Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

Mation said:
My tenancy agreement has me as a separate household to my housemates, whose tenancy agreements state the same. Legally/technically, we are separate.

Morally/healthwise/sensibly, we are a household, despite our separate agreements. I think so, anyway. But what if they don't, given that legally they would be correct about household status?

(I'm not after advice re me; this is just an illustration of the problems with the gov guidance.)
Click to expand...
So, it's turned out to be about a 50/50 split in terms of interpretation. Some of us (me included) think this is about what makes sense, healthwise.

The others say they get that, but have still decided to interpret it as 'I am my own household'. This while we had the conversation, several of us, sitting round the table in the shared kitchen.

Me: "We don't live alone."
Others: "Legally, I do."

:facepalm:
 
Mation said:
So, it's turned out to be about a 50/50 split in terms of interpretation. Some of us (me included) think this is about what makes sense, healthwise.

The others say they get that, but have still decided to interpret it as 'I am my own household'. This while we had the conversation, several of us, sitting round the table in the shared kitchen.

Me: "We don't live alone."
Others: "Legally, I do."

:facepalm:
Click to expand...
tell them it's only legal if their guests come in via rope ladder out of their bedroom windows and don't use any of the shared rooms.
e2a: and that they then cannot use the shared rooms either: use the rop ladders too for themselves.
 
wemakeyousoundb said:
tell them it's only legal if their guests come in via rope ladder out of their bedroom windows and don't use any of the shared rooms.
e2a: and that they then cannot use the shared rooms either: use the rop ladders too for themselves.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Panic buying some Milk Tray as we speak :thumbs: :D
 
Protect the NHS, die at home.

www.bbc.co.uk

Coronavirus: 'Start public inquiry now to prevent more deaths'

An immediate public inquiry could help save lives, say relatives of 450 virus victims.
www.bbc.co.uk

Jamie said government advice to "stay at home" meant his 65-year-old father did not seek medical help early enough.

"He was trying to wait it out and if you wait too long it turns out it kills you really quickly," he said.

He added that a detailed public inquiry into the broader handling of the crisis in the UK must eventually take place, but right now he believes it is crucial that a limited inquiry starts as soon as possible.

"We need to learn the lessons immediately from what has gone wrong to get us to this point," he said.
Click to expand...
 
elbows said:
Protect the NHS, die at home.

www.bbc.co.uk

Coronavirus: 'Start public inquiry now to prevent more deaths'

An immediate public inquiry could help save lives, say relatives of 450 virus victims.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

I worked in a hospital through this and up until the end of April, and I keep meaning to write something about the feelings and general state of where I was working to give this some context and feel for the over-riding state of panic and stress that played a part of this thing.
 
Mation said:
So, it's turned out to be about a 50/50 split in terms of interpretation. Some of us (me included) think this is about what makes sense, healthwise.

The others say they get that, but have still decided to interpret it as 'I am my own household'. This while we had the conversation, several of us, sitting round the table in the shared kitchen.

Me: "We don't live alone."
Others: "Legally, I do."

:facepalm:
Click to expand...

It sounds a bit dodgy in legal interpretation anyway... I mean do you all pay council tax separately? And there’d be a bunch of stuff like if you share bills, share the same address etc. Not that I know about housing law, just sounds dubious.

Though obviously multiple occupancy is increasingly common... but yeah, it would probably take an actual court case to decide it.
 
Last edited:
I think Mation 's flatmates are right (legally at least). This is from a landlord's guide to HMOs.

For the purposes of HMOs, a household is considered to be a single person, or members of the same family living in the same property. So, for example, three unrelated people in three rooms would make up three households, while a property with two couples would make up two households.
Click to expand...

www.simplybusiness.co.uk

What is an HMO? A guide for UK landlords

What is an HMO? Read our landlord guide to find out more about HMO regulations and licensing rules.
www.simplybusiness.co.uk www.simplybusiness.co.uk
 
I've been looking quite hard for some kind of guidance on what defines a household in relation to HMOs for the purpose of covid restrictions, and as far as I can tell it doesn't really exist - all the guidance about HMOs is for landlords with some very vague stuff for tenants. Which I guess means Mation 's flatmates are free to interpret the rules as they please, in the absence of something definitive. I can only assume this is missing because the government don't really care about the safety of people living in HMOs...
 
LynnDoyleCooper said:
I worked in a hospital through this and up until the end of April, and I keep meaning to write something about the feelings and general state of where I was working to give this some context and feel for the over-riding state of panic and stress that played a part of this thing.
Click to expand...

Well I understand in the sense that there was every reason to expect the health services to be overwhelmed in at least a few regions of the country. I remember hearing of the strange feelings people working in hospitals etc experienced once it became clear the surge that had already happened was it, that the tsunami people had gotten 'hyped up' to deal with was not coming beyond what they were already dealing with.

I dont have the evidence to claim that at least some of Londons hospitals would have been overwhelmed if it were not for the several ways that demand was artificially reduced, but I believe it remains a plausible possibility. After all, we know that in addition to the public health messages that encouraged too many people to stay at home and not seek help at the right moment, there was a period in the crucial weeks when the threshold for actually admitting patients who sought help was raised way above the norm, in London at least (we dont know if the same happened elsewhere).

The problem I have with this is that some of the entire point of protecting the NHS in the first place is lost if the protection is done by dissuading people who could have been saved from getting the right treatment at the right time. I know its more complicated than that, and they had to plan for reasonable worst-case scenarios, but the right balance was not struck. There would have been ways to do a bit of both, we could have had much clearer messaging about when people needed to seek medical help (ie the sort of care and awareness of the dangerous point of illness that the likes of Johnson ultimately benefited from) and if they had been a bit earlier with Nightingale they would have had slightly more wiggle room with the admissions policy.
 
Cerv said:
you and your flatmates are a household. so can only form a bubble with one other person from outside.
seems like one of the mind games C4 would make up for Big Brother to try and cause drama in the house.
you could perhaps draw lots for who gets to pick a friend.


e: yeah, the bubble's for the benefit of the singleton, not the people in the flat share. but when 2 of you have a single friend in need of support it's going to be awkward to decide who get's told no.
Click to expand...
You meet the other one down the zoo, surely?
 
elbows said:
Well I understand in the sense that there was every reason to expect the health services to be overwhelmed in at least a few regions of the country. I remember hearing of the strange feelings people working in hospitals etc experienced once it became clear the surge that had already happened was it, that the tsunami people had gotten 'hyped up' to deal with was not coming beyond what they were already dealing with.

I dont have the evidence to claim that at least some of Londons hospitals would have been overwhelmed if it were not for the several ways that demand was artificially reduced, but I believe it remains a plausible possibility. After all, we know that in addition to the public health messages that encouraged too many people to stay at home and not seek help at the right moment, there was a period in the crucial weeks when the threshold for actually admitting patients who sought help was raised way above the norm, in London at least (we dont know if the same happened elsewhere).

The problem I have with this is that some of the entire point of protecting the NHS in the first place is lost if the protection is done by dissuading people who could have been saved from getting the right treatment at the right time. I know its more complicated than that, and they had to plan for reasonable worst-case scenarios, but the right balance was not struck. There would have been ways to do a bit of both, we could have had much clearer messaging about when people needed to seek medical help (ie the sort of care and awareness of the dangerous point of illness that the likes of Johnson ultimately benefited from) and if they had been a bit earlier with Nightingale they would have had slightly more wiggle room with the admissions policy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, totally. My idea of writing it was less to give a justifiable explanation for it, more to give a bit of a personal perspective on the chaos and fear that was rife in the NHS as this was coming down the road.
 
LynnDoyleCooper said:
Yeah, totally. My idea of writing it was less to give a justifiable explanation for it, more to give a bit of a personal perspective on the chaos and fear that was rife in the NHS as this was coming down the road.
Click to expand...

I want to hear about it but do it when you are ready, hold onto the memories of what that period felt like and convey that stuff whenever it feels like the right time for you.
 
Sue said:
Yeah, though of course 'legally' isn't really the point...
Click to expand...
Exactly.
killer b said:
I've been looking quite hard for some kind of guidance on what defines a household in relation to HMOs for the purpose of covid restrictions, and as far as I can tell it doesn't really exist - all the guidance about HMOs is for landlords with some very vague stuff for tenants. Which I guess means Mation 's flatmates are free to interpret the rules as they please, in the absence of something definitive. I can only assume this is missing because the government don't really care about the safety of people living in HMOs...
Click to expand...
Yup!

So if this is playing out around the country in houseshares and flatshares, the bubbles are fucked.
 
LynnDoyleCooper said:
I worked in a hospital through this and up until the end of April, and I keep meaning to write something about the feelings and general state of where I was working to give this some context and feel for the over-riding state of panic and stress that played a part of this thing.
Click to expand...

Does your experience reflect the NS article I posted above?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

elbows
UK Inquiry Module 3: Impact on UK Healthcare Systems
2 3
Replies
76
Views
2K
elbows
elbows
elbows
UK Inquiry Module 1: Resilience and preparedness
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
165
Views
6K
elbows
elbows
elbows
UK Inquiry Module 2: Decision-making & political governance
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
173
Views
5K
elbows
elbows
frogwoman
Shanghai lockdown
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
editor
Professional football and coronavirus
Replies
6
Views
601
elbows
elbows
Back
Top Bottom