You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Thanks for carrying on Mildred. We owe you.
Not reading seven pages so have skimmed some. I’m about as anti authoritarian as they come, but I’m all for giving them all the power they need. There are a lot of people out there that seem to have a hard time grasping rule number one and they are making life unnecessarily difficult for everyone. Don’t be a dick, don’t travel unless absolutely necessary and exercise as close to home as possible.
Some people think they’re special. They are, but not in the birthday way
Good post MIldred! Thanks.
On driving - I haven't read every post but some folk do not seem to understand this. The further you travel the greater risk of passing the virus on / spreading it. BY driving you will need fuel at some pont. fuel pumps have been identified as significant means of infection.
The whole object of the lockdown is to reduce infection rates as much as possible. The guidance allows for daily exercise as its recognised that this is essential to mental and physical health. Driving is not. Yes a walk around your town might not be as nice a bit of exercise - but it fulfills the same role and because you are not travelling out of your area it is not as high risk as driving to another area
its very simple, its good advice, its based upon good science. Please follow it
Thanks Mildred - it's not possible to summarise your post as it's all so utterly relevant.
You have my complete support right now.
Hey binners, sorry I didn't reply to you sooner but I've been out on my bike for a couple of hours. 🙂
It's pretty clear you can't engage with this stuff on a rational basis and would rather just rant, foam and exaggerate what others are saying. I'm not really into that so I'll just leave you to it.
Interesting read! Purely as a discussion point. If you drive 30mins out to ride. Drive alone, don't stop anywhere, ride alone on easy trails, don't have to open any gates etc, see only 15 or so people over a few hours at safe distance....how does that help with spreading the virus ( and assuming you have already had it)? In my view my local park where I see over 300 people in 40 mins and where most people are within 2m of each other is far greater re risk of spreading the big C.
Which bit of spread do people not get? If you visit an area, you risk spreading the virus to that area, and to the areas that other visitors come from. STAY THE **** AT HOME!
On Sunday I drove to the local farm shop, that’s just a bit too far to walk to, then drove on to Biddestone, a village about four miles away, parked up and went for a walk, lasting roughly two hours.
Now, when I went shopping on Saturday, I covered about two miles, I reckon I passed close to twenty-odd people, not including those in the shops.
On my two hour walk on Sunday, on which I covered nearly four miles, I met four people, saw two people jogging and two walked past me as I was enjoying a packed lunch and flask of tea.
While I take on board the above comment, there is a huge area not far from where I live now, mostly within five miles, which I know intimately, and where I know for a fact I will meet a small fraction of the people I’ll pass close to just walking within a mile of my home, plus, while I’m in my car, I’m isolated from everyone!
It’s not just good for my general health to get out of doors, it’s good for my mental health to be as far as I can get from people!
Another thing that absolutely staggered me, because it’s just so thoughtless, is councils taping off park benches to stop people sitting on them! WTAF? There will be many people, of limited mobility, and who may not even have a garden worth a damn, will want to get out for a stroll, and who will, more than likely, need to stop now and then to catch their breath and take the weight off of damaged joints. I know I do, so deliberately taping off park benches is a real dick move!
so deliberately taping off park benches is a real dick move!
Is that not to prevent people from sitting there and touching (leaving virus on it) TBH when I am out I am touching nothing or sitting down on anything someone else has sat on.
I assume the police could phone up to find the registered keeper.
Yeah… because they’ve nowt else important to be doing at the moment.
Hmmm, you seem to be unaware of the fact that modern police cars are equipped with cameras, computers and fast mobile data links that enable them to check ownership and address of any car that’s in front of them. This is something they do all the damned time! Maybe you’re still using a dumb phone and a computer that’s on dialup running MS-DOS...
Is that not to prevent people from sitting there and touching (leaving virus on it) TBH when I am out I am touching nothing or sitting down on anything someone else has sat on.
I believe so, but frankly it’s a pointless exercise because everyone comes into contact with things that others could have touched, in which case, follow the advice, don’t touch your face, and wash your hands with soap and water.
live out their fantasies of being part of the Stasi in East Germany
Do you have an example of this happening?
I read it on a placard once, so it must be true......
then drove on to Biddestone, a village about four miles away, parked up and went for a walk
Did the people of Biddestone not cross your mind, even once? Not even the old folk there?
I know I do, so deliberately taping off park benches is a real dick move!
Is that not to prevent people from sitting there and touching (leaving virus on it) TBH when I am out I am touching nothing or sitting down on anything someone else has sat on.
I believe so, but frankly it’s a pointless exercise because everyone comes into contact with things that others could have touched, in which case, follow the advice, don’t touch your face, and wash your hands with soap and water.
From park bench to the sink at home, without ever touching your face, or touching anything you may touch again after you’ve washed your hands. You sir, are amazing. Teach the old folk your faultless approach, and they’ll all be fine.
The Police are another example of a public service being run down to satisfy austerity. Run down to the bare minimum and even then a bare minimum to do their job in normal circumstances.
Then along comes something unusual and the new powers are rushed out with little practical consideration how they will actually use them.
Joris will get his little VE Day moment when life gets back to some form of reality, but remember that Churchill was waving at crowds on VE Day and out of office by VJ Day.
When the time is right, we all need to remember who ran the public services into the ground most.
posted in the countryside thread but relevant here too:
Police chiefs have told officers that people should not be punished for driving a reasonable distance to exercise, and that blanket checks were disproportionate, in a bid to quell a row about heavy-handed enforcement of the coronavirus lockdown.
It says officers can use the road traffic act to stop vehicles for any reason, and this could lead to offences under the coronavirus act being detected.
But then adds: “Use your judgment and common sense; for example, people will want to exercise locally and may need to travel to do so, we don’t want the public sanctioned for travelling a reasonable distance to exercise. Road checks on every vehicle is equally disproportionate.
“We should reserve enforcement only for individuals who have not responded to engage, explain, and encourage, where public health is at risk,”
You can be annoyed at people not social distancing whilst also being concerned about new rules being rushed through...
These things are not mutually exclusive.
So poor old Mrs Miggins goes out and gets stopped by the fuzz. She gets questioned by a very stern officer and told to only get the essentials.
Do you not see this as part of the problem? Mrs Miggins is probably confused, scared, and a bit thick. A “stern” approach may well get her to go home. A more understanding attitude may discover why she’s out by herself in the first place.
Even the most junior police officer should be capable of adapting their attitude depending on whom they’re facing, and the intransigence of some members of the police to accept that there may be more than one way to do their job is part of the problem.
Criticising any public service on here is a recipe for disaster but you are human beings doing a job and some of you will be better at it than others. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t learn from criticism and seek to improve, even under difficult circumstances.
Police chiefs have told officers that people should not be punished for driving a reasonable distance to exercise
Relying the word 'reasonable' is not helpful to officers trying to tell, persuade or cajole idiots into changing their behaviour. One man's reasonable is five minutes down the road, another's is driving from Manchester to the Lakes.
Set a limit, however arbitrary, and communicate it properly to the public.
"Reasonable" is definable. For example driving past other suitable places to get there would not be reasonable. Driving to the edge of the town or city is reasonable, driving to another town is not. A number of miles distance would be simpler but it really isn't a one size fits all situation.
Also police should have a bit if discretion in these situation, its just that so far the parameters have been a bit vague
Or perhaps because we have a country with policing by consent, where the broadly libertarian, socially liberal government has no interest in establishing a police state, as proven by the present reluctence to legislate, relying on advice instead, even in the face of continued bell-endery by a vocal, whiny, self-entitled minority
+1
The old adage of "don't be a dick" applies to everyone, this pandemic requires a national response which needs people to move less, this includes driving, the drive to an isolated place is traffic, which encourages more traffic and we divide into the tutters, the hysterics, the gamers and the idiots
Policing it is difficult, it's done by people with as complex lives as all of us have, although my eyebrow was raised by sending someone on their way after 115 mph!!!
Half the problem is the media is focused on simple issues they understand and are essentially click bait
In my experience when dealing with officers of the law, I find adopting the "don't be a dick" rule tends to take the sting out of the situation on both sides.
I agree it should be clearly and simply defined, and if that prevents some activities which are low-risk, so be it, otherwise the police will end up endlessly embroiled in arguments with people rather than just saying: 'The limit defined by law is x miles, turn around and bugger off home'.
When do we all go to the beach then?
Everything Derbyshire police did fit just fine with this new “guidance”, but now the people their officers speak to will be throwing it back in their face. Issuing guidance to the public to listen to the police would have been more useful.
Police chiefs have told officers that people should not be punished for driving a reasonable distance to exercise
Given that, can I:
- Carry my Kayak 400m to the river?
- Walk or Cycle 2 miles to take the boat out for a days exercise sailing?
- Cycle 6 miles to the beach for a day exercise in the fresh air on the beach?
What if I prefer to go by car to the last two?
Being able to travel to exercise allows pretty much *everything* I want to do. Basically I get my old life back but with WFH. Sweet.
People saying that the police advising people to go home during a national emegency, to prevent the spread of a virus, and dishing out a couple of 30 quid fines constitutes the estblishment of a police state really do need to get a ****ing grip and maybe google what a real police state actually looks like
Alternatively the adage "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" may be what stops us descending to Hungary's level.
Similarly when called by a judge on your incorrect implementation of the law, don't insist you were right. Be humble and learn (looking at you Peter Goodman). Policing by consent is threatened by this and the forces would soon grumble if the general public withdrew consent and cooperation.
Carry my Kayak 400m to the river?
– Walk or Cycle 2 miles to take the boat out for a days exercise sailing?
– Cycle 6 miles to the beach for a day exercise in the fresh air on the beach?
'Following the announcement from the Prime Minister (8.30pm, 23 March 2020) regarding the UK’s response to the coronavirus crisis, we are asking leisure boaters to stop all non-essential travel and not to visit their boats if they do not live aboard permanently.'
Not sure what 'day exercise' you were planning on the beach?
I've read the article and the following:
Police chiefs have told officers that people should not be punished for driving a reasonable distance to exercise
Is the words of the Newspaper. Not the advice.
At no point does the advice say the police won't sanction people for traveling to exercise. Reads to me like he's saying they won't always or might not.
“Use your judgment and common sense; for example, people will want to exercise locally and may need to travel to do so, we don’t want the public sanctioned for travelling a reasonable distance to exercise. Road checks on every vehicle is equally disproportionate.We should reserve enforcement only for individuals who have not responded to engage, explain, and encourage, where public health is at risk,”
I'd still be interested in what people think about my three questions. (Mainly the first really.)
‘Following the announcement from the Prime Minister (8.30pm, 23 March 2020) regarding the UK’s response to the coronavirus crisis, we are asking leisure boaters to stop all non-essential travel and not to visit their boats if they do not live aboard permanently.’
Not sure what ‘day exercise’ you were planning on the beach?
Largely academic since nobody is saying you can travel to exercise without fear of sanction except one newspaper so sadly the option isn't there for me. 🙁
...but since you post.
Your first statement refers to inland waterways. (I think)
The second: I reckon I (and my kids) burn more calories in a day at the beach than any other activity I/we do, the beach involves relentless activity. Body Boarding, Kayaking, Non-stop running about and chasing. (Doesn't apply to me but lots of people walking and walking dogs on the beach too, which counts as exercise.)
But, as I say, academic, because it doesn't meet the 'need' test the law sets AFAIC because I can get exercise without travelling.
Yesterday Derbyshire Police's roads unit used an armed drone strike to take out a car heading into the Peak District National Park. Obviously they've tried to paint it as a simple road traffic accident, but...
https://twitter.com/DerbyshireRPU/status/1244945610031214602
…but since you post.
Your first statement refers to inland waterways. (I think)
I reckon I (and my kids) burn more calories in a day at the beach than any other activity I/we do, the beach involves relentless activity.
RYA has made similar statements and suspended all training and events. Don't know your situation, just use common sense, but my gut feel is that's pushing it. And if you mean you'd like to put kayaks on the roofrack and drive to the beach, high chance you'll get pulled over IMO.
Yesterday Derbyshire Police’s roads unit used an armed drone strike to take out a car heading into the Peak District National Park. Obviously they’ve tried to paint it as a simple road traffic accident, but…
😀
"Reasonable" force.
Don’t see why you can’t do 1
Ditto 2 but both with the proviso they don’t want you doing it all day
For me the exercise is the 12 miles you cycle, so doesn’t leave you any time for doing anything on the beach.
As with all these things the aim is to reduce social contact. The rational thing here is that when you go somewhere, even if it is to the park at the end of the road, if there are loads of people and you can’t maintain 2m then go somewhere else.
More seriously, it's noticeable that Derbyshire Police who call out 'lycra wearing leisure cyclists' and use drone footage to shame folk driving to walk, don't seem particularly bothered that some dumb-arse car driver has managed to use up valuable NHS resources by needlessly totalling their car in what is a 30mph speed limit.
Given that, can I:
– Carry my Kayak 400m to the river?
Ah, but how far would you need to carry it back? 😉
"reasonable" actually has a legal definition. Its " as understood by the man on the clapham omnibus" ie what the average person thinks not what one individual thinks but what the average person thinks so you may think something is reasoanbale - like driving to exercise but if the average person does not think it reasonable it is not in the eyes of the law
On non essential travel its pretty clear that those who think driving to exercise is reasonable are a small minority therefore it is NOT reasonable in the eyes of the law.
How are you judging a small minority? Have you failed to read the Guardian article which explicitly states that it is legal? Unless you deliberately try to misinterpret the guidance to fit in with your own existing views which of course has already happened on here.
TJ, you are Immanuel Kant and I claim my six million a priori dollars 🙂
TJ, you are Immanuel Kant
<reported for swear filter avoidance>
Actually I am Lord Denning - I believe it was his interpretation in a case that became the standard.
Set a limit, however arbitrary, and communicate it properly to the public.
Does that also appy to Biddlestone?
its pretty clear that those who think driving to exercise is reasonable are a small minority
Not according to recent dialogue on this forum.
"the man on the Clapham omnibus" might well ask what the opinion is of The National Police Chiefs Council before deciding whether it is reasonable to travel for exercise on the basis that carries weight than yours or if some of the more shouty members of this forum.
Hey binners, sorry I didn’t reply to you sooner but I’ve been out on my bike for a couple of hours.
It’s pretty clear you can’t engage with this stuff on a rational basis and would rather just rant, foam and exaggerate what others are saying. I’m not really into that so I’ll just leave you to it.
Well, thats a terrible shame. I feel a bit guilty now that the forum is going to be deprived of your exceptionalism and enormous, planet-sized sense of self-entitlement 'commmon sense' opinions and wsidom on this subject, on my account.
And reciprical apoligies for not replying sooner. I've been out for a walk. From my door. I didn't feel the need to drive anywhere, on account of being happy to adhere to Rule 1, and not thinking I'm such a special and unique being that the rules don't apply to
Guys - not meaning the reasonable thing to be applied strictly to this. Just pointing out that reasonable does have a legal definition. As in "take all reasonable steps"
'Reasonable' is a useful legal term, but it's a placeholder which generally attracts legal precedent over time as its limits are tested - 'man on the Clapham Omnibus' being the classic example of a law which said 'reasonable', followed by a judge being asked to rule later what that actually meant.
My point was that 'reasonable' is all well and good when you have the time to apply the legal checks and balances, not so great when the next day, an officer like Mildred is debating what's 'reasonable' with some argumentative sod through a car window.
The government IMO needs to define clearly what it expects of the population in terms of essential/non-essential movement, and communicate that clearly, rather than announce something, then get Michael Gove to walk it back a bit or interpret it live during an interview.
Has anyone ever been on a clapham omnibus?
I think we need to know what kind of charachters we're dealing with here
I think you probably need a hat Binners. A proper stylish hat but not too posh or edgy. Trilby?
I have to say that personally I'd probably go for a Panama. Worn at a rakish angle, but not too racey
Has anyone ever been on a clapham omnibus?
I think we need to know what kind of charachters we’re dealing with here
You've obviously not watched Downton Abbey.
On a more serious note there's been a number of technically correct interpretations of the current situation, you may be able to drive, exercise, drive a lot more safely than go to the supermarket for example. Trouble is other's, including the police don't know you've done that risk assessment in your head. The more people see others going out the more people we will be out and the faster the lock down will crumble.
You might have thought it through carefully but you'll be encouraging many others who haven't it's fine to get outside again. Sometimes being seen to do the right thing is more important than doing something correctly.
The government IMO needs to define clearly what it expects of the population in terms of essential/non-essential movement, and communicate that clearly, rather than announce something, then get Michael Gove to walk it back a bit or interpret it live during an interview.
I agree in principle with this - but it's really difficult in practice. For example - It would not be reasonable for me to drive to exercise as I live on the edge of the countryside, couple of miles to open moorland, lots of RoW, empty roads - less than 100m from nearest Bridleway. If you live in a flat in centre of a city - driving s few miles to escape people would seem reasonable in this context
Obviously I've not driven anywhere to exercise anyway - I rarely do even without a lockdown - but if I was in a city centre I'm not sure what call I'd make
On a more serious note there’s been a number of technically correct interpretations of the current situation, you may be able to drive, exercise, drive a lot more safely than go to the supermarket for example. Trouble is other’s, including the police don’t know you’ve done that risk assessment in your head. The more people see others going out the more people we will be out and the faster the lock down will crumble.
You might have thought it through carefully but you’ll be encouraging many others who haven’t it’s fine to get outside again. Sometimes being seen to do the right thing is more important than doing something correctly.
I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but what if the alternative is going to a park where you have several dozen <2m encounters with people. Ignoring the risk of that actually transmitting infection, what if that leads people to get more blasé about close contact? Thereby also defeating the purpose of the lockdown. Ultimately in this situation there is no ‘good’ option:it’s about taking the least worst. Stick to the rules, abide by what the intention of what the rule is, and don’t abuse the situation. I’ll reiterate, the rules are there to reduce social contact, not to give a few anxious people on the internet the right to try and gain a feeling of control of the situation by exerting control of others. Sorry if that last bit is a bit harsh.
I agree in principle with this – but it’s really difficult in practice.
It’s not, if you don’t stick to the Tory libertarian philosophy. In Ireland they have stated you can exercise but only up to 2km from your home address, specific and clear guidance. Quite why we couldn’t do this..,
Stay in, not exercising for a couple of weeks wont kill you, there aren't many people who would really suffer from taking it easy for a few weeks. Ironically many of the people now exercising their right to daily exercise probably weren't before the lock down.
RULE NUMBER 1.
Can't we just save a lot of time and merge this thread with the "Lock down, can I ride my bike in the countryside?" on in classifieds? I'm sure there is going to be a massive overlap.
I agree in principle with this – but it’s really difficult in practice. For example – It would not be reasonable for me to drive to exercise as I live on the edge of the countryside, couple of miles to open moorland, lots of RoW, empty roads – less than 100m from nearest Bridleway. If you live in a flat in centre of a city – driving s few miles to escape people would seem reasonable in this context
Obviously I’ve not driven anywhere to exercise anyway – I rarely do even without a lockdown – but if I was in a city centre I’m not sure what call I’d make
In normal times I'd agree, there are lots of 'reasonable' interpretations, and lots of individuals who are capable of making reasonable risk assessments. But by leaving it up to them, you are also leaving it up to people who are incapable of this.
So while it is probably hard on some people in the former category, at the moment you have to make it crystal clear for everyone, which in turn makes it a lot easier for the people who are being asked to police this.
'Where do you live?' 'Right, that's 20 miles away, go home immediately, it's the law'.
or
'Where do you live?' 'That's 20 miles away, that doesn't seem like a reasonable distance to drive for exercise, please go home.'
'But I think it's reasonable officer, there's nothing saying I can't...etc'
I don't think setting a max distance will stop the arguments. People are still people. Say you make it 5 miles, someone turns up at a busy beach, gets turned away, big argument because "I live 4.9 milea away, I'm allowed to be here". Make a rule a people will argue against it.
Meanwhile, Rivington Moor is on fire due to people meeting up to have a BBQ.
Everyone thinks what they are doing is fine. It isn't always
Truth is that the overwhelming majority of folk in this country are perfectly reasonable and law-abiding and a quick chat with a police person will be enough to make them consider their actions.
What your local Bobby does not need is a nation of curtain-twitches calling in every imaginary discretion when they see folk behaving perfectly legally but beyond some homemade set of rules.
Meanwhile, Rivington Moor is on fire due to people meeting up to have a BBQ.
There was a peat fire on Barra yesterday caused by some overzealous crofters. Straw men really must learn to keep away from such things.
Stay in, not exercising for a couple of weeks wont kill you, there aren’t many people who would really suffer from taking it easy for a few weeks. Ironically many of the people now exercising their right to daily exercise probably weren’t before the lock down.
RULE NUMBER 1.
Gov advice is to actually exercise, they're not saying "if you want to, you can leave once a day" they're actively encouraging us to do so, 1 to keep as sane 2 to keep is fit to fight the virus.
There is a huge psychology at play here.
Currently we are asked and advised to 'do what we can'. Most people therefore voluntarily give up some rights for the greater good.
Make it a rule and people will both resent being forced by the government / police / The Man (and therefore show it) and they will find ways to circumvent something they know is for the greater good (see tax avoidance for example).
Can’t we just save a lot of time and merge this thread with the “Lock down, can I ride my bike in the countryside?” on in classifieds? I’m sure there is going to be a massive overlap.
I think 99.9% of people get that driving to ride is an entirely unnecessary risk of spread. It’s some people who are walking not riding that think their drive to a “quiet spot” is essential.
Gov advice is to actually exercise, they’re not saying “if you want to, you can leave once a day” they’re actively encouraging us to do so, 1 to keep as sane 2 to keep is fit to fight the virus.
Indeed.
Long term the effects of staying indoors for 12 weeks, suspending all the usual early-detection systems for other illnesses etc may well end up having a bigger and longer impact than Cv19.
The difference is they will be spread out, not concentrated in a short space of time.
Make it a rule and people will both resent being forced by the government / police / The Man (and therefore show it) and they will find ways to circumvent something they know is for the greater good (see tax avoidance for example).
Its fairly obvious that the government really don't want to have to legislate, and I very much doubt that the police would fancy compulsary enforcement either. They're hoping instead that people will adhere to Rule 1
I think that we can now divided into two groups
1. People who understand these are unprecedented times.... and who thus accept that perfectly reasonable, temporary restrictions must be placed on our usual freedoms to prevent the spread of a virus which is a huge threat to the most vulnerable in society.
2. People who don't
Its that simple. One group, which thankfully appear to be the overwhelming majority, are not acting like selfish, self-entitled bell ends. The other group most definitely are.
All the police are doing are informing the latter group of what they are
.
Obviously I’ve not driven anywhere to exercise anyway – I rarely do even without a lockdown – but if I was in a city centre I’m not sure what call I’d make
Probably worse in small towns, this is a photo my daughter took on her run this morning:
[img] 
[/img]
Isn't this all very simple?
Surely all we have to do is flag down a Clapham Omnibus and ask the most average looking fella on there what he thinks?
Bus will probably be empty, too. Damn you Covid 19!
Well this is what the courts think to it all
They better be sat over 2m apart...
Uptick in car use for the first time today. Good work of the police publicity being undone by the (reporting of) that new advice from the NPCC? Or yesterday’s “green shoots” ill advised comment at the daily press briefing?
[edit: data is for yesterday, so neither]
Uptick in car use for the first time today. Good work of the police publicity being undone by the (reporting of) that new advice?
Maybe people trying to get shopping it has been a week since lockdown and I know for one I will need to go soon as I cannot get a delivery slot.
Maybe so.
Maybe people trying to get shopping it has been a week since lockdown and I know for one I will need to go soon as I cannot get a delivery
+1
I went out in the car for the first time in over a week to the shop yesterday, I had had the same thought about the figures
Probably worse in small towns, this is a photo my daughter took on her run this morning:
To be fair that is the city of London though. There are no residential properties and all the office workers are obviously at home. It looks like that every weekend, which coincidentally makes it a popular running, bmx, skateboard etc location at weekends.
Friends who live in busy residential parts of London have been telling me that it is next to impossible to adhere to the 2m rule while at the local supermarkets or out for a run because so many people are doing the same.
Friends who live in busy residential parts of London have been telling me that it is next to impossible to adhere to the 2m rule while at the local supermarkets or out for a run because so many people are doing the same.
I live in Wimbledon, it’s not been a problem.
The government IMO needs to define clearly what it expects of the population in terms of essential/non-essential movement
I don’t see the point as someone always comes along and start pushing at the boundaries on how unfair it all is and anyway you’ve used a comma in the wrong place.
Three types of people generally, those with intelligence and common sense, those with no intelligence and no common sense and those with intelligence and no common sense.
The first group recognise the challenge and consider impact on others, second don’t care and finally the last group. It nearly always the last group who are the biggest problem.
Today, on my boris-walk(tm) to the supermarket to get Jack Daniels (£16/bottle @ tesco the now) I nearly tripped over some junkie lass lying in the street as I was pontificating about my selfish public service of renovating my flat stairwell today after taking a 1 hour walk from my door and that I had noticed a-resident going outside more than once! And also not offering to help with cleaning up the cess-pit that is our stairwell. I thought about shopping the ugly wee Irish dwarf to the rozzers, but realised they were busy sweeping out the passed out junkie blocking the pavement and making the 2m rule rather difficult to adhere to.
I cast my mind back to the previous evening when I saw my cats staring at something outside and popped out to the roof terrace to see what it was (a different junkie getting chucked in the cop van - he had been using the back alley for his thrice-daily rage-screams all week and it was getting rather wearing, so I was glad the long arm of the law was clamping down on this kind of malarkey).
And I figured that we can all make our mind up about if we want to go for a wee drive to go for a walk or ride as the cops seem busy with all the other stuff going on. I've thought about jumping in the Saab 9-5 and driving down to Peebles, parking up at the foot of Janet's Brae and going to CRUSH some empty, dry trails, but so far, I have not and just gone for walks around the park. Might do it in a couple of weeks though - once I get bored.
Suck it, dweebs.
Indeed @tonyf1
My best mates brother, who’s an absolute cock, is well and truly in the latter category.
I love Neils way of describing him
“He could calculate how many beans are in a tin, but he couldn’t tell you how to open the ****er!”
Stay in, not exercising for a couple of weeks wont kill you,
firstly, it’s not a couple of weeks. The initial lockdown was for three weeks, which is 21 days, which just happens to be the number of times people say to do something to be habit forming. So a habit of not exercising might just be an issue, even with only the current restriction, but it’s likely to last longer and i think you are underestimating the challenge in getting back off the sofa after three months of doing **** all. I bet it’s possible to model the long term health implications on removing essentially all exercise from people for months, and it probably lasts for years.
And that is only the physical aspects - mental health suffers too from being trapped indoors - and since we are always told excerise is good for MH I suspect you can calculate back to a number of MH related deaths if none of us leave the house.
Add in Vit D exposure from sunlight, and probably other stuff like domestic abuse between people trapped together and you can see that being able to get out might actually have measurable benefits that outweigh the risks.
there aren’t many people who would really suffer from taking it easy for a few weeks.
perhaps forced encampment might actually help some otherwise sedentary folk get out and moving though? A new health benefit rather than just a status quo?
Ironically many of the people now exercising their right to daily exercise probably weren’t before the lock down.
They may not have been consciously exercising but the downside of working from home is those people are sitting around a lot more. Certainly I’ve gone for more intentional exercise in the last two weeks than the last two months, but I’ve actually done a lot less - because I don’t walk to station/office/station/home, to the shop to get lunch, to the shop to get whatever random ingredient I want for dinner, to pick up my daughter from dancing etc etc. My Garmin tells me that despite going out every second day to intentionally walk or run I’m doing 1/2 the number of steps I was before - yet I’m sitting closer to the kitchen snacking more.
Indeed. While a lot of people are clearly underestimating the risks of the virus I would say there at least as many people underestimating the mental health risks.
'It's just a few weeks, how hard can it be?' is something I hear a lot. Firstly, it's not going to be just a few weeks. Secondly, the implication is that everyone is starting from a happy well adjusted place. I can assure you everyone is not. Many people were on the edge of snapping before any of this started.
I mentioned on another thread (or maybe it was this thread, they all seem to be running together now) the dangers of the McNamara Fallacy in situations like this. We are working with incomplete data and many behavioral factors are almost impossible to measure.
When you can't measure what's important, make what you can measure important. The long term implications are difficult to measure (although there are already some extremely worrying numbers about domestic abuse that are coming out of other countries) so the tendency is to ignore it and instead focus on reducing car journeys because it's what we can measure.
Not saying that we shouldn't be reducing the amount people are travelling, just that the issues that are really causing problems, both in terms of stemming the spread of the virus and long term health, are being overlooked.