Reduction in social gatherings.

[adc82140]

(mods please move/merge as necessary- can't think of an existing thread to put this in)

This has appeared on Sky News:

Coronavirus: Household gathering limit set to be cut to battle COVID-19 spike

A government source says to prepare for a "toughening up" approach, as there is a sharp uptick in case numbers.

news.sky.com

The maximum number of people who can legally gather in a house in England will be cut to try to stop another coronavirus spike, Sky News understands.

A government source said the figure will be reduced from 30 but the new number is still being ironed out as part of a "toughening up" approach.

This may be the first sensible thing I've seen the government suggest for a while. 30 people in a house is too many. I know most Conservative MPs have rather large houses, but that many in a 2 up 2 down causes problems.

Anyone who reads my regular posts here knows I am anti mask, anti restrictive measures, but this virus needs to be brought under control by restricting superspreading events. 30 at a house party is such an event. Drop it to 10 and restrict it to two households and you're unlikely to affect most socialising. I believe that seeing friends and family is vital for our mental wellbeing, but hosting a party at home isn't.

 

[Yew]

(mods please move/merge as necessary- can't think of an existing thread to put this in)

This has appeared on Sky News:

Coronavirus: Household gathering limit set to be cut to battle COVID-19 spike

A government source says to prepare for a "toughening up" approach, as there is a sharp uptick in case numbers.

news.sky.com

This may be the first sensible thing I've seen the government suggest for a while. 30 people in a house is too many. I know most Conservative MPs have rather large houses, but that many in a 2 up 2 down causes problems.

Anyone who reads my regular posts here knows I am anti mask, anti restrictive measures, but this virus needs to be brought under control by restricting superspreading events. 30 at a house party is such an event. Drop it to 10 and restrict it to two households and you're unlikely to affect most socialising. I believe that seeing friends and family is vital for our mental wellbeing, but hosting a party at home isn't.

Two households is too tight, maybe fine for families.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Two households is too tight, maybe fine for families.

10 from 3 households would probably work reasonably.

 

[Ian Cunningham]

10 from 3 households would probably work reasonably.

Pretty much what ScotGov has been advising for some time now regarding indoor gatherings (applies to hospitality as well as households)

From the ScotGov website at https://www.gov.scot/publications/c...ng-friends-and-family/#Meeting others indoors

"Our advice is that - as a guide - 8 people in total (from a maximum of 3 households) may represent a safe maximum number of people in most cases."

 

[hexagon789]

Already been done in Greater Glasgow, West Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire to the point it's not permitted currently

 

[Scrotnig]

I'd be happy with 10 from 3. Or even 8 from 3.

I did wonder what the 30 figure was all about. For gatherings in houses you might as well not have a limit as have 30. Appreciate this limit did apply to other gatherings as well though.

 

[ChrisC]

I'd be happy with 10 from 3. Or even 8 from 3.

Anything like that would be ok for most people and far more sensible in the current situation.
We just must not go back to the stage where no one from other households can meet indoors especially with the colder winter weather coming. I definitely could not cope with another 4 months of looking after my elderly mother, who has dementia, without anyone else from the family being able to come to visit and help, or for my mum go to stay with them to give me a few days respite. The whole thing did not take into consideration the mental state of those of us left in that situation.

 

[adc82140]

Rumours are that the PM is considering 6:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-54068601

Responding to reports that the government is looking at restricting the number of people who can gather to a maximum of six, he said that it had kept regulations under review throughout the pandemic and wouldn't hesitate to act if further steps were needed.

From a purely selfish point of view, this wouldn't affect me. We are a 3 person household, the boy could still see his grandparents, he could still have playdates.

Any thoughts on any problems this could cause?

As I said above, this is a rare show of common sense from the government. It won't further damage the economy, it won't have implicatations for mental wellbeing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Any thoughts on any problems this could cause?

It means a family of 5 can't visit one set of grandparents together. Though they could do 6 or any number from 2 households.

 

[adc82140]

It means a family of 5 can't visit one set of grandparents together. Though they could do 6 or any number from 2 households.

Good point, but I doubt anyone will count them in. This I think is more to stop obvious big gatherings.

Another idea I've seen mooted (though I have no idea how they'd enforce it) is restricting people to one pub a day, after the Aberdeen outbreak caused by pub crawls.

 

[Scrotnig]

Anything like that would be ok for most people and far more sensible in the current situation.
We just must not go back to the stage where no one from other households can meet indoors especially with the colder winter weather coming. I definitely could not cope with another 4 months of looking after my elderly mother, who has dementia, without anyone else from the family being able to come to visit and help, or for my mum go to stay with them to give me a few days respite. The whole thing did not take into consideration the mental state of those of us left in that situation.

I agree, but under the rules in place then, all of that would count as 'reasonable excuse', specifically as it's related to the provision of care for a vulnerable person. So you would have been absolutely ok doing it from a legal perspective and I'd have had no hesitation in doing so.

 

[ChrisC]

I agree, but under the rules in place then, all of that would count as 'reasonable excuse', specifically as it's related to the provision of care for a vulnerable person. So you would have been absolutely ok doing it from a legal perspective and I'd have had no hesitation in doing so.

Knowing what I know now, that is exactly what I would now do.
Having said that, even now we are still keeping it to just our household and my sisters household mixing. Neither of us are going into other peoples houses and definitely not to parties with up to 30 people.
We have had quite a few family gathering social distancing in the garden and my mum is now going for a week each month to stay at my sisters house.

Things were not quite so clear cut way back in March and April, especially when it would have meant a journey of over 50 miles for my sister to visit or my mum to go there. In those days when nearly 1,000 people a day were dying, and the governments scare tactics were trying to convince us that we should go near no one and touch nothing, having anyone else in the house from outside always seemed too big a risk. Like everything else the rules regarding caring for the vulnerable were very confusing. My mum was receiving care and was in no danger, it was just that I had to do it without help.

Sorry going a bit off the subject of the thread now. I will say no more.

 

[TheSel]

Good point, but I doubt anyone will count them in. This I think is more to stop obvious big gatherings.

Another idea I've seen mooted (though I have no idea how they'd enforce it) is restricting people to one pub a day, after the Aberdeen outbreak caused by pub crawls.

If the Government really wanted to do this, it would be quite easy. A simple 'Rationing Book' (for want of a better word) - your name and the date pre-printed on each voucher - issued to every over 18 year old. Space to add a Contact Number. Hand it in at the first (and only) pub you visit. No voucher - no entry. Lost it? "Tough - come back tomorrow".

Also avoids the security issues of having an open book in which to write your contact details (discussed in another thread).

 

[greyman42]

Good point, but I doubt anyone will count them in. This I think is more to stop obvious big gatherings.

Another idea I've seen mooted (though I have no idea how they'd enforce it) is restricting people to one pub a day, after the Aberdeen outbreak caused by pub crawls.

What about the "pub crawls" in all the other cities and towns that have gone of without any outbreaks? And do we also stop supermarket crawls and shop crawls?

 

[SteveM70]

From the ScotGov website at https://www.gov.scot/publications/c...ng-friends-and-family/#Meeting others indoors

"Our advice is that - as a guide - 8 people in total (from a maximum of 3 households) may represent a safe maximum number of people in most cases."

Is four non-specific elements in one sentence a coronavirus record?

 

[DB]

but this virus needs to be brought under control by restricting superspreading events.

Afraid I don't agree - Sweden have had gatherings of up to 50 for months (and have they had any actual restrictions at all on private houses).

Anyone proposing that the virus needs to be 'brought under control' needs to explain what the exit strategy of this is? Because it looks very uch like an elimination strategy, which won't work. As I see it, the only aim should be to prevent the NHS rom getting overwhelmed (it's nowhere near) and protecting people particularly at risk (which requires specific, targeted measures, not a blanket strategy).

 

[adc82140]

Afraid I don't agree - Sweden have had gatherings of up to 50 for months (and have they had any actual restrictions at all on private houses).

Anyone proposing that the virus needs to be 'brought under control' needs to explain what the exit strategy of this is? Because it looks very uch like an elimination strategy, which won't work. As I see it, the only aim should be to prevent the NHS rom getting overwhelmed (it's nowhere near) and protecting people particularly at risk (which requires specific, targeted measures, not a blanket strategy).

From a personal point of view I agree with you. But in order for the government to reopen things, it looks like we'll have to humour them and get the infection figures down to where we were last month. The easiest way to do this without causing even more economic damage or further mental health issues is to knock the parties on the head for a bit.

 

[DB]

From a personal point of view I agree with you. But in order for the government to reopen things, it looks like we'll have to humour them and get the infection figures down to where we were last month.

Yeah, but that jsut means that this will carry on indefinitely as they will have an open-ended fixation on a low infection rate - it will take years to build up herd immunity without a vaccine, and even with one the effectiveness and speed are a big unknown. If they carry on like they now are in Bolton, a large proportion of the leisure industry will have been wiped out by the time they've finished.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I would vote for maximum 10 from 3 households

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would vote for maximum 10 from 3 households

Yes, this allows most reasonable day to day family groupings to happen while outlawing house parties.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Yes, this allows most reasonable day to day family groupings to happen while outlawing house parties.

Even the current restrictions did not hep today at my 93 year old uncles funeral. I could not attend anyway as I would have had to travel from the USA, quarantine for 14 days then do the same back in the USA - just not practical. BUT- BUT it meant my mother could not go to my cousins (her niece) house with everyone for a bite to eat etc afterwards. But I stand by my assessment of maximum 10 from 3 households.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Looks like it's going to be a maximum of 6 - indoors and outdoors.

Coronavirus: Social gatherings of more than six people to be banned in England from Monday

The legal limit will be reduced from 30 in the prime minister's biggest coronavirus crackdown since lockdown rules were eased.

news.sky.com

A ban on groups of more than six people gathering in homes, parks, pubs and restaurants in England is being imposed by Boris Johnson in the biggest coronavirus crackdown since lockdown rules were eased.

First offenders will be fined £100, which will double on each further repeat offence up to £3,200, the prime minister will announce in a bid to stem an alarming surge in COVID-19 cases in the UK.

"We need to act now to stop the virus spreading," Mr Johnson will declare at a Downing Street news conference coinciding with a new government advertising campaign entitled "Hands. Face. Space."

"So we are simplifying and strengthening the rules on social contact, making them easier to understand and for the police to enforce," the PM will announce.

"It is absolutely critical that people now abide by these rules and remember the basics - washing your hands, covering your face, keeping space from others, and getting a test if you have symptoms."

 

[Bletchleyite]

Looks like it's going to be a maximum of 6 - indoors and outdoors.

I'm quite angry about that to be honest. There is no need to have such a stringent restriction outdoors; there is basically no outdoor spread.

 

[DB]

I'm quite angry about that to be honest. There is no need to have such a stringent restriction outdoors; there is basically no outdoor spread.

Quite. It's also self-defeating because if people can't meet in groups of more than six in public, they will do so in private (i.e. indoors), where there is actually more chance of it spreading, but they are less likely to be noticed.

 

[py_megapixel]

Looks like it's going to be a maximum of 6 - indoors and outdoors.

I've really lost track of all of this now. Do gatherings of up to 6 still have to keep 2 metres, and are more than 6 people allowed to meet together if they keep 2 metres?

I'm quite angry about that to be honest. There is no need to have such a stringent restriction outdoors; there is basically no outdoor spread.

Same here...

Quite. It's also self-defeating because if people can't meet in groups of more than six in public, they will do so in private (i.e. indoors), where there is actually more chance of it spreading, but they are less likely to be noticed.

That's an interesting point. They seem to have given this little thought (but then that pretty much sums up the current government)

 

[Richard Scott]

Quite. It's also self-defeating because if people can't meet in groups of more than six in public, they will do so in private (i.e. indoors), where there is actually more chance of it spreading, but they are less likely to be noticed.

Doubt many will take notice of restrictions anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite. It's also self-defeating because if people can't meet in groups of more than six in public, they will do so in private (i.e. indoors), where there is actually more chance of it spreading, but they are less likely to be noticed.

Indeed. This is idiotic and it seems to be, if I'm reading the article right, because the Police asked for it.

What that makes us is a Police state.

The law should never, ever be determined or influenced by the Police. Their job is to enforce it, not write it.

Doubt many will take notice of restrictions anyway.

They will if it'll cost them 100 quid.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Doubt many will take notice of restrictions anyway.

Indeed.

Quite. It's also self-defeating because if people can't meet in groups of more than six in public, they will do so in private (i.e. indoors), where there is actually more chance of it spreading, but they are less likely to be noticed.

Precisely this.
-----------------------------
Going by that article, I'm also expecting a very doom and gloom press conference tomorrow.

 

[Richard Scott]

They will if it'll cost them 100 quid.

Think there are many people who've just had enough and will take the risk. Government is starting to lose control of situation and people just ignoring instructions. Not helped that they keep changing what the rules are.

 

[DB]

Indeed. This is idiotic and it seems to be, if I'm reading the article right, because the Police asked for it.

Why would they do that? The obvious reason I suppose is that they can make an example of a few groups of 7 or 8, whereas they won't want to take on a group of 31 or 32!