Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Messey  
#1 Posted : 10 September 2020 15:03:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Messey

The new rule of 6 does indeed simplify some of the confusing rules that proceeded it. But I am a little confused about the definition of weddings and funerals 

The 30 person rules apply for these events, but does anyone know if:

  • The term 'wedding' extends to the reception/wedding breakfast,  even if held in a alternative venue,away from the place where the wedding took place?, or;
  • The term funeral extends to the wake even if that occurs in a premises away from a civic or religious place where the funeral was held?
Kate  
#2 Posted : 10 September 2020 16:04:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

According to a segment in this BBC audio (about 11 minutes in), the maximum of 30 applies both to the ceremony and to the reception.  Also, the reception can only be a sit-down meal with table service and no disco.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p08r0c7z

Wailes900134  
#3 Posted : 11 September 2020 04:58:56(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Wailes900134

No disco but I'd have thought a socially distanced Hokey Cokey would some up governmental guidance this year quite well...
thanks 2 users thanked Wailes900134 for this useful post.
RVThompson on 11/09/2020(UTC), Kate on 11/09/2020(UTC)
AcornsConsult  
#4 Posted : 11 September 2020 06:33:49(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
AcornsConsult

Apologies if this sounds like a fun buster, but If we look back over a few forum posts and see the real almost extreme efforts some are expecting and going to,to,protect themselves and others, it seems almost a travesty that we also seem to be trying to go rght to the edge of the legislation rather than look at the welfare of the attendees. Surely the easiest way to remain legal and safe is to minimise exposure and maximise the event and get it done as swiftly as possible.  Spreading it over more time, more locations just seems so avoidable. 

Wailes900134  
#5 Posted : 11 September 2020 07:01:57(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Wailes900134

Fair points Acorns. In March I advised to add C19 to Hazard Profile and manage via risk assessment under the employers general duty and avoid the very obvious temptation to follow the government advice as the primary control. Six months on I wouldn't change that. On a personal basis I found myself quickly looking to WHO and virologists to guide my behaviour, and keeping pace with Boris's briefings probably serving more to understand the tsunami of jokes and memes that followed rather than adding any value to risk control.
John Murray  
#6 Posted : 11 September 2020 07:05:33(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murray

"It was announced yesterday that groups of more than six people would not be allowed to meet socially in England, even if they are from the same household, forcing one man, Simon Williams, to amend his BBQ plans.

“This new ban applies to indoor and outdoor social gatherings, so I thought that was it for my plan for a BBQ next Wednesday evening,” he told us.

“But then I discovered that people were free to cram onto the underground at rush hour in unlimited numbers, so I just texted the lads and told them to meet me next Wednesday morning in the fourth carriage from the front on the Bakerloo line.

“Steve will bring the sausages, Dave will bring the booze, and I’ll be there ready with my charcoal BBQ, it’ll be great; I can’t foresee any problems with any part of this plan, and clearly neither can the government.” "

"NewsThump" dot com

thanks 1 user thanked John Murray for this useful post.
Kate on 11/09/2020(UTC)
peter gotch  
#7 Posted : 11 September 2020 13:41:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Thanks for that John.

I liked the way the reportage continued:

Government spokesperson Christopher James told press this morning, “Boris Johnson will give further details about the new restrictions later today, and he will be able to clarify any confusion then.

“He’s personally gutted at having to do this, as he was planning to see all his children one day next week, as he always does – he’s a great Dad – but sadly he’s had to postpone this now as there are too many of them.”

What's not clear is what Christopher James' surname might be.

Gerry Knowles  
#8 Posted : 16 September 2020 15:11:59(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Gerry Knowles

Sorry to be a bit of a kill joy.  We appear to arrived in a place where new rules come out and there is suddenly a quest by some people to look for ways to get round them.  Someone said to me today the rules are so complicated.  It seems quite clear to me you can meet or socialise up to six people.  You should maintain social distancing with those you dont live with.  Seems clear enough to me.  There are of course exemptions for large families and bubbles. 

There are of course differences in the other nations, but I am sure that we would know where we are and if I was travelling I would know what the rules are and then follow them.  

I feel that if we followed the rules and stop trying to get round them we might just get out of the awful situation a bit quicker. End of rant!!!

thanks 2 users thanked Gerry Knowles for this useful post.
AcornsConsult on 16/09/2020(UTC), Kate on 17/09/2020(UTC)
achrn  
#9 Posted : 17 September 2020 07:59:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: Gerry Knowles Go to Quoted Post

Sorry to be a bit of a kill joy.  We appear to arrived in a place where new rules come out and there is suddenly a quest by some people to look for ways to get round them.  Someone said to me today the rules are so complicated.  It seems quite clear to me you can meet or socialise up to six people.  You should maintain social distancing with those you dont live with.  Seems clear enough to me.  There are of course exemptions for large families and bubbles.

I agree people are looking for loopholes when they shouldn't.

I disagree that the rules are clear.

For example, I can go to a concert, as long as I go in a group no bigger than six.  I have to socially distance from the other members of that group not in my houselhold, and when I get to the concert I socially distance from other groups attending to exactly the same degree.  So my family goes to the concert (4 of us), and my next-door neighbours (5 of them) go to the concert.  We get there and sit 2m apart.  All fine.  EXCEPT, if we happened to exchange greetings (remaining 2m apart) on the way there, then we were a group of 9 and breaking the law? That makes no sense whatsoever.  What is the difference between a group of 9 attending and a group of 5 plus a group of 4?  How do you tell the difference? In both cases the different households in the group(s) remain 2 m apart, but a simple 'hello' apparently gets you a £100 fine (and a criminal record?)

If it's so clear and straightforward, how do you, as an observer at the music venue, tell the difference between this group of 5 plus group of 4 and this group of 9?  Remember, in both cases the households are 2m apart.  There is absolutely no actual behaviour difference between the two cases.  Which case gets a fine?

And a wake is an offence, but a game of 'ultimate frisbee' or underwater hockey is perfectly OK?  That makes no sense - especially the frisbee - do you wipe it down with a disinfectant wipe every time you catch the frisbee?

And it's fine for 20 children to mingle at school, but step outside the school gate and if 7 of them chat that's illegal?

Edited by user 17 September 2020 08:12:21(UTC)  | Reason: spill chucking

Roundtuit  
#10 Posted : 17 September 2020 08:30:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

If you look at S.I. 2020 No. 684 it is plain to comprehend why there is so much confusion given not everyone in the UK is a solicitor, barrister or similar - since its July publication there have been 11 amendments under Citation, Commencement, Application and Interpretation - the latest on 14th September with this rule of six.

What is keeping up to date with ths ONE regulation worth as CPD points for the year?

Roundtuit  
#11 Posted : 17 September 2020 08:30:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

If you look at S.I. 2020 No. 684 it is plain to comprehend why there is so much confusion given not everyone in the UK is a solicitor, barrister or similar - since its July publication there have been 11 amendments under Citation, Commencement, Application and Interpretation - the latest on 14th September with this rule of six.

What is keeping up to date with ths ONE regulation worth as CPD points for the year?

CptBeaky  
#12 Posted : 17 September 2020 09:59:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

I think we need to make the distinction between "easy to understand the rules" and "easy to understand the logic of the rules".

  1. count number of people in a group
  2. If it is over 6, unless it is in a place that has controls in place, such as a business, education setting, public transport or an organised event, than don't do it.
  3. If it is 6 people or under, try not to lick each other unnecessarily

Surely we can all understand the difference between a drink in a pub where (in theory) they have perspex sheets, security, and a finishing time, as opposed to a free-for-all in a private dwelling? We are H&S professionals, we know if there are no controls people can suffer.

Now, on the other hand, we can all agree that some of the exemptions are questionable at best, and plain ridiculous at worse. Grouse hunting being allowed (nothing to do with a holiday paid for by a mate with two grouse shooting areas on their land, of course), keeping kids apart outside school, but not at breaks etc. But this is irrelevant to the "it's complicated" conversation.

thanks 1 user thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
Kate on 17/09/2020(UTC)
achrn  
#13 Posted : 17 September 2020 10:58:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post

I think we need to make the distinction between "easy to understand the rules" and "easy to understand the logic of the rules".

  1. count number of people in a group

And that's where it breaks down.  You see in the street four people and 2m away five people.  Is that a group of nine, or a group of four and a group of five? How do you tell the difference - apparently it's straightforward, even though no-one has been able to explain it to me. How do the people in the group(s) tell if they are in one group of nine or two different groups?

chris42  
#14 Posted : 17 September 2020 11:15:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post

I think we need to make the distinction between "easy to understand the rules" and "easy to understand the logic of the rules".

  1. count number of people in a group

And that's where it breaks down.  You see in the street four people and 2m away five people.  Is that a group of nine, or a group of four and a group of five? How do you tell the difference - apparently it's straightforward, even though no-one has been able to explain it to me. How do the people in the group(s) tell if they are in one group of nine or two different groups?

You can tell it is two groups because there is at least a 2m gap between the 4 and the 5 and no one crosses from one group to the other. I really don’t think that talking to someone over two meters away from you means they are part of your group.

Roundtuit  
#15 Posted : 17 September 2020 11:25:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Once again an assumption - this time that the whole of society is on an equal intellectual and educational par.

As a previous Personnel Manager quipped "you can't educate pork"

Roundtuit  
#16 Posted : 17 September 2020 11:25:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Once again an assumption - this time that the whole of society is on an equal intellectual and educational par.

As a previous Personnel Manager quipped "you can't educate pork"

CptBeaky  
#17 Posted : 17 September 2020 12:00:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post

And that's where it breaks down.  You see in the street four people and 2m away five people.  Is that a group of nine, or a group of four and a group of five? How do you tell the difference - apparently it's straightforward, even though no-one has been able to explain it to me. How do the people in the group(s) tell if they are in one group of nine or two different groups?

It is not up to us to tell how many people are in a group, it is up to the group in question. Count the number of people you are standing around with, including yourself. Is it more than 6? Go join the other group. There is nothing to say that you can't meet up in a single day with more than 5 other people, just not at any one time.

Yes the logic it stupid, but the rules aren't.

Wailes900134  
#18 Posted : 17 September 2020 12:19:26(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Wailes900134

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post
Personnel Manager quipped "you can't educate pork"
Kettle - pot - black
Cheeky Me  
#19 Posted : 17 September 2020 13:38:57(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Cheeky Me

CptBeaky I disagree, the rules are as stupid as the logic.

We are a family of 4, (previously 5), my eldest recently moved in with his partner and they have a 10-month-old baby. This new rule of 6 means they can no longer come and visit us as a “family” …. unless they leave someone behind. Although they can all still come and visit – just not together. Example Situation: Saturday morning they take baby to one set of grandparents while they go do some shopping. After shopping they call in to visit our family as they can’t come if baby is with them (over 6). They then decide they’d like to go out for a meal and ask if we will look after baby while they go. They collect baby from Grandparent house and one of them drops him off at our house (not both), he stays for a couple of hours before being collected again by mum or dad (not both) and taken home.

So, in the space of a few hours, we can have a visit from “mum and dad” as long as they don’t bring their child, we can then look after said child as long as only one parent brings him, then at the end of the day child goes back home… to mum and dad. How does that make sense?  The rule of 6 has stopped them coming as a “family” yet still allows all of them to visit me in my home, on the same day and in the space of just a few hours. Total madness.  Please tell me how this rule is not stupid.

achrn  
#20 Posted : 17 September 2020 14:44:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: chris42 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post

I think we need to make the distinction between "easy to understand the rules" and "easy to understand the logic of the rules".

  1. count number of people in a group

And that's where it breaks down.  You see in the street four people and 2m away five people.  Is that a group of nine, or a group of four and a group of five? How do you tell the difference - apparently it's straightforward, even though no-one has been able to explain it to me. How do the people in the group(s) tell if they are in one group of nine or two different groups?

You can tell it is two groups because there is at least a 2m gap between the 4 and the 5 and no one crosses from one group to the other. I really don’t think that talking to someone over two meters away from you means they are part of your group.

No - that's not right, because if you have a group of five people from two households, they are allowed to be in a single group, but aren't allowed to be within 2m of each other - the 2m spacing still applies within a group that is permitted to meet.

So 2m spacing doesn't tell you it's two groups.  If they are less than 2m apart it will be one group, but if they are more than 2m apart that doesn't make it two groups.

Try again, please, it's apparently very straightforward - just apparently inexplicable.

Edited by user 17 September 2020 14:45:23(UTC)  | Reason: spilling

CptBeaky  
#21 Posted : 18 September 2020 07:27:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

Originally Posted by: Cheeky Me Go to Quoted Post

CptBeaky I disagree, the rules are as stupid as the logic.

At no point have I said they are not stupid. They are almost a parody of a good rule. All I am saying is that they are not complicated. Basically we (as a population) have not been able to do the most simple of distancing during the re-opening. The whole time we have blamed the government, dispite the fact that everyone seemed to spend half their time looking for ways in which the rules did not apply to them. Then we feign anger/surprise when it all goes to pot. So this time the government has made the rules as simple as possible, so that even the morons that I see hanging around the park in packs of 20+ can understand it.

Unfortunatly any rule this simple is also completely illogical. That combined with the usual pleasing of donators to the politcal party ends up making a mockery of any semblance of sense they could have pretended was in there. You can meet up with a load of mates and shoot things, but not just stand together in the same field/woods not shooting things.....

thanks 1 user thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
Kate on 18/09/2020(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.