The ‘rule of six’ is an unnecessary, unworkable and largely unenforceable mess

A GROUP of Tory MPs have a new WhatsApp group called “What the f*** is going on?”

Can 66million others join?

Because I’ve yet to meet anyone who knows the answer — not least since the latest, “rule of six” directive from our seemingly directionless Government.

From what I can fathom, it boils down to the reality that I can invite five complete strangers into my house on an hourly rotation throughout the week — which, on a 9-to-5 basis, would total 280 people crossing my threshold — but I’m not allowed to have my usual Sunday lunch for seven members of our family.

Unless we’re taking part in a sporting activity between courses or hunting grouse.

As for Christmas, well, my elderly mother and brother-in-law will just have to go elsewhere or my neighbour might call the police.

Except they probably won’t come because, as the Police Federation rightly pointed out, they’re far too busy dealing with knife crime.

What an unholy, unnecessary, un-workable and largely unenforceable mess.

Worse, it has lost the goodwill of the generally law-abiding British public, most of whom understand the need for caution when shielding the vulnerable but take exception to being treated like toddlers placed on the naughty step.

Back in April, Sweden’s former state epidemiologist, Professor Johan Giesecke, was asked to explain the thinking behind his country’s policy not to implement lockdown and replied: “The headline of the Swedish policy is that people are not stupid.”

He added: “If you tell them what’s good for them and what’s good for the rest of the population, they will follow your advice because they understand it. You don’t need laws, you don’t need police on the streets.”
Hear, hear.

Of course, there will always be those who act irresponsibly and repeatedly hold large gatherings, but they will do so whether there’s a rule of six or not. In extreme cases, such as raves, that’s when the police should step in.
Instead, the whole class is being punished for their actions.

Professor Giesecke said that whenever lockdown in the UK was eased, numbers would rise again. And that’s exactly what happened. But in Sweden, where there was no lockdown and no school/bar/shop closures, there’s no second spike and the economy is far more stable than ours is going to be once furlough ends next month.

It’s patently clear that, until there’s a vaccine, these irritatingly narrow restrictions on normal family life will make little difference in the long run because in a democracy you can’t keep locking people up and, once those rules are lifted, the cases (not to be confused with “deaths”) will rise again.

FRONTLINE STAFF

Many epidemiologists will tell you that collective immunity is the only way a viral epidemic will lose its grip and that, like flu, there’s a chance Covid will become a seasonal disease that, once a vaccine has been found, has to be treated with caution by the elderly and vulnerable.

In the meantime, telling people they can frequent a train/bus/pub/restaurant/office with any number of strangers but not have a family gathering of more than six in their own home or elsewhere because they might “kill Granny” is alarmist nonsense that treats us all like idiots.

Earlier in the year, we stuck our heads out of our doors and windows to rightly cheer the astonishing efforts of our frontline NHS staff at the height of the pandemic.