was 42 with no underlying problems. Yes it's a shit show but I'll be doing it as long as necessary.

Banning people from seeing family they don't live with, partners / boyfriends / girlfriends they don't live with, or friends, is inhumane when it goes on as long as it has done.

I was very very pro-lockdown and a stickler for the rules when they first came in. I was all for a sharp lockdown lasting a few weeks.

But this has now dragged on for a year.

Humans are social animals and we need that contact. We need to see our families. We need to date and see partners if we want to have families of our own (as I'm sure I don't need to point out, women can't put this off forever). We need to see friends.

Next weekend I'm going to go and visit my boyfriend in his flat (devoid of other people). And to be honest, I no longer care that it's against the rules. We have been talking for 9 months and we have seen each other once, for a walk. I was fully prepared to put my life on hold for a while, but not for a whole year. I want to settle down and have a family. I can't do that sitting in my room on my own.

The social ramifications of this pandemic will be cataclysmic.

Lockheart can't you bubble with him anyway? Perhaps not, if you have one with your family- but in your case, I think this is entirely justified, you can't expect single people to remain single whilst everyone with a family just sits in annoying each other.

Sometimes people have been having stricter lockdowns though than the rules actually said, so many people on here won't be breaking lockdown anyway by having a bubble, meeting someone outside for a coffee (now) and so on.

I don't believe the state should regulate our private lives anyway, so much for not having a constitution. It's not our brilliant lockdowns that have saved us, it's the vaccination programme, I would not agree with any further lockdown even if rates started to rise (especially as given better treatment, survival rates are much better than in the first lockdown).

Many countries in Europe and across the world have every single rule put in place including curfews but one thing they didn't do is ban household mixing and are still doing so much better than us in terms of managing the virus spread and deaths. This is going to go on forever. Coronavirus isn't going anywhere and is going to be part of our lives.

When 1/3 of our most vulnerable population is vaccinated already and you still want to lock yourself up indoors I respect that but for the rest of the those that don't want to do that aren't thick nor selfish. Banning household mixing is like hitting below the belt where it hurts the most. I wouldn't have survived these lockdowns if I didn't bend the rules. They can fine me all they want but no one is going to stop me from seeing my family.

*Sticking to it 100% still.

Not out of any sense of duty really, more that nobody I know is willing to or considering breaking the rules, so it just isn’t happening. Nobody is trying to suggest or organise meet ups. Elderly parents are still waiting for second jabs and the rules to be relaxed. So everything is still very much the same as a proper lockdown here for us.*

Same here. I along with all my family have stuck to the rules/law since the start. We're not going to ruin all our sustained efforts now.
Bit confused by 'very much the same as a proper lockdown' though, it IS a proper lockdown.

@SignsofSpring no - he has one flatmate (he owns two flats, one we're meeting at because it is currently empty and one he lives in with his flatmate) and I also have flatmates. Therefore neither of us are allowed a support bubble.

He has had his first vaccination, by the time we meet it will have been three weeks.

The current bubble rules make no provision for the millions of people in this country who live in shared accommodation with people they aren't related to or involved with. I am lucky in that I get on reasonably well with my housemates. Many others are in even worse situations trapped with people they don't like!

My teen dds and I visited my (vaccinated, local) parents last week, on dd1's birthday. Both dds had been flow tested twice that week and proven negative. I thought it would be safer to see the dps before the girls went back to school. I am quite happy with the risk assessment I took and feel very strongly that we did the right thing. dd1 also had three friends round that evening, all of whom had been flow tested that day.

The improvement these small things have done for our mental health has been considerable. We've been incredibly careful for the whole of the last year and haven't broken the rules once. We have reverted back to lockdown mode since (apart from the fact the girls are at school) and will I'm sure stay this way until the rules change.

I see my partner and have throughout the whole pandemic- not eligible for a support bubble. That's it.

At the beginning I understood caution, and I think more people followed the rules. Covid was (and still is) scary. BUT at some point the fear factor wears off and coronavirus deaths join all the other causes of deaths we live with daily. I think we're getting to that point now in most people's minds, especially with so many vaccinated.

How far does the social responsibility to heavily curb your own liberty to prevent death go? What is 'acceptable,' seeing as coronavirus is now widely accepted as endemic? Is it morally wrong to accept a certain amount coronavirus deaths as expected, especially after a draining and unsustainable period of lockdown? If we prevent coronavirus deaths, do we have a responsibility to prevent other deaths?

My honest opinion at this point is that the most realistic parameter for ANY disease and heavy prevention methods is whether it overwhelms the NHS or not. Cause of death is equal- A coronavirus death is just as heartbreaking as a suicide, heart attack or death from flu. Obviously there are other factors such as age and the harshness of the death which impact the individual friends and family, but in terms of a societal level, I think our social responsibility- at this point- extends to stopping coronavirus overwhelming the NHS and getting people vaccinated. After that, in my mind, coronavirus deaths will join the list of causes of death that occur everyday as a fact of life. Especially in terms of seeing my vaccinated and elderly relatives who probably won't live much longer than a year or two due to other illnesses and terminal conditions.

All death is very bloody hard, but I definitely think the 'new' factor with coronavirus as a newer risk made it a lot more highlighted in people's minds, and other causes of death which are just as likely to happen never cross into people's minds. For example, I developed intense health anxiety around coronavirus yet went months without checking for lumps in terms of breast cancer, which is statistically much more likely to harm me than coronavirus.

We are illogical and emotional creatures- That's why unlocking and risk assessments have to be made on a very blunt basis of the repercussions of lockdown V another cause of death which is semi-preventable for a time period but also endemic and now another cause of death added to the list.

In the modern world, I think a lot of us forget about death until we are actually faced with it, but it's also the only thing in life that's certain. It's a weird concept and a hard discussion to have, and I'm aware my views may sound very cold and distant, but accepting death as part of life is what I've grown to do, particularly after this year.

@PlantPlant123.

What an eloquent post ... I agree with every word.

@Bluesheep8

*Sticking to it 100% still.

Not out of any sense of duty really, more that nobody I know is willing to or considering breaking the rules, so it just isn’t happening. Nobody is trying to suggest or organise meet ups. Elderly parents are still waiting for second jabs and the rules to be relaxed. So everything is still very much the same as a proper lockdown here for us.*

Same here. I along with all my family have stuck to the rules/law since the start. We're not going to ruin all our sustained efforts now.
Bit confused by 'very much the same as a proper lockdown' though, it IS a proper lockdown.

I mean in comparison to people who’ve decided they’re not in a lockdown anymore, yes the lockdown we’re in is a ‘proper lockdown’ but obviously for people who aren’t observing the rules it won’t feel like it, whereas for us it does still feel like one because we are abiding by the guidance :)

@PlantPlant123

I see my partner and have throughout the whole pandemic- not eligible for a support bubble. That's it.

At the beginning I understood caution, and I think more people followed the rules. Covid was (and still is) scary. BUT at some point the fear factor wears off and coronavirus deaths join all the other causes of deaths we live with daily. I think we're getting to that point now in most people's minds, especially with so many vaccinated.

How far does the social responsibility to heavily curb your own liberty to prevent death go? What is 'acceptable,' seeing as coronavirus is now widely accepted as endemic? Is it morally wrong to accept a certain amount coronavirus deaths as expected, especially after a draining and unsustainable period of lockdown? If we prevent coronavirus deaths, do we have a responsibility to prevent other deaths?

My honest opinion at this point is that the most realistic parameter for ANY disease and heavy prevention methods is whether it overwhelms the NHS or not. Cause of death is equal- A coronavirus death is just as heartbreaking as a suicide, heart attack or death from flu. Obviously there are other factors such as age and the harshness of the death which impact the individual friends and family, but in terms of a societal level, I think our social responsibility- at this point- extends to stopping coronavirus overwhelming the NHS and getting people vaccinated. After that, in my mind, coronavirus deaths will join the list of causes of death that occur everyday as a fact of life. Especially in terms of seeing my vaccinated and elderly relatives who probably won't live much longer than a year or two due to other illnesses and terminal conditions.

All death is very bloody hard, but I definitely think the 'new' factor with coronavirus as a newer risk made it a lot more highlighted in people's minds, and other causes of death which are just as likely to happen never cross into people's minds. For example, I developed intense health anxiety around coronavirus yet went months without checking for lumps in terms of breast cancer, which is statistically much more likely to harm me than coronavirus.

We are illogical and emotional creatures- That's why unlocking and risk assessments have to be made on a very blunt basis of the repercussions of lockdown V another cause of death which is semi-preventable for a time period but also endemic and now another cause of death added to the list.

In the modern world, I think a lot of us forget about death until we are actually faced with it, but it's also the only thing in life that's certain. It's a weird concept and a hard discussion to have, and I'm aware my views may sound very cold and distant, but accepting death as part of life is what I've grown to do, particularly after this year.

Beautifully put!

@RoseLimeade

Ah yes I understand now. I'm in complete agreement with what you've said