You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
One of my friends summarised it thus:
“"Stay alert will mean stay alert, by staying home as much as possible" said Communities Secretary, Robert Jenrick. So does 'Stay Alert' mean stay at home or not? Confused? Well, you’re supposed to be.
Stay alert will mean stay at home should that turn out to be the correct advice. However, should it transpire that lifting the lockdown is the appropriate action, then it will mean don't stay at home. The government are going to retrospectively decide what it actually means only once it becomes clear what it should've meant.
In this way it's the advice equivalent of Schrodinger's Cat. Until the eventual outcome can be observed, it remains simultaneously to stay at home and not to stay at home. The government is effectively passing responsibility for Coronavirus strategy onto you. If it works out okay, then they were right all along. If it goes awry then it's because you didn't follow the advice correctly. Standby for gaslighting on a national level.”
And BJ’s advice continues that deliberately unclear theme. If they never say it in black and white, they can never be properly held to account when they fail to protect the public. It’s about winning elections, furthering their careers and protecting their donors bank balances. It’s not about saving lives or even protecting jobs (unless job losses affect the wealthy’s income streams).
"Stay at Home" is no longer valid if you are allowing people to exercise outdoors more freely and encouraging a safe return to work for those who can't work from home. There is still a requirement to be aware of your distance from others, to stay on top of your personal hygiene and not to do go out if you feel you may have symptoms. How would you encapsulate that in a simple, easy to remember way that can be shared with the public?
How would you encapsulate that in a simple, easy to remember way that can be shared with the public?
Tricky. Is a yellow poster with green edging the answer?
“Stay at Home” is no longer valid if you are allowing people to exercise outdoors more freely and encouraging a safe return to work for those who can’t work from home.
Id say it was. Stay At Home was valid with 5 exceptions, 2 of which were (paraphrasing)
- Going to work if you cant work from home and its safe to do so
- Excercising once a day
Now its
- Going to work if you cant work from home and its safe to do so
- Excercising more than once a day
Basically the difference before and after can be summarised as a slight relaxing of 1 of the 5 exceptions to stay at home. Hardly justifies a change in the description does it?
As far as I am concerned we can go and ride in England where we like as long as it its either solo or with members of your own household. So no club/group/friends yet. And dont expect anything to be open so make sure you are self sufficient for the day.
The bit Im struggling with is that you can goto work, use the Tube ( i know he said avoid public transport but they wont) but you cant visit your parents
I don't think you'll be particularly welcome in Cumbria.
https://twitter.com/SouthLakesPol/status/1259607891025281025
I'm going to take Thursday off work and go for a massive bike ride...
As I understand it, I'll need to take my own sandwiches.
but you cant visit your parents
You can meet them in a park. Just one of them, oh but maybe both at different times, no wait, both at the same time. Raab this morning on various interviews.
I don’t think you’ll be particularly welcome in Cumbria.
I've noticed a general tone of fear and hostility coming from that part of the world, and the National Park clearly doesn't want people back until money can be made from them.
But surely it's the rest of us that should be scared of getting Covid off them?
Basically the difference before and after can be summarised as a slight relaxing of 1 of the 5 exceptions to stay at home. Hardly justifies a change in the description does it?
I think one of the problems is with the public’s interpretation of the lockdown. It was never ‘stay at home at all costs’, but a lot of people decided not to go to work. You can argue about the merits of a complete ban on workplaces, but that’s a different thread. The intention all along was that people should still be working. If they could do so from home, then they should. But i believe it was never supposed to be what it has become.
So the change of message is perhaps to highlight the fact that BoJo wants us all back at the hive being productive worker bees. They’re advertising it as a change but it’s not supposed to be a huge change. Just a correction statement, bringing us to where he wanted us to be all along.
I think Stay Alert is a reasonable slogan though. Be conscious of the virus in everything you do. Avoid unnecessary interactions with others, Face masks, hand washing, social distancing ++. We can reduce transmission dramatically compared with what life was like pre-lockdown, while still returning to a sense of normality. Hopefully the R stays close to 1. We’ll see I suppose.
I don’t think you’ll be particularly welcome in Cumbria.
That’s a pretty misleading graph that (intentionally?) ignores the population density.
But yeah, people absolutely should not be travelling to different counties for sightseeing. That should be blindingly obvious.
"Stay safe" might have been a more appropriate term?
people absolutely should not be travelling to different counties for sightseeing. That should be blindingly obvious.
An absolute mileage limit would have been useful, perhaps 40 miles or so.
Blindingly obvious perhaps, and yet news last night suggesting trips to Brighton on the cards. Nothing has said a distance limit (never did anyway) and going somewhere to sit, sunbathe even is now okay.
Tourist spots are fearing the worst now. Though financially they need visitors.
But yeah, people absolutely should not be travelling to different counties for sightseeing. That should be blindingly obvious.
So I can surf Devon waves not Cornish waves despite the fact they are closer?
I thought they made a point of going somewhere to sit ‘in your local park’. I’m not sure who has interpreted that to mean they can drive through 3 counties to go to lie on a beach.
My view from what Boris said was
you'll be able to take unlimited exercise (from wednesday)
to meet one person from outside your own household as long as you stay two metres apart;
you can go and sit in your local park, to sunbathe, have a picnic, sit on a bench (while staying two metres apart)
or have a kick about with others from your household. (presume to stop pictures of cops telling off mums and dads for doing this same thing with their kids appearing in the papers)
It doesn't say you can rip off to the seaside, or go to the Lakes or whatever...but like grannyjone has said (correctly) and people are tearing into him for; , the rules at present do allow for travel to remote places for exercise (as long as the exercise is longer than the travel to get there)
It's all a bit vague really...
Issue being, it doesn't say you can NOT do that...
I'm hoping we don't see the stupid sights pre-lockdown with the hordes going to the beach/mountains for a walk, there was already plenty of people outside doing things other than exercise this weekend as it is.
I agree that 'outside' is going to be the safest place to be though, so long as you keep your distance.
Nothing will change for me, I might go for a run/ride locally more than once in a day now. I won't be driving to any MTB trails just yet.
That’s a pretty misleading graph that (intentionally?) ignores the population density.
Unless we're looking at different graphics, its per 10,000 people.
Or are you saying its missleading becsuse the population density is so low that a handfull of cases are skewing it for the whole of Cumbria?
Raab quote orf BBC this morn. Be sensible and crack on.
"You can drive as far as you want to, for example to walk in a park or particular area you're fond of, as long as you maintain the social distancing," he tells BBC Breakfast.
"But obviously if you're going from one part of the UK to another - from England to Wales or Scotland to Wales - different rules are in place because the devolved governments take a different approach."
But surely it’s the rest of us that should be scared of getting Covid off them?
Well I imagine they have enough of their own problems without the risk of others coming along bringing more. But yes, it should be blindingly obvious that travelling to a hot spot is perhaps not the brightest thing to do it terms of one's own health.
“encouraging a safe return to work for those who can’t work from home”
Except the previous Stay At Home message said that you can go to work if you can’t work from home, so nothing has really changed. But they deliberately obfuscated that to avoid liability.
I'm sensing a general theme that they've decided that: outdoors = much lower risk
Therefore, so long as social distancing is followed, 'the outdoors' is now starting to open again. Want to drive 10/30/50 miles to go for a walk on your own or with people from your household? Crack on, as the risk of you transmitting the virus that way is tiny.
Except the previous Stay At Home message said that you can go to work if you can’t work from home, so nothing has really changed. But they deliberately obfuscated that to avoid liability.
I saw that part as a message to employers rather than employees.
Subtext: "Get 'em back to work, if it's halfway safe to do so".
Well I imagine they have enough of their own problems without the risk of others coming along bringing more. But yes, it should be blindingly obvious that travelling to a hot spot is perhaps not the brightest thing to do it terms of one’s own health.
This, and the fact that while Cumbria has very high rates of Covid, they are not apparently evenly distributed between the coastal towns and the rest of the county.
So the idea of someone driving up, stopping in Kendal (lots of cases) to shop/eat/fill up car, then heading on up to Windermere and Ambleside to touch stuff there is not particularly appealing to the locals.
Admittedly, it's a low risk compared an infected person from Barrow heading up for some fresh air in Coniston, but the number of tourists you normally get in some honeypots makes social distancing nigh-on impossible.
Either way, I won't be going to the Lakes to ride this year, I expect. The hope of a convenient trough between the waves in time for the Jennride was always a fantasy, I guess.
I’m sensing a general theme that they’ve decided that: outdoors = much lower risk
Therefore, so long as social distancing is followed, ‘the outdoors’ is now starting to open again. Want to drive 10/30/50 miles to go for a walk on your own or with people from your household? Crack on, as the risk of you transmitting the virus that was is tiny.
Which makes total sense - only snag is the next warm weekend and half the population of London all independently decide their bit of exercise will be to go and play on Brighton beach. Do we genuinely think 90% of them will get there, see the crowds and realise social distancing won't be possible and turn back for home?
I’m hoping we don’t see the stupid sights pre-lockdown with the hordes going to the beach/mountains for a walk
well, for lots of folk who live in cities...they say to themselves; "we go to the local park, where we know there's going to be a metric shit tonne of folk, or we go somewhere more remote" Trouble is, when those folk get there, too late they realise that a bunch of other people have had the same idea....It's not their fault, and they're not doing it on purpose,
LOL i can't imagine why at the best of times anyone would go to a beach like that.
But yeah, people absolutely should not be travelling to different counties for sightseeing. That should be blindingly obvious.
I don't think this is obvious at all.
And I do think previously, beyond all the mixed messages and vagueness in the government's delivery, the underlying message of stay at home and avoid all non-essential travel was clear and easy to understand.
There appears to be no such restriction now.
And on a practical level there's little risk in spending time alone outside. Even coming within close contact of people the risk of infection in open spaces is very low.
Obviously, there will be more human contact. More injuries, more road accidents, breakdowns, all kinds of unplanned circumstances where it becomes unavoidable. But from what I can see, it appears to be the plan to allow for those variables at this stage.
The whole issue is that it should never have been called a lockdown. It never was. Policing the new guidelines in tourist hotspots will be a nightmare.
I'll be avoiding going anywhere other people are likely to want to be, but I'm looking forward to riding further from home. Might push it to 3-3.5 hours, 40-50 miles. But without a cafe stop, I don't get much pleasure going further.
I’m sensing a general theme that they’ve decided that: outdoors = much lower risk
Therefore, so long as social distancing is followed, ‘the outdoors’ is now starting to open again. Want to drive 10/30/50 miles to go for a walk on your own or with people from your household? Crack on, as the risk of you transmitting the virus that way is tiny.
At the most basic level - a wide open space with no physical barriers. Then you're throwing in pinch points - gates / stiles / natural pinch points. Surfaces - gate catches etc. Car parks - 2m distancing - short of buying tons of aggregate / dumpy bags and blocking alternative bays not happening. Public toilets - yeah no stopping to wash there. Differing perceptions of countryside - drive to a country town and walk around / pop into the local shops.
All shaping up for a nice little infection accumulator. Feels like it's resetting transmission probability in the countryside to early March. We all saw how that went.
All it really means is there *should* be an ICU bed available for you.
Personally I think it was a mistake. I don't trust the general public not to take the piss, all the riding hot spots (and parks, beaches etc) will be packed and we'll be back in lockdown before the month is out.
And my interpretation is meeting friends/family in public is fine maintaining 2m but exercising isn't as your breathing effort is increased.
Which makes total sense – only snag is the next warm weekend and half the population of London all independently decide their bit of exercise will be to go and play on Brighton beach. Do we genuinely think 90% of them will get there, see the crowds and realise social distancing won’t be possible and turn back for home?
well, for lots of folk who live in cities…they say to themselves; “we go to the local park, where we know there’s going to be a metric shit tonne of folk, or we go somewhere more remote” Trouble is, when those folk get there, too late they realise that a bunch of other people have had the same idea….It’s not their fault, and they’re not doing it on purpose,
People just need to use common sense. However, that can be lacking at times in the general public... I don't think it's an accident that these announcements come after a bank holiday, and not before.
For instance, driving to a closed country park, and parking on the road outside of it. 3/4 cars, OK - 20-30 cars and that's just stupid.
Hopefully people will have some self restraint, but...
[img] 
[/img]
well, for lots of folk who live in cities…they say to themselves; “we go to the local park, where we know there’s going to be a metric shit tonne of folk, or we go somewhere more remote” Trouble is, when those folk get there, too late they realise that a bunch of other people have had the same idea….It’s not their fault, and they’re not doing it on purpose
+1
For instance, driving to a closed country park, and parking on the road outside of it. 3/4 cars, OK – 20-30 cars and that’s just stupid.
So as long as you were there early, that’s ok and every else is an idiot?
Got it.
The fact we have threads at all with the word interpret just says the message is confusing. People are just going to make it fit what they want.
The issue with driving as I said on the other thread weeks ago, is fundamentally people lack imagination.
Even if you're the coolest hipster mountain bike shredder dude in your town, you know all the secret spots, and even what times the locals ride them so you can circumvent their no-dig no-ride policy. The odds are if you drive there, the other indie-hipster-mountain biker who is so cool he thinks you're a johhny come lately and preferred this spot before you knew about it, is already there.
Take for example Swinley, even if they re-opened the trails but said the car park was closed. Great Hollands estate would be gridlocked withT6's, and Muzzy's kebab van wouldn't be able to get into it's lay by for all the Transit Customs and Audi A4's*. and you don't want to get between the people of Bracknell and Muzzys kebabs.
*you would be able to see the line of Ornage 5's and Santa Cruz 5010's waiting to drop intot he corkscrew from space, just adjust the exposure a bit to avoid the glare from the fluro Troy Lee kit.
I shall be interpreting them as staying at home apart from going to buy food at a time when the shops are quiet and going for a bike ride from my front door. I can't see that anything has changed with regard to the virus itself so I am not changing my routine.
Most of the medical evidence and data has not been made public and the average uninformed person has little choice but to take local and national guidance at face value. The official guidance should be respected and if you have reasons to discredit it then you should criticise the central government rather than people who are following that guidance in good faith. Whilst everybody needs to be using their own common sense, it's also unreasonable to expect people to follow unwritten rules which clearly vary wildly from one person to another, as evidenced by this thread.
As national guidance can only go so far a localised approach should also be taken. For example if the Local Council reopens a car park I will take that as an invitation that driving to that destination is acceptable. I could lawfully drive there on Wednesday but won't be doing so as that would clearly be flouting the spirit of the partial-lockdown.
I think it matters far more which location you are travelling to, rather than the distance you are travelling. You simply can't know that someone's activity has a greater risk of transmission just because they drove 30 miles.
I think Stay Alert is a reasonable slogan though
No one can look at the news this morning and say that with a straight face.
The new slogan was just more PR, which is unravelling already. We don't need PR, we need somebody actually managing the crisis and concise, consistent and unambiguous communications.
In Scotland, we can now exercise more than once a day, as long as we are observing the social distancing rules and don't drive somewhere to do that exercise (there are specific exemptions for people with special needs who can't exercise without driving).
That's common sense, and it doesn't change the main plank of the original message, which is "Stay at Home".
gauge public feeling about potential changes and shirk responsibility.
They are going to find out that this is still a decision made by government and theirs is the responsibility. Appropriately (given the lyricist); "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".
So as long as you were there early, that’s ok and every else is an idiot?
Got it.
Yes, basically.
If you turn up to a park/beach/other outdoor area, and find the place is mobbed, common sense would indicate you'd go elsewhere, to somewhere less packed.
Unless we’re looking at different graphics, its per 10,000 people.
Or are you saying its missleading becsuse the population density is so low that a handfull of cases are skewing it for the whole of Cumbria?
Sorry, perhaps I didn’t explain that well. What I meant was that Cumbria is so sparsely-populated that the risk of picking something up is lower than in, say, central Manchester where the per-capita rate of infections is much lower. If you avoid the obvious honey pots, it would certainly be possible to go for a walk in the Cumbrian fells without seeing another soul.
I think what people need to understand is that it's not about whether THEY will contract Covid-19. It's whether they'll be a vector for spreading it around the place including to the elderly / vulnerable. The Cumbria police saying "Don't come here, you might catch a lurgy" is counter to that message - people might decide that they're low risk of Covid complications so they'll take their chances.
If you avoid the obvious honey pots...
If thousands of people drive to the Lakes to walk in locations away from the obvious honey pots, where would they be parking, and how would they be fuelling their vehicles?
With other attractions closed, there is a real risk of tons of people turning up in Ambleside and Windermere at the weekend - especially as Wales is now explicitly off limits too.
Remember how the Tories blamed "stupid" people for all deciding to go to the same place just before "lockdown"? Who do you think they'll blame if it happens again now?
The
twothree things that will dictate the spread of the infection are :-How dense the population is
and
How dense the population is
Lets all wait for the official words
Three things (ftfy)
Whole thing has been disastrous to date, and set to continue. Gov/tabloids send mixed-messages and then blame it on the ‘population‘ before waving the naughty finger and then hitting rewind. But I don’t *think* that I misunderstand the motive behind ambiguity from the Chief Nudge. In times where ambiguity should be entirely off the cards. Here we are again, ‘interpeting’. WTAF?
It’s just too glaringly-shite to simply be the result of ‘incompetence’ on the part of team BJ/Cumming
So, yeah. ‘Stay alert’ 🙄 I’ll ‘interpret’ this to mean ‘stay safe’ for the purpose of me and mine and the rest of you, yet in the full knowledge that for a significant portion of population the (social) lockdown is now pretty much over. Source: Social media. ‘Give them an inch...’ is not a new phenomenon.
We are cycling UK have been posting some helpful updates on how to interpret/follow the rules. The BMC have been doing something similar for walkers and climbers. Following their advice is more straightforward than trying to interpret the rules yourself or asking random people or friends for advice.
If thousands of people drive to the Lakes to walk in locations away from the obvious honey pots, where would they be parking, and how would they be fuelling their vehicles?
Yes I completely agree with that. My interpretation of that graph is spread out over several posts so perhaps not obvious. What I'm saying is that the Cumbria Police have shot themselves in the foot suggesting that the reason to avoid the area is because of a higher-than-elsewhere chance of picking up Covid.
The reason to avoid the area is because of your social responsibility to limit the spread as much as is possible.
The reason to avoid the area is because of your social responsibility to limit the spread as much as is possible.
Technically correct, but given the complete bellends that Cumbria Police have been stopping and sending back home to London and elsewhere in recent weeks, I can't blame them for trying the more direct and understandable "if you come here you will die" approach
People may exercise outside as many times each day as they wish. For example, this would include angling and tennis. You will still not be able to use areas like playgrounds, outdoor gyms or ticketed outdoor leisure venues, where there is a higher risk of close contact and touching surfaces. You can only exercise with up to one person from outside your household – this means you should not play team sports, except with members of your own household.
People may drive to outdoor open spaces irrespective of distance, so long as they respect social distancing guidance while they are there, because this does not involve contact with people outside your household.
When travelling to outdoor spaces, it is important that people respect the rules in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and do not travel to different parts of the UK where it would be inconsistent with guidance or regulations issued by the relevant devolved administration.
These measures may come with some risk; it is important that everyone continues to act responsibly, as the large majority have done to date. The infection rate will increase if people begin to break these rules and, for example, mix in groups in parks, which will trigger the need for further restrictions.
p30
People may exercise outside as many times each day as they wish. For example, this would include angling
Angling is exercise now? Pulling a little trolley full of army surplus gear and maggots to a pond and then spending all morning sitting in half a tent with a six pack of Stella?
Well that's pretty clear to me.
Angling is exercise now? Pulling a little trolley full of army surplus gear and maggots to a pond and then spending all morning sitting in half a tent with a six pack of Stella?
Still better than no exercise, and good for mental health (unless you are a fish)
I'm sure if some people saw me inching my bike up a gentle incline they might not think it wasn't actually exercise
Yep, seems pretty clear.
Can drive to exercise and with one other person not from your household.
As for angling, it's obviously specifically been included as it's not a 'normal' sport but by default it meets social distancing rules, even social distancing to fish for most anglers seeing as you rarely catch anything! 😀
No different to sunbathing, and sitting by a river can be quite soothing and relaxing, catching something is a plus.
Can drive to exercise and with one other person not from your household.
But you can't drive with the person not from your household, obvs.
1.7 Are there restrictions on how far I can travel for my exercise or outdoor activity?
No. You can travel to outdoor open space irrespective of distance. You shouldn’t travel with someone from outside your household unless you can practise social distancing - for example by cycling. Leaving your home - the place you live - to stay at another home is not allowed.
So looks like you can cycle with one other person now.
Well that’s pretty clear to me.
now.
But you can’t drive with the person not from your household, obvs.
Unless they're on the roof.
This thread does illustrate the problems the government will face getting out of his mess. A scared/nervous population is quite useful when you are trying to get people to voluntarily lockddown, but a pain when you want to tempt them back out.
I am depressed by the lack of people prepared to question anything though. Everyone now seems to be obsessed with the R number, for example, but hardly anybody seems to be asking whether it is actually a useful number. Can it be measured accurately (on a region, by region level) in the middle of an epidemic? If not, how accurate are the estimates? Are we basing public policy on guesses?
Mind you, everyone seemed happy to accept going into lockdown (with all the consequences) based on predictions that hadn't even been peer reviewed let alone replicated. Still, it's OK, cos we're following the science 🙂
roverpig
SubscriberI am depressed by the lack of people prepared to question anything though. Everyone now seems to be obsessed with the R number, for example, but hardly anybody seems to be asking whether it is actually a useful number. Can it be measured accurately (on a region, by region level) in the middle of an epidemic? If not, how accurate are the estimates? Are we basing public policy on guesses?
It is very useful, in fact, it's pretty much essential. The fact that we'll never actually know what it is doesn't change that. Yes it's always the best guess we can make, and that's all it can be, and that still is valuable and essential.
A pretty good way to look at it is that we don't need to know what it is- but we need to know if it's above or below one, and we need to know if it's much more above or below one. Where we needed it to be before making any changes was much below one, and it wasn't. Now we can be confident it's either above or much above one.
Well that’s pretty clear to me.
Give it a while for others to interpret
The whole issue is that it should never have been called a lockdown. It never was
Thank **** for that, I thought I was the only one that thought that!!
On the whole driving to leisure spots thing. Are car parks open now?
I'm assuming some car parks will reopen after the guidance comes into affect on Wednesday. Probably up to land owner / counncil though.
@Northwind I agree that it would be a great number to know. What I don’t understand is how you can get a decent estimate of R when we don’t have validated serological tests and there is so much we don’t know (percentage of asymptomatic cases, whether they can transmit it, inside vs outside etc).
I don’t know whether the current guidance is correct or not, but I’m not sure anyone does.
roverpig
Subscriber@Northwind I agree that it would be a great number to know. What I don’t understand is how you can get a decent estimate of R when we don’t have validated serological tests and there is so much we don’t know (percentage of asymptomatic cases, whether they can transmit it, inside vs outside etc).
New cases is probably the best indicator. (because it's a rate of change indicator rather than a total volume indicator, it doesn't really matter if it captures asymtomatics etc, as long as it's consistent.
We've had between 4000 and 6000 new cases per day since early April, so that in isolation R of 1-ish. Take into account improved testing and rates of diagnosis and actually we'll be below 1, and we could analyse the test rates and methodology to see trends if our testing wasn't so dysfunctional, but instead we can only say "it's somewhere below, but not massively below 1".
We can very confortably say it's not massively below 1, which is where it has to be. What's harder, is knowing when it does reach that point, which is problematic because you want to act as soon as you can when it does. But knowing when you're not there yet is as important, because it tells us there's more to do before we even think about doing anything that'll increase rates.
Oops.
The whole issue is that it should never have been called a lockdown. It never was
Thank **** for that, I thought I was the only one that thought that!!
We need some sort of (socially distanced) support group.
The car park question is interesting. If you open them up, there's greater chance of big groups congregating in breach of the guidelines, either deliberately or just accidentally by weight of numbers. If you don't open them, you have illegal and potentially dangerous parking, and a loss of parking revenue.
Personally, I'm not sure opening up honeypot car parks right now would be supportive of the overall "be careful with social distancing" message. I'm assuming the FC wouldn't open trail centre car parks until they were happy for people to ride the more "gnar" bits, with all the emergency services access potentially required if there's an increase in crashes
I’m assuming some car parks will reopen after the guidance comes into affect on Wednesday. Probably up to land owner / counncil though.
Forestry England have been saying still don't drive so assume their related car parks shut. Many or most trail centres staying shut.
Peaslake telling non locals to stay away still. Though their car parks have been mostly open anyway, just not the big van park (sorry Walking Bottom).
The tactics haven't really changed. It's a special blend of herd immunity and darwinism. The idea is that idiots mingle and catch Covid, some die and some don't, then herd immunity protects everyone else who kept away from each other a bit longer. The unfortunate casualties in all this will be those on the frontline or in manual jobs (i.e. not the rich) who will have to mingle or lose their jobs.
If you communicated to the public that you were looking for volunteers to mingle and potentially catch it on behalf of the rest of the population, then everyone would stay in.
If we’re carrying out four times as many tests per day but the number of new infections per day is roughly constant can we really say that R is close to 1?
Trail centres are unlikely to re-open yet IMO.
They tend to attract a good number of less-experienced riders, leading to the inevitable casualties that places like Llandegla and Swinley are known for.
I imagine lots of landowners are having discussuions right now about whether or not to re-open car parks.
There's a main thread other there ------> for the general Covid theorising anyway.
Trail centres are unlikely to re-open yet IMO.
Trail centres and National Parks have been quite vocal on social media in response to what I suspect will be a massive influx of ****wits who all think "wahey, end of lockdown, happy Monday, off to ride/walk in [insert honeypot area of choice]"
This is then going to butt up against their policy of keeping car parks closed vs the ****wits who are now parking all over verges, in residential streets, blocking laybys and access and then wondering why they're being fined.
Let's see some parking fines issued then to deter the idiots.
Derbyshire have been quite proactive even down here outside the Peak. Last weekend they had a team at Elvaston Castle not only stopping people parking on the roadside, but also with a speed camera* to catch those who sped up to pretend that wasn't why they were driving that way.
*18.6mph he shouted at me as I went past. It was a slow morning.
This is then going to butt up against their policy of keeping car parks closed vs the **** who are now parking all over verges, in residential streets, blocking laybys and access and then wondering why they’re being fined.
Yep. The opportunity to gravitate to extremes will make things turn a bit nasty in some places methinks.
A combination of blase townie parking on a verge on a blind corner with his <insert stereotypical brand name here> gnarpoon on top of his company Audi meeting pitchfork-wielding local NIMBY will make the headlines at some point.
I will be staying local for the time being.
I will be staying local for the time being.
Seems the easiest, safest and dullest option for me
Yeah I can see that angling is a very low-risk activity that a significant proportion of the population enjoy so why not? It’ll get people out of their houses being active.
I’m sure if some people saw me inching my bike up a gentle incline they might not think it wasn’t actually exercise
Indeed, it’s best not to judge others’ choice of exercise lest we are told we must all become joggers.
The reason to avoid the area is because of your social responsibility to limit the spread as much as is possible.
The reported Tweet that I read from South Lakes Police was:
“Before considering travelling to #Cumbria #LakeDistrict please grab a brew, examine this map, and take a long hard look at your own conscience. We urge you to use common sense and to continue to exercise close to your own home. We need to break the cycle of infection #lockdown.”
which I read as saying very clearly, don't bring the virus into an area that already has high infection rates, not "stay away or you will die".
Yeah I can see that angling is a very low-risk activity that a significant proportion of the population enjoy so why not? It’ll get people out of their houses being active.
Active? Anglers? We've obviously been watching different anglers. The ones I've seen sit on a river bank unmoving for hours except to get another can of beer out the cooler.
The problem with angling on towpaths is it severely restricts what is already a narrow pathway and makes social distancing almost impossible. Although I appreciate that the overall risk outdoors seems pretty minimal, it does seem somewhat selfish to sit on a towpath effectively "blocking" it to everyone passing.
I haven't driven to ride since this kicked off. Even when it was kind-of allowed, I felt it'd be a bit sneaky (especially after I'd written a public statement encouraging other MTBers not to look for loopholes).
Now I'll probably drive to ride a little further afield sometimes, but only where I know parking won't be an issue.