At 08:11 12/09/2020, Martin Rathfelder wrote:

>Isnt the point that this rule is seen as enforceable?



Who knows.  In practical/realistic terms, it's only 'enforceable'

(given that enforcement can only follow 'detection') in relation to

gatherings in 'public places', outdoor places that are easily visible

(like 'front gardens') and in relation to indoor gatherings so

large/obvious (like large noisy parties) that they become

'noticed'.  The police (or 'marshals') are not going to

(realistically cannot) go around knocking on doors at random to

discover who is inside houses.



Whatever, however 'enforceable' one perceives it to be, "two

households" (as, if I recall, was the rule at an earlier stage in the

epidemic) is surely no less easy to enforce than "6 people", and

would seem (to me) to be much preferable - as I said, there surely is

a big difference between the meeting of two households (regardless of

the number of people) and the meeting of 6 people, each from

different multi-person households?



The problem of 'serial gatherings' seems insuperable, so one can but

rely on public common sense and 'responsibility' (which unfortunately

sometimes seems to be sadly lacking) - unless, that is, you can think

of another solution.  In fact, the government don't seem to have said

anything about this.  Even though enforcement of any rule about this

would essentially be impossible, they could at least 'recommend' that

people do not meet in more than one (different) 'group of 6' on the

same day (or whatever time period), but they don't seem to have

mentioned that at all.  As things stand, 'serial meetings, even on

the same day, would seem to be 'allowed', so there is currently

nothing to enforce in this regard.



Kind Regards,

John



>On 11/09/2020 20:58, John Whittington wrote:

>>At 20:30 11/09/2020, John Bibby wrote:

>>>Ar one level, you might guess that a Rule of 12 is FOUR times as

>>>dangerous as a Rule of 6. Because the chance of having an infected

>>>person is doubled AND the number of people who get infected is

>>>doubled. Sort of.

>>

>>It's potentially a lot worse than that, isn't it?  If each of those

>>12 people rush away from their gathering and then immediately (or

>>the next day) get together with another 11 (different) people, who

>>then maybe do the same thing, then the numbers presumably could

>>really 'rise exponentially', couldn't they?

>>

>>It also seems rather silly to have a rule based upon absolute

>>numbers of people (6, 12 opr whatever), rather that the 'number of

>>households.  If, say, two households, each of 4 people, want to get

>>together, it will only be legal if two of them (from the same or

>>different households) absent themselves from the gathering.

>>However, those who do attend the gathering will immediately

>>therafter freely mix with the member(s) of their household who

>>absented themselves from the gathering.

>>

>>It would surely make more sense to limit the gathering to, say, two

>>_households_, regardless of the number of people (rather than 6

>>people), wouldn't it?   There is a big difference between a

>>household of 4-5 getting together with 1-2 people from one

>>different household than for a person from one household getting

>>together with 5 others, each from different (multi-person)

>>households, isn't there?

>>

>>Kind Regards,

>>

>>John

>>

>>----------------------------------------------------------------

>>Dr John Whittington,       Voice:    +44 (0) 1296 730225

>>Mediscience Services       Fax:      +44 (0) 1296 738893

>>Twyford Manor, Twyford,    E-mail:   [log in to unmask]

>>Buckingham  MK18 4EL, UK

>>----------------------------------------------------------------

>>

>>******************************************************

>>Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your

>>message will go only to the sender of this message.

>>If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's

>>'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically

>>to [log in to unmask].

>>Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the

>>sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of

>>views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find

>>out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and

>>read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to

>>visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.

>>*******************************************************

>

>--

>Martin Rathfelder

>

>22 Blair Road

>Manchester

>M16 8NS

>

>07968703740

>

>******************************************************

>Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your

>message will go only to the sender of this message.

>If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's

>'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically

>to [log in to unmask].

>Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the

>sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of

>views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find

>out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and

>read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to

>visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.

>*******************************************************

>



John



----------------------------------------------------------------

Dr John Whittington,       Voice:    +44 (0) 1296 730225

Mediscience Services       Fax:      +44 (0) 1296 738893

Twyford Manor, Twyford,    E-mail:   [log in to unmask]

Buckingham  MK18 4EL, UK

----------------------------------------------------------------



******************************************************

Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your

message will go only to the sender of this message.

If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's

'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically

to [log in to unmask].

Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.

*******************************************************