Abstract Background In this qualitative study we observed in-depth the impact of the visiting restriction policy (VRP, i.e. number of visitors allowed at home) on well-being and compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic to regulate infection rates. Methods A cohort of 15 interviewees was followed throughout the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands in 12 interview rounds (May 2020-December 2021). Every round semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted by a team of 8 researchers. In total 176 interviews were conducted. Results This study showed that four categories can be identified when observing the impact of the VRP on well-being and compliance. For Resilient-Followers reasons for compliance were risk perception, following government rules, and for some having a small social circle. Because they accepted the situation, well-being was hardly affected. Resilient-Rulebreakers made their own risk assessment of people they met. Their well-being was hardly affected, because they experienced social rest and interpreted the measure in their own way. Suffering-Followers complied, because of risk perception, following government rules, and working in healthcare. However, the VRP had substantial impact on well-being, because social structures were disrupted. Suffering-Rulebreakers gave their own interpretation to the VRP, trying to find a balance between compliance and well-being. We observed that the categories were quite stable over time. Conclusions The VRP appeared to be a measure with substantial impact on well-being for some, mostly because social structures were disrupted. The measure showed fluctuating compliance, in which feasibility and frequent changes in the VRP played a role. Well-being seemed related to the number of visitors that was allowed; a restriction of four visitors was feasible, while one visitor resulted in a negative breaking-point in resilience, which had an impact on compliance, even among the most compliant. Taken together, this study provides valuable insights into the implications of ...