Some of the guidance doesn’t make sense

[Notarulebreaker]

So currently you can arrange to meet only 1 person and walk / sit or exercise with them outside but it is not possible to arrange to do this with 2 people. But when you walk you can stop and talk to another person for a length of time. which is surely the same? If you know them amd you’ve all been careful and are vaccinated surely this is better than doing this with strangers at work or in the street. It’s similar that you can have your cleaner or builder come to your home but you can’t have your mum - just seems strange if you’re being responsible and careful.

I think it's based on the thinking that we're less likely to maintain any social distancing with people we know well like friends and family. You probably won't hug your cleaner or plumber but if your mum comes round, you'll be tempted to hug her, or at least will just end up sitting or standing closer.

I do agree though it doesn't all make sense... My psychotherapist is going to start seeing me in his consulting room again from April 12th (after working on Zoom all of the past year) - but why is it ok for me to be in a room with him talking for an hour in April when I'm not allowed to visit a neighbour for a cuppa until May...

I know, we had a plumber in our house the other week and he stayed for nearly an hour talking about the job we needed a quote for (essential maintenance, boiler has died).

I kept thinking we could have had a family member to visit instead

The objective of the rules is to reduce the spread of the virus. Unless everyone is wearing full bio security kit, it is still possible for it to pass from one person to another. Masks, gloves, 2m distance - they reduce the risk, but they don’t eliminate it completely. If they did, there would be no spread in hospitals or care homes.

Every person you are in contact with is an opportunity for it to spread, if one or other of you is infected.

If you meet two people rather than one, that’s twice as much risk of you passing it on if you have it, and twice the risk that you might catch it.

Once there is less virus in circulation, the risk of meeting multiple people will be lower, because it will be less likely that any of them are infected.

Oblio - I agree you’re more likely to know where your relative has been than your plumber and more likely to tell them if you develop symptoms. I am a rule follower bit feel ok missing out now amd some sensible rule breaking would be ok

@Notarulebreaker

So currently you can arrange to meet only 1 person and walk / sit or exercise with them outside but it is not possible to arrange to do this with 2 people. But when you walk you can stop and talk to another person for a length of time. which is surely the same? If you know them amd you’ve all been careful and are vaccinated surely this is better than doing this with strangers at work or in the street. It’s similar that you can have your cleaner or builder come to your home but you can’t have your mum - just seems strange if you’re being responsible and careful.

None of it makes sense. For example, my kid can sit next to/hug her best friend at school all day but I have to stand two metres away from her friend's mum in the yard. It's just stupid like most of the 'rules' and new laws.

You can meet with someone if they are your support bubble or you are providing care, or if you need someone to repair something etc. Then for the latter you are expected to follow covid secure guidelines

You can meet with one person outside to exercise, but we are all under a stay at home order, ok you may meet someone on the way home, but you don’t have to stop, you can wave and pass on

The rules are not confusing, just accept them and move on, hopefully soon we will be back to rule of 6/2households outdoors, then meeting indoors and SD gone

I Just dont get why you can go to work with other people and be inside in an office environment but it’s seems being with people you know and trust is worse.

It’s not worse, it’s just that it’s more contact. The more people you mix with, the higher the risk of transmission. It’s simple maths.

I agree that if all parties are vaccinated, the risk is much lower. But then we get into the whole 2 tier society thing that so many people dislike.

I’m not saying the rules are right, by the way. Just saying this is what I understand the logic to be.

It’s as if the country as a whole has a certain “mixing budget”.

Hmm.

Are you only just noticing this, op?

Most of the guidance hasn't made sense for the last year!

you've seen what happens to case rates and deaths when the rules were relaxed and how they drop when increased. clearly they work.

I'm just bored of it all.

Been grateful for the builder, though. Meant we were able to have the front door to replace the warped, draughty, insecure one (ordered in November) fitted. Also got the concrete garage roof that had progressed from cracks to a massive hole, when it snowed, replaced - though they didn't need to enter the house.

@Notarulebreaker

But surely if all 3 people are vaccinated and in fact if one of them has had both doses of the vaccine then the chance of spreading must be minimal if they’re outside. I Just dont get why you can go to work with other people and be inside in an office environment but it’s seems being with people you know and trust is worse. I do think you get more tactile with those you know I think you’re more likely to try snd protect them by being cautious

I agree that some of the rules are stupid, but you can’t have a rule that if you’re vaccinated you can meet up. Many of us aren’t yet, through no fault of our own and we’re less likely to get seriously ill, so how would it be OK for us to be expected to stay at home while those who have been vaccinated can go out?

The guidelines are about reducing contact, not about providing a hierarchical list of activities in order of the most likely to cause most infections and a line drawn at a level of permitted activities.

If people don’t understand that children are going to school to learn and socialise and the country has chosen to do this to protect children, even though many less infection-inducing activities are not being permitted, it is very sad.

@Notarulebreaker

But surely if all 3 people are vaccinated and in fact if one of them has had both doses of the vaccine then the chance of spreading must be minimal if they’re outside. I Just dont get why you can go to work with other people and be inside in an office environment but it’s seems being with people you know and trust is worse. I do think you get more tactile with those you know I think you’re more likely to try snd protect them by being cautious

The main body of people who are vaccinated are elderly, or have a health condition. They were most at risk in the last year.

In order to protect these people, children and younger people (who are very unlikely to be seriously ill) have had their lives ripped apart over the last year. Everyone had to be locked down to protect the elderly and vulnerable.

Are you really proposing that the younger people and children should keep the restrictions, because the original cohort of vulnerable feel safe now and want to meet up.

How very selfish

Everyone had to be locked down to protect the NHS not the elderly and vulnerable - they too have had their lives ripped apart.

I think it was both.

Protect the NHS
Don’t kill Granny

TBH I’m not sure this government cares about the elderly or vulnerable 🤔

The government has prioritised the vulnerable and elderly - the young have been locked up to protect them .

TBH I’m not sure this government cares about the elderly or vulnerable 🤔

Or the NHS

@MadMadMadamMim

Hmm.

Are you only just noticing this, op?

Most of the guidance hasn't made sense for the last year!

Totally agree

but why is it ok for me to be in a room with him talking for an hour in April when I'm not allowed to visit a neighbour for a cuppa until May..

Because it's step by step easing, prioritising schools then workplaces.

I suppose they could decide that everyone could meet anyone anywhere as step 1 of easing.

But that would be a bit risky?

It’s because by pure logic if all mixing were banned no one would be able to work outside the home, no one would be able to get face to face medical help, no one would be able to have essential building work done, no children would be able to get a face to face education and socialisation.

Industry would shut down, the countries infrastructure and medical facilities would cease, the economy would collapse.

Those things have to happen so choices have to be made to reduce mixing around that.

Have you all just woken up from a year long sleep?

How is thiis a thread in March 2021?

Have you really just noticed, is this a serious question?

Don't kill Granny unless she lives in a care home .And then it's ok if other residents with CV are discharged from hospital .

And if Granny survives we wont mind if she's unable to see or touch friends/close relatives for the last 12 months of her life .Because in a capitalist society with Tories in power the reduction in care home profits will mean that it won't be made law that homes spend money to make some visiting possible .

The revenue stream from chains of care homes remains unaffected and independent small care home owners will be unable to arrange visiting because of government mandate.