...just listening to a gov minister on Radio 4 trying to justify the gov's stance. The problem I have with their message is that everyone knows Covid is a chain. I get it -> my son gets it -> someone at the shop gets it -> a taxi driver gets it -> a nurse gets it.
Why do they persist on keeping on implying that it will only affect the families who meet at Christmas? 'You will have to make the decision yourselves - and if you have old/frail relatives...'. Noooooo. It will go onto affect people they've never met - have no knowledge of.
Surely the message should be a Trumpesque 'Break The Chain'.
I’ve just been listening to that same R4 programme. The govt urge people to think carefully etc etc. What that actually means is, they don’t want to be cast as the ones who ‘spoiled’ Christmas. Advise and urge as much as you like but there are always some who believe themselves to be invincible and s*d anyone else.
Having said that, no matter what ‘rules’ are laid down, we will always have the thoughtless section of the populace who will do what THEY want.
@steveTu and @punkdoc and others better informed than me - I'm a little confused. In my case , while we would normally have perhaps 8 of us around a table for Christmas lunch, there is no "major significance" to the specific day for us and so for my broader family it's a no-brainer that we should just do that at some later unspecified date, so that's what we are doing. However , to points that some others have made -- if when you meet a small number of others indoors in your 3 household bubble, you maintain the hands face space rule for all people outside your household - how is this risk materially different from ( eg ) a 1-2 hour train ride ( with strangers in the train carriage ) to get somewhere to care for elderly parents / your young grandkids etc? I totally understand that extra vigilance/effort is required to maintain the distancing if you are in a "3 family bubble" indoors vs with strangers in a train carriage but if this can be done I'm just confused about how this is any more of a chain risk than other "essential" interactions, beyond obviously exposing each member of this group to maybe 6 extra people - but at a social distance.? ie is the scientific justification that it is unnecessary distanced contact with 6 (say) people you would not otherwise have met that is the risk , or is the real risk that when 3 families who normally gather at this time of year gather this Christmas , there is no way distancing will be maintained and therefore ( obviously) the post christmas contact-increase is very meaningful especially if the laxity of christmas behaviour strays into the new year with "other" households ?
You may have to go to work, you may have to get food, you have to 'live'. They are essential. Mixing with friends and family at Christmas or whenever isn't.
Plus, when you get together indoors as a family/friend group, I guarantee that in quite a few cases rules get lost - mostly inadvertently. You'll pick from the same nibbles bowl, you'll be touching things others will touch - things will happen without the people really thinking about it. The rule for 3 families doesn't say you won't get the virus if you restrict to that number, just that it restricts the spread. They (ubiquitous) know the virus will spread using that model - but presumably someone's done a calc and thought track and trace and the NHS can handle the resultant numbers.
I want to see my family - I haven't seen my bro and sis for anymore than a one off 10 mins outdoors stint since all this started - and we normally have a family do about now. My daughter lives 10 miles away and we were supposed to staying with her in their new house at Christmas (we've met up with her outdoors to walk the dogs on a few occasions). But they're nice to haves, wants..if by not seeing them, somehow we help to break the chain and some poor sod doesn't get ill, then what a Christmas present that is eh?
@steveTu -- agreed with you , I guess I was just trying to make the point that those that feel they cannot forego gathering at christmas should try extra hard they keep the distancing as though they were in that train carriage or supermarket or whatever which hopefully mitigates impact a little bit.
Not forgetting of course that while these family bubbles are all sitting round the table, will they all have their hats and coats on while the windows are open to keep the room ventilated on a cold wet winters day?
Thanks @Dovefromabove, @pansyface (and anyone I've missed) for your condolences. I thought I'd share the story to emphasise the point that it's not just our own family and friends at risk if we choose to take advantage of the relaxed rules over Christmas, but others who we or they might come into contact with as part of work, education or other necessary things like GP or hospital visits after the festive bubble period is over.
Doncaster, South Yorkshire. Soil type: sandy, well-drained
@steveTu and @punkdoc and others better informed than me - I'm a little confused. In my case , while we would normally have perhaps 8 of us around a table for Christmas lunch, there is no "major significance" to the specific day for us and so for my broader family it's a no-brainer that we should just do that at some later unspecified date, so that's what we are doing. However , to points that some others have made -- if when you meet a small number of others indoors in your 3 household bubble, you maintain the hands face space rule for all people outside your household - how is this risk materially different from ( eg ) a 1-2 hour train ride ( with strangers in the train carriage ) to get somewhere to care for elderly parents / your young grandkids etc? I totally understand that extra vigilance/effort is required to maintain the distancing if you are in a "3 family bubble" indoors vs with strangers in a train carriage but if this can be done I'm just confused about how this is any more of a chain risk than other "essential" interactions, beyond obviously exposing each member of this group to maybe 6 extra people - but at a social distance.? ie is the scientific justification that it is unnecessary distanced contact with 6 (say) people you would not otherwise have met that is the risk , or is the real risk that when 3 families who normally gather at this time of year gather this Christmas , there is no way distancing will be maintained and therefore ( obviously) the post christmas contact-increase is very meaningful especially if the laxity of christmas behaviour strays into the new year with "other" households ?
I think the problem is that maintaining distancing between three families in a Christmas bubble could be very difficult, even if people are inclined to try. People might be able to avoid hugging granny, but not everyone has big spacious homes with multiple bathrooms and a big living space where the families can stay apart but still be in the same room (otherwise what's the point?). Young children will get excited and dash about touching everything, alcohol may be involved which can make people less careful, and so on.
Doncaster, South Yorkshire. Soil type: sandy, well-drained
PMQs is on now. It looks like the Christmas rules will not be overturned, but the four nations will go with ‘strong messaging’.
The messaging needs to be along the lines of: although mixing 3 households will be technically lawful, it is not an invitation or recommendation to do so.
During this year, despite what the current rules or laws were, I have made my own decisions to be stricter to protect my family, my community and my NHS.
I find it hard to imagine that grandparents and close family will be able to keep the safe social distance, resist hugs, always share spaces which are well-ventilated etc. That sounds worse than saying - let’s just park it this year, to me.
Posts
Having said that, no matter what ‘rules’ are laid down, we will always have the thoughtless section of the populace who will do what THEY want.
However , to points that some others have made -- if when you meet a small number of others indoors in your 3 household bubble, you maintain the hands face space rule for all people outside your household - how is this risk materially different from ( eg ) a 1-2 hour train ride ( with strangers in the train carriage ) to get somewhere to care for elderly parents / your young grandkids etc? I totally understand that extra vigilance/effort is required to maintain the distancing if you are in a "3 family bubble" indoors vs with strangers in a train carriage but if this can be done I'm just confused about how this is any more of a chain risk than other "essential" interactions, beyond obviously exposing each member of this group to maybe 6 extra people - but at a social distance.? ie is the scientific justification that it is unnecessary distanced contact with 6 (say) people you would not otherwise have met that is the risk , or is the real risk that when 3 families who normally gather at this time of year gather this Christmas , there is no way distancing will be maintained and therefore ( obviously) the post christmas contact-increase is very meaningful especially if the laxity of christmas behaviour strays into the new year with "other" households ?
I thought I'd share the story to emphasise the point that it's not just our own family and friends at risk if we choose to take advantage of the relaxed rules over Christmas, but others who we or they might come into contact with as part of work, education or other necessary things like GP or hospital visits after the festive bubble period is over.
The messaging needs to be along the lines of: although mixing 3 households will be technically lawful, it is not an invitation or recommendation to do so.
During this year, despite what the current rules or laws were, I have made my own decisions to be stricter to protect my family, my community and my NHS.
I find it hard to imagine that grandparents and close family will be able to keep the safe social distance, resist hugs, always share spaces which are well-ventilated etc. That sounds worse than saying - let’s just park it this year, to me.
Edit: people “should” not must, only have a two household bubble.