[Closed] Covid Christmas - staying away from home

I don't see any problem in that.

It's advice not the law.

A mate of mine is very strict on his 'rules' but he's currently at a private cottage in Cornwall - lives in High Peak (T3).

Go for it I'd say.

We are very strict with the rules. i.e. not been to a pub indoors (when they were open) since March! Shop online for everything so can't remember last time i even went in a shop.

Just dont want to be turned away at the boarder (tiny chance of being stopped) or fined (dont think they can)

Advice not Law

Some of the advice in Scotland has been put into law

This would just be travel from England to England

We're in a similar position but the place we booked back in July (which is cancellable) is in North Wales. We'd be travelling from a T3 area on the 26th, coming back on the 29th.

We just don't want to break life rule 1 as we've been sticking to the Covid rules more or less to the letter, can't think of any we've broke anyway.

As its advisory there's some element of how you wish to interpret the risks. For example in the Covid spreading permitted period of the 23-27th is there more or less risk of 3 households sitting in the same house with a small window open or two of you in a cottage ? I think you know the answer.

👍

We’re in a similar position but the place we booked back in July (which is cancellable) is in North Wales. We’d be travelling from a T3 area on the 26th, coming back on the 29th.

If nothing changes, the current *law* in Wales is that you must be out of Wales on 27th if you're normally live in tier 3.(28th if you live in NI).

Let’s look at it with common sense.

Legally you can do exactly that a few days different to your plan, and additionally meet up with other family members.

Your option is far lower risk than what is legally allowed.

but you can travel anywhere from the 22nd – 28th

Is that a fact. I'd been wondering about that. So it's actually seven days that we can wander is it?

You cant join up with your Christmas bubble until the 23rd and that finishes on the 27th. But they have taken the advisory about not travelling from the 22nd - 28th and also staying at hotels etc. Presumably to allow you to travel a long distance to see your bubble which might take you more than a day

as above really, common sense, not like you are meeting up with a load of people, or driving around testing your eyesight, or going to a castle when the whole of the UK is in full lock down.
It's just the 2 of you. go for it.

You need agreement of the holiday cottage company you book through.

I’m currently in a holiday cottage on the Llyn Peninsula. Couldn’t get much more remote.

However I had to pursued the agent that I wasn’t braking any rules coming here, they had already sort of cancelled the booking

The holiday company was the surprising thing, they were desperate to 'bend the rules' and took the booking no probs

Unlike a similar company who rang us up when Sheffield first went into tier 3 in Oct and advised us that we should be cancelling our Oct holiday. So we didn't go away in Oct.

Thanks @tillydog news to have a proper look but doubt we'll be going anyway.

Hard not to cite the behaviour of Cummings when people ask “what can we get away with” type questions…

During the week away we dont want to:

- use the local hospital

What you plan to do isn’t always what happens.

Soooo......

Is this new ‘stay local’ advisory or in law like the new tier 4 rules down south?

Stay at home.

Pretty sure it's law. I wouldn't risk it.

And this is why its spreading again. Regardless of the rules you do not need a holiday, many of us would like one but we don't need one, not like people who need cancer treatment or emergency surgery.

This is like the working class version of I can’t go skiing thread.

Another ‘I want to break the rules, but I’d like to assuage my guilt by seeking the approval of strangers’ thread. FFS.

Travel
You can continue to travel within your area for reasons such as:

travelling to venues that are open
for work
for education
to access voluntary, charitable or youth services
because of caring responsibilities
for moving home
to visit your support bubble
to receive medical treatment
You should avoid travelling outside your area and reduce the number of journeys you make wherever possible.

Walk or cycle where you can and plan ahead and avoid busy times and routes on public transport. Where that is not possible and you need to travel. Read safer travel guidance.

Avoid car sharing with anyone from outside your household or your support bubble – read guidance on car sharing.

You must not travel if you are experiencing any coronavirus symptoms, are self-isolating as a result of coronavirus symptoms, are sharing a household or support bubble with somebody with symptoms, or have been told to self-isolate after being contacted by NHS Test and Trace.

I’m sure all the people commenting in the last few minutes are in the new teir 4 or will still be mixing with family on Christmas Day. I’m not in a Tier 4 location.

I want to go to a remote cottage and not mix with any other people I just have to travel to get there.

But the new rules don’t affect Meadowhall being packed with 11,000 people everyday on the run up to Christmas

Waiting for the gov website to be updated but it seemed to me to just be advisory

Yes, spud I’m asking on here to clarify the Law, not to ask for permission. Every thing about travel which you just posted is advisory and not the Law.

I’m sure all the people commenting in the last few minutes are in the new teir 4 or will still be mixing with family on Christmas Day. I’m not.

You’re wrong. I’m in 3 I’ve stuck to the rules from day one to protect my family. For the first time in my life I won’t see my parents at Christmas to protect them. Meanwhile selfish ****s think the rules don’t apply to them.

T3 here, and I work on the response to this health emergency, so forgive me for my p*** boiling when we constantly have to clarify for folks what is actually quite clear.

For the first time in my life I won’t see my parents at Christmas to.

I also have stuck to to the rules see above.

Did you go for a walk or a cycle today outdoors and didn’t meet anybody you know? If you did then, like I did today also, then what is the difference if I do the same 100miles away from my house in a remote more rural location than next to a city like I did today.

If it’s the law then I will follow it. But as of this morning the government didn’t see fit to make it the Law they saw fit to advise me, not tell me. It is not clear yet if that has changed

Did you go for a walk or a cycle today outdoors and didn’t meet anybody you know? If you did then, like I did today also, then what is the difference if I do the same 100miles away from my house in a remote more rural location than next to a city like I did today.

No I didn’t I’m at work. The difference your travelling a 100 miles to a different area when asked not to during a pandemic. The risk is very small yes but still possible for you to help transmit the virus between areas.

Rule 1

I'm with Rik on this one - zero change to risk for anyone if you are still just staying in with the same people but in another house. If you're out buying food or bumping into others then Drac has a point.

If it was me, I'd go, but I'd take the supplies I need with me.

Not really commented on anything around this but here goes..

1. The Christmas 5 day thing was always ****ing ridiculous
2. Just stay at home anything else frankly is selfish and a form of self entitlement
3. This is not WW2 its probably going to last 18 months- nothing is being rationed - no ones getting bombed - no one is sending their sons to get killed. Manay of my relatives spent years away from home in WW2 (prison camps, evacuation, overseas.
4 People if this is the worst thing in your lifetime then you are lucky.
5. Just get on with it
6. Loneliness will not kill someone (depression will however)
7. We have become soft and entitled

difficult to argue with any of that.

I'm with "oldmanmtb2"
I've stuck with the rules no matter if they are advisory or law to protect myself and my family, i don't enjoy wearing masks not seeing friends etc but I accept that is how it is and when you consider what generations before us went through, frankly this is a piece of p*ss.
You have a roof over your head, food on the table and a shit load of TV to watch get over it and grow the **** up.

Also tier 3 and have been for months as I'm in the North West. Its feels more like 18 months for me, I lost my job June 2019, also lost my car and disposable income so 2019 was not a barrel of laughs either, nor did it involve much going out. Started work again the day before the first lockdown, have worked from home since. We've limited going out to the essentials, maybe eaten out twice in the brief 6 week period when we weren't under restrictions.

The guidance is clear, stay at home, can you guarantee you won't come into contact with someone whilst away? No you can't, what if you get hurt walking in the mountains for example?

No you can’t, what if you get hurt walking in the mountains for example?

We leave him it’s just guidance to rescue him.

I wouldn't, travelling just feels wrong. Was booked to go over to Arran for a days walking tomorrow (moved the date a few times due to tier changes), just moved it til end of March.

And that's within the county.

I was in tier 2 on Tuesday, now in tier 4. Due to my current living arrangements this means that my "Christmas" with my 10 year old daughter will be a boxing day picnic lunch and a walk in the woods. I won't be allowed into her house to see her open her presents from me. God I love BoJo

I suspect within the next week your booking will be cancelled anyway.
I live in a newly declared Tier 4 area, I had no intention of going to see my parents this Christmas because it wouldn't be sensible, my mother is 90, she has a life long respiratory illness, she has dementia, she has just spent a week in hospital with a heart condition that she was advised would cause her death with a week if she didn't go in. I'm not sure I'll physically see her alive again.
We can't visit my partner's mother because she died earlier this year.
I can't visit my aunt because she died earlier this year. Or my partner's aunt because she died earlier this year.
I'm expected to work 1600 hours a year, this year I've worked about 2400.
We'd quite like a holiday away. We're not going to get one.
It's shit isn't it?
You can holiday next year. Look forward to that.

And aP drops the mic.

God I love BoJo

It's nothing to do with him, b it's a virus, it changes, it kills people - whoever was in charge world have done the same.
Re T2 to T4: well tbh the South had been treated softly as usual and as a result those in London have taken the piss (this is straight from friends/relatives who live in London) - time to get real.
There should have been a T4 so along.

I'm not seeing any family at xmas but that's not advisory or the law as far as I know, I just don't like them.

Guidance says "shouldn't", not "can't" - I've WFH since March, Mrs Pondo's a teacher and the government has had much to say about the risks they *must* expose themselves to with two thirds of ****-all support to mitigate that risk. We were going to head away where we need come into contact with no-one but people we walk past in the open air, but that's a no-no, right? We just have to stick with walking past people in the open air where we live? What about if we promise not to leave the cottage? What if we have to test our eye sight by driving for several hours?

It's just a holiday, it's genuinely no big deal but **** - we so badly need to emigrate to New Zealand where the incompetence, corruption and utter ****wittedness of the government isn't so strikingly, farcically outrageous. 🙁

Unless our democratically elected members of parliament are sneaking into people's houses at night like a malevolent tooth fairy and infecting people in their sleep I'm struggling to see how the ongoing increase in infection is logically linked directly to the government.

I'd suggest your ire and angst ought to be better focused on the idiots who are ignoring what it pretty clear advice aimed at reducing infection rates.

Maybe you've missed it, but our democratically elected government have been rubbish at handling Covid (see: Johnson's U turn over a Christmas lockdown from about 12 hours ago after saying just this very week that Christmas would not be cancelled, for instance, or the UK's death rate compared to other countries, or how they awarded PPE contracts, or (this was awhile ago) how a special advisor totally broke lockdown rules and not only did they not get fired, they even had the PM go on telly to say "d'you know what, he did what anyone else would have done", or how the government refused to help feed hungry kids until a bloody Premiership footballer had to remind them of their responsibilities, or how the PM bragged about going to a hospital and shaking peoples' hands shortly before joking about Operation Last Gasp, etcetera etcetera et-frickin-cetera). So I totally get that people not wearing masks, not socially distancing, attending Covid protest marches and spreading anti-vax conspiracy nonsense are idiots and deserve my anger, but our government, who have led us to the one of the worst death rates on the planet and refused to accept any responsibility for their catastrophic mismanagement of this disaster (and hey, let's not forget the pig-headed refusal to countenance any delay to the Brexit fiasco they're firing in our direction right in the midst of the biggest global health emergency our species has ever faced), I'm going to reserve almost all of my anger for them, I think.

This.

We (my immediate family) came to the conclusion this is pretty simple, all the rules and advice just complicates things. Stay away from people and stay home as much as possible.

Transmission is mainly person to person not teleportation so avoiding people/going out must reduce everyone's risk. We've stuck to that throughout - cancelled trips/holidays/dinners etc.

All the 'can I do this/that/the other' is just people looking to justify their actions by doing just what they want. Everyone seems to think it's everyone else at fault. It's not. You are in control of you and you MUST take responsibility for your actions. Regardless of the sometimes muddled and developing Govt advice - stay at home and stay away from people as much as possible.

There's no good reason to be going on holiday just now however you justify/package it.

There’s no good reason to be going on holiday just now however you justify/package it.

If you're not interacting with others then there's no reason not to either. Guidance is just that, free to be followed or ignored as you see fit. As this is a UK based mountain biking forum it's hardly likely we even follow all laws either.

It's no problem for us to stay home (still to find out if our cancellation this late means we lose the money), but we've a London-based friend with a disabled daughter in her thirties who will miss Christmas with her for the very first time. Someone else mentioned that their 85 year old mum was due to go them in Kent for Christmas, their carer's been cancelled, they're low on food as they weren't expecting to be home alone over Christmas and there's zero chance of getting a delivery now. I'm sure there are thousands of similar stories - it's easy for us, but what do they do, it's dropped people right in the poop.

If you’re not interacting with others then there’s no reason not to either.

How will you travel whilst eliminating all incremental risk?

How can you be sure the destination rental is Covid free?

How can you be sure you're not taking a covid with you and leaving it for the next renter?

How will you travel whilst eliminating all incremental risk?

* Turns to look at the government's former special advisor * "How did you do it, Dom?"

* Turns to look at the government’s former special advisor * “How did you do it, Dom?”

That's the important bit about personal responsibility. I'll not follow the playground philosophy of copying the lowest common denominator.

It also reinforces the point that the average bod hasn't the intellectual maturity to decide 'what is right' so has to be given explicit instructions to avoid silly wriggle room (as per the OP) <sigh>

I

I’m with Rik on this one – zero change to risk for anyone if you are still just staying in with the same people but in another house. If you’re out buying food or bumping into others then Drac has a point.

Do you actually believe what you've written here?

This also assumes that the property you are staying in is being run in way to minimise risks. That isn't always the case. I live in a holiday area. We manage a single, family owned, Airbnb. We have a policy of no same day changeovers, our gusts open all of the windows before they leave, we are out of the property many hours before the next guests arrive. We have done this all year. Contrasted with a flat that is in the same building that I live in. It is run by a commercial company, they have had near full occupancy all year. Same day changeovers, no airing of the the property, low paid cleaning crew (with their children in tow) dashes around 1 hour before the guests arrive. Not sure how you know exactly what you are getting when you go away.

I’m going to reserve almost all of my anger for them, I think.

Despite that impressive palmares of **** wittery, you overlooked the incredible damage to the economy and mental health that the resulting extended lockdowns have created. Truly the worst of all options.

Loathing Boris for his incompetence, hubris, ineptitude, ignorance, selfishness and downright stupidity isn't mutually exclusive from realising we have a highly transmissible virus, particularly in the South (which after the way we've been treated we'd rather not have in the North, although it's inevitable looking at the pictures from train stations last night) and behaving accordingly.

That’s the important bit about personal responsibility. I’ll not follow the playground philosophy of copying the lowest common denominator.

Hey, we're going nowhere, but if you want to know why people are ignoring rules, it's because they're following the goverment's example.

Taken as a microcosm, school drop off/pick up. Scholl has one way system and asks people to wear a mask and stay two meters apart as well as not letting kids run about. About twenty percent of people don't wear a mask, let kids run a out and just barge past people to get their kids, school doesn't have any power and relies on good will, multiple this by the whole country and we've got no chance.

The person in Pondo's example could either establish or might already be in a support bubble with their lone relative, especially if they need care. A support bubble is the same as being in the same household and is exempt and, I think, this still applies in T4. The government make that exemption because their health advisors WANT people to take care of people who need taking care of no? However, I would be scared of giving my elderly relative COVID if I was asymptomatic so, if it was me, I would try and get a test, isolate and then work out a plan.

I won’t be allowed into her house to see her open her presents from me. God I love BoJo

Thought with dependent children in different households, this was allowed? Or is that just for single parents?

Rules and definition on support bubbles and shared parental responsibility here:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/making-a-support-bubble-with-another-household

Looks like the OP didn't quite get the affirmation he was seeking and is perhaps trying his hand on another forum near you...

Tell us more boblo 🤔

No rule is going to perfectly achieve its underlying objectives whilst having no other effects.

Thus there will be some courses of action within the scope of both rule and guidance that are more dangerous than some that comply with neither. It may even be the case that such activities can be easily identified.

There is also a social benefit associated with complying with rules and guidance which is independent of how well or poorly framed the rules and guidance are (and the associated social detriment in not complying).

Thus in deciding whether to comply, an individual has to weigh up actual harm (or lack of it) together with the social factors. It is an individual decision with moral and practical elements. Fundamentally everyone has the freedom to disobey (but not the right to avoid the consequences, obviously).

Personally, I wouldn't judge others on their decisions unless egregiously bad (I am glad to see that the word "egregious" has been getting quite an outing recently).

Fundamentally everyone has the freedom to disobey (but not the right to avoid the consequences, obviously).

This is something I've, rather unexpectedly had to deal with.

Every year my mum (in her 70s) goes to my sister's for Christmas. This year was going to be the same, until more recently, and we've been arranging shopping etc for her so she can spend Christmas at home.

Long story short, my sister is travelling the 200 mile round trip from an English tier 4 to tier 3 and back to pick my mum up and bring her to her house, making the same trip to drop her back on boxing Day.

While I'm pleased that she'll not be alone at Christmas, I'm pretty annoyed at how that is being achieved.

However, there bugger all I can do about it without upsetting everyone and being accused of spoiling Christmas.

It'll certainly spoil 2021 if I lose my mum.
:-/

TBH i'd choose being accused of spoiling xmas in your position however the number of people coming to me for advice on inter-personal relationships is zero. i'd rather spoil xmas for a few more years of life for your mum. in fact quite a few more years: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2017to2019#life-expectancy-at-age-65-years-in-the-uk

Do you actually believe what you’ve written here?

I do mate, I'm an adult and can read medical journals/articles myself to understand how it transmits.

I do mate, I’m an adult and can read medical journals/articles myself to understand how it transmits.

Clearly you do not. There is an increase in risk both to the person traveling and the people living there. Obvious, clear, valid risk. It may not be large but its there

Clearly you do not.

I get it TJ, you're a health worker so you're on a crusade because you're pissed at people's behaviour. I do appreciate that.

The reality here is, a family that live together, go to another house with no one in, do not leave (as per my original statement), then go home. No change to risk.

The reality here is, a family that live together, go to another house with no one in, do not leave (as per my original statement), then go home. No change to risk.

Unless, God forbid, you are involved in an accident or one of you is taken ill and needs hospital treatment while you are away.

A very fair challenge well put Allan.

The reality here is, a family that live together, go to another house with no one in, do not leave (as per my original statement), then go home. No change to risk.

As per the post from robola, other people (guests, cleaners, owners) could be in the property immediately before or after. So not no risk, perhaps low risk.

No change to risk.

This statement is simply wrong. Have a think about it. If you think there is no change in risk you show your ignorance. Covid could be in the building they travel to. they could take covid in. someone is going to have to clean the rental - they are at risk. Then there is the travel. Stopping for petrol - another risk.

You may judge the extra risk to be small but to deny its existence is stupid.

Bit of an attack TJ, I could quite easily call out your intelligence, but you are right that very very very small does not mean none.

When you say stupid things you must expect to be called out. I do.

so you now accept there is increased risk both to the traveling family and to others. thanks

Increased as in remaining imperceptible? Correct.

Watch out for branches on that high horse.

Increased yes. remaining imperceptible? I am not qualified to state that - are you? I doubt its imperceptible in the first place given the rate of infections all I know is its an increased risk and you did not like being called out for making stupid statements.

Basically deploy Hattertsleys rule. When in a hole stop digging. Its an increased risk and its unquantifiable. You have been called out for your stupid statement by me and others. accept you were wrong

Imperceptible as in, the cleaner prior to entry would have to have it, it would have to transmit to a surface, live on that surface, transmit to the family, the family would then have to have a highly unlikely severely negative reaction to it for it to be of note.

I'm a numbers guy so for me it is all based on probability, which is very very low I this scenario. Depends on your view of risk I guess.

Not trying to incite an argument anyway, completely take onboard what you and others have said TJ. My view was very black and white before so not time wasted. Also get why you're emotive, but trying to insult my intelligence is misguided.

Basically deploy Hattertsleys rule. When in a hole stop digging. Its an increased risk and its unquantifiable.

Quite quantifiable my friend. Stop being condescending you are in no position.