A lot of this discussion of the six-person rule appears wrongly premised on the idea that it defines a safe threshold i.e. "5 people meeting is safe, 7 isn't" or "six people meeting in work is fine, socially it isn't" which naturally inspires a lot of pointless facetiousness 1/
But that is OBVIOUSLY not what they are doing, right? They (HMG) are confronted with a vast collection of behaviours that together add up to a degree of infectiousness, and they are choosing which of them to bear down upon ...2/
... as smarter people than I am have put it: they have a budget, and since they think they are through their budget they are saving a chunk of behaviours, presumably those they deem to be least important economically or in some other wise 3/
so it is literally meaningless to say "the rule doesn't make sense, because if you can do X why can't you do Y?". Like when people say "what is the point of saving money on beer when you spend so much on coffee". It still saves you money. They are additive 4/
Anyway I am sure you all get this. I just needed to get it down to clarify what I thought. 5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
