Religion & Spirituality2 mins ago
Covid Bubble
I am currently giving support to a friend and neighbour who has had a stroke. Her nephew who has a partner and 4 children lives about 6 miles away and insists he is part of her support bubble and intends to visit with the entire entourage. I always wear a mask when I help yet he and his family do not. I do not believe he can be in her bubble, am right?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by susanxx. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The government defines a support bubbles as a “network which links two households”.
However, it is not the case that any two households can form a support bubble.
The government is careful to say: “You have to meet certain eligibility rules to form a support bubble.
“This means not everyone will be able to form a support bubble.”
If you live by yourself, you’re allowed to form a support bubble with another household.
Even if carers visit you to provide support but you still live alone, you can form a support bubble.
“However, if you form a support bubble, it is best if this is with a household who live locally. This will help prevent the virus spreading from an area where more people are infected.”
However, it is not the case that any two households can form a support bubble.
The government is careful to say: “You have to meet certain eligibility rules to form a support bubble.
“This means not everyone will be able to form a support bubble.”
If you live by yourself, you’re allowed to form a support bubble with another household.
Even if carers visit you to provide support but you still live alone, you can form a support bubble.
“However, if you form a support bubble, it is best if this is with a household who live locally. This will help prevent the virus spreading from an area where more people are infected.”
//...In fact if ever there was a case for dobbing people in this is it. Warn them in advance, if they still insist tell the authorities when they are arriving.//
That’s not really a good idea, Tora. First of all, as diddly points out, the size of the “bubble” is immaterial. The only stipulations are that household #1 must be either a person on their own or a single adult with children. The other (household #2) can be of any size. Provided all the adults in H2 agree the single person (and children if they have any) can visit them and all the people in H1 can visit all the people in H2. But more than that, if (in bold capitals underlined three times) the police happened to pay a visit they would quiz susan’s neighbour about her bubble arrangements. If they established she was “bubbling” with both her nephew’s clan and susan they may decide that she was breaking the law. I imagine this would be an instance where “advice” might be given (unless she lives in Derbyshire) but this is obviously aggravation she could do without. That said, there is an exception to the prevention of “gatherings” which says:
“to provide care or assistance to a vulnerable person or a person who has a disability, including relevant personal care within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006;”
Whether that exception would apply to a gathering of a couple and four kids – and quite how much “care and assistance” that group might give to a vulnerable person is, I suppose, arguable. But it could certainly apply to susan meaning she can visit as well as the nephew and his brood. I must say I haven’t looked into this in much depth.
But we’re back to the same debate: the legislation allows for such activities. The “bubble” idea was introduced soon after lockdown 1 began. It was realised that people who lived alone – especially those who had been told to “shield” – would not see a living soul from one week’s end to the next. When it was obvious that the initial “three week” lockdown would be extended for considerably longer than that, welfare groups (and others who were blessed with half a brain) realised that this was not a very desirable state of affairs so the bubble concept was born. So you’re allowed to do it. But it is immediately confused by advice or guidance which seems to place restrictions on it. That’s all well and good but in some instances the “advice” is being taken as law when it is not. There seems to be a blurring of law and guidance with just about every aspect of this malarky and it’s leaving people confused and, in some cases, being unlawfully threatened with sanctions.
That’s not really a good idea, Tora. First of all, as diddly points out, the size of the “bubble” is immaterial. The only stipulations are that household #1 must be either a person on their own or a single adult with children. The other (household #2) can be of any size. Provided all the adults in H2 agree the single person (and children if they have any) can visit them and all the people in H1 can visit all the people in H2. But more than that, if (in bold capitals underlined three times) the police happened to pay a visit they would quiz susan’s neighbour about her bubble arrangements. If they established she was “bubbling” with both her nephew’s clan and susan they may decide that she was breaking the law. I imagine this would be an instance where “advice” might be given (unless she lives in Derbyshire) but this is obviously aggravation she could do without. That said, there is an exception to the prevention of “gatherings” which says:
“to provide care or assistance to a vulnerable person or a person who has a disability, including relevant personal care within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006;”
Whether that exception would apply to a gathering of a couple and four kids – and quite how much “care and assistance” that group might give to a vulnerable person is, I suppose, arguable. But it could certainly apply to susan meaning she can visit as well as the nephew and his brood. I must say I haven’t looked into this in much depth.
But we’re back to the same debate: the legislation allows for such activities. The “bubble” idea was introduced soon after lockdown 1 began. It was realised that people who lived alone – especially those who had been told to “shield” – would not see a living soul from one week’s end to the next. When it was obvious that the initial “three week” lockdown would be extended for considerably longer than that, welfare groups (and others who were blessed with half a brain) realised that this was not a very desirable state of affairs so the bubble concept was born. So you’re allowed to do it. But it is immediately confused by advice or guidance which seems to place restrictions on it. That’s all well and good but in some instances the “advice” is being taken as law when it is not. There seems to be a blurring of law and guidance with just about every aspect of this malarky and it’s leaving people confused and, in some cases, being unlawfully threatened with sanctions.
The latest guidance says that you can continue to leave the house to provide essential care to someone who is vulnerable. However you must be careful to take every precaution possible, such as wearing a face covering and taking stringent hygiene measures, without even having formed a bubble.
The family should really be staying at home, but perhaps you should remove yourself from the "bubble" and tell them that they will need to take over the ongoing support role.
The family should really be staying at home, but perhaps you should remove yourself from the "bubble" and tell them that they will need to take over the ongoing support role.
As zacs C&P //Even if carers visit you to provide support but you still live alone, you can form a support bubble.//
She is entitled to see a household of her family if she likes. Whether it is a "good idea" is her choice. Is she happy with family providing her care?
Either way, if you are not happy with it, you should back out and let someone else take over.
She is entitled to see a household of her family if she likes. Whether it is a "good idea" is her choice. Is she happy with family providing her care?
Either way, if you are not happy with it, you should back out and let someone else take over.
//The family should really be staying at home, but perhaps you should remove yourself from the "bubble"//
Which illustrates my point about confusion.
Susan cannot form a bubble if the nephew and co. have (and vice versa). Single people can only form one bubble and that is restricted to the single person's household and one other household. But she can provide "care and assistance" under the exception I mentioned.
Which illustrates my point about confusion.
Susan cannot form a bubble if the nephew and co. have (and vice versa). Single people can only form one bubble and that is restricted to the single person's household and one other household. But she can provide "care and assistance" under the exception I mentioned.
Latest Posts
News2 mins ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
