UKH

Any one in manchester/cheshire now in tier 4 planned to go to cumbria hiking tomorrow ?

Obviously this is cancelled now , or is there a way still to go ?

Any help ... as now p***** off 

In reply to wolfbane:

Go local instead.  Tier 4 involves no unnecessary travel, exercise is to be local.

In reply to wolfbane:

I'm in Derbyshire and had planned on the Lakes tomorrow... cancelled plans.  That's just the way it is right now. 

In reply to wolfbane:

Do something else?

The hills aren't going anywhere.....

In reply to wolfbane:

Pretty simple the rules - From GOV.UK just in case you're not sure what the Tier 4 rules are - 

"Travelling within a Tier 4 area

If you live in a Tier 4 area, you must not leave your home unless you have a reasonable excuse (for example, for work or education purposes). If you need to travel you should stay local – meaning avoiding travelling outside of your village, town or the part of a city where you live – and look to reduce the number of journeys you make overall."

In reply to wolfbane:

Just to add. Mum and Dad live in Cumbria. We made the decision weeks ago due to my situation in Glasgow that I wouldn't be seeing them this Christmas, even though it would probably be within the rules. 

Please do something else in your own area!

In reply to wolfbane:

Find a good walk to do in Cheshire.  They do exist!

In reply to wolfbane:

Yes, don’t be a dick and don’t travel. 

In reply to wolfbane:

It is pretty pants. I don't think there's any way round it, will just have to stay local. 

It is so frustrating though, because it makes a massive difference to quality of life, and I have never seen a convincing argument for why going for a walk in the hills is so risky that it should be banned if you have to travel to get there. Particularly with this amazing cold spell where some normally boggy areas might be pleasant walking .  I think it's just one of those things we have to deal with though, as illogical and unfair as it seems.

I think it was easier to argue about in tiers 2 and 3 given all the other stuff that was allowed to happen, but tier 4 is more restrictive in other areas too and with the increase in pressure on hospital beds etc (which I'm convinced is nothing to do with people travelling for walks, much more likely indoor meetings, unsafe workplaces, shopping, schools, etc) I think the room for argument has probably disappeared. 

In reply to wolfbane:

No travelling in tier 4, other than local. The main message is you can;t travel to another tier 4 area from your own tier 4 area. In other words, you can't by law travel from Lancashire to Cumbria, even though both are in the same tier. And no-one from a tier 1 (not anywhere now), or a tier 2 or 3 can travel into a tier 4 area by law.

All the areas 1,2 and 3 are allowed to travel into each others areas by law, but whilst there have to obey the rules of their own area laws. In other words, if you are in a tier 3 area, you can't stay overnight, or visit a restaurant in a tier 2 area.

Hope that helps.

In reply to Removed User:

Most of these replies are incorrect.  There is no restriction on travel.

If you are in Tier 4 there are restrictions on the size of gathering you are allowed and you need to stick to them even when in lower Tiers.  

 Also you must have a reasonable excuse to leave your home.   The legislation explicitly states that outdoor recreation is one of those reasonable excuses. 

You are allowed to go for your walk, the law allows it, our MPs wrote the law specifically to allow you to do this.  As a resident of Cumbria, I welcome you.

​​​​​​

In reply to i_alan_i:

Many thanks , i was going to go on my own walking up and down Bow fell , i much prefer winter hiking mid week in wintery conditions, i wish i would have drove up about 9 pm in the evening stayed in my car and then walked up and down bowfell , how would that have bothered any one at all , its all crazy. ( before tier 4 was implemented)

In reply to i_alan_i:

This is what it says on the gov.uk website.

Travelling to a Tier 4 area from a Tier 1, 2 or 3 area 

You should not travel into a Tier 4 area from another part of the UK, other than for reasons such as:      travel to work where you cannot work from home    

travel to education and for caring responsibilities    

to visit (including staying overnight with) those in your support bubble – or your childcare bubble for childcare 

    to attend hospital, GP and other medical appointments or visits where you have had an accident or are concerned about your health    

to provide emergency assistance, and to avoid injury or illness, or to escape a risk of harm (such as domestic abuse) 

Where necessary, you can travel through a Tier 3 and Tier 4 areas as a part of a longer journey.

In reply to cragtyke:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1611/made

Read the law.  It doesn't say what you have quoted.  

In reply to i_alan_i:

Some of the restrictions on travel may stem from earlier legislation which has not be repealed or rescinded. The question of reasonableness is probably the most contentious issue, it is open to debate and discussion and ultimately a court to decide what is or isn’t reasonable in the circumstances. One could argue that if you lived in an inner city block of flats, then travelling 20miles to take exercise in the country was reasonable. If however, you lived in say the Peak District would it be reasonable to drive 20miles to exercise in the country? 

Its a mess really and whilst we, the outdoor community are probably not the worse offenders for spreading Covid, someone has to suffer from the restrictions to protect the many, even those who disagree with the whole thing. 

In reply to all:

It's pretty clear, as somebody said early in this thread, what 'local' means:

"should stay local – meaning avoiding travelling outside of your village, town or the part of a city where you live"

Yes, outdoor exercise is a legit reason to go out of your home in tier 4, but it also says you should stay local (as defined above surely?). The example they give as a situation where you can do something other than stay local is if you need to make a short journey (within your tier 4 area) to "access open space".

I assume that means I can run on the paths that are on the hill behind my house in Penrith, but have no legit reason to drive 20ish minutes to Blencathra. I'm feeling a bit sad about it personally (although I also feel glad to have open space that I can access from my house). 

I know some will debate which bits of this are law and which are 'just' guidance. Whether it's ok to contravene it if it's just guidance is something people will all have their own views on, I guess. 

In reply to wolfbane:

Probably won't change your mind if you are a "well it isn't set in law.... the rules are not clear, fsck everyone else I am going to do what I want" sort of fellow but this has been posted by the Lake District MRTs

 

In line with other Lake District Mountain Rescue Teams, we have again been called out to rescue people who should not be here. The whole country is in the middle of a pandemic and there are restrictions on what you can do and where you can go. If you are in a Tier 3 or 4 area you should not be travelling except for work and other essential reasons. Going for a walk in the Lake District is not one of those reasons, unlike the first lock-down, you are not allowed to travel for exercise. People travelling to walk and climb in the Lake District are putting lives at risk, and not just their own. If you have the virus and have to be rescued every member of the rescue party will have to isolate for ten days, this will prevent those team members from coming to the aid of other people in distress. If any of the team members then become ill or even test positive then other members of their families will then have to isolate, some of those people are NHS workers who will no longer be able to go to work and look after patients.

We are not being elitists, we are not trying to keep the hills to ourselves, we are trying to look after each other and do our bit to try to control this terrible disease. It does not matter whether the government rules are legally enforceable or not, if everyone had followed the rules this situation would have been under control many months ago and we would not be in the situation that we now find ourselves in where thousands of people in the UK have died unnecessarily.

Cumbria Police have already fined people that we have had to rescue in recent days for travelling here from tier 3 areas of Lancashire. Please stay at home if you are told to, it’s very simple.

In reply to i_alan_i:

Parliament clearly hasn't written the law "specifically to allow you to do this ".

You can postulate all you like about why the travel restrictions aren't more specific in law (maybe reasonable excuse was thought to be solid enough, let's see a few cases in court ?) but the intent is absolutely clear and it is not to travel more than locally.

In reply to GrahamD:

It would help a lot if the actual law was clear. A definite line of you must not travel more than x miles unless for work, medical or care. 

In reply to JoshOvki:

I saw Coniston MRT had posted that, not sure about any others? I think it's a terrible message to be honest, whether you think people should be there or not. 

The message was posted before all the new tier 4 categorisations yesterday. They say that unlike the first lock down people are not allowed to travel for exercise and that people have been fined for doing so... But that's just not true, and if people have been fined I don't know what law they would be fined under.

They are being very political blaming the fact that the country is struggling with the pandemic on people not following 'the rules', which is just a lie as far as I'm concerned. The disease is very contagious, and of course it will spread when people do things they are allowed to do, such as going to school, going to work (many workplaces are not really covid safe), going to the pub etc.  Of course some people break the rules, but it is a minority, and those apparently 'breaking the rules' by travelling for exercise outdoors will probably have transmitted to disease to approximately 0 other people on average.

Anyway even if it was true and people followed the rules and we all ended up in tier 1 as a result, all that would happen is the government would have another 'eat out to help out' campaign and a 'back to work to save pret' campaign and before you know it we'd be back in the current situation.  We've seen a massive and continued failure to plan, organise, and act responsibly during the pandemic, and most of the blame for that lies with the government, not the people. 

​​Also, unlike the first lockdown where the mrts encouraged everyone to stay off the hills because of the risk of transmission during a rescue and the hospitals being full, which most people seemed to get behind at the time, they seem to be implying that people in Cumbria can continue walking and climbing in the Lakes, which doesn't make much sense to me. 

I put it down to someone in charge of their social media being a tory party member under a lot of stress. However the fact it hasn't been deleted yet makes me think it is an 'official' opinion, which makes me really disappointed. 

In reply to i_alan_i:

That legislation relates to people living in Tier4 areas, the guidance I quoted is for people living in other areas.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tier-4-stay-at-home#travel

In reply to AukWalk: I can empathise how it’s frustrating, but I’m sure there are plenty of good walks around you. Even here in flat Suffolk, while I’m missing the mountains and climbing so much, I can find a bit of adventure just walking around the edge of farmers fields! I just think of all the people who are in inner cities and how lucky I am, to be in the countryside.  I try not to get too jealous of all the people who live close enough to climb in Tier 4 or my friends in Spain.

In reply to Dax H:

Why ? Most people don't feel the need to consult the law on a daily basis because they know what the right thing to do is and don't feel the need to push the limit of legality.

In reply to AukWalk:

It is interesting how we read the same thing and take it different. You read it as they are lying and it must be the Tories and political. I read it as a team trying to protect their volunteers and their families. Funny old world.

In reply to cragtyke:

Yorkshire and the Humber a small red tier 3 island within a sea of black tier 4 

Living in north Sheffield within 10 minutes drive of the Derbyshire border it seems very strange we can’t go for our planned walk onto Winn Hill but can go shopping at Meadowhall should we so wish!  Not a complaint just an observation. 

In reply to jezmartin:

Totally agree, instead of being free to walk away from the crowds I am now going to be having more contact on busier paths and trails. Also annoyingly footpaths (and parking spots) don't confirm to county borders, so some incursion over the border is almost inevitable unless you totally avoid those areas.

Our new years plans of a night walk and seeing 2020 out from a high point in the peak have been scuppered - BUT let's just focus on staying safe and be grateful that as tier 3 we can still see friends outdoors and go to the climbing walls. I'd sooner suffer tier 3 restrictions right through to Easter than break them and push us into 4.

In reply to AukWalk:

Jesus wept.  

What the flying f**k does being a party member have to do with not wanting to have to potentially isolate for ten days due to rescuing a rule breaker in the middle of the pandemic when giving time and effort free to the MRT?

If you can’t see their perspective and can only interpret it as a party politics issue (despite a large chunk of the Tory party being apparently against control measures) I wonder if you’re approaching this anything like objectively.  Maybe they just don’t want to risk their health, their income, their partner’s health and their partner’s income rescuing someone who shouldn’t be there?  

In reply to AukWalk:

It's about collective behaviour. If an individual travels to go for a walk, then that in itself almost certainly doesn't create a problem. What does create problems is when many people do the same thing. Problem is we have become used to such travel being a thing we can do without considering the impact of others, and it's hard to mentally accommodate the changed circumstances.

tldr: The behaviour of the virus is modified by the behaviour of large groups, not (significantly) by individuals. But individuals independently doing similar things are effectively groups - even if it doesn't feel like it.

In reply to wolfbane:

I think I was a bit harsh on you last night dude- apologies.

I'm finding myself increasingly frustrated with friends and acquaintances still in the "It's only like flu/only kills people on the way out anyway/it's only me it won't make much difference/We can travel for exercise this time around so that means we can all cram in the car and drive from Edinburgh to the highlands and spray all over Instagram how many Munros (yawn.......) we've done etc etc etc" mindset.

Let's face it, if you're heading up by yourself and going for a walk it's probably not going to cause a problem but I personally would struggle to justify driving that far and going for a wee wander as necessary travel. But I suppose I'm fortunate enough to live in a part of Glasgow with everything you could want except climbing within a mile or two. Can't imagine what it's like being stuck in a bigger city like Manchester.

Look after yourself, spring isn't far away, the Lakes will still be there.

In reply to peppermill:

As someone who is stuck in Manchester (albeit in quite a pleasant part of the city) can I be the first to confirm that it really, really sucks.

In reply to Ben_Roberts:

Yes, a good point that there are adventures to be had closer to home too, and best thing to do is be positive about what is possible.  The silver lining to lockdown 1 was finding some new local walking routes that are actually quite nice, so I will be thankful for those and have a look at trying out some new local paths until the current lockdown is over.

In reply to Andy Johnson:

True! Well said.

I'm stuck in London, if anyone thinks Manchester sucks...!

There are of course oddities to any group regulation, we all have to find our way, but we need to remember, as you say, that as well as individuals we are groups too.

And currently someone is dying of Covid every 2-3 minutes. Yes, in the time I've taken to write this.

In reply to JoshOvki:

Maybe they were just trying to protect their volunteers and families, but they took a very different tone to all other mountain rescue teams I see posts from, and as I explained they included a lot more conjecture than was necessary if that was the intent.

In reply to AukWalk:

Bang on. I've lived where I am now since 2015 but there's total gems that I had no idea were there until we were restricted to local activities, such as one park less than a mile away that is basically a beautiful gorge running through the city. Easy to lose yourself and be anywhere in the world. 

Funny how it's both shrunk and expanded my world at the same time.

In reply to peppermill:

Hi, no worries, ive stayed put and not moved.

I prefer solitude when hiking in the snow and ice , or maybe 1 other person sometimes joins me, usually swerving spring time when its milder and more people are about. Just would have been nice to go to places where my mobile phone is unlikely to ring and get some peace. I will observe the recommendations, besides id sooner give my monies to charities like the MRT,s than pay a possible fine.    Plus , in the unlikely event of ever needing MRT, there would be probably a zero chance of catching covid 19 from me - as ive already had it.

In reply to wolfbane:

If it helps the roads are all black ice at present, and even though I can see Skiddaw from the kitchen window I’m not venturing out today.

In reply to wintertree:

"Jesus wept.  

What the flying f**k does being a party member have to do with not wanting to have to potentially isolate for ten days due to rescuing a rule breaker in the middle of the pandemic when giving time and effort free to the MRT?

If you can’t see their perspective and can only interpret it as a party politics issue (despite a large chunk of the Tory party being apparently against control measures) I wonder if you’re approaching this anything like objectively.  Maybe they just don’t want to risk their health, their income, their partner’s health and their partner’s income rescuing someone who shouldn’t be there?  "

If you read my post again, hopefully what you'll see is that I take issue with points they make in their post, such as blaming rule breakers alone for the increase in infection rates, and claiming that travel for exercise was not allowed, when in fact it was.

The tone and content of their post was completely different to what I've seen coming out of other mountain rescue teams, which is what made me wonder about its provenance.  Obviously that last paragraph was just conjecture on my part, but I regret mentioning the political party membership thing as clearly it has offended some people for which I apologise - that was purely based on personal experience where the only person I know who thinks the gov is doing a great job and rule breakers are to blame for everything is also the only conservative party member I know, and my own disagreement with that opinion.

I disagree with you that I am interpreting their post as a party politics issue - that was only conjecture on its provenance, which I regret.

I can understand that they might not want that risk to themselves and their families to rescue someone that shouldn't be there, but I think my understanding of who 'shouldn't be there', and why some people should but others shouldn't is different to that implied in their post.  I hope that those who do not wish to be part of the rescue team at the moment are allowed to take a back seat without prejudice to future volunteering, as it would be unfair to expect them to do so.

If it came to the point where it was necessary due to risk/team unavailability/whatever else, then I expect the mountain rescue teams would request everyone stay away from the mountains as was the case during lockdown 1, but that is a completely different argument to the one about Coniston MRTs post.

In reply to GrahamD:

The law literally doesn't say that.  Have you read the regulations? Or just the guidance, which is very different? 

In reply to cragtyke:

No, that was the amendment that added tier 4 (provided I haven't hashed up the link).  Read the full thing to see the restrictions for the other tiers.  They don't match the guidance you are quoting by some distance.

When reading any govt not-stat guidance, it's important to appreciate the difference between Must and Should.

Must places a legal requirement on you to comply. Failure to do so could leave you open to prosecution under the relevant legislation.

Should is a recommendation (i.e. as an example of 'Good Practice').  Failure to comply with a Should could be used as evidence of failure to comply with a Must.

Examples of the use Must and Should are found throughout in Highway Code.   

Most reasonable people would hold up the Highway Code as a good way to behave on the road etc for the greater good: the Covid guidance is no different; so please adhere to the Should requirements as best you can, and in the sprit they are intended.

In reply to ChrisJD:

Or a alternative possibility: the guidance is such an extreme restriction of your human rights that there is no earthly chance of getting it passed as legislation or standing up to a legal challenge.  

In reply to wolfbane:

F*ck sake folks, are we back here again? I argued with folks here 9 months ago. This is UKC, frequented by decent,  intelligent, reasonable people. Not the dicks on FB.

I live in Newark. Im hemmed in by the east coast mainline, the A1 and various other roads. There's  no wilderness, little countryside worth walking through and apart from small areas the town is a boring replica of every other town. Unfortunately I don't live in Keswick, or Chapel en le...etc. tough luck for me. 

I have been to the coast once in that time and have driven 500 miles max since March but would love to bugger off to the Peak for the day. I have walked my 1 hour, 3.2 mile dog walk  today, as I have for the 300th+ day this year. It's hard, repetitive but its necessary. 

Idiots bending and stretching the spirit and letter of the law have cost me and my family dear this year. Mass vaccination is close FFS.

In reply to i_alan_i:

I was very careful to say: 'most reasonable people'

In reply to AukWalk:

I saw the rest of your post.  

They did not blame them "alone".  I think you're over-interpreting that.  I've seen very similar comments from an intensive care doctor today.  I think we're going to hear more of them, given how bad things are getting in parts of the UK.

There has been very reasonable interpretations of the juxtaposition of the rules and the government guidance from a couple of very knowledgeable posters.  I for one am not looking to squeeze between them right now, nor to defend the right of others to do so.

And I hope that people don't travel out of their areas unnecessarily for the next few weeks, and those that do make damned sure they don't need to be rescued - after all we hear a lot about how low the risk is for going for a walk after a long drive and how that makes it okay for individuals to interpret the rules to the maximum flexibility, but the rescues reported - including fines then issues by the police - suggest people aren't capable of delivering on that low risk walk.

I don't want rescuers to feel that they have no choice but to step back from their role.  

I am glad you can step back from what was a frankly preposterous suggestion.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Dogging isn't all it's cracked up to be these days is it?

In reply to wolfbane:

The law says that in Tier 4 you must not leave or be outside your home without a reasonable excuse, and then there is a non exhaustive list of reasonable excuses including to take exercise. As others have said, there is nothing in the law prohibiting travel. But I think it would be difficult to argue in court that driving 50 or 100 miles to the Lakes to take exercise was "reasonable" when you could do it much closer to home.

In reply to Toerag:

Yeah, the pooch is getting upset too. 

In reply to i_alan_i:

crikey - that is the weirdest legislative drafting I've ever seen.  Has it been assembled from a DIY Legislation kit?

or, more likely dictated in a Cabinet meeting after an argument or advice with Special advisors.  It's nearly as strange as the GOV website which is totlaly unclear, self contradictory and incompetently worded

In reply to wercat:

Same issues and some funny typos here as well here (joyful for pedants):

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/coronavirus-health-protection-coronav...

Get yourself over to the Tier 5 rumour thread. Oceanrower is saying the legislation is perfectly clear!  I've given up counting the small mistakes I've made in remembering all the details correctly and I am am trying to pay attention. I think this slow action and muddled Tier mess has cost us a good deal of public trust and many more lives. Also the delay means lockdowns need to be longer and cost more in economic terms.

In reply:

How do visitors spread Covid? Well most don’t but yesterday, parking at Lanthwaite Green, four cars roll up, the occupants roll out and have a great loud discussion about how fast they had driven on the way up the M6 whilst getting sorted before all stomping off together (about 15 in the group) up Whiteside and presumably round via Hopegill Head for a lovely days walk in the winter sun. If one of them was positive I would imagine most others are now as well. If it was the new variant then anyone on the narrow ridge this crowd were heading off along might be unlucky and also be infected. Probably all will be fine and no one will be positive and pass it on to someone who might then die - on the other hand?
So if everyone is sensible and stops thinking only of themselves then maybe by Easter a large group like this will be absolutely fine within the law or the guidance to do exactly the same as yesterday, if people want to moan about their human rights and how they can interpret guidance to suit what they want to do then maybe by Easter we’ll all be properly locked down again and I will have Lanthwaite Green to myself again as I can walk there from home.

In reply to wintertree:

They said "if everyone had followed the rules this situation would have been under control many months ago", which to me means they think that if everyone followed the rules then coronavirus cases in the UK would have been reducing or staying about the same since June-July time, when the original restrictions began to lift.  I suppose looser positions such as not having to put any areas into tiers 2, 3, or 4 might also count as 'under control'.  I just don't see how there can be any evidence for this at all or what the mechanism would be, and the fact that infection rate does reduce when areas are under more restrictions proves to me that rule breakers aren't such a dominant force - otherwise infection rates would keep going up even during lockdowns.  Lots was made of the 'nudge squad' they have working on policy and how the minority of rule breakers are considered when deciding what restrictions to put in place.  

I found this on the bbc website https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55479018, which I presume is the doctor you mention.  The top concern there seems to be about social distancing and masks, also mentioning washing hands, and people not gathering in groups or having parties. These are all things where there is a clear mechanism for transmission - they clearly result in people being likely to breathe in other people's air, and transfer virus laden droplets around frequently touched surfaces. 

I guess if we included all of these things as 'rules', then 'rule' breaking is more pronounced - eg some people wore a mask when it was against the 'rules', some people don't wear a mask now, some people didn't and don't stay 2m away in the shops, some people don't even stay 1m+precautions.  It is simply unbelievable that they would be adhered to all the time, for example schools and certain workplaces are never going to keep anyone 2m apart all the time, opening pubs and restaurants meant people were always going to be closer than that and have their masks down, but to characterise that as rule breaking seems a bit unrealistic.  From what I see, the majority of people are still following these rules, and instances where lots of people aren't following them, such as the bullring shopping centre on boxing day, are clearly predictable and could have been prevented if that was the aim (by limiting numbers or just closing the shops preferably).  What you don't see is that many people probably anticipated the chaos and stayed away so their social distancing wouldn't be compromised, and therefore invisibly followed the rules.

But all that aside, it's simply the case that when infection rates dropped, more restrictions are lifted, therefore increasing risk even if everyone did follow the rules.  The restrictions are obviously not designed to minimise infection and death, they are designed to keep people spending money on the high street etc as much as possible, using the entire capacity of the NHS to achieve this.  If this were not the case then as soon as infection rates began to rise above a background level in a particular area, restrictions would be reintroduced, but again and again and again this has not happened.

It would be nice if 11 months into the emergency laws were still not being brought in in such a slapdash way that this is possible in such glaringly obvious ways.

The next few weeks are a different proposition following the expansion of tier 4 areas, essentially being lockdown+schools.  The original post was made in a context where pretty much everyone reading it will have been in a tier 2 or 3 area, where a much broader range of other more risky activities were allowed.

It is indeed a shame that many rescues have taken place where it seems they might have been avoided if people had some basic navigational knowledge or some warm clothes.  Imagine an alternative world where lots of newcomers to the outdoors had been confronted with a massive public education campaign (don't know who would lead this - sport england maybe?) and a massive effort to make outdoor spaces as safe as possible for people to use, given it's one of the only remaining recreational activities people have had for so long.  Could have included training up some outdoor-minded furloughed / unemployed people to be assistant mountain rescuers too perhaps, reducing strain on the existing teams.  A lost opportunity maybe.

In general I'd still argue that even with the increase in rescues reported, walking is a low risk activity. In 2019 there were 2761 callouts in the whole of England and Wales (https://www.mountain.rescue.org.uk/annual_review/2020/) , and not all of them will have been for walkers in national parks.  Compare that to over 90 million visitors to English national parks (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/...), and 12 million to Welsh national parks (https://www.beacons-npa.gov.uk/the-authority/press-and-news/archive/2013-2/....)  I couldn't easily find what proportion of those visits was for different purposes, so I'll guess that 50% of them might do some hill walking while they're there.  That gives me a pessimistic estimate of 0.5*(90+12)= 51 million hill walks per year, if we assume that all hill walking is in a national park, which again is a very pessimistic estimate.  Let's say the average group size was three, so 51/3 = 17 million different hill walking sessions.  2761/17,000,000 = 0.00016.  So, by my estimations, which I've tried to be pessimistic with, there is approximately a 0.00016/1 chance that a walking trip will result in a rescue being needed. Or put another way, a 99.984% chance that you or any of your walking partners won't need rescuing (in practice probably a much higher percentage, especially for properly equipped and experienced walkers).

So, pessimistically there's a 0.016% chance that you or someone in your group (hopefully your household at the present time) will need rescuing, in which case the rescuers will be outdoors in the fresh air with masks on you and themselves, and fully gloved up etc.  Admittedly some of them will have to get closer than 2m if you need carrying down rather than just navigation help or a warm jacket.  I imagine there may have been some transmission in rescue scenarios, but if transmission was really high in rescue scenarios then I expect there would be news stories about multiple team members testing positive following a rescue, but I haven't seen any.  I'm not discounting risk to the rescuers there, just pointing out that it isn't the same as being in an enclosed space with no PPE.

99.984% of the time you'll go on a walk and probably pass fewer people than you would if you walked around your local area.  That is a low risk activity in my books.

They probably signed up expecting risky activities to consist of rescues in inhospitable weather conditions in precarious locations, Covid is a risk to them and their families that they probably didn't sign up for, so it would be unreasonable to expect them to deal with it if they don't want to.  If they feel that the risk is too high for whatever reason then they should be supported in stepping back, and I'm sure they are.  If it gets to the point that it's impossible to provide an effective rescue service then maybe there's a question for MPs and Police about what they want to do - be that advise against or ban people from hill walking, allow an amateur volunteers to assist rescuers under instruction, or whatever it may be.

In reply to AukWalk:

The classic mistake.

For most of us, it’s not - and never has been - about personal risk with covid.

You can’t predict which 3 groups it is that are going to need rescuing tomorrow.  You can’t predict if they will have covid and give it to the rescuers.

Nobody can.

Looking at everything in terms of individual and personal risk is an awful way to manage overall risk in a pandemic where symptom free transmission is common.  It’s a great way to justify doing whatever you want.

The virus only travels because people travel.  If people stopped looking for excuses to do what they want, this could have been boxed up half a year ago.

In reply to wintertree:

Without individual risk there is no collective risk.  The virus spreads between individuals!  There are some scenarios where there is a relatively high risk of transmission between individuals (such as a house party), others where there is a relatively low risk (such as hermits living in caves across the valley from each other).

The fact that you don't know which 3 groups will need rescuing on any one day and whether they have covid or not is irrelevant if overall the activity is low risk.

I don't understand your interpretation that this can be used to justify doing whatever you want, on the contrary it shows that some activities are relatively safe and others are not.  House parties have a much higher risk of individuals transmitting the virus to each other, and therefore they are risky for society at large and it seems correct to ban them, for example.

Well yes that's true but a bit irrelevant given the virus was transmitted all around the country prior to lockdown 1, when government policy was structured around achieving herd immunity by infecting everyone.  

People doing what they want for personal reasons is not the only reason for travel either.  Plenty of transmission will have been due to

a) non-personal travel, such as commuting for work, kids going to school, shop stock deliveries, public transport drivers, etc etc

b) due to personal travel which was permitted and required no 'excuses', but was seen as legitimate at the time.

I don't know what you're proposing people should have done or should be doing? Are you really suggesting that independent of any government advice, every person in the country should have locked themselves at home for two weeks (not even leaving to go to essential jobs), and then gone to guard the borders to repel any incoming travellers?  That's the only way I can see that people could have 'boxed' it up.  If you leave even a small number of virus carriers around then it will spread again in a short amount of time.

Trying for the New Zealand approach initially would have been my preference at the time too (I presume that's what you're getting at?), but that is a government decision, and not achievable from the situation we are now in without extremely long lockdown, which our government has clearly shown they have no appetite for (and arguably at this point would be overtaken by events given that vaccine-driven herd immunity seems to be months away).

In reply to wolfbane:

Its crap int it. Not allowed up to Jockland....Lakes freeze up and....arghggggh. 

In reply to AukWalk:

(very small individual risk) x (67 million people).

That’s how the virus has spread most of the time.

Banging on about low individual risk is to miss the big picture.  I can justify doing almost anything I want because I’m not likely to catch it doing so, and because I’m at low risk being in my early 40s if I do. But then if 67 million other people do the same...

This point is not intuitive but hard geographic boundaries slow the spread even when the virus is in a *small fraction of people* everywhere.  Also, right now we have a pandemic within a pandemic with the new variant and that is not as prevalent everywhere right now.  Slowing its transmission for a few weeks makes a difference.

Was it?  Or were they just incompetent?

In reply to im off:

Anyone using the term "Jockland" should receive a lifetime ban on travelling north of the border.

In reply to i_alan_i:

Read the law - it does.

In reply to Robert Durran: Absolutely. They should be turned back at 'Checkpoint Jimmy' and sent scurrying back to 'Borisland'

In reply to peppermill:

Trying to place you now....a gorge running through the city...

Could be the Kelvin river at the back of the Botanical Gardens or the Cathcart flowing through Linn Park.

I'm going to guess you're north rather than south though. You've got better access to open space north than south.

In reply to Andy Johnson:

You have my sympathy. I once lived in a "pleasant" part of Manchester for two years. It was hell, even without covid. I count myself lucky to have escaped when I did.

In reply to wintertree:

Is it?  Or has it actually spread in higher risk environments such as schools, covid-unsafe workplaces, shops, pubs, indoor social gatherings etc most of the time...

Low transmission risk activities for an individual will add very small fractions to the number of other people an infected person will spread it to. Next to high risk activities, which push the r value well above 1 in low tier areas, low risk ones will be a tiny little rounding error. 

If high risk activities are removed, then transmission goes down - that's surely what we've seen with lockdowns and the higher tiers.

I really don't understand what you're getting at with this. If 67 million people all went for a socially distanced walk, then there would be a minor impact on transmission, because it's a low risk activity. If 67 million people all went to work in a non - socially distanced factory then it would have a massive impact on transmission because in this context it's a relatively high risk activity. 

You can not justify activities where there is a high risk of transmitting the virus if you (or other people) have it unless there is a significant benefit to doing so, such as being able to go food shopping so you don't starve. 

If your daily activities consist of high risk things, then the number of people you would on average spread the virus to if you were infected might be something like:

Shopping twice a week (0.5), having friends round (0.7), working in a non covid secure workplace (1), going to a restaurant (0.8), daily local run (0.02), going hill walking (0.01)

Ok, add it up, oh dear if everyone does those things then each infected person will transmit the virus to 3.03 other people. The pandemic will grow quickly. 

How about replacing the high risk activities with low risk ones where possible:

Shopping once a week (0.25), having a video call with friends (0), working from home (0), not going to a restaurant (0), daily local run (0.02), going hill walking (0.01)

Now if everyone did these things then each infected person will transmit the virus to 0.28 other people. Good news, the low risk activities have not somehow resulted in massive transmission, the pandemic will shrink quickly. 

I had heard of this effect but understood it was about new transmission routes between people who would not otherwise have met. When the travel has a very low likelihood of infecting anyone, it won't be a significant effect.  If you've got any information about this effect then I'd be interested to read about it more. And yes the new variant does change things a bit and means its very desirable to slow its spread within already infected areas and into new areas, and presumably that's why so many areas are tier 4 now, but it doesn't change the fact that low risk activities are not a huge public health danger, but high risk ones are. 

Probably a bit of both, but it certainly looks like it was, plus what was said in the press conferences and modelling which was made publicly available showed that scenario was the one being considered. 

In reply to AukWalk:

So you’re fundamentally disagreeing with tier 3 and 4 “stay local” rules?

And adding small amounts to an exponential growth rate is bad, especially in the next few weeks when hospitals are running to the brink. 

(low personal risk of transmission) x (67 m people) = lots of transmission.

You’re focused on the outdoors part.  This conversation got started because some of these people need rescuing > more risk.  Most of the people travelling beyond their village will need diesel - going in to a shop (you identify these as higher risk) to pay > more risk.

Are you just making up numbers?  That’s great fun, can I do it too?

If only people could do low risk activities without needing to get mountain rescued, without needing diesel, without doing all sorts of idiot things (copious evidence that enough people do this to cause problems).  If the last 9 months have convinced me of one thing, it’s that enough people can’t.

Tier 3 and Tier 4 advice is very clear.  Tier 3:

Where possible, you should stay local and avoid travelling outside your local area, meaning your village or town, or part of a city. People should continue to travel for reasons such as work, education, medical attention or if they have caring responsibilities.

You can still travel to venues that are open, or for reasons such as work or education, but you should reduce the number of journeys you make wherever possible.

You should still avoid travelling outside your tier 3 area other than for the reasons such as those above.

You can make up some numbers all you like and focus on individual risk to wriggle out of the guidance.  Lets hope you don’t need to go in to a garage for diesel due to this extra beyond-the-rules leisure travel because it looks like the new variant is stronger than existing risk control measures for shops, garages etc.  Also let’s hope you don’t end up needing a rescue - someone will. 

Me, I’m going to suck it up for the next 4 weeks whilst hopefully a lid is put on the growing crisis.  If I don’t travel when I can avoid it, I can’t take the virus with me.  

Does it?

In reply to Flinticus:

SSSSHHHH!!!!!!!!

Hidden Gem......;p

But I'm South Side and it's awesome. Lived by the Botanics previously and I don't really miss it.

In reply to peppermill:

Rouken Glen has a gorge but its not hidden...

In reply to AukWalk:

Just stay at home.  You can disagree and argue the toss all you want.  But I don't see why I and hopefully million of others in tiers 3 & 4, should be allowed to break the rules because they don't appeaar to be logical.

I live near Whitby North Yorkshire.  We are entirely sick to our back teeth of continual streams of people from outside our area visiting us 'for exercise'.  

This 'exercise' consists of driving long distances (the last visitor I spoke to came from Lincoln), stroll around the old town, a brief walk on the beach, coffee/sandwich or more likely fish 'n chips.  Our covid rate has increased in line with the increased number of infections in our village where we also get hundreds of visitors too.  WE had over 100 on our small beach yesterday and ........Oh, shit!   I don't have to explain.

Just stay in your own council area!!  Do as you are told or asked.  Its simple even if you or I don't like it!

In reply to AukWalk:

your figures are meaningless.  A number of Lake District MRTs have reported tier 3 and 4 rescues over the last weeks.  So it's happened.  The area has been inundated with people.  We were out walking near Askham  last week and there was a large cluster of southern accents round some large vehicles.  Keswick has been mobbed and you can see how clear it is now on the streetcams.  Our figures here went from the 50s into the 500s per 100000 (x10) in a week or two while the place was mobbed for the last months and the novel strain appeared here in clusters only a day or two after it was announced in the SE.

In reply to wolfbane:

I'm refraining from climbing at the mo in tier 4. But might change my mind in a few weeks as already hitting the wine and painkillers hard in depression instead. Will do a review in 2 weeks based on R rate (recycling rate) of wine bottles per 100 hours. 

In reply to wercat:

Is there anything  official which confirms the link between visitors and the sharp increase in case rates in Eden and Allerdale? The increase looks like it started well before the real influx at Christmas got underway?

I'm not saying you are wrong, but the timing doesn't work does it? Down here (D&C) we have seen the annual arrival of visitors spending Christmas in the area and although some of their behaviours are reckless,  we can't see much impact on the infection rates, so far at least.

Keswick hasn't looked as busy as it normally is so I just wondered why the increase in cases started (worst being Eden, which doesn't include Keswick of course).

In reply to wintertree:

That's not the intent of my post, I was mainly disagreeing with the opinion that you and Coniston MRT expressed that this could have been all boxed up months ago if only people had followed the rules.  You still haven't explained your reasoning for this by the way, so I guess you did want literally everyone to not leave the house for 2 weeks and then push any travellers back into the channel with barge poles, all without any government coordination.  Not a workable solution in my books.

However as it happens, I don't see how travel is such a bad thing if your activity is low risk in tier 3, when more risky activities will dominate any other effect.  Tier 4 essentially moves the severity of the infection levels up a notch and eliminates some other higher risk activities making minor risks more significant so I think there's a better argument for a complete ban then. Tier 4 also indicates that hospital capacity etc is approaching a critical level making any minor risk potentially more significant.

I general though the most important effect of stay local 'rules' is to reduce the number of people undertaking high risk activities in other areas, such as visiting friends, or going to the pub etc which might be allowed in the area they are travelling to  but aren't in the area they come from.

It is, but if it's a low risk activity then depending on the situation I think the benefits can well outweigh the risks.  That's why even during lockdown everyone was allowed to meet one other person outdoors, go for local walks, etc.

When there are lots of other high risk activities going on the effect of a low risk one isn't significant, especially if you consider that any minor reduction in transmission will just mean that high risk activities like going to the pub get allowed again sooner.

No, low risk of transmission in any number of people means low levels of transmission.  Lockdown conditions meant lots of people doing things with a low personal risk of transmission, and guess what there was a small amount of transmission and the infection rate went down.

Yes there are certain things which increase the risk of travelling and hill walking in itself compare to a local walk (although some factors work the other way such as passing more people), but these can all be minimised.  The probability of needing rescue is very low, as I showed.  I don't know why you would choose to go inside to pay in the current atmosphere, much better to use a pay at the pump observe good hand hygiene, and use a plastic glove / cover, thereby reducing risk to low levels.

No activity is risk free, but some activities are lower risk than others, which is why it's more important not to meet people indoors than it is to not go for a walk outside, and there are times when benefits outweigh the risks, which is why we're still allowed to go food shopping for example, which is much more risky than hill walking (but also has greater benefits).

Yes, illustrative numbers to demonstrate my point that low risk activities don't blow the lid off things regardless of how many people do them, as long as the risk is actually low.   I've provided reasoning for why I think hill walking is low risk, and many sources including the doctor you cited reference situations where people are likely to be breathing over each other etc as key sources of risk.  You have failed to provide any reasoning as to why you think going to a non-socially distanced office is safe, but going hill walking is not, for example.

Make up some numbers of your own to demonstrate your point of view if you like, so I can see how you apportion risk.

Most people can, a minority can't, as has always been the case with all activities.  My reasoning for hill walking being low risk compared to many other activities remains unchanged, unless there's some big study or something that I'm missing.  Banning is not the only solution to this in any case.

As discussed previously, and again noting that the new variant is a different issue as it changes the playing field considerably if some reports are to be believed.

Good, as shall I, but that's irrelevant to the point.  I hope you're consistent with your own argument and don't do anything with even the lowest risk of transmission, such as getting food shopping, getting any deliveries, touching any mail that comes through the door, going for a local walk, or even opening the door.  Low risk activities would cause terrible transmission if everyone did them, right?

I can't find what I'm thinking of now, but I think from the PMs briefings (e.g. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-statement-on-coronavirus-16-march...  ) it's clear from the way that 'the peak' that the intent was for the disease to run its course, and after the 12 week shielding program 'the peak' would be over and infection rates would be reduced due to herd immunity.

The government appeared keen to try and avoid implementing measures which would significantly reduce transmission for seemingly spurious reasons (eg https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3166). This also supports the idea that we really were aiming for a mass infection scenario based on preconceived ideas about what measures were 'medically rational' at the top of government (eg see Boris's free trade superhero speech https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-in-greenwich-3-february-20...).

Interviews like this with Patrick Vallance are the clearest illustration this was the scenario they were aiming for:  youtube.com/watch?v=2XRc389TvG8&t=209

Watch this briefing for a few minutes, and I don't see how there can be any doubt that this was the plan:  youtube.com/watch?v=xRadMzCKnCU&t=548 . The modelling I was thinking of basically had graphs similar to the ones Patrick put up on screen during his briefing.

In reply to Billhook:

Disagreement and arguing about government policy should be an important part of living in a democracy, especially when it has such far reaching impacts on everyone's lives.  No amount of arguing here will mean you are 'allowed' to break any 'rules' though, although different people will of course have very different conceptions of what the 'rules' actually are, as we saw with the Cummings case.

Of course I shall be staying at home for the foreseeable future though, being in a tier 4 area.

Well that is a shame, I don't seek to defend people going to buy food and drink and then enter a space where social distancing is difficult.

Well that is yet another interpretation of the rules - parish council or borough council?  In any case I think I've explained my point of view.

In reply to AukWalk:

Well, it's quite simple.  If people all stuck to the rules, I think the tip-over from decay to growth would have come later in the summer, and the exponential growth since then would have been much slower.  It wouldn't be gone, but we wouldn't be at crisis point. 

I think there are clear signs in the data that people's behaviour changes in response to local outbreaks and news coverages, and that this reduces the transmission rate independent of eventual changes to rules/guidance.  The most likely interpretation is that people are lax with the rules when the threat doesn't feel real, and then become more compliant when it starts to feel worrying/scary.

Right now I think people should not make up justification for trips in contravention of the rules for the next two weeks whilst the crisis situation is hopefully reigned in a bit.

I don't want anyone to get in their car and drive to or from a Tier 3 or Tier 4 area for a walk because the virus - and the disastrous new variant - only travel when people travel, and because travel outside of one's normal area adds links to a transmission network. 

It's not irrelevant, at all.  The status of the pandemic isn't "good/bad" and of R isn't binary to growing or shrinking.  All our actions affect how fast the situation worsens, or how soon it tips over to improvement.  This idea I am (perhaps wrongly) reading in to several of your posts including this bit that we can't make things worse "because the virus is everywhere" of "because prevalence is high" is scientific nonsense.

I think you are being silly.

I am not going to do unnecessary activities, regardless of whether I (not an expert in virus transmission) judge them low or high risk.  Of bloody course I'm going to go shopping - although not much because I've been stocked with 6 weeks food in advance for the whole of 2020 so that I can seriously cut back on going to the shops when prevalence is high.  Like it is now.  So I've not been to a shop in I think 8 days.  I'll go tomorrow night when it'll be quiet to stock up on fresh goods.

I am going to continue going for local walks - if I don't travel far, I can't cary the virus far.  I won't build any new links in the transmission network that could potentially happen if I make a long distance journey to new places.  I will minimise use of the car by making zero leisure trips in it, so that I don't need to buy any diesel until this period of high risk of transmission is hopefully past.  You yourself have mentioned shops  as quite high risk and these equate to petrol stations I should think.

I share a lot of your take on the government messaging in March/April but it's inference - I've seen no evidence that the policy was actually to go for herd immunity, and that doesn't agree with the retrospective timeline of SAGE minutes/advice and actions.  I think other things were at play including a very different idea in government to me on what would be best for the economy.

You can continue to make up some random numbers and add them together to convince yourself that it's perfectly safe to do what you want, but there are rules and once people start making self-justifying exceptions to them, where does it end up?  Barnard Castle, that's where.  Which is a code-word for accelerating the progress of rule-breaking across society.  Which is the last thing we want.

You continue to ignore the actual MRT callouts to T3/T4 rescues.  What’s you’re solution there, beyond your suggestion of graciously allowing MRT members not to volunteer?   Hill Police to make sure everyone is being sensible and playing it safe? 

In reply to wercat:

A rescue happened? I never said it wouldn't, only that it won't contribute significantly to overall infection rates, given the circumstances in which people are rescued, and the low likelihood of a walk resulting in a rescue, which I backed up with some numbers.

That's a shame if there is a situation in Keswick where social distancing is not possible, but that isn't necessarily due to people going hill walking, and should be avoidable if the local authority have a look at things.

The novel strain does complicate things a bit, but reading about it now it does seem that it's been out and about since September now they're doing some analysis, so may or may not be due to a recent batch of visitors.  In any case I'm not convinced hill walking is the culprit.

In reply to AukWalk:

“may or may not”, “I’m not convinced” vs a very real possibility of there being no hospital capacity left nationwide in a couple of weeks.

Right now the precautionary principle should be in play - if you’re not sure and so on, why risk it?  Why advocate for risking it?

Let us see how the next few weeks actually pan out, then re-evaluate.

The new variant has been around for months - but every “importation event” in to a region far from London accelerates the growth of the new variant.

In reply to wolfbane:

One year into this and it's all bollocks. I bought a mask last January and began wearing it in March, which was 'wrong' apparently, until June when it was 'right'. And so it continued...

In reply to AukWalk:

My annoyance and/or anger at people breaking the rules like the OP,  is not just  based on  whether breaking the rules increases the spread  of the virus or not.  Nor is my ire about the effectiveness or otherwise of any particular restriction.  Me travelling 125 miles to Keswick for a day on the hills may not spread the virus  ---- in my view!  But that is not the point!

One of the consequences of me, you and others breaking rules, no matter what we think of the rules or their effectiveness, simply makes other people break rules they too can't see the point of.

"If he can travel to the lakes and get away with it then so shall I"  - and if everyone did that you know what would happen to the spread of the virus - don't you?

 

In reply to Billhook: To be fair to the OP he didn't actually go to the Lakes and stayed at home (as per his post at 12:46 Thu) However I do agree  with the sentiment of your post

In reply to leon 1:

Don't you just love it?

In the middle of a pandemic and with a disease that spreads pretty much only by person to person contact there are those complaining they can't go where they want to exercise or that somehow they should be allowed to get around the guidance/rules limiting travel.

I have no love for this government whatsoever and their handling of the pandemic has been woeful, from following the science – when it suited them, having senior persons ignoring the rules when they felt like it, to Boris making any statement (eg world beating test and trace by June) that made him sound good.

However, we all know the intention of the guidance but it seems some automatically look for ways to get around it, or have the view that if it is not the law then they don't have to comply – just because you can do some something it doesn't mean you should.

It doesn't matter where you live in the UK there is somewhere nearby, ie within either walking distance or driving a few(ie no more than 5) miles, where you can get some exercise.

Dave