Reduction in social gatherings.

[Bantamzen]

The obvious reasons being they don’t mind threatening the lives of their elderly relatives?
Maybe Boris is hoping that people have common sense. A big group of people, including vulnerable elderly and the young who have been out partying, cramped in small poorly ventilated rooms (it’s winter, the windows will be shut and the heating on) For hours and hours. It’s all a respiratory pandemic could wish for!!
if the rule is in place for Christmas it will make life easier for many vulnerable people who will be worried about the risk but not want to offend relatives - they can just blame the government.

After what would be almost a year, many elderly people may be more concerned in seeing their families than getting the virus. I know for a fact that's the case in my family, and others that I know of. A lot of elderly people will have spent months in semi-isolation and would probably be looking forward to seeing family at Christmas. I'd much rather them make the decision themselves than a government determining that they must stay locked away from their loved ones.

 

[trebor79]

After what would be almost a year, many elderly people may be more concerned in seeing their families than getting the virus. I know for a fact that's the case in my family, and others that I know of. A lot of elderly people will have spent months in semi-isolation and would probably be looking forward to seeing family at Christmas. I'd much rather them make the decision themselves than a government determining that they must stay locked away from their loved ones.

Exactly the sentiment my parents have. They have both survived serious cancers, but none of us know how much longer they have left. They've moved to be closer to their grandchildren. They want to live and enjoy what life they have left, not merely exist.

My mother in law, who has never been seriously ill, is far more cautious. That's her right and her decision.

People need to be making their own decisions. And I think people have been. The government is certainly providing data that allows people to assess the risk of being out and about and whether they need to take precautions or abstain from going to crowded places for a while.
There's very little justification for not allowing families to get together.
All that will happen at Christmas is people will flit between lots of gatherings of 6 (assuming they comply), which is going to spread it anyway.

 

[Meerkat]

After what would be almost a year, many elderly people may be more concerned in seeing their families than getting the virus. I know for a fact that's the case in my family, and others that I know of. A lot of elderly people will have spent months in semi-isolation and would probably be looking forward to seeing family at Christmas. I'd much rather them make the decision themselves than a government determining that they must stay locked away from their loved ones.

Most elderly people will be able to see their families - just not all at once.
Judging by the way a lot of people talk about Christmas family gatherings I think there will be an awful lot of “Well if you need to keep the numbers below six I will take the bullet and just have a quiet day in front of the telly (can I just pop round and pick up a tray full of dinner?)”
There is a reason post Christmas is divorce lawyer boom time!

There's very little justification for not allowing families to get together.

The evidence seems to show that the primary transmission vector is indoor gatherings

 

[yorksrob]

There seems to be some confusion about "The Rule of Six" amongst my work colleagues.

They seemed to think it was six people from two households, whereas myself (and the BBC) think it's six people from multiple households.

So much for clear messaging !

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's any 6 people - that was the simplification - you only have to remember one number.

 

[yorksrob]

It's any 6 people - that was the simplification - you only have to remember one number.

we'll, I did tell them. they weren't entirely convinced though.

 

[Bantamzen]

Exactly the sentiment my parents have. They have both survived serious cancers, but none of us know how much longer they have left. They've moved to be closer to their grandchildren. They want to live and enjoy what life they have left, not merely exist.

My mother in law, who has never been seriously ill, is far more cautious. That's her right and her decision.

People need to be making their own decisions. And I think people have been. The government is certainly providing data that allows people to assess the risk of being out and about and whether they need to take precautions or abstain from going to crowded places for a while.
There's very little justification for not allowing families to get together.
All that will happen at Christmas is people will flit between lots of gatherings of 6 (assuming they comply), which is going to spread it anyway.

Absolutely, we need to start taking ownership of the decision making & risk management as a population, instead of Uncle BoJo and his troop of clowns telling us what we can & cannot do in our own homes.

Most elderly people will be able to see their families - just not all at once.
Judging by the way a lot of people talk about Christmas family gatherings I think there will be an awful lot of “Well if you need to keep the numbers below six I will take the bullet and just have a quiet day in front of the telly (can I just pop round and pick up a tray full of dinner?)”
There is a reason post Christmas is divorce lawyer boom time!

The evidence seems to show that the primary transmission vector is indoor gatherings

As I have said, it should now be up to individuals to make the decisions themselves. If you don't feel confident in having a few people around, then don't. But you, BoJo, Whittey, Ferguson or anyone else is not going to tell my family what we should do within the confines of our own homes. We all know the risks, and they are very low even amongst the elderly, so we'll make up our own minds based on the circumstances at the time. So for example if someone is very ill, we'll minimise risk. But if someone in the family feels confident and wants to socialise then that's what will happen. And I would encourage other families to do the same.

I can't speak for your situation, but like many families mine are spread out geographically and work-wise, and so Christmas becomes one of the few times of year where we cam align to come together, and as such it becomes a very important time to catch up and bond with each other. And the same is true of an awful lot more.

And that's it in a nutshell, more & more people are becoming less & less frightened because the virus isn't causing the apocalyptic results that were originally mooted, no doubt to the severe disappointment of some.

 

[Meerkat]

As I have said, it should now be up to individuals to make the decisions themselves. If you don't feel confident in having a few people around, then don't. But you, BoJo, Whittey, Ferguson or anyone else is not going to tell my family what we should do within the confines of our own homes

So you don’t believe in society? Your individual decisions will affect many other people - you even say that your family is widely spread geographically so you could send Covid infections all over the country.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

So you don’t believe in society? Your individual decisions will affect many other people - you even say that your family is widely spread geographically so you could send Covid infections all over the country.

Seriously?
So I take it you’ll never drive a car anywhere, lest you kill someone?

 

[Bantamzen]

So you don’t believe in society? Your individual decisions will affect many other people - you even say that your family is widely spread geographically so you could send Covid infections all over the country.

Let me make one thing abundantly clear, this attempt at guilt-forcing has no effect on me. Covid doesn't just jump into action when families meet up, and for 99.9%+ of the population covid does not present a serious risk. If you think we are going to somehow stare the virus down, or hide from it you are mistaken. In the history of humanity we have eliminated just 2 viruses (and technically one of those is still believed to be in storage), so we are not going to be able to run or hide from it. That is all there is to it, and people need to start getting this into their heads once and for all.

 

[Meerkat]

Seriously?
So I take it you’ll never drive a car anywhere, lest you kill someone?

I can control my car. That analogy would only work if I could randomly become drunk without noticing.

Let me make one thing abundantly clear, this attempt at guilt-forcing has no effect on me. Covid doesn't just jump into action when families meet up, and for 99.9%+ of the population covid does not present a serious risk. If you think we are going to somehow stare the virus down, or hide from it you are mistaken. In the history of humanity we have eliminated just 2 viruses (and technically one of those is still believed to be in storage), so we are not going to be able to run or hide from it. That is all there is to it, and people need to start getting this into their heads once and for all.

So are you proposing a ‘let it rip’ strategy, with no restrictions?

 

[trebor79]

I can control my car. That analogy would only work if I could randomly become drunk without noticing.

The pollution from your car will contribute to early death from respiratory problems.

 

[Yew]

I can control my car. That analogy would only work if I could randomly become drunk without noticing.

Becaause no sober person ever has been involved in or the cause of a fatal car accident.

So are you proposing a ‘let it rip’ strategy, with no restrictions?

I feel you're making a strawman argument here I don't think it's a reasonable inference from Bantamzens post that no restrictions are a necessity, it seems to me to be equally probable that he's advocating for a controlled spread.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Absolutely, we need to start taking ownership of the decision making & risk management as a population, instead of Uncle BoJo and his troop of clowns telling us what we can & cannot do in our own homes.

As I have said, it should now be up to individuals to make the decisions themselves. If you don't feel confident in having a few people around, then don't. But you, BoJo, Whittey, Ferguson or anyone else is not going to tell my family what we should do within the confines of our own homes. We all know the risks, and they are very low even amongst the elderly, so we'll make up our own minds based on the circumstances at the time. So for example if someone is very ill, we'll minimise risk. But if someone in the family feels confident and wants to socialise then that's what will happen. And I would encourage other families to do the same.

The problem is a percentage of the population are pretty useless at making sensible decisions at the best of times, let alone when something as complicated as risk management in regards to an unpredictable new illness is involved. It is well known that humans in general are pretty rubbish at accurately predicting risk, and also pretty rubbish at analysing issues when exponential growth is involved.

Because of the above - we certainly don't all know the risks. And that even more the case when there are still idiots around denying that the virus even exists.
And we can't just minimise risk to those who are particularly vulnerable to it because many of those people still need to work (because our support system for those people is so rubbish).

And of course all of the kind of ignores the elephant in the room. Acting like you mention is fine if the consequences only affect those involved in the risk taking. But with COVID it doesn't. Sure, you and your immediate family and friends may be fine taking the risks. But what about your postie who still has to interact with you? Or the shop workers who you interact with? Or your neighbour next door? The whole damn reason COVID is difficult to deal with is that it doesn't just affect the people who you immediately have contact with - it also affects the people they have contact with, and the people they have contact with etc etc. One person who is happy to take a risk can end up giving it to 50 or more people who didn't want to take the risk. And if you say I am exaggerating - look at the early outbreaks in this country before it established a foothold - most of them were caused by just one or a handful of people.

 

[MikeWM]

Absolutely, we need to start taking ownership of the decision making & risk management as a population, instead of Uncle BoJo and his troop of clowns telling us what we can & cannot do in our own homes.

Yes, and this should always have been the case. The role of the Government is to provide clear, unambiguous, evidence-driven *advice* and *guidance* when there is a Public Health issue. In a case like this I'd say they should also have provided a comprehensive support network for those who - for clinical reasons - feel it wise to shelter/isolate, though even then it needs to be up to the individual to determine. And had a decent plan in place to protect hospitals and care homes.

However, the role of the Government is *not* to stop people catching a virus. It never has been before - the way politics has been brought into this one is unprecedented. It is truly incredible that the government is telling us how many people we can have in our own private homes, or whether grandchildren can hug their grandparents!

The *only* time the Government should be involved to the degree it currently is would be if there was a truly devastating virus in circulation - eg. airborne ebola, or a new strain of the plague we had no treatment for, or similar. To be blunt, this virus isn't it, and never was going to be.

 

[Bantamzen]

So are you proposing a ‘let it rip’ strategy, with no restrictions?

No

The problem is a percentage of the population are pretty useless at making sensible decisions at the best of times, let alone when something as complicated as risk management in regards to an unpredictable new illness is involved. It is well known that humans in general are pretty rubbish at accurately predicting risk, and also pretty rubbish at analysing issues when exponential growth is involved.

Because of the above - we certainly don't all know the risks. And that even more the case when there are still idiots around denying that the virus even exists.
And we can't just minimise risk to those who are particularly vulnerable to it because many of those people still need to work (because our support system for those people is so rubbish).

And of course all of the kind of ignores the elephant in the room. Acting like you mention is fine if the consequences only affect those involved in the risk taking. But with COVID it doesn't. Sure, you and your immediate family and friends may be fine taking the risks. But what about your postie who still has to interact with you? Or the shop workers who you interact with? Or your neighbour next door? The whole damn reason COVID is difficult to deal with is that it doesn't just affect the people who you immediately have contact with - it also affects the people they have contact with, and the people they have contact with etc etc. One person who is happy to take a risk can end up giving it to 50 or more people who didn't want to take the risk. And if you say I am exaggerating - look at the early outbreaks in this country before it established a foothold - most of them were caused by just one or a handful of people.

I'm sorry, but that first sentence is pure presumption, and the kind that is less than useful in this.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I can control my car. That analogy would only work if I could randomly become drunk without noticing.

Statistically, in recent days, you have a 66% greater chance of dying - or causing the death of someone else - in a road traffic accident, than of contracting and dying of Covid19!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Statistically, in recent days, you have a 66% greater chance of dying - or causing the death of someone else - I a road traffic accident, than of contracting and dying of Covid19!!

Because measures are in place. If they weren't, it'd be the other way round.

 

[MikeWM]

No-one should be driving their car, *just in case* they have undiagnosed epilepsy, and suddenly have an attack while out driving, and drive into a group of grannies out shopping for the day.

Ridiculous of course, but that's effectively the same reasoning that has resulted in people with no covid symptoms having to wear masks everywhere.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I'm sorry, but that first sentence is pure presumption, and the kind that is less than useful in this.

How exactly?
All I said is that there is a percentage of the population who cannot and do not make sensible decisions.
That is evident by the number of people who believe lunatic conspiracy theories and the like for example. Although you can find many other examples too.
I don't think that claim is at all unwarranted. Sure you can argue how big that percentage is, but surely you can't deny it exists?

And then once you add in the complexity of risk management and exponential growth (both topics that humans in general are pretty bad at getting right), even the rest of us will struggle to correctly analyse and manage the risk of COVID-19, not just of getting it but also of spreading it to other people we have contact with. It is why the topic is so polarising - people are bad at getting risk analysis right, so generally either will under or over estimate what the risk actually is.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

No-one should be driving their car, *just in case* they have undiagnosed epilepsy, and suddenly have an attack while out driving, and drive into a group of grannies out shopping for the day.

Ridiculous of course, but that's effectively the same reasoning that has resulted in people with no covid symptoms having to wear masks everywhere.

This ^^^

 

[greyman42]

Most elderly people will be able to see their families - just not all at once.
Judging by the way a lot of people talk about Christmas family gatherings I think there will be an awful lot of “Well if you need to keep the numbers below six I will take the bullet and just have a quiet day in front of the telly (can I just pop round and pick up a tray full of dinner?)”

Yes, he will of done a lot of people a favour regarding the Christmas family gathering.

 

[Huntergreed]

Sturgeon will give her 'lockdown-review' in 20 minutes, and I'm expecting her to introduce a similar law up here. It'll be interesting to see whether she goes with the same, or goes with 5 people, just to get one up on Boris as usual.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sturgeon will give her 'lockdown-review' in 20 minutes, and I'm expecting her to introduce a similar law up here. It'll be interesting to see whether she goes with the same, or goes with 5 people, just to get one up on Boris as usual.

More likely she'll keep her limitation on households but go with the 6. But we shall see...

 

[trebor79]

I don't normally use Twitter, but just took a peek at BoJo's Twitter feed.
It's almost universal fury, people saying they've had enough, that he's deranged, taking the P, wasting billions, trashing the economy, don't want to live in a police state, "moonshot" is fantasy.

There's literally 1 or 2 out of thousands going with the BJ's narrative.

I don't know if that's normal, but my impression was that earlier in the pandemic he was getting lots of support.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't know if that's normal, but my impression was that earlier in the pandemic he was getting lots of support.

Whatever my view on measures, I no longer support him; I did initially[1]. My support ended on the day Dominic Cummings was not sacked after his misdemeanour, and since then it has just got worse.

[1] I am not a Tory voter but I mean in terms of how it was being handled.

 

[Huntergreed]

Sturgeon has just announced that the number of people that can meet now is that a maximum of 6 from 2 households will now be allowed to meet together, both inside and outside

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sturgeon has just announced that the number of people that can meet now is that a maximum of 6 from 2 households will now be allowed to meet together, both inside and outside

Do I get a prize for guessing it? Classic one-upmanship there.

Wonder will "Y Ddraig Goch" move next - same but a 5 mile limit?

 

[Howardh]

Had it confirmed today that 11 a side hockey can continue for me as sports are exempt from the six rule.

 

[adc82140]

My job involves seeing a lot of people with fairly advanced cancers. The overriding message I'm getting from them is that they are sick of restrictions and don't want to spend their final days locked away or being told what to do. I agree with them. To put it bluntly, a quick Covid death for them having enjoyed themselves beforehand is far preferable to a hermit lifestyle followed by the slow and lingering death from their disease.

What many have said is that they resent being labelled as "vulnerable" and know about risk and consequences.