# Rule of 6



## everydayupsanddowns (Sep 14, 2020)

Anyone got a large family?

Was seeing Kit Malthouse interviewed on Breakfast TV who was asked to clarify the situation where a family had 3 kids and whether the rule of 6 would mean that two grandparents could no longer visit.

The question was neatly ignored and sidestepped. Which was irritating because I was very interested in the clarification as my sister and brother in law have 3 daughters and I’m not sure what it might mean for my Mum & Dad if the rules are still in place at Christmas.

I can understand and very much like the idea of simplicity (though the differences between devolved nations are still mind boggling... 

I wonder if ‘6‘ might have been chosen because the new rules also mean that two friendly families with 2 parents and 2 kids each (not uncommon) can no longer get together to socialise, so it’s a group size that should, in theory, deter many social gatherings, but still enable people to support each other.

I do wonder whether some of the ‘almost but not quite’ situations which are perceived to be low risk may lead to a general low-level rule-ignoring mindset though... which may be counterproductive if it creeps into other areas.

Are there any things that you will now no longer be able to do?


----------



## PaulG (Sep 14, 2020)

Could be wrong but I don't think children are included. So young family with school age children = 2.
Older couple with 2 adult offspring = 4.

I think its based on the young don't pass it on like adults do.


Had to smile the other day when the woman that runs Slimming World did a video saying that this new 6 rule didn't
effect them as they weren't social.


----------



## Robin (Sep 14, 2020)

PaulG said:


> Could be wrong but I don't think children are included. So young family with school age children = 2.
> Older couple with 2 adult offspring = 4.
> 
> I think its based on the young don't pass it on like adults do.
> ...


Children do count in England, they don't in Wales and Scotland.


----------



## Robin (Sep 14, 2020)

Trouble is with this whole situation, when restrictions first came in, it was on a 'be sensible' basis, and there was a general outcry that people wanted clear rules. So now we have clear rules there’s an outcry about the cutoff being unfair for some, (That’s the trouble with clear rules, they have to be arbitrary by definition).
I'm actually better off under the new system. Five of us met up with our fitness instructor for an alfresco class/social coffee afterwards  last week. Had it rained, we would have had to call off the social bit, now we can just move indoors.
Surely they’re going to have to relax them for the Christmas period, or as Mike says, anyone with more than two children won’t be able to invite both grandparents. Perhaps if we're all compliant, we’ll get time off for good behaviour.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Sep 14, 2020)

PaulG said:


> Could be wrong but I don't think children are included. So young family with school age children = 2.
> Older couple with 2 adult offspring = 4.
> 
> I think its based on the young don't pass it on like adults do.
> ...



They are in England, but not elsewhere in the UK.

Item about two sisters having a ‘last get together‘ this weekend - two families 2+2 parents and children, so total of 8. Can no longer visit each other from today.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Sep 14, 2020)

Robin said:


> I'm actually better off under the new system. Five of us met up with our fitness instructor for an alfresco class/social coffee afterwards last week. Had it rained, we would have had to call off the social bit, now we can just move indoors.



Yes the new system helps me too. We were worrying about autumn band rehearsals having been socially distanced practicing outdoors over the summer. We were looking into having to hire commercial spaces or a hall... (financial transactions seem to make most things permissible) but can now just meet in each other’s houses as the evenings draw in.


----------



## Robin (Sep 14, 2020)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> They are in England, but not elsewhere in the UK.
> 
> Item about two sisters having a ‘last get together‘ this weekend - two families 2+2 parents and children, so total of 8. Can no longer visit each other from today.


The daft thing is, the sisters could take two of their children out, and the partners could take the other two, in opposite directions, or even at adjacent tables in the same pub garden, and be perfectly legal, but still mixing the same number of potential germs between them.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Sep 14, 2020)

Robin said:


> The daft thing is, the sisters could take two of her children out, and the partners could take the other two, in opposite directions, or even at adjacent table sin the same pub garden, and be perfectly legal, but still mixing the same number of potential germs between them.



This, I fear, is where we are heading... workarounds and rule avoidance. Do adjacent tables still make a group? Could you covertly organise a birthday booze-up with 50 mates all divided into teams of 5-6 as long as they all kept to their own pub beer garden table and simply shouted across?

Or do you have to run swiftly from the coffee shop if a neighbour and family happens to arrive while you are in there with a friend - or is simply blanking them and not acknowledging their existence enough?


----------



## eggyg (Sep 14, 2020)

Me! Our eldest daughter has three children so we can’t host them anytime soon or go and visit if son in law is off work for example but we could if he was at work, could we? I could have our middle daughter, her partner and her daughter OR my youngest daughter and her hubby, but not both families, unless one or the other son in law stayed at home! I suppose it’s better than the end of March, April and May when we could only see them at the front door whilst they were dropping the shopping off!


----------



## atoll (Sep 14, 2020)

i would be in favour of bringing back the public "stocks" for transgressors and those that can't count,very effective in medieval times for instilling "common sense" without using more draconian methods..........

interesting Quote From Dr. Fauci on his take on Deniers.

“Chickenpox is a virus. Lots of people have had it, and probably don't think about it much once the initial illness has passed. But it stays in your body and lives there forever, and maybe when you're older, you have debilitatingly painful outbreaks of shingles. You don't just get over this virus in a few weeks, never to have another health effect. We know this because it's been around for years, and has been studied medically for years.

Herpes is also a virus. And once someone has it, it stays in your body and lives there forever, and anytime they get a little run down or stressed-out they're going to have an outbreak. Maybe every time you have a big event coming up (school pictures, job interview, big date) you're going to get a cold sore. For the rest of your life. You don't just get over it in a few weeks. We know this because it's been around for years, and been studied medically for years.

HIV is a virus. It attacks the immune system and makes the carrier far more vulnerable to other illnesses. It has a list of symptoms and negative health impacts that goes on and on. It was decades before viable treatments were developed that allowed people to live with a reasonable quality of life. Once you have it, it lives in your body forever and there is no cure. Over time, that takes a toll on the body, putting people living with HIV at greater risk for health conditions such as cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, diabetes, bone disease, liver disease, cognitive disorders, and some types of cancer. We know this because it has been around for years, and had been studied medically for years.

Now with COVID-19, we have a novel virus that spreads rapidly and easily. The full spectrum of symptoms and health effects is only just beginning to be cataloged, much less understood.

So far the symptoms may include:
Fever
Fatigue
Coughing
Pneumonia
Chills/Trembling
Acute respiratory distress
Lung damage (potentially permanent)
Loss of taste (a neurological symptom)
Sore throat
Headaches
Difficulty breathing
Mental confusion
Diarrhea
Nausea or vomiting
Loss of appetite
Strokes have also been reported in some people who have COVID-19 (even in the relatively young)
Swollen eyes
Blood clots
Seizures
Liver damage
Kidney damage
Rash
COVID toes (weird, right?)

People testing positive for COVID-19 have been documented to be sick even after 60 days. Many people are sick for weeks, get better, and then experience a rapid and sudden flare up and get sick all over again. A man in Seattle was hospitalized for 62 days, and while well enough to be released, still has a long road of recovery ahead of him. Not to mention a $1.1 million medical bill.

Then there is MIS-C. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children is a condition where different body parts can become inflamed, including the heart, lungs, kidneys, brain, skin, eyes, or gastrointestinal organs. Children with MIS-C may have a fever and various symptoms, including abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, neck pain, rash, bloodshot eyes, or feeling extra tired. While rare, it has caused deaths.

This disease has not been around for years. It has basically been 6 months. No one knows yet the long-term health effects, or how it may present itself years down the road for people who have been exposed. We literally *do not know* what we do not know.

For those in our society who suggest that people being cautious are cowards, for people who refuse to take even the simplest of precautions to protect themselves and those around them, I want to ask, without hyperbole and in all sincerity:
How dare you?

How dare you risk the lives of others so cavalierly. How dare you decide for others that they should welcome exposure as "getting it over with", when literally no one knows who will be the lucky "mild symptoms" case, and who may fall ill and die. Because while we know that some people are more susceptible to suffering a more serious case, we also know that 20 and 30-year-olds have died, marathon runners and fitness nuts have died, children and infants have died.

How dare you behave as though you know more than medical experts, when those same experts acknowledge that there is so much we don't yet know, but with what we DO know, are smart enough to be scared of how easily this is spread, and recommend baseline precautions such as:
Frequent hand-washing
Physical distancing
Reduced social/public contact or interaction
Mask wearing
Covering your cough or sneeze
Avoiding touching your face
Sanitizing frequently touched surfaces

The more things we can all do to mitigate our risk of exposure, the better off we all are, in my opinion. Not only does it flatten the curve and allow health care providers to maintain levels of service that aren't immediately and catastrophically overwhelmed; it also reduces unnecessary suffering and deaths, and buys time for the scientific community to study the virus in order to come to a more full understanding of the breadth of its impacts in both the short and long term.
I reject the notion that it's "just a virus" and we'll all get it eventually. What a careless, lazy, heartless stance.”


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Sep 14, 2020)

eggyg said:


> Me! Our eldest daughter has three children so we can’t host them anytime soon or go and visit if son in law is off work for example but we could if he was at work, could we? I could have our middle daughter, her partner and her daughter OR my youngest daughter and her hubby, but not both families, unless one or the other son in law stayed at home!



Sorry to hear this 

Unless one of the son in laws is a bit of a wrongun?


----------



## eggyg (Sep 14, 2020)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Sorry to hear this
> 
> Unless one of the son in laws is a bit of a wrongun?


That would make it easier! But, no, they’re all good lads. It is what it is and we have to do what we have to do. Simples!


----------



## Deleted member 27171 (Sep 14, 2020)

My family is exactly 6 people so no seeing anyone anytime soon. Well, not all of us together anyway.


----------



## Deleted member 27171 (Sep 14, 2020)

@atoll *googling COVID toes*

Edit: have googled - ouch!


----------



## Eddy Edson (Sep 14, 2020)

atoll said:


> i would be in favour of bringing back the public "stocks" for transgressors and those that can't count,very effective in medieval times for instilling "common sense" without using more draconian methods..........
> 
> interesting Quote From Dr. Fauci on his take on Deniers.
> 
> ...



These scary long-COVID factors are a big reason why states here in Oz with no COVID are keeping their borders closed with states which have just a bit. Sure you could open up and accept some level of infections without it swamping the health system right now, but all of those young people getting just mild or no symptoms will be storing up long term health risks. 

It's also the reason why Victoria, where the health bureaucracy failed disgracefully and let the thing run rampant in July, is keeping a full-Wuhan lock down until infection rates come back down to almost nothing.  

I note that Victoria went full-Wuhan when its infection and growth rates were quite a bit lower than they are in the UK now - of course they peaked after lock-down, before falling. In that context, Rule of 6 type moves might seem like straws in the wind, but hopefully that's wrong ...


----------



## Inka (Sep 14, 2020)

While schools are open and children are in large bubbles, I don’t see how the Rule of 6 will help much. 

So my children can’t spend time with their cousins and auntie and uncle, but they can spend a whole day with tens of other children who’ve all had contact with their own families.  

I think the government is making it up as they go along.


----------



## Amity Island (Sep 14, 2020)

At the moment, the government are imposing these severe life changing/socially changing restrictions based on "positive" tests. Some of these tests will undoubtedly be false positives. The sensitivity of the tests is such that they are also picking old latent infections and not showing a current positive. The tests do not show whether the person is infectious or not.

They are basing their actions on unclear evidence.


----------



## grovesy (Sep 14, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> At the moment, the government are imposing these severe life changing/socially changing restrictions based on "positive" tests. Some of these tests will undoubtedly be false positives. The sensitivity of the tests is such that they are also picking old latent infections and not showing a current positive. The tests do not show whether the person is infectious or not.
> 
> They are basing their actions on unclear evidence.


I am not concerned with false positives , I am more concerned how many true positives don't we know of because of failings in the availability of tests, and the time delay if you are lucky to get a test slot.


----------



## Inka (Sep 14, 2020)

@Amity Island Also, there are many asymptomatic people who are passing on the virus without any controls on them because the only people advised to have tests are those with symptoms. 

Without an accurate, effective and vigorous testing programme, I don’t see how we can get on top of things.


----------



## Amity Island (Sep 14, 2020)

Inka said:


> Without an accurate, effective and vigorous testing programme, I don’t see how we can get on top of things.


I agree and that's my point too really. Without an accurate test how can we have "an accurate, effective and vigorous testing programme"?

At the _very least_ we need a test that shows whether someone is infectious or not? Testing positive doesn't provide that information.


----------



## Amity Island (Sep 14, 2020)

grovesy said:


> I am not concerned with false positives , I am more concerned how many true positives don't we know of because of failings in the availability of tests, and the time delay if you are lucky to get a test slot.


I am _really_ concerned with false positives, because, as long as we get false positives (which will only increase with more testing) how will we ever get to a zero point? The point where we can get back to normal?


----------



## Eddy Edson (Sep 14, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> I am _really_ concerned with false positives, because, as long as we get false positives (which will only increase with more testing) how will we ever get to a zero point? The point where we can get back to normal?



False positives and negatives are rare and most of them are kind of border line situations, where there will be a routine re-test to confirm or rule out a diagnosis.  

That's been the experience here, where most states are indeed at zero despite high rates of testing. It's a tiny, tiny issue compared to delays in getting tests and getting results.


----------



## Ditto (Sep 14, 2020)

It's man made, they were trying to see us old ones off along with the ethnic peoples. I think I really do believe this!   

Like they've eliminated Downs in Iceland. I'm still not sure what I think about that.


----------



## atoll (Sep 14, 2020)

Ditto said:


> It's man made, they were trying to see us old ones off along with the ethnic peoples. I think I really do believe this!
> 
> Like they've eliminated Downs in Iceland. I'm still not sure what I think about that.


 Boris was lucky to survive,Fifth column or illegal Aliens at work no doubt.


----------



## grainger (Sep 14, 2020)

Personally it is rubbish for us as we had just arranged to see my brother, his wife and their two children for the first time since this began and now we can’t. We also can’t visit any friends who also have kids.

It makes socialising for us very hard. Thankfully I can still see my mum.

Finding it amusing that we are going to a friends birthday party on Friday and only a select few of friends from school can go so that the 6 isn’t breached (all mums/dads have to drop and leave)... all the kids are in the same class at school but they can’t invite more. Makes zero sense.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Sep 14, 2020)

grainger said:


> Personally it is rubbish for us as we had just arranged to see my brother, his wife and their two children for the first time since this began and now we can’t. We also can’t visit any friends who also have kids.



Ah sorry to hear that @grainger - what rubbish timing for you


----------



## Ditto (Sep 14, 2020)

atoll said:


> Boris was lucky to survive,Fifth column or illegal Aliens at work no doubt.


Also fat ones. He's fat.


----------



## Sally71 (Sep 15, 2020)

I work in a primary school and went back to work on Thursday 3rd Sept. My daughter went back to her school Monday 7th Sept, very excited she has hated being stuck at home.  On Friday 10th after only one week at school and despite wearing a visor and PPE the whole time I’m at school, I started getting cold symptoms (thankfully only in my nose so far and no coughing or temperature).  On Tuesday 8th we had a message that there had been a confirmed case of covid at one of the feeder primary schools to my daughter’s and all children with siblings there should stay at home the next day until they had taken advice.  (They were allowed back the day after.). Yesterday after just one week and one day back at school, we had a message that there had been a confirmed case of Covid in my daughter's year group, daughter knows them and was talking to them outside school one day last week and sometimes sees them at lunch time, so daughter now has to isolate for two weeks and is not happy!  She was so excited to be going back, I had a feeling that something was bound to spoil it, I just didn’t expect it to be quite this soon!

We can’t win at the moment.  I know Covid is a serious threat and it hasn’t gone away, I’ve seen the TV footage from inside hospitals, I understand why all the rules are there and am doing my best to stick to them and use common sense.  But at the same time you can’t stay imprisoned in your house forever and have to start taking small steps back out into the world at some point.  We'll all be in trouble if there is nobody working to provide the things we all need.   I am beginning to wonder if it was too soon to reopen schools,  but at the same time I seriously worry about my daughter's mental health and education if we have to have another lockdown.  Her school have tried so hard to keep the children in bubbles and minimise movement around school, daughter’s hands are red raw from all the use of hand sanitiser etc etc.  One of the year 2 teachers at my school is basically having to teach the children to write all over again because it seems many of them have done next to no learning at home. I know people are starting to tire of the restrictions,  but they are there for a reason and that reason isn’t going away any time soon.  Whichever way you look at it, we're in a rubbish situation and trying to work out how best to manage it is not easy.  I'm no fan of our current government but don't envy them having to try and work this out, whatever they do someone will complain that it's wrong.  I have no idea what the best thing is to do, and everyone has a different take on it


----------



## mikeyB (Sep 24, 2020)

I really don’t know why folk are worried about Covid. Just maintain social distancing and hand washing, and wear masks. Since January, Covid only accounts for 1% of deaths in the UK. The most popular causes of death - cancer, heart disease and dementia are trundling along in the 20-30% range as causes of death, just as normal.

The rule of 6 won’t make one jot of difference. It’s a political, not a medical judgment.


----------



## trophywench (Sep 24, 2020)

To put it politely - I'm sick of it.


----------



## Hepato-pancreato (Sep 29, 2020)

Rule of 6


----------



## trophywench (Sep 29, 2020)

Just thanking goodness there were only 3 Musketeers (cos that bloke with the French name wasn't one) and only 5 books in the Brentford Trilogy.


----------

