Gatherings of more than 6 people to be banned

[RossyG]

View attachment 128166

 

[Fat Boy Fat]

Worth remembering while all this is going on there is a large horse racing event taking place this week in Doncaster. So we can probably expect Yorkshire to start looking bad at some point in October.

I am sure you are being a little flippant, but let’s go with it...

My understanding is the meeting is now behind closed doors. Also, do you believe that only people from Yorkshire attend such meetings?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

“Wow...” For starters, anyone who starts their sentences this way...Anyway, you’re better than that. The pandemic threatens a breakdown of society - have you thought about the consequences of that? Even more terrifying. National emergencies like this, WW2 or heaven forbid had we had a nuclear strike during the Cold War mean we don’t have time to mess about. We’ve seen many people can’t be trusted. And if, say, you’re going to carry on making a mockery of repeated requests to follow the rules by not complying - and it means you* kill vulnerable members of my family as a result - then I’m all for Police arresting you and thousands of others and Judges dishing out jail time until frankly, you learn the seriousness of the situation.

Of course, there’s is an alternative. That you do as you’re told. That’s the rub though, for so many people. They HATE being told what to do. Even when it might safe their lives. More just don’t care about anyone but themselves. Quite happy to see these people made an example of.

* by ‘you’, I of course mean ‘them’

I thought I'd have a read of your posts. I can't remember why I have you on ignore. Most of the others on my list are either right wing loons or people with problematic behavious and obsessions that I find tiresome or depressing. Anyway....

I take the threat of Covid to the vulnerable very seriously. I agree that the government has sent so many mixed messages it has become a farce. And I agree that 'rules' are not and have never been consistently enforced or monitored.

However I also see the mortality data now not matching the cases data. This to me means the virus has probably mutated to a much less lethal variant. So the rational approach is not to impose blanket restrictions on everyone, but to let society go back to normal while providing protection (and directing the majority of the government spend towards this) for the vulnerable. Coherent, much less costly and, paradoxically, more likely to keep the vulnerable safe.

However, HMG's messages, now, can be interpreted to mean that me, in my early 60s, can lark about with five others, who can lark about with another five, so after three degrees of separation we have 125 people in close connection. That is madness.

Meanwhile, there are people on NSC who argue that HMG's guidance has been clear and logical throughout. The reason they think this is because they have made an interpretation of the guidance and its changes and have an accepting disposition and assume that by and large the best decisions are being taken on our behalf for the best reasons. Let's call this disposition a 'conservative' disposition. Unfortunately this continuous acceptance has not helped HMG focus their thoughts, so Cummings has been allowed to run riot. The numbers of deaths from Covid show that this trust is misplaced.

However, I have yet to read, not even from the most rabid Corbynite (admittedly there are few Corbynites on NSC...) a suggestion that now, months after the peak and during a period where a mutation seems likely, that martial law is required.

So, I'm not sure how your analytical and decision making processing works but it is probably best I keep you on ignore

(And stay away from guns).

 

[A1X]

I am sure you are being a little flippant, but let’s go with it...

My understanding is the meeting is now behind closed doors. Also, do you believe that only people from Yorkshire attend such meetings?

I was being a touch flippant, but as for Yorkshire people I would say more so than normal, as people won't be travelling as far as normal and they'll still likely mingle in the local community.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Is that supposed to be funny?

I think it's supposed to be ironic. As I note in a post above, the rule of 6 is an excellent way of ensuring over 100 people are quickly infected if one of the 6 has the virus. Yet another utterly stupid bit of advice from HMG.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

So If you have a family of 5 and only granny can come over, who will then go back to be in the same house as grandad - how has that done anything?

 

[Guinness Boy]

Is that supposed to be funny?

NSC, Covid and The World in 2020 in a nutshell!

 

[LamieRobertson]

The number of children mixing on their way to school is now off the scale. Lots of connections between different families.


We are totally screwed. 2nd Wave and Total Lockdown 2 looking inevitable now.

That’s been happening for the last couple of months at least

 

[Guinness Boy]

So If you have a family of 5 and only granny can come over, who will then go back to be in the same house as grandad - how has that done anything?

Not much. But I suspect that's not what it's aimed at.

If you have the limit at 30 and there's a group of 34 socialising I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid. If you set the limit at 6 and there's a group of 34 together it's easy to notice the breach and break it up.

In your situation I would still expect granny and granddad to go round together and no one bar an odd obsessed curtain twitcher will give a shit.

 

[The Wizard]

It’s just another gimmick rule let’s be honest, how are they going to enforce it? Get a warrant to force entry to houses on suspicion of having 7 guests? Anyone who was having large gatherings isn’t going to give one jot about this nonsense.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Not much. But I suspect that's not what it's aimed at.

If you have the limit at 30 and there's a group of 34 socialising I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid. If you set the limit at 6 and there's a group of 34 together it's easy to notice the breach and break it up.

In your situation I would still expect granny and granddad to go round together and no one bar an odd obsessed curtain twitcher will give a shit.

Its pretty clear - rule of 6 - its the law.

 

[Bry Nylon]

Its pretty clear - rule of 6 - its the law.

Yup. I guess it's just a case of working within the new rules.

I'd invited all my mates round for a big party next Saturday and then, bang - this happens.

(Still got 5 places going if anyone's interested?)

 

[beorhthelm]

Not much. But I suspect that's not what it's aimed at.

If you have the limit at 30 and there's a group of 34 socialising I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid. If you set the limit at 6 and there's a group of 34 together it's easy to notice the breach and break it up.

In your situation I would still expect granny and granddad to go round together and no one bar an odd obsessed curtain twitcher will give a shit.

right, the 6 is little to do with infection, it about police enforcement.

 

[Bozza]

It’s just another gimmick rule let’s be honest, how are they going to enforce it? Get a warrant to force entry to houses on suspicion of having 7 guests? Anyone who was having large gatherings isn’t going to give one jot about this nonsense.

Who needs enforcement to do the right thing?

Every time I get in my car I could try and see how fast I can be going by the time I reach the end of the road. I'd be breaking the 30mph speed limit by some way in an area with many kids about. But why shouldn't I? If no one is going to enforce the speed limit, why shouldn't I drive as fast as I want?

Just do the right thing because it's the right thing. It's really not difficult.

 

[Easy 10]

Loving that ad for Dettol on TV right now. Camera pans round a table with a family having dinner, about 8 or 9 people round the table, warmly lit, smiling faces:
"As we get back to spending time with friends and family...."

Bet the Dettol execs are loving it now.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Its pretty clear - rule of 6 - its the law.

You are aware of Boris and Dom's grasp of the law, right?

 

[Bozza]

So If you have a family of 5 and only granny can come over, who will then go back to be in the same house as grandad - how has that done anything?

If you're going to make a rule that limits social interaction (or rules on almost anything really), you have to draw the line somewhere.

This means you can give all manner of examples that lie just the "wrong" side of where the line has been drawn in order to try and make the rule look ridiculous.

Try ordering an Sausage and Egg McMuffin in McDonalds at 11:01. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

[Albion Dan]

Who needs enforcement to do the right thing?

Every time I get in my car I could try and see how fast I can be going by the time I reach the end of the road. I'd be breaking the 30mph speed limit by some way in an area with many kids about. But why shouldn't I? If no one is going to enforce the speed limit, why shouldn't I drive as fast as I want?

Just do the right thing because it's the right thing. It's really not difficult.

I can go to my local and chat to an unlimited amount of other locals in there and thats ok but I can't now go and see my sister and family with my whole family because that's the right thing? How?

 

[Bozza]

I can go to my local and chat to an unlimited amount of other locals in there and thats ok but I can't now go and see my sister and family with my whole family because that's the right thing? How?

You'll need to scroll back a page or two where I wrote something about this. I'm not writing it again.

 

[Is it PotG?]

I swear that some folk wait for new rules/legislation then spend half a day coming up with 'what about THIS scenario then?'