/ Derbyshire Police - Corona advice

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Stuart (aka brt) 25 Mar 2020
ianstevens 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Disgusting isn't it. As we all know, it's Peak not Peaks. FFS.

1
Toccata 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Mobbed in the White Peak today. Lots of cars at the side of the roads due to car parks being closed.

1
TheDrunkenBakers 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Oh lordy. Give me strength. The little liberty we have left is just about to be destroyed by tw*ts who are so selfish that before long we will be locked down completely. 

4
trouserburp 25 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

It's not clear though is it. Government says you are allowed once a day to exercise, stay 2m away from people. People in cities can't easily do that unless they drive to the country

I get the added risk about sprained ankles but tw*ts is a bit strong if they're following government advice. They're not spreading it

70
wintertree 25 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> Oh lordy. Give me strength. The little liberty we have left is just about to be destroyed by tw*ts who are so selfish that before long we will be locked down completely. 

 Probably explains why a couple of posters are suddenly suspiciously absent on here too...

As I’ve been saying for a week; do people want martial law? This is how we get it.  This level of piss taking undermines support from the compliant people watching their lives and businesses suffer whilst they do the right thing, and it far exceeds the ability of our civil police to deal with it.

3
Tom V 25 Mar 2020
In reply to trouserburp:

They're not following government advice. They know it and you know it. The car parks being shut should be a big enough clue, even for the slowest to catch on.

5
wintertree 25 Mar 2020
In reply to trouserburp:

> It's not clear though is it.

The advice is astoundingly clear.  

> Government says you are allowed once a day to exercise, stay 2m away from people. People in cities can't easily do that unless they drive to the country

Odd, when I lived in London for a month I distinctly remember spending a couple of hours a day walking through suburbs, towns and parks.  I saw runners and cyclists, and people on ridiculous “land skis” which was then the latest and greatest fad.

Lemony 25 Mar 2020
In reply to trouserburp:

I live in a city and am managing to follow the advice, what is it that you think stops you?

1
balmybaldwin 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

The problem is the unofficial mouth pieces spouting off... On the BBC yesterday "it's ok to drive 20 minutes to get somewhere isolated for a walk"

No it's not.

This habit the news channels have of inviting on every half-wit they can find to give "their interpretation" of the rules needs to stop now. Government advisers and official comms only please!

12
mondite 25 Mar 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> I saw runners and cyclists, and people on ridiculous “land skis” which was then the latest and greatest fad.

Yes but its how close they are together. If you are in the middle of a town then there is likely to be lots of others trying to exercise in the same location. If you drive 20 mins then, depending on your choice, it may be a lot quieter. Obviously fails for those tweet examples since everyone seems to have chosen the same.

Its why, for example the French rule about staying with 1km doesnt really make much sense. Where I am that 1k will be busy but beyond that it gets quiet fast. So would make more sense in terms of keeping distance of getting through that 1k and out the otherside rather than spending the time inside that limit.

One of my more elderly neighbours is currently driving to walk the dog. Far safer for her than walking round the local field with lots of others.

Mr Lopez 25 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> Oh lordy. Give me strength. The little liberty we have left is just about to be destroyed by tw*ts who are so selfish that before long we will be locked down completely. 

Something i've been pondering. What's the problem with martial law, a full lockdown, ban, etc?

If you follow the rules then it'll make no diference to you. For those that don't follow the rules then the police will ensure they do.

What 'little liberty' you think will be destroyed?

28
trouserburp 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Lemony:

I've been isolating except going to my local shop for 8 days now. Every time i go to the shop i pass people on the pavement or walk on the road to avoid it if possible. I'm not going out to exercise for this reason. If i were to get in my car and drive 20 minutes to the country it would be easy to walk for half an hour without coming within 2 metres of anybody. I can see why some people are doing so

1
wilkie14c 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

I’m driving from Belper to Blackpool today, my travel is vital and have a letter from employer confirming that.

I was going to drive through the peak via cat & fiddle to macc and join the M6 at 19. I can’t risk traffic jams so having to go via stoke jn15

Thanks a lot wankers

12
Stuart William 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Mr Lopez:

I would reckon that it is the fact that right now we are allowed to leave our property for exercise, and there are no strict time or distance conditions - rights that have now been removed in some places. 

We currently have much more freedom than many around the world. It would be nice to hang onto for as long as possible, but that looks like it rather depends on people going along with the spirit of the restrictions. Even if that just means that a local 5k run remains an option. 

1
wercat 25 Mar 2020
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> No it's not.

inadequate response.  It may be or it may be not!  Circumstances create risk.  There is nothing in driving to somewhere secluded and walking there that is NOT alright.   If it does not work out and you see it is crowded there and obviously not secluded then you have to admit defeat and change plans.   If it works out and no threat is created or increased then there is no harm.  Particularly if you are not doing it somewhere full of Covid-Invaders or crowded at the time you do it.

Bloody Hell it's like barrack room lawyers in here!

But agreed it should be obvious where should be avoided

Post edited at 13:40
6
Luke90 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> Something i've been pondering. What's the problem with martial law, a full lockdown, ban, etc?

> If you follow the rules then it'll make no diference to you. For those that don't follow the rules then the police will ensure they do.

It'll make a big difference to me if they remove the freedom to go out daily for exercise, or restrict it to some tiny radius from your house. Either of which seem possible at some point.

1
Tom V 25 Mar 2020
In reply to trouserburp:

But they're not doing that, are they?

They're not going to isolated places where they can walk for half an hour in without coming near anyone else. It seems that they're heading for the big car parks in droves as they have been doing since before the weekend. Even when the car park is closed they aren't writing the trip off but parking probably illegally to make the most of their day.

Archy Styrigg 25 Mar 2020
In reply to trouserburp:

> I've been isolating except going to my local shop for 8 days now. Every time i go to the shop i pass people on the pavement or walk on the road to avoid it if possible. I'm not going out to exercise for this reason. If i were to get in my car and drive 20 minutes to the country it would be easy to walk for half an hour without coming within 2 metres of anybody. I can see why some people are doing so


OK, fair enough.
But why park up where dozens of other people are, drive on a few miles, find a quiet spot and walk there.
Even I, with a rapidly dissolving brain, can work that out!

two_tapirs 25 Mar 2020
In reply to trouserburp:

> It's not clear though is it. Government says you are allowed once a day to exercise, stay 2m away from people. People in cities can't easily do that unless they drive to the country

> I get the added risk about sprained ankles but tw*ts is a bit strong if they're following government advice. They're not spreading it

but...but...but......

I can't find my copy of facepalm.jpg, 

4
deepsoup 25 Mar 2020
In reply to wercat:

> There is nothing in driving to somewhere secluded and walking there that is NOT alright.

I can see there are a lot of people who are new to 'doing things that are technically illegal but harmless in practice' club.  The rules are similar to that other, better known, club.

It's against the rules.  The rules are there for a good reason.  So don't do it.  Just don't.

Don't encourage others to do it.  And even if you did it, if anyone asks you didn't. 

You ain't seen me, roight?

4
Stuart (aka brt) 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

> OK, fair enough.

> But why park up where dozens of other people are, drive on a few miles, find a quiet spot and walk there.

> Even I, with a rapidly dissolving brain, can work that out!

And that all seems logical, but you're then getting cars moving for non-essential reasons. I suppose you could ask is that really any riskier?

Well on Saturday people were defending a position about climbing and low risk. Then the accident on Main Wall tested that theory.

On Sunday cycling was the cause celebre. Low risk etc. Except for the cyclist who died on Honister. 

Should we really be driving anywhere apart from the shops for food and work (if you're in the unenviable position of having to work)?

Post edited at 14:34
6
wintertree 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> If you follow the rules then it'll make no diference to you. For those that don't follow the rules then the police will ensure they do.

What we're seeing is that a fraction of people will "push it" beyond the rules, whatever they are.  So, if the rules end up being tightened sufficiently that those "pushing it" are reigned in, everyone else suffers more restriction than they need to.

deepsoup 25 Mar 2020
In reply to trouserburp:

> If i were to get in my car and drive 20 minutes to the country it would be easy to walk for half an hour without coming within 2 metres of anybody. I can see why some people are doing so

That's not what the photos that are attracting so much righteous condemnation show though - maybe the first person to arrive in the car park was doing that, everybody else has driven to a place that was already crowded and decided to park there anyway, get out of the car and join in.

deepsoup 25 Mar 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> What we're seeing is that a fraction of people will "push it" beyond the rules, whatever they are.  So, if the rules end up being tightened sufficiently that those "pushing it" are reigned in, everyone else suffers more restriction than they need to.

It has been a problem before that it sometimes seems easier to tighten up the rules than enforce the existing ones.  People are comparing us to France in a lot of these sorts of threads, but I think what is often forgotten is that the French haven't had a decade of 'austerity' measures kicking their police forces half to death. 

If Johnson were able to magic up the 20000 'extra' police officers he was talking about during the election campaign tomorrow, that would still leave us with fewer officers than 10 years ago, and 20000 of them would be raw recruits instead of the experienced people who were lost. (Not lost - thrown away.)

4
wintertree 25 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

I agree with your post.
> If Johnson were able to magic up the 20000 'extra' police officers

He probably can get twice that number if you don’t mind them coming in green.

Post edited at 14:33
1
bigbobbyking 25 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> already crowded 

I think that's a bit of a leap. You can see seven cars in the photo.(The first link in the original post) There are more than seven people in the average city park right now... Maybe they all live on a main road within a 5 mile radius with no safe walks directly accessible from their house? 

MonkeyPuzzle 25 Mar 2020
In reply to wercat:

> inadequate response.  It may be or it may be not!  Circumstances create risk.  There is nothing in driving to somewhere secluded and walking there that is NOT alright.   If it does not work out and you see it is crowded there and obviously not secluded then you have to admit defeat and change plans.   If it works out and no threat is created or increased then there is no harm.  Particularly if you are not doing it somewhere full of Covid-Invaders or crowded at the time you do it.

We don't have an inalienable right to exercise somewhere pleasant in the midst of a pandemic. Walk, run or cycle near your house. If it's too crowded for safety then do something over YouTube at home. Or sack off exercise for 3 weeks for the greater good. I can't believe how many people are trying to fit in fighting this pandemic around their routine!

6
kipper12 25 Mar 2020
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Won’t our police have the powers from tomorrow to fine those rule breakers, hence maybe the rush.  A bit like the rush to get the last KFC in

deepsoup 25 Mar 2020
In reply to wintertree:

There's green and there's green though.

Vast numbers of zero-hours stewards, security personnel and such who normally work on concerts, football matches etc., were laid off abruptly last week and most of them would very much appreciate the work if they were drafted in tomorrow.  But without a substantial amount of training you couldn't call them 'police officers', or even PCSO's, and some of them would never make the grade with any amount of training.

Similarly a huge number of volunteers could be mobilised if necessary to help out in the NHS, but by no means could you describe any number of those as "50000 new nurses".

TheDrunkenBakers 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

OK, for the hard of thinking I am going to make myself perfectly clear.

The rules have been made absolutely clear, by the Health Minister, Prime Minister, various Chief Medical Officers and gazillions of scientists/doctors much better educated than 99.999% of the population, including me.

Firstly, we have now been told to stay at home, unless for one session of exercise a day or to collect emergency provisions.  This is very straight forward and is not in any way opaque.

We have been told not to make non-essential travel unless to a supermarket, pharmacist or if the country is relying on you for your expertise or for you to transport essential supplies to the rest of us.  Those who ignore the rules should forfeit any right to those supplies and be left with the bendy carrots for food plus vim and brillo pads with which to wipe their stupid selfish arses.

Why?  Firstly, gathering in groups has been proven to spread the disease.  The disease is only getting started and so it is imperative that we keep away from people, all people, who are not members of our immediate household.  

Secondly, those who are saying that driving to a secluded spot is OK you are just as bad as those gathering at the honeypots.  The NHS is creaking and is going to get worse.  You need to be off the roads so that those who need to get around can.  You need to be off the roads because if you have an accident you will be adding, needlessly, to the strain of the NHS.  Roads are one of the places where most accidents occur and so staying off the roads when the NHS cant cope with the possible cleanup is crucial.

Thirdly, vehicles need fuel.  Fuel is purchased at fuel stations.  Fuel stations attract people in great numbers and people congregating in great numbers right now is a bad thing because of transmission person to person or transmission from fuel pump, cash machine, EPOS terminal etc to person.  Do we want fuel stations to be places of restriction similar to supermarkets, because if they become places of transmission, they will be, or worse, even closed down.

Losing liberty I hear you say? At the moment, I enjoy a private dog walk or run, away from people, right from my front door.  It's not exactly Langdale but that's my lot, for now. If people cant follow the rules, the police or worse will have to step in to make sure that it happens.  They don't need the hassle right now as many are already sick and self-isolating and I don't want to have restrictions on my movement curtailed any more than they already are.  Places in Europe, yes Europe (not China or Russia) are being fined and some are being handed custodial sentences.  Source: my colleague in Italy.  Daily, our freedom to work, play, socialise and now actually move have been restricted further.  If people don't follow the rules then it will only get worse.  I can construct a walk/run from my home, in a town, away from people.  I could drive an hour to The Peak but that would be selfish and non-urgent travel.

It's simple, don't drive unless you need to, don't travel unless you need to, don't congregate unless you need to.  Anything else is selfish and downright negligent to the rest of us who are doing our bit to stop people dying and to try and get the country back to some level of normality sooner rather than later.  

Footnote:  I need to apologise to UKC.  I started a thread a little while ago which questioned whether people were making more of this than needed. I didn't fully understand what was happening and so in hindsight this was stupid on my part.  The reaction by many people, the stupid panic buying etc is an over reaction for sure but the reaction by the authorities and media, it seems, was fully justified.  

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/coronavirus_panic-716660?v=1#x9143457

Post edited at 15:47
12
deepsoup 25 Mar 2020
In reply to bigbobbyking:

I didn't really look - but not so much that photo specifically as many others I've seen, and a few videos. 

If I were, hypothetically, to drive out into the countryside for a walk now though, there's no way I would park up in a layby with seven other cars, nor one.

I saw a bit of it myself on Sunday night when I went out to Ladybower as dusk was approaching with a plan for an illicit paddle around the reservoir by kayak.  (Which is verboten, and would be asking for a lot of grief from the anglers if the fishery were open.)  I drove up to Fairholmes and it was obvious it had been a really busy day out there - the car park was still half full and cars were parked on verges all over the place.  The little 'tuck shop' concession thing was still open, and there was a crowd gathered round the hatch buying coffees and ice creams.  Mental.

I ended up driving further round and parking in the big layby on the South side of the A57, where there's often a mobile speed camera, instead.  Had it all to myself - which was a bit of a surprise really given how busy the road up to Fairholmes had been.

6
wintertree 25 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> There's green and there's green though.

I was alluding to the armed forces rather than the private venue security industry; although that is another potential source that has at least all got current DBS checks.

Stuart (aka brt) 25 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> I didn't really look - but not so much that photo specifically as many others I've seen, and a few videos. 

> If I were, hypothetically, to drive out into the countryside for a walk now though, there's no way I would park up in a layby with seven other cars, nor one.

> I saw a bit of it myself on Sunday night when I went out to Ladybower as dusk was approaching with a plan for an illicit paddle around the reservoir by kayak.  (Which is verboten, and would be asking for a lot of grief from the anglers if the fishery were open.)  I drove up to Fairholmes and it was obvious it had been a really busy day out there - the car park was still half full and cars were parked on verges all over the place.  The little 'tuck shop' concession thing was still open, and there was a crowd gathered round the hatch buying coffees and ice creams.  Mental.

> I ended up driving further round and parking in the big layby on the South side of the A57, where there's often a mobile speed camera, instead.  Had it all to myself - which was a bit of a surprise really given how busy the road up to Fairholmes had been.

I think this illustrates part of my issue with driving out for exercise. You did the right thing in trying to look for somewhere quiet, most definitely... 

Except for the bit about the extra driving looking for somewhere quiet.

And I'm saying this from a place of kindness and in no way judging you. This is a uniquely difficult position. 

deepsoup 25 Mar 2020
In reply to wintertree:

They've got DBS checks and SIA cards, and in many cases I think they might do better at dealing with civilian crowd control type stuff than squaddies.  Though to be fair the squaddies did do a rather excellent job of picking up the slack when Group 4 so spectacularly f*cked up during the 2012 Olympics.

Realistically though, I think it would need to be the armed forces if it came to that, for "chain of command" reasons mostly.

Ridge 25 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Great post

2
Sans-Plan 25 Mar 2020
In reply to trouserburp:

> It's not clear though is it. Government says you are allowed once a day to exercise, stay 2m away from people. People in cities can't easily do that unless they drive to the country

> I get the added risk about sprained ankles but tw*ts is a bit strong if they're following government advice. They're not spreading it

What part of this are you not getting ? Of course you can exercise in cities, don't be ridiculous.

This is what Boris said, verbatim:

-----

That is why people will only be allowed to leave their home for the following very limited purposes:

Shopping for basic necessities, as infrequently as possible

One form of exercise a day - for example a run, walk, or cycle - alone or with members of your household;

Any medical need, to provide care or to help a vulnerable person; and

Travelling to and from work, but only where this is absolutely necessary and cannot be done from home.

To ensure compliance with the government's instruction to stay at home, we will immediately:

Close all shops selling non-essential goods, including clothing and electronic stores and other premises including libraries, playgrounds and outdoor gyms, and places of worship

We will stop all gatherings of more than two people in public - excluding people you live with

And we'll stop all social events, including weddings, baptisms and other ceremonies, but excluding funerals

1
TheDrunkenBakers 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Ridge:

> Great post

Thanks Andy, although it shouldnt have needed to be posted in the first place.

To the person who doesn't like my post or disagrees, please reveal yourself and explain which bit I have wrong or which part of the measures you don't agree with.  Don't be shy.

9
wintertree 25 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> To the person who doesn't like my post or disagrees, please reveal yourself and explain which bit I have wrong or which part of the measures you don't agree with.  Don't be shy.

You might regret asking.  The last thread where someone tried to justify “doing XYZ because reasons” got deleted which is just as well because it was seriously harming my faith in my fellow citizens. 

mondite 25 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I wasnt the one who disliked it but since you want comments. It comes across a tad "I am alright jack" to be honest.

So you have private dog walk and runs available to you from the front door and dont want to lose them? Thats not really going to be a convincing argument for someone who is at increased risk but doesnt have the convience of those routes of their doorstep and so are driving ten minutes to get to somewhere which will be private and safe.

The "its simple" is, simply, wrong.

don't travel unless you need to,

don't congregate unless you need to

Are contradictory. Unless you want to housebound everyone who is slightly more vulnerable and doesnt have access to private dog walking areas?

An elderly bod on the road is driving once a day to exercise both them and their mutt in a quiet isolated area. Frankly more sensible doing that drive than going into the local open area where they would be likely to come into contact with 20-30 people if they did the average walk round the lake.

4
Pan Ron 25 Mar 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> As I’ve been saying for a week; do people want martial law? This is how we get it.  This level of piss taking undermines support from the compliant people watching their lives and businesses suffer whilst they do the right thing, and it far exceeds the ability of our civil police to deal with it.

The level of piss taking probably correlates strongly with isolation advice that makes blanket demands of everyone including those who are in no way a problem.  I wouldn't be surprised if people on the receiving end of moralising views such as those spouted here think f*ckit, I'm going out.

There's a world of difference between people socialising and people who are otherwise self-isolating but choosing to go for a drive every now and then.  Yet the later receives the same vitriol as the former.

2
wintertree 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

> The level of piss taking probably correlates strongly with isolation advice that makes blanket demands of everyone including those who perceive that they are in no way a problem. 

I edited your quote above to show how I see it.  TDB’s post clearly goes in to the issues behind it.

Like it or not we are all capable of being part of the problem.  Minimising the chance of being a link in a chain is the imperative - even when the chance is much less than 1 for an individual it becomes significant across society.  This means that as individuals we have to avoid action we are almost certain is inconsequential, because that’s the only way society avoids a random subset of people becoming part of the problem.

deepsoup 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> And I'm saying this from a place of kindness and in no way judging you. This is a uniquely difficult position. 

I don't feel I'm being judged, but don't really get your point. 

I drove 14.5 miles from home, arrived somewhere that turned out to be busy - had I immediately turned round and gone home again, 29 miles total.  But I didn't do that, so ended up driving 32 miles in total instead.  The additional 3 miles was out of order, but the original 29 miles was ok?

I always knew I wouldn't have Fairholmes to myself, it's a popular area - but it's also pretty big, so I wouldn't necessarily have needed to get close to anyone if there had been a few others there.  Even so I wouldn't have planned to go there as the start to a walk or a bike ride - too busy at weekends for my tastes at the best of times, and every route out on foot or by bike goes through a 'bottleneck' at some point.

After it got dark I saw a couple of lights on the hill - one that I assume was a head torch, one was clearly a bike light in the woods above the res on the Win Hill side.  The cyclist might have ridden out from home, the walker was descending from somewhere up near Bamford Edge towards Heatherdene so had probably driven out and parked there.  Unlike the people in the queue for coffees and ice-creams at Fairholmes, none of the three of us were within two metres, nor half a mile, of any other person.

Just to be clear, this was at the weekend before the current restrictions came in.  I'm not driving anywhere for exercise now. 

I had hoped I might be able to do a bit more paddling, a few laps for fitness and some rolling practice, on Damflask.  (Perhaps cheekily using the slipway, while the sailing/rowing club is closed.)  But sadly it was not to be.

wercat 25 Mar 2020
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I just don't think you understand.   I have no intention of materially adding to anyone's risk.  Nor of flouting any specific rules telling us not so to do.  But I'm certainly not going to be dictated "The Law" by people not in authority.  I will interpret the Law as given responsibly.

BA Law (Dunelm)

Post edited at 17:16
2
Stuart (aka brt) 25 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> I don't feel I'm being judged, but don't really get your point. 

My bad if I didn't explain it properly. I was suggesting that if people were to follow your plan of action they could find themselves, with all good intention to avoid people, driving more miles than intended. So their quick nip out transpires to be something other. Hope that make sense? 

> Just to be clear, this was at the weekend before the current restrictions came in.  I'm not driving anywhere for exercise now. 

> I had hoped I might be able to do a bit more paddling, a few laps for fitness and some rolling practice, on Damflask.  (Perhaps cheekily using the slipway, while the sailing/rowing club is closed.)  But sadly it was not to be.

You sound like you're very close to me! Not coughing I hope?

Pan Ron 25 Mar 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> I edited your quote above to show how I see it.  TDB’s post clearly goes in to the issues behind it.

Perhaps then it would be worth outlining how someone driving 30 minutes from their home to walk somewhere remote will be part of the problem.  We seem to be trying to account for eventualities as slim as an asteroid strike and no surprise that people treat the requests as bullshit.  The side effects of excessively stringent rules are well known and you're better off targetting the advice at those who really are a problem.  All the points TDB mentions are already perfectly possible to cause in the present circumstances of exercise once a day and the current attitudes are using an awfully big hammer to smash a small nail.  Likewise, they're a drop in the ocean compared to the decision to keep tube stations open with minimal trains running, or the plethora of other activities that go on without comment (amazon deliveries? news crews seemingly still needing to be on location for their live reports?) 

wintertree 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Perhaps then it would be worth outlining how someone driving 30 minutes from their home to walk somewhere remote will be part of the problem. 

A subject that has been done to death by many posters.  You don’t believe in the arguments and I do so there’s no points doing it to death again.

Anyone who lives 30 minutes drive from somewhere nice to walk is already in a much better situation that many millions of people in London.  Hopefully they are counting their blessings.

I totally agree that it’s minor to the tube situation etc, but conversely every drop in the ocean does add up.  Far too many people aren’t showing good judgement with their trips out; this can only end badly with even those being spotless getting shut down.  

Post edited at 17:32
2
Stuart (aka brt) 25 Mar 2020
In reply to mondite:

> I wasnt the one who disliked it but since you want comments. It comes across a tad "I am alright jack" to be honest.

> So you have private dog walk and runs available to you from the front door and dont want to lose them? Thats not really going to be a convincing argument for someone who is at increased risk but doesnt have the convience of those routes of their doorstep and so are driving ten minutes to get to somewhere which will be private and safe.

> The "its simple" is, simply, wrong.

> don't travel unless you need to,

> don't congregate unless you need to

> Are contradictory. Unless you want to housebound everyone who is slightly more vulnerable and doesnt have access to private dog walking areas?

> An elderly bod on the road is driving once a day to exercise both them and their mutt in a quiet isolated area. Frankly more sensible doing that drive than going into the local open area where they would be likely to come into contact with 20-30 people if they did the average walk round the lake.

All this would be eminently sensible if we had test and trace in place. Then, I assume we would be able to lock down local perimeters and allow the friend with the dog to get out.

We don't though which, for me, means the blanket rules must apply, as harsh as it is. Everyone is a threat to themselves and others. 

2
Stuart (aka brt) 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Perhaps then it would be worth outlining how someone driving 30 minutes from their home to walk somewhere remote will be part of the problem. 

It's been done quite a bit recently but essentially the risk impact and extra work for and on emergency crews having to attend RTC. Don't dismiss it. Hospitals are still taking admissions because of this. 

> We seem to be trying to account for eventualities as slim as an asteroid strike and no surprise that people treat the requests as bullshit. 

I'm sure you've been following the threads over the last four or five days. People started defending the going out climbing position, then the cycling position etc and at every turn the spread of the virus or accidents relating to said activities, has proved that bullshit it is not. 

(See the MRT callout for climbers on Main Wall. The cycling accident on Honister Pass).

> The side effects of excessively stringent rules are well known and you're better off targetting the advice at those who really are a problem.  

We are all a potential problem.

> All the points TDB mentions are already perfectly possible to cause in the present circumstances of exercise once a day and the current attitudes are using an awfully big hammer to smash a small nail. 

What is the nail and how small is ?

> Likewise, they're a drop in the ocean compared to the decision to keep tube stations open with minimal trains running, or the plethora of other activities that go on without comment (amazon deliveries? news crews seemingly still needing to be on location for their live reports?) 

Baffling indeed. Maybe on your first point they've taken a decision that basically London is fooked so they might as well carry on regardless. 

Genuine question with no baggage, where abouts are you, in the sticks?

wercat 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

I think some people just do not Get It.  We all need to act to prevent public danger and there are many activities that might.  Driving in to town to pick up the newly classified "essential" goods from Off Licences definitely brings you into contact with people and close to other vehicles in a busier setting.

The thing we all need to do is not to contribute Materially, Materially being the operative word, to the public threat.  Not infinitesimally or theoretically but materially.

Worrying about a short drive before exercise is just like the stupid World at One Presenter asking a police rep about the practicalities of checking on whether someone had "Gone for 2 runs in one day"!  For God's sake!  Perhaps she was evaluating her own and her chattering friends chance of getting away with this!  At a time when the police are catching BBQ parties in towns and the roads in Snowdonia have been swamped by tens of thousands of people she asks about catching someone who runs TWICE IN ONE DAY!

What size salary is she earning for rearrranging the deckchairs on the Titanic?

Post edited at 17:45
skog 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Except for the bit about the extra driving looking for somewhere quiet.

I think you're trying too hard to eliminate all risk. The lockdown isn't designed to prevent all risk, it's there to keep the spread slow enough that services can cope.

There's nothing currently stopping someone going food shopping several times a week (high risk of transmission), or going to work if they can't work from home (high risk of transmission, or in the case of e.g. construction, of requiring emergency service resources), and going for a walk in the local park is probably much higher risk of catching or spreading the bug than driving twenty minutes to somewhere quiet.

They've just told off-licenses they're essential and can reopen, ffs!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52033260

Going shopping for booze (and getting drunk, for that matter) is much higher risk and much more frivolous than driving a short distance for a walk with nobody else around.

For the record, I'm not going to drive anywhere just now apart from food shopping, or if there's an emergency. But there are much riskier behaviours still permitted.

Post edited at 17:53
wercat 25 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

Can you show me the law?

"One Form of Exercise Per day" - PM's words , but where is the Law?

I am not in the business of technically breaking the law and convincing myself that it is OK.  UKC is not a source of law.  IF the hills or places are closed as in F & M or Snowdonia now that is fine - that is law, not supposition

For you to tell me I am encouraging law-breaking is slanderous and wrong.

Post edited at 17:50
5
wercat 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

come on, you have to admit that there is cycling and cycling ...  some forms have more hazards than others - I've seen people racing down the Kirkstone many times - surely you can't quantify that as being equivalent in material risk of requiring medical/emergency services as someone riding 20 miles or so on quiet roads of moderate incline.  I grant you the risk is never zero - you could cut yourself on the door catch of the bike shed, trip over the bike and gash yourself or get a deep splinter from the door as well.  But we are talking of material risk.  A good legal concept, oft used with just cause.

1
Stuart (aka brt) 25 Mar 2020
In reply to skog:

> I think you're trying too hard to eliminate all risk. The lockdown isn't designed to prevent all risk, it's there to keep the spread slow enough that services can cope.

 Is that not the dilemma? Unless it is blanket for all there will always be exceptions and a ready supply of people wanting to make themselves an exception? 

> There's nothing currently stopping someone going food shopping several times a week (high risk of transmission), or going to work if they can't work from home (high risk of transmission, or in the case of e.g. construction, of requiring emergency service resources), and going for a walk in the local park is probably much higher risk of catching or spreading the bug than driving twenty minutes to somewhere quiet.

> They've just told off-licenses they're essential and can reopen, ffs!

> Going shopping for booze (and getting drunk, for that matter) is much higher risk and much more frivolous than driving a short distance for a walk with nobody else around.

So if we refer back to your first point - the situation already is bad (maddeningly so) therefore should those that are in a position not to make things worse make sure we don't?

Stuart (aka brt) 25 Mar 2020
In reply to wercat:

> come on, you have to admit that there is cycling and cycling ...  some forms have more hazards than others - I've seen people racing down the Kirkstone many times - surely you can't quantify that as being equivalent in material risk of requiring medical/emergency services as someone riding 20 miles or so on quiet roads of moderate incline.  I grant you the risk is never zero - you could cut yourself on the door catch of the bike shed, trip over the bike and gash yourself or get a deep splinter from the door as well.  But we are talking of material risk.  A good legal concept, oft used with just cause.

That is a fair point. As I'm probably one of those that you've seen down the Pass yes I probably have it dialled in my mind what I think a bicycle ride is. I guess my definition (not another one I here you say ;-) ) relates to me and my cycling. 

Post edited at 18:03
MonkeyPuzzle 25 Mar 2020
In reply to wercat:

> I just don't think you understand.   I have no intention of materially adding to anyone's risk.  Nor of flouting any specific rules telling us not so to do.  But I'm certainly not going to be dictated "The Law" by people not in authority.  I will interpret the Law as given responsibly.

> BA Law (Dunelm)

Following the letter of the law doesn't always equate with doing the right thing in the circumstances. I'm working at home to the detriment of my work. We're asking people to potentially impoverish themselves by not driving or using public transport if they're not "key workers" even if they can't work from home. I'd say it's pretty obvious, law or no, that driving to go for a jog somewhere a bit prettier than straight out your front door is, in those circumstances, taking the f*cking piss.

Stop being clever-clever and do what is clearly being asked of us.

HND Music Tech (Salford)

1
Stuart (aka brt) 25 Mar 2020
In reply to wercat:

> Can you show me the law?

> "One Form of Exercise Per day" - PM's words , but where is the Law?

> I am not in the business of technically breaking the law and convincing myself that it is OK.  UKC is not a source of law.  IF the hills or places are closed as in F & M or Snowdonia now that is fine - that is law, not supposition

> For you to tell me I am encouraging law-breaking is slanderous and wrong.

Not sure if I've missed something or if something has been deleted but wercat has been very moderate in his attitude to all this and I'm pretty sure he's not some renegade curfew buster!

Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick.

TheDrunkenBakers 25 Mar 2020
In reply to mondite:

Thanks for your response.  I'll set it out as I see it.

> I wasnt the one who disliked it but since you want comments. It comes across a tad "I am alright jack" to be honest.

That may be the case and unfortunately some people will suffer more because of this than others.  My elderly mother is now housebound for 12 weeks and cant see her dementia suffering shell of a husband in the care home.  Some people are going to suffer more.  That doesnt mean that everyone shouldnt do their bit to the best of their circumstances.

> So you have private dog walk and runs available to you from the front door and dont want to lose them? Thats not really going to be a convincing argument for someone who is at increased risk but doesnt have the convience of those routes of their doorstep and so are driving ten minutes to get to somewhere which will be private and safe.

Firstly see point one above.  The world isnt fair and equal and I cant help that.  Most people, especially now that the streets are empty, will be able to take some kind of exercise from their front doors.  Most, if not all, people have some pavement or open space nearby where they can walk.  Most people will have a garden to go out into.  My daughter is exercising from home now by following the plethora of online exercise routines which have cropped up.

What you are saying is that if people cant walk from their homes, and this will be a vanishingly small number in this country because we mostly have pavements or public footpaths dotted around, that they should drive 1, 10, 30 minutes from their home because they have a right to walk.  Some of those entitled people who think they have a right to drive (replace go to Mount Snowdon, Matlock Bath etc) will end up in RTCs or will infect others.  Someone above who is a key worker has already said that they have had to divert their driving to accommodate traffic jams in the hills. Is this right?

If one additional person dies or one person end up in ITU because they see this as their right is one too many.  We just cant cope with it right now.  Its going to be hard, but only for a few weeks, hopefully.

> The "its simple" is, simply, wrong.

Why?

> don't travel unless you need to,

That's pretty straight forward.  Food and medicine only.  Online if possible.  Stay as far away as practicably possible and exercise good hygiene.

> don't congregate unless you need to

Pretty obvious but dont go to places where others are unless you really need to.

> Are contradictory. Unless you want to housebound everyone who is slightly more vulnerable and doesnt have access to private dog walking areas?

The dog is a red herring.  He would be happy not going for walks.  There are a tiny number of people who dont have access to a pavement or a footpath or somewhere to walk in this country.  If the person is suffering with mental health issues and needs to get out and a drive is the only option then I would call this necessary.  If a person is just wanting to go to the hills, driving, when they have other options then this is not.  If a person has no option but to drive to get exercise then I would call this necessary.  

> An elderly bod on the road is driving once a day to exercise both them and their mutt in a quiet isolated area. Frankly more sensible doing that drive than going into the local open area where they would be likely to come into contact with 20-30 people if they did the average walk round the lake.

This is where you pragmatism breaks down.  For a start, the elderly person has an increased risk of being involved in an accident compared to all drivers, except for the very young and inexperienced - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24204489.

Unnecessary travel and driving is the key element here.  If there are genuinely other options then it non essential, surely?

Edit for clarity:  When I said private running or dog walking I can now see why that comes across as 'all right jack'.  That was clumsy language.  I dont have access to private land, if that's what you thought I meant.  I should have said that I run and walk solo and can get away from people by selecting places I know fewer people are likely to be.  They are on the pavements and alleyways around where I live, not secluded private land.  Sorry to create any misunderstanding.

Post edited at 18:40
3
deepsoup 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Hope that make sense? 

So people might end up driving round and round trying to find somewhere quiet?  Yeah, makes sense.

> You sound like you're very close to me! Not coughing I hope?

Not that close unfortunately, I'd have had to drive a short way to get to Damflask which is why I'm not doing it.  Even if I were hypothetically inclined to drive out there illicitly, I think the sight of someone cruising up and down on the water in a sea kayak is too conspicuous to realistically expect to get away with it. 

If I lived within walking distance I think I'd go ahead and do it.

Post edited at 18:37
Blue Straggler 25 Mar 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> > To the person who doesn't like my post or disagrees, please reveal yourself and explain which bit I have wrong or which part of the measures you don't agree with.  Don't be shy.

> You might regret asking.  The last thread where someone tried to justify “doing XYZ because reasons” got deleted which is just as well because it was seriously harming my faith in my fellow citizens. 

Which one? The one where Lord_ash2000 received almost 100% disapproval, is it gone now? 

Pan Ron 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> It's been done quite a bit recently but essentially the risk impact and extra work for and on emergency crews having to attend RTC. Don't dismiss it. Hospitals are still taking admissions because of this. 

My point is that the risk is so low.  90% of people seem to be sat at home.  The roads are empty.  A once-a-day voyage is unlikely to contribute anything meaningful and the benefits might outweigh the costs.

> I'm sure you've been following the threads over the last four or five days. People started defending the going out climbing position, then the cycling position etc and at every turn the spread of the virus or accidents relating to said activities, has proved that bullshit it is not. 

Some might.  But that is misreading the massive middle ground that exists on the issue.  The thumb screws are tightening.  But if that's just becoming excessive on people who have already readily adopted isolation then surely the emphasis is better placed (and can come down like a ton of bricks) on those flagrantly disregarding any advice?

> (See the MRT callout for climbers on Main Wall. The cycling accident on Honister Pass).

In the circumstances, I'd prefer MRT to be directly supporting the NHS in hospitals and declared unavailable for RTAs or climbing incidents.

> Genuine question with no baggage, where abouts are you, in the sticks?

I'm in Cambridge.  It's not exactly the sticks but there is plenty of room.  Little advice and minimal draconian interventions were seemingly needed for anyone here to make the slight changes in lifestyle required to go from "minimal" contact to "near-zero" contact.

There are unintended consequences too.  My HoD drove to Croydon hospital today, her father having been admitted there a few days back with pneumonia (tested -ve twice to covid19).  He's late stage cancer with less than and month or two left anyway.  The doctor advised they come visit today because, despite him having weeks left, today is likely the last day they will be allowed to see him.  He can't go home due to the lockdown around care workers, he can't get into a hospice because not only is there no space but they are locked down too and now he is going to have to live out his final weeks or months taking up a hospital bed not being allowed visitors and simply waiting to die in an increasingly worse state. 

It seems, in an effort to prevent the spread we are imposing severe restrictions on low-risk individuals, or others who are destined to die soon anyway, that will have minimal impact on the virus but a real impact on others.  I get that 100% adherence to rules sounds great but if we want long-term compliance then leeway is necessary and recognising a difference between non-compliance and reasonable-compliance.

wercat 25 Mar 2020
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I'm not being clever clever and you can be assured I am not going to break the spirit or the letter of the law.  That is as churlish an accusation as clever-clever.  I'm simply using my knowledge to tell you that first the alleged law has not been laid down in the ways people have alleged and second that the spirit of the law is to prevent Material Risk, to save lives.  

skog 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> So if we refer back to your first point - the situation already is bad (maddeningly so) therefore should those that are in a position not to make things worse make sure we don't?

The thing is, this 'every little helps' idea isn't really true - there's no point in bailing out a flood with a teaspoon, especially if someone else is pouring it back in with a bucket.

People live in different circumstances; some will genuinely have the ability to push things closer to the limits of the rules without making any difference to the spread at all.

Hygeine, staying away from other people as far as possible, and avoiding significant risks of hospitalisation (or other use of emergency services) really have to be key.

Post edited at 18:28
wercat 25 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

you are aware of how many accident happen in the home?  Give me the stats on how short drives for exercise are going to cause more accidents than home mishaps many of which require medical intervention.  Are you banning sharp knives from the kitchen, soldering irons, high voltages, from the home too?

You need to see that what you are arguing doesn't really stack up

In terms of people driving and finding calm solace - can you remember the mental harm caused in the 1980s during Thatcher's shutdowns when there were cases of men self immolating on the moors after biking up there because they coudln't feed their families? 

Live and let live and don't make imaginary laws

4
deepsoup 25 Mar 2020
In reply to wercat:

> Can you show me the law?

No, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not trying to tell anyone else what to do. 

However while it pains me to side with some who I think are being excessively sanctimonious about this, I do think the meaning of "no unnecessary travel" is abundantly clear, whether it is a matter of law (yet) or not.

> For you to tell me I am encouraging law-breaking is slanderous and wrong.

Easy there tiger that post was intended to be quite light hearted, sorry if I touched a nerve. 

If you genuinely think my post was libellous you should report it to the mods - they'll be wanting to yank this thread and ban me immediately.

1
wintertree 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> Which one? The one where Lord_ash2000 received almost 100% disapproval, is it gone now? 

A different one called “stay at home martyrs” where the OP opened with something of an opening attack...  Unlike Lord Ash, I don’t suspect that thread’s OP of being a troll.

Post edited at 18:35
Wiley Coyote2 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

I am so bloody sick of people parading their own interpretations of what they think the govt might have thought it meant when it made the  statement before trotting  out  these random thoughts as gospel and trying to impose them on everyone else.

This is not rocket science is it? A template  for restrictions, if one is needed, already exists  from other countries on what restrictions there might be, how such a regulation could be worded and how it could be enforced  and with what penalties if the government so desires.  If the govt wants to restrict people to exercising within a set radius of their house then it is easy enough to make that rule and impose it

As yet it has not do so so therefore no such rule exists.

As things stand we can go to the shops for food and meds, we can go outside for one form of exercise a day either alone or with a tightly-specified  group of people such as family members we live with and we should maintain the 2m separation.   Plus certain people can travel to work, for health reasons or as carers etc. That's it. No more, no less.

By all means interpret the statement as you wish and conduct yourself accordingly. Feel free to argue the  regulations are too lax but until official regulations  are in place please resist trying to impose your individual interpretation, which is worth no more and no less than anyone else's and stop hurling insults at people who are obeying the rules as they stand.

1
wercat 25 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

OK, thanks for the step back - I was aware I made a strong response.

I think it is important to recognise that rural isolation, not to say deprivation is a real problem and the countryside, relatively empty of people is often the only resource those of us in the sticks can access easily.   Particularly in times of financial hardship.  We can't all afford netflix or Sky subscriptions to keep us in.

Blue Straggler 25 Mar 2020
In reply to wintertree:

Thanks, I had forgotten the thread title “Bozzer” where Lord_ash2000 was making such a wally of himself. That thread has gone remarkably quiet and plummeted down the listings. 

TheDrunkenBakers 25 Mar 2020
In reply to wercat:

> you are aware of how many accident happen in the home?  Give me the stats on how short drives for exercise are going to cause more accidents than home mishaps many of which require medical intervention.  Are you banning sharp knives from the kitchen, soldering irons, high voltages, from the home too?

I totally agree.  Homes can be dangerous and I have had some preventable accidents and ended in A&E before as a result.  I also expect there will be an increase in these accidents over the next few weeks as more people cook, mow, chop, climb ladders rather than the less dangerous lunchtime visit to Pret followed by sitting at a desk.  That said, life has to go on, and people will need to do things at home to retain sanity/normality.  A drive to a remote beauty spot when a local 30 min brisk walk would be better does not affect one's life when the beauty spot will be there in a couple of months when things are better.  I should add that by making these changes now means that the 'better' or whatever that is will return more quickly, if the experts are to be believed.

> You need to see that what you are arguing doesn't really stack up.

The government, the chief medical and science team, the prime minister of the UK, Spain, Italy etc etc etc dont agree with you.  Its not my argument.

> In terms of people driving and finding calm solace - can you remember the mental harm caused in the 1980s during Thatcher's shutdowns when there were cases of men self immolating on the moors after biking up there because they coudln't feed their families? 

This is not about feeding families.  Some provisions have been made for the employed and some are to be announced shortly for the self employed.  Wages are to be protected up to £2500 per month.  If someone absolutely has to drive for the sake of their wellness then so be it.  I am saying that where alternatives exist, they should be taken.  Most on here do too, including health professionals and scientists.

> Live and let live and don't make imaginary laws

I'm not making the laws and the laws aren't there as far as I can see but if people continue to ignore the 'rules' then laws will come in. You're the lawyer after all and already fines are being threatened.

Life and let live...what if you infect someone because you see yourself as outside the rules and outside the spirit of the rules?  What if you end up infected and infecting a vulnerable person.  What about a RTA or break a bone on a new problem and someone cant be treated as we are at breaking point - a good friend's wife is a senior A&E consultant at Chesterfield Royal so my info is first hand.  Unnecessary risks should be avoided now and that includes non essential driving.

Post edited at 19:07
deepsoup 25 Mar 2020
In reply to wercat:

> I think it is important to recognise that rural isolation, not to say deprivation is a real problem and the countryside, relatively empty of people is often the only resource those of us in the sticks can access easily.   Particularly in times of financial hardship. 

Oh I totally get it.  If you're in the sticks you're probably better off than most as far as access to countryside goes at least, though precious little else.

> We can't all afford netflix or Sky subscriptions to keep us in.

I don't have those either, but if I did I'd trade them for a nice hill in a heartbeat.  But I've just been reminded how well off I am as I was hunting around for a couple of trees within walking distance with enough privacy to stick a slackline between them and not attract attention.  I thought I'd found a brilliant little spot tucked out of sight at the bottom of my road - and so I would have, but there's a small tent pitched there and some poor bugger is living in it.  Jeez.

Incidentally, if you have decent broadband there is tons of good stuff on the BBC iPlayer site and the Channel 4 equivalent for free.  (Well, if you'd paid your licence fee - which is extraordinarily good value compared to Sky et al..)

If you don't maybe we should have a book/dvd exchange thread on here?  I regret doing a charity shop run just recently now, I got rid of a load of dvds that will just be sitting in a locked shop.

Post edited at 19:33
wintertree 25 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> Incidentally, if you have decent broadband there is tons of good stuff on the BBC iPlayer site and the Channel 4 equivalent

A surprising amount on YouTube as well.  "Timescapes 4K" often crops up, and I was pleasantly surprised to find "The Last Unicorn" on there.  Then there's "Photonic Induction" to while away the hours in a mildly depressed persons take on high voltage home experimentation...

Stuart (aka brt) 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

> My point is that the risk is so low.  90% of people seem to be sat at home.  The roads are empty.  A once-a-day voyage is unlikely to contribute anything meaningful and the benefits might outweigh the costs.

> Some might.  But that is misreading the massive middle ground that exists on the issue.  The thumb screws are tightening.  But if that's just becoming excessive on people who have already readily adopted isolation then surely the emphasis is better placed (and can come down like a ton of bricks) on those flagrantly disregarding any advice?

> In the circumstances, I'd prefer MRT to be directly supporting the NHS in hospitals and declared unavailable for RTAs or climbing incidents.

> I'm in Cambridge.  It's not exactly the sticks but there is plenty of room.  Little advice and minimal draconian interventions were seemingly needed for anyone here to make the slight changes in lifestyle required to go from "minimal" contact to "near-zero" contact.

> There are unintended consequences too.  My HoD drove to Croydon hospital today, her father having been admitted there a few days back with pneumonia (tested -ve twice to covid19).  He's late stage cancer with less than and month or two left anyway.  The doctor advised they come visit today because, despite him having weeks left, today is likely the last day they will be allowed to see him.  He can't go home due to the lockdown around care workers, he can't get into a hospice because not only is there no space but they are locked down too and now he is going to have to live out his final weeks or months taking up a hospital bed not being allowed visitors and simply waiting to die in an increasingly worse state. 

> It seems, in an effort to prevent the spread we are imposing severe restrictions on low-risk individuals, or others who are destined to die soon anyway, that will have minimal impact on the virus but a real impact on others.  I get that 100% adherence to rules sounds great but if we want long-term compliance then leeway is necessary and recognising a difference between non-compliance and reasonable-compliance.

Thanks, for the reply. I probably disagree on much of what you say here, but I think we're all a bit worn out from chasing each other down rabbit holes. I know I am and I don't want to make it worse for anyone else doing just that. 

This isn't Brexit or any other facet of politics where a position never really gets tested for months maybe years. I think this is why the virus threat is scary - it's the immediacy. 

It's why I asked after you. We had an exchange a couple of days ago and although I felt in the right, I probably shouldn't have jumped down your throat. 

Stay sane. 

Toccata 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

In my daily commute (key worker; 130 miles) or trip to shop (15 miles) I pass many quiet beauty spots. Can I stop off at these for a run?

Stuart (aka brt) 25 Mar 2020
In reply to skog:

> The thing is, this 'every little helps' idea isn't really true - there's no point in bailing out a flood with a teaspoon, especially if someone else is pouring it back in with a bucket.

The bleeding heart liberal in me won't allow myself to believe that I'm afraid. To not try gets us back to the herd immunity strategy. 

> People live in different circumstances; some will genuinely have the ability to push things closer to the limits of the rules without making any difference to the spread at all.

People though. We're all guilty of making bad decisions are confirming our own bias. I'm actually glad that I haven't the time nor the facility to have to make a decision to push it. 

> Hygeine, staying away from other people as far as possible, and avoiding significant risks of hospitalisation (or other use of emergency services) really have to be key.

On this we're aligned. 

Stay sane. 

captain paranoia 25 Mar 2020
In reply to ianstevens:

> Disgusting isn't it. As we all know, it's Peak not Peaks. FFS.

I made almost exactly the same joke on my FB today. Not a peep...

ianstevens 25 Mar 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

Wrong audience perhaps? I feel this is a UKC specific one. Oh how I long for the days arguing over this and the grade of 3PS, simpler times

Stuart (aka brt) 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Toccata:

> In my daily commute (key worker; 130 miles) or trip to shop (15 miles) I pass many quiet beauty spots. Can I stop off at these for a run?

What do you want me to say? If you're just trying to box me into a corner, it probably isn't difficult to do I'll admit that.

If you can guarantee that the beauty spot is always quiet and will be throughout your visit, you fill your boots. I've not prescribed to anyone, I don't think, what they should do. I'd ask people to really question what they're doing. Go with your conscience. 

I'd caution that if that mileage is being done by anything that needs refueling I'd be taking some pretty strict measures to make sure I'm not a transmission threat or under threat of infection.

If you're anywhere near Brecon you might want to be quick. 

https://www.beacons-npa.gov.uk/the-authority/press-and-news/press-releases/march-2020/covid-19-emergency-measures-to-footpaths-and-car-parks/

Enjoy. 

Post edited at 20:30
captain paranoia 25 Mar 2020
In reply to wercat:

> BA Law (Dunelm)

Did you buy a bed whilst you were there, as well?

One with Pink Panther bedding, perhaps...?

captain paranoia 25 Mar 2020
In reply to ianstevens:

> Wrong audience perhaps? I feel this is a UKC specific one.

Most of my FB friends are ex-UKC...

mrphilipoldham 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Meanwhile, Staffordshire Police have told people not to exercise in town and go somewhere more remote! 
https://twitter.com/policestafford/status/1242437219673157634?s=21

Stuart (aka brt) 25 Mar 2020
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> Meanwhile, Staffordshire Police have told people not to exercise in town and go somewhere more remote! https://twitter.com/policestafford/status/1242437219673157634?s=21

I don't know Stafford. The tweet says town centre specifically, which is a slightly different message to the one I think you're trying to make. Is the town centre particularly small? Presumably remote is remote from other people within the Stafford environs.

Does highlight why a clear message is needed. 

Post edited at 21:20
Ridge 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> My point is that the risk is so low.  90% of people seem to be sat at home.  The roads are empty.

So people reducing the overall risk of an RTC to a very low level means other people should be free to increase the risk?

OK...

2
Neil Williams 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

I think the suggestion is a different way of putting "please just exercise from your home", which is what people need to do.

Stuart (aka brt) 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I think the suggestion is a different way of putting "please just exercise from your home", which is what people need to do.

👍 

Stuart (aka brt) 25 Mar 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> > Which one? The one where Lord_ash2000 received almost 100% disapproval, is it gone now? 

> A different one called “stay at home martyrs” where the OP opened with something of an opening attack...  Unlike Lord Ash, I don’t suspect that thread’s OP of being a troll.

Did that take a turn for the worse? I can't remember it being awful. 

wintertree 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Did that take a turn for the worse? I can't remember it being awful. 

I never saw anything worth binning the thread for.  The OP said something like “I can make risk/reward decisions about myself” in a later post, It’s possible they then had a moment of realisation that maybe this was a bit selfish and had the thread pulled, or it’s possible someone said something awful after I gave up on it.

DerwentDiluted 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

This is gonna do access a bundle of good in future

https://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/news/crime/peak-district-farmer-punched-and-kicked-asking-walker-go-home-during-lockdown-2518081

Utter, utter, utter utter tw@

Timmd 25 Mar 2020
In reply to mondite:

> I wasnt the one who disliked it but since you want comments. It comes across a tad "I am alright jack" to be honest.

> So you have private dog walk and runs available to you from the front door and dont want to lose them? Thats not really going to be a convincing argument for someone who is at increased risk but doesnt have the convience of those routes of their doorstep and so are driving ten minutes to get to somewhere which will be private and safe.

Except that others may be driving to the private and safe places, which raises the matters of petrol station use and cross contamination, as well as the potential for RTI's.

> The "its simple" is, simply, wrong.

> don't travel unless you need to,

> don't congregate unless you need to

> Are contradictory. Unless you want to housebound everyone who is slightly more vulnerable and doesnt have access to private dog walking areas?

I'm arguably slightly more vulnerable in being a diabetic, and I seem to manage within the 'not doing certain things unless I need to' guidelines. It's kinda annoying not being able to wander at will and blithely say hello to people, and to have to skirt around them instead, but these are unusual times. I'm certainly not housebound, just irked vaguely. 

> An elderly bod on the road is driving once a day to exercise both them and their mutt in a quiet isolated area. Frankly more sensible doing that drive than going into the local open area where they would be likely to come into contact with 20-30 people if they did the average walk round the lake.

Unless other elderly bods drive there, and don't forget the petrol/station use and the risk of RTI's. There's a common technique used in debates where people create 2 distinct and different alternatives to argue their point, when reality is generally made of nuance and shades of grey, I think this is what is occurring in you presenting an elderly bod driving to somewhere secluded versus going to an open area and coming into contact with 20 to 30 people. Everybody is cagey about one another as it is and partaking in mutual avoidance.

We need to follow the rules, even if they are restrictive and not written in law (yet)...

Post edited at 21:51
Stuart (aka brt) 25 Mar 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> I never saw anything worth binning the thread for.  The OP said something like “I can make risk/reward decisions about myself” in a later post, It’s possible they then had a moment of realisation that maybe this was a bit selfish and had the thread pulled, or it’s possible someone said something awful after I gave up on it.

Ah, oh well. Thanks. 

Stuart (aka brt) 25 Mar 2020
In reply to DerwentDiluted:

> This is gonna do access a bundle of good in future

> Utter, utter, utter utter tw@

That is appalling. 

Dave the Rave 25 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

In my opinion the ban on unnecessary travel was for the morons at the weekend who did what they did and is widely discussed.

For locals to national parks, crack on and enjoy the solitude whilst it lasts.

Today as a ‘key’ worker, I was misinformed of a clients relative who  has been in contact with a covid positive recently and was present at the address.

On leaving the address I nearly had a collision with 2 vehicles ( I won’t call them pushbikes) travelling the wrong way on a one way, clearly oblivious to normal life going on.

I binned my clothes in the yard and had a shower to hopefully minimise the risk to my family.

When it was nearly dusk, I put the dog in the car and drove 10 minutes on clear roads to the wood that I use nightly and had a walk. Saw no one, touched nothing and felt better about probably the same scenario tomorrow.

4
wercat 26 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I don't see myself as outside the rules and if you saw me conducting myself yesterday shopping you'd know I'm extremely conscientious about infection control - to the extent of using money known to be safe to pay and using gloves etc to handle everything - 3 pairs used and disposed of.

Live and let live means yo need to allow for people going about things in their own way and taking great care in ways you don't know of.    there are all kinds of theories about what the governent has said - look at all the opinionated comments about how long we can exercise for - yet no seems to have noticed Gove saying there is no reason for not exercising for the length of time that we normally do it!   Now I'm not quoting him as authority - simply that people are making up ideas about what the law means.  

Before you call me being outside the rules I am religiously sticking to the governments rules - I WILL not do anything materially to increase infection risk and will do what I can to avoid such.

going out into this village there is significant risk of being run over as people drive past our crossroads (30 limit) at 50mph regularly and frequently.   You cannot go out without meeting the many dog walkers and other people.

I have less contact if I go somewhere quieter and where the air is cleaner - there is so much smoke from houses and farms that walks in the village frequently make me feel worse chest wise than when I went out

2
wercat 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Timmd:

meeting people in the village, breathing air with smoke and stuff burnt on farms - clear and actual hazards.

road accident because of people speeding in village - clear and actual - there was a careless driving incident outside the house with speeding that put a car embedded in our railings with injured bloodied teenagers.  Not htypothetical , add the tractos driven at high speed down narrow roads in the village itself by workers on their mobiles even as they reach our crossroads where the accident happened

drive a few miles to somewhere that I know is always deserted - hypothetical risk

cleaner air and strengthening exercise for chest - positive benefit - makes me stronger to fight illness

Post edited at 09:20
1
wercat 26 Mar 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

very good -

for the avoidance of doubt I wasn't flaunting legal knowledge but simply asserting that I don't know what the absolute law is as it is being given by dictat and by ministerial interview in the face of random interview questions - so I don't understands how so many other people can be adding details and definitions of our own.

The intent of the government is that we should each and every one of us in our own circumstances act to reduce the risk of being or passing on infection which is something I am doing every time I'm out of the house.  i'm also going to try to keep well, being male, over 60 and with chest problems

plus not everyone has all the expensive stuff many people expect these days at home - we've never had Game of Thrones etc here as we don't have Sky ot Netflix etc.  We have to live with our own circumstances  as everyone else

Post edited at 09:30
wercat 26 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> If you don't maybe we should have a book/dvd exchange thread on here?  I regret doing a charity shop run just recently now, I got rid of a load of dvds that will just be sitting in a locked shop.

That is quite a good idea - at least lots of book threads generally - reading is quite an escape.  Reading the book by Scott and Leonov about their respective experiences in the Space Race at the moment

Post edited at 09:34
Tom V 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Dave the Rave:

It would be great if we had a ban which only applied to morons and left people like Wercat to behave responsibly, but how would you explain that to the morons , who are already finding the restrictions too difficult to understand or who are flouting them on some sort of misguided principle.

mondite 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> Except that others may be driving to the private and safe places, which raises the matters of petrol station use and cross contamination, as well as the potential for RTI's.

Its pretty easier to control the risks in a petrol station. Most round here have pay at pump. Lob glove on and bobs your uncle. Far lower risk than playing dodge the families who havent quite figured that walking four abreast isnt the best plan or, when they manage that, go for the classic split to either side of the path to make people walk through the middle.

RTIs yes but it comes down to where is the bigger risk.

mondite 26 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> That doesnt mean that everyone shouldnt do their bit to the best of their circumstances.

Correct but thats where we get into what is best. Is it best locking someone who is still currently healthy completely inside since they would be at far greater risk walking in the local park or letting them drive a couple of miles to walk.

> My daughter is exercising from home now by following the plethora of online exercise routines which have cropped up.

Lots of people dont have decent gardens. I have a nice patio for kettlebells and stuff and the garden is just near enough long enough to get a beep test in. However that sort of training probably isnt a good idea for an elderly person.

> What you are saying is that if people cant walk from their homes, and this will be a vanishingly small number in this country because we mostly have pavements or public footpaths dotted around

You are missing the point. Many of those pavements and footpaths are congested.  Not completely sure why. Might just be the decent weather or people are now feeling obligated to get that 1 session of exercise in.

So near me yes there are footpaths but they are damned crowded at least for about 500m (I am on the edge of the town). So someone in the more at risk group may well consider that problematic. Get beyond that 500m and until you hit the next hotspot its quiet as anything.

> If a person has no option but to drive to get exercise then I would call this necessary.  

Excellent now we have got somewhere. So this is the balancing act isnt it?

What is the objective here. To stop possible transmission or stop all other risks. Stop possible transmission in many cases will push driving somewhere.

> This is where you pragmatism breaks down.  For a start, the elderly person has an increased risk of being involved in an accident compared to all drivers, except for the very young and inexperienced

If you look at that though the main risk areas for the elderly shouldnt come into play. Just to be clear I am not defending those people pissing off for a weekend in the hills but those making pragmatic decisions about how best to exercise whilst minimising their chances of exposure to others.

Stuart (aka brt) 26 Mar 2020
In reply to mondite:

> What is the objective here. To stop possible transmission or stop all other risks. Stop possible transmission in many cases will push driving somewhere.

Stopping transmission we, I think, all agree on. Therein lies the problem. Unless you are tested as clear then you have no way of knowing if you have the virus. You could be asymptomatic. Then that becomes a potential problem which spills over into situations like the attack on the farmer in Edale.

off-duty 26 Mar 2020
In reply to trouserburp:

> It's not clear though is it. Government says you are allowed once a day to exercise, stay 2m away from people. People in cities can't easily do that unless they drive to the country

> I get the added risk about sprained ankles but tw*ts is a bit strong if they're following government advice. They're not spreading it

It is astonishingly clear.

You want exercise - do it from your front door.

Minimise all travel.

If you don't live in the countryside, it's unfortunate. But that's life. 

The fact that people don't seem to be able to "sacrifice" going for a walk where "they" want to go, in order to prevent killing other people, puts a whole new and unexpected spin on the Anne Frank story.

FFS.

Edit to add - this could probably be directed at many posters on this thread.

This isn't some legal question for chewing over, interpreting through the prism of our own ignorance, and discussing as some abstract semantic point.

This is a public health emergency.

Stay in your houses, do not make non-essential journeys.  Be thankful we have a "window" of going out for exercise.

At the moment.

What we do over the next 3 weeks will directly impact on the NHS and will kill, or not kill, people.

FFS. Again

Post edited at 12:07
8
deepsoup 26 Mar 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> It is astonishingly clear.

https://twitter.com/policestafford/status/1242437219673157634

"Don't exercise in the town centre, go somewhere more remote."
Staffordshire Police

So maybe it's slightly less than astonishingly clear.

2
Neil Williams 26 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

The message should be "exercise from home", i.e. step out of your door and start exercising immediately.  That would deal with the crowd issue in all cases.  This does seem to be what some Police Forces are pushing; it might be helpful if the Government did too.

2
deepsoup 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> That would deal with the crowd issue in all cases. 

Almost all.  A lot of people live in crowded spaces. 

On another thread you were quite rightly urging people to leave space, and time, for others to get out of the way while running - it isn't possible for everybody to do that and also run directly from their door.  They may need to walk (not drive) some distance first.

Not aiming this at you or anyone in particular, but I've seen posts on here of people saying "I can see beautiful places from my garden, and if I can resist going there so can you!"

Shows a certain lack of imagination, understanding and empathy, I would suggest, on the part of these people to think that having their own garden with a beautiful view makes staying at home harder for them somehow, not easier, than it is for someone who lives in a shoe box in the city centre.

Some people are being nobs.  We've all seen some really egregious examples from the weekend.  People are also being unhelpfully sanctimonious about people being nobs - it's potentially quite counterproductive if the aim is actually persuading people to change their behaviour rather than just getting a quick dopamine hit from the righteous condemnation.  (Some of those I've noticed indulging on various social media are usually among the first to accuse people of 'virtue signalling' in threads discussing politics etc., ironically.) 

Lets not be nobs.  Lets also not be meta-nobs.

1
Neil Williams 26 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

I completely agree.  One option if you live in a busy place, by the way, is to go at an odd time.  I doubt there are many 5-6am runners at the moment with so many people not working.

There will be the odd few who would do better to drive to a field and run there, but I suspect that's going to be formally banned soon (some Police forces already think it is) because of people taking the mick and going to the Lakes/Peak/Wales.

Post edited at 13:05
deepsoup 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> .. but I suspect that's going to be formally banned soon (some Police forces already think it is) because of people taking the mick and going to the Lakes/Peak/Wales.

I fear you're right.  It's sad, but perhaps inevitable that that's going to be necessary.

Timmd 26 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup: I think there's an element of people individually thinking 'If I drive to somewhere quiet away from other people that will be a good place to exercise and be safe', and it happens en mass.  Below the track up to Stanage Pole yesterday afternoon there was a normal sunny weekend amount of people out and about, lots of cars from people driving there, including one belonging to a couple who gave me a huge amount of space to let me pass.  Even having cycled out there, I felt rather hypocritical in my annoyance at there being a lot of people. It's almost a case of finding somewhere during the day to absorb the sunshine, and going out at dusk for a bit of peace and a leg stretcher (in a socially responsible way).

Post edited at 13:32
elsewhere 26 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> Almost all.  A lot of people live in crowded spaces. 

My street is empty, the streets on TV (even around high rise blocks) are empty.

At the moment, is there such a thing as a crowded street where you can't just cross the road or step off the pavement (hardly any vehicle traffic) to avoid people?

Post edited at 13:31
wercat 26 Mar 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

you have pavements?  not round here

bpmclimb 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

> I am so bloody sick of people parading their own interpretations of what they think the govt might have thought it meant when it made the  statement before trotting  out  these random thoughts as gospel and trying to impose them on everyone else.

> As things stand we can go to the shops for food and meds, we can go outside for one form of exercise a day either alone or with a tightly-specified  group of people such as family members we live with and we should maintain the 2m separation.   Plus certain people can travel to work, for health reasons or as carers etc. That's it. No more, no less.

> By all means interpret the statement as you wish and conduct yourself accordingly. Feel free to argue the  regulations are too lax but until official regulations  are in place please resist trying to impose your individual interpretation, which is worth no more and no less than anyone else's and stop hurling insults at people who are obeying the rules as they stand.

Agree with all that - I was about to put a very similar post together, and you've saved me the trouble

deepsoup 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Timmd:

I think that's what they call the 'tragedy of the commons', and it's why there are probably more oppressive 'lockdown' restrictions to come, sadly.  Perhaps something more along the lines of what the French are doing.  Though enforcing those kind of restrictions may prove a little more difficult here, for various reasons.

Post edited at 14:17
deepsoup 26 Mar 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> My street is empty, the streets on TV (even around high rise blocks) are empty.

That's encouraging eh?  At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious though, people who live in high rise blocks have their front door inside the building.

Also not every runner can run on a hard surface, especially concrete as opposed to, say, tarmac.  I've struggled with that a bit myself in spite of having improved my gait somewhat lately, and am just in the process of rehabilitating a minor knee injury.  I really feel for anyone struggling to access a decent sized park or whatever, and some grass to run on.

> At the moment, is there such a thing as a crowded street where you can't just cross the road or step off the pavement (hardly any vehicle traffic) to avoid people?

Seems ok around here for the most part, though you'd be pushing your luck just stepping off the pavement and into the road without looking even so.  But I really couldn't answer your question - not getting out much at the mo.

wintertree 26 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> I really feel for anyone struggling to access a decent sized park or whatever, and some grass to run on.

There’s an awful lot of private communal gardens in London along with a previous poster’s suggestion of golf courses.  If you stop and think about the people in dense urban areas it’s a lot easier to not “push it” with the lockdown as tougher measures are going to really eat in to quality of life for urbanites.

MonkeyPuzzle 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

> By all means interpret the statement as you wish and conduct yourself accordingly. Feel free to argue the  regulations are too lax but until official regulations  are in place please resist trying to impose your individual interpretation, which is worth no more and no less than anyone else's and stop hurling insults at people who are obeying the rules as they stand.

Any law that says that?

1
Neil Williams 26 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> I think that's what they call the 'tragedy of the commons', and it's why there are probably more oppressive 'lockdown' restrictions to come, sadly.  Perhaps something more along the lines of what the French are doing.  Though enforcing those kind of restrictions may prove a little more difficult here, for various reasons.

France has done near enough exactly the same as here except for a pointless piece of paperwork that serves no purpose and is typical French bureaucracy, plus "distance from home" restrictions on exercise.  We should probably consider adding the latter, though I'd suggest it would be better to say something like "maximum of an hour out of the house and no use of mechanised transport other than cycling where cycling is the exercise in itself".

Neil Williams 26 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> Also not every runner can run on a hard surface, especially concrete as opposed to, say, tarmac.  I've struggled with that a bit myself in spite of having improved my gait somewhat lately, and am just in the process of rehabilitating a minor knee injury.  I really feel for anyone struggling to access a decent sized park or whatever, and some grass to run on.

Maybe a walk would be better, then?  Or a bike ride if you have a bike?

MonkeyPuzzle 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Or exercise in front of YouTube, or download 8Fit app for free HIIT routines, or take up baking for a few weeks, or learn the guitar, or...

1
elsewhere 26 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> That's encouraging eh?  At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious though, people who live in high rise blocks have their front door inside the building.

Conditions within the building have no impact on exercise outside the building.

> Also not every runner can run on a hard surface,

Maybe you just have to accept life can't go on as normal and in this case that relates to exercise rather than employment, education or death.

1
elsewhere 26 Mar 2020
In reply to wercat:

> you have pavements?  not round here

Then avoidance of other people whilst exercising is probably even less of an issue than if you are in a built up area that has pavements. I'm assuming you're on roads or open ground rather than hemmed in to a narrow path by fences or cliff faces for the duration.

Post edited at 15:12
deepsoup 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Maybe a walk would be better, then?

Or how about walking to the park, and then running? 

That was what I suggested in my post at 1302, and the post I was replying to here seemed to be saying "No - you must start exercising from your front door."

Well I'm off out now, to walk to the place locally where I can run.  If the exercise police pull me up on it I reckon I'll get away with a little white lie, I'll tell them I'm doing intervals. ;-)

1
Lord_ash2000 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Timmd:

Not that I'm condoning going to a crowded car park honeypot location to do your exercise as has been said on this thread if you're going to do that go somewhere isolated if on arrival it's not isolated enough then go somewhere else.  

However, these pictures are likely nowhere near as bad as it looks. There could be 50 cars parked up somewhere and it be perfectly possible for no one to be anywhere near anyone else. They won't have all got there at the same time, they won't all return at the same time and if two adjacent car owners happened to return at the same time one party could easily give them a few mins to get in the car and drive off before approaching their car. It's not like it's some organized event up on the hill with all those 50 drivers having a group hug on the summit of the nearest hill or something. And before people go on about gates and things, it's no different from walking around town and touching the same zebra crossing buttons, railings, etc. 

As for the act of driving its self having an increased risk, it's just being silly really. It's like saying in normal times, "how dare you drive a car! Every time you go out for any reason there is a risk you could kill a child, it's just not worth it however slight" And it's true, children step out into roads and die, the odds are small overall but it does happen, and the more you drive the higher the chance. How dare people increase the risk of dead and injured kids just for the convenience of getting somewhere you didn't really need to go a bit quicker. But of course, we do, we accept that some extra children will die as a result of driving for none essential car journeys, collectively we are willing to pay that price. 

12
Timmd 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> As for the act of driving its self having an increased risk, it's just being silly really. It's like saying in normal times, "how dare you drive a car! Every time you go out for any reason there is a risk you could kill a child, it's just not worth it however slight" And it's true, children step out into roads and die, the odds are small overall but it does happen, and the more you drive the higher the chance. How dare people increase the risk of dead and injured kids just for the convenience of getting somewhere you didn't really need to go a bit quicker. But of course, we do, we accept that some extra children will die as a result of driving for none essential car journeys, collectively we are willing to pay that price. 

It arguably isn't being silly, because the NHS is currently 'running to keep up' in treating coid19 patients, and really can't be doing with extra people coming in as well, which they will doing anyway from  no fault of their own, due to people naturally having cancer and heart and other health related issues. 

Which is why I've been (probably rightly) criticised for suggesting where somebody could go urban bouldering in Sheffield. 

Post edited at 15:34
The Jazz Butcher 26 Mar 2020

In reply to

"Greater Manchester police have confirmed that members of the public are allowed to travel to and from allotments as part of their daily exercise set out by the government."

What is the difference between the above and driving / cycling / walking etc. to a local crag (what is local?) and bouldering?

https://www.rospa.com/faqs/detail/?id=80

Doesn't sound risk free to me.

1
Timmd 26 Mar 2020
In reply to The Jazz Butcher: It's about us all doing our best to minimise risk using good sense. There's potentially the danger that if we keep going 'What about...?' there'll be a response of 'Everybody stay indoors'. 

Post edited at 15:34
summo 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Even someone thinks they will breeze through covid etc..  if they only care about no.1 and no one else, they should still avoid spreading it. 

The longer this runs, the more debt is accrued nationally, the longer the young fit healthy work force will be paying taxes to clear that debt, through what is likely to be at the very least a global recession, if not depression. 

Oh and even the survivors from icu might have life long medical problems caused by the virus. 

Post edited at 15:50
Tom V 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

What a puzzling post.

You start by saying you're not condoning people who drive to honeypot parking venues then proceed to do exactly that.

Blue Straggler 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom V:

> What a puzzling post.

I think he actively tries to be a puzzling poster! It certainly gets him attention  

Lord_ash2000 26 Mar 2020
In reply to summo:

> Even someone thinks they will breeze through covid etc..  if they only care about no.1 and no one else, they should still avoid spreading it. 

I think by caring about number 1 we won't spread it. I haven't got it, I don't want to get it, and will do what I reasonably can to avoid getting it. Which also happens to be the same as not spreading it even if I did have it, if everyone stays away from everyone else and washes hands to avoid contamination risk it will not spread. 

> The longer this runs, the more debt is accrued nationally, the longer the young fit healthy work force will be paying taxes to clear that debt, through what is likely to be at the very least a global recession, if not depression. 

This I agree with completely. In fact, I think the extra deaths and suffering from the next decade we spend digging ourselves out of this hole will cause suffering and additional deaths on par or maybe in excess of the deaths and suffering from the virus directly. Thus I think it might be worth looking at faster solutions even if they end up costing more lives in the short term. 

It's natural to want to save everyone, but realistically we can't. It may be the overall least harm done approach is to keep the elderly locked away as much as it practical and the rest of us just pretty much carry on as normal, let the virus spread quickly and we'll all be over it in a month or two, rather than dragging out the suffering for half a year, save some lives but ruin millions of others for a decade or so. 

12
Stuart (aka brt) 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> I think by caring about number 1 we won't spread it. I haven't got it...

Have you been tested?

summo 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

It doesn't just kill the elderly, less young die, but some still do. 

It does seem like UK sanctions have stopped folk working, killing the economy, but still allowing them a social life. A proper house bound lock down will end it quicker, especially in London. 

Blue Straggler 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> the rest of us just pretty much carry on as normal, let the virus spread quickly and we'll all be over it in a month or two

Just isolating this bit for posterity, Ant Middleton  

Post edited at 16:21
summo 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Your model for dealing with a pandemic is pretty much how they think Iran is doing it. They are digging mass graves with bulldozers. 

Stuart (aka brt) 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> I think by caring about number 1 we won't spread it. I haven't got it...

Assume you don't want to answer the question of whether or not you've been tested.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you haven't. Just call me lucky I guess.

Interesting read.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238473-you-could-be-spreading-the-coronavirus-without-realising-youve-got-it/

Archy Styrigg 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> .... if everyone stays away from everyone else and washes hands to avoid contamination risk it will not spread. 

> It may be the overall least harm done approach is to .... let the virus spread quickly and we'll all be over it in a month or two...

Contradicting yourself!

1
MonkeyPuzzle 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Deciding that the weaker and more vulnerable members of society should be sacrificed for the benefit of everyone else. This sits alright with you?

wercat 26 Mar 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

as there are only 2 roads that are safeish from this crossroads (we are on the corner) when nutters aren't about it means you meet the active population of the village on those roads!  Dogwalking or just out on horses (and there are a lot as there is a stables and livery up there!) or on foot.

Anyway it seems there are going to be lots of journeys into town anyway as every trip reveals a new shortage of foods/essentials/medicines/reduced opening hours etc so perhaps there won't be so much time on our hands.  Certainly going into town more often this last fortnight due to failures of supply or access to services.

if you think i should have put some stuff in the cupboard, the window for that was when there was peak panic buying and that was the time that my wife was ill in bed with fever and I was ill but feeling not as bad as she

Post edited at 17:11
off-duty 26 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

I anticipate that with obtuseness and stupidity like this, leaving the house "to exercise" will be banned.

That's why we can't have nice things.

That's why people will die.

3
Timmd 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> I think by caring about number 1 we won't spread it. I haven't got it, I don't want to get it, and will do what I reasonably can to avoid getting it. Which also happens to be the same as not spreading it even if I did have it, if everyone stays away from everyone else and washes hands to avoid contamination risk it will not spread. 

> This I agree with completely. In fact, I think the extra deaths and suffering from the next decade we spend digging ourselves out of this hole will cause suffering and additional deaths on par or maybe in excess of the deaths and suffering from the virus directly. Thus I think it might be worth looking at faster solutions even if they end up costing more lives in the short term. 

> It's natural to want to save everyone, but realistically we can't. It may be the overall least harm done approach is to keep the elderly locked away as much as it practical and the rest of us just pretty much carry on as normal, let the virus spread quickly and we'll all be over it in a month or two, rather than dragging out the suffering for half a year, save some lives but ruin millions of others for a decade or so. 

It isn't just the elderly, a 21 year old young woman without any health problems has died from covid19.

Young Healthy People Can Die From Covid19. This means that you could too.

Post edited at 17:49
deepsoup 26 Mar 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> I anticipate that with obtuseness and stupidity like this, leaving the house "to exercise" will be banned.

Just to be astonishingly clear - are you saying that I'm being obtuse and stupid, or that the Staffordshire police are being obtuse and stupid?

1
wercat 26 Mar 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

ps you also meet the newly resident "holiday homers" enjoying their bit of England with you, and their germs ...

(when they are in - seem to be out and about quite bit, shopping and the like)

off-duty 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

The predictions are 80% infection rate, 1% fatality rate.

That's 500,000 UK citizens you are condemning to death specifically from the virus.

Not to mention the knock on effect on deaths due to overwhelming overload of NHS and inability to successfully care for numerous other life threatening diseases.

Considering the risk that our NHS staff are putting themselves under dealing with this if we can possibly mitigate the numbers, and the huge risk they are going to be in if we did as you suggested, then your suggestion is both callous and seemingly fails to understand the purpose of a health system to try and look after people.

If you are so unconcerned with the impact of people dying in order to lessen impact on the rest of us, then how about avoiding any of your future potential to drain NHS resources by walking in front of a bus.

10
Timmd 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJRMEmvMB24&feature=emb_logo

This 21 year old auntie, daughter, and sister who was completely healthy is the youngest person who has died from covid19.

This means it can seemingly affect anybody who isn't a child. 

Post edited at 18:12
Timmd 26 Mar 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> If you are so unconcerned with the impact of people dying in order to lessen impact on the rest of us, then how about avoiding any of your future potential to drain NHS resources by walking in front of a bus.

Either that, or act responsibly, he might have it without knowing, and be spreading it around to infect people from at risk groups like myself - a type 1 diabetic.

Post edited at 18:23
Lord_ash2000 26 Mar 2020
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Deciding that the weaker and more vulnerable members of society should be sacrificed for the benefit of everyone else. This sits alright with you?

I'm just saying it's an option. 

What I fear will actually happen is the worst of both situations, we'll cripple the economy trying to save as many as possible, fail anyway and still have all the same deaths to deal with, maybe just spread out a bit longer.

Which is what I was getting at with the economy thing in the first place. Save some lives now by sacrificing the health and wellbeing of the whole population down the road, does that sit okay with you?

It's a balance really, none of the options are ideal, go too far one way and you destroy our futures to protect those who'll die soon anyway or save everyone you can now at untold cost to us all. 

Post edited at 19:34
9
MonkeyPuzzle 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

To knowingly sacrifice the weak and vulnerable is at best passive eugenics and at worst fascism-lite. Asking doctors and ultimately ourselves to decide who lives and who dies based on their viability as economically productive members of society is grotesque, and would permanently traumatise us (maybe not you of course) as a society, so much so we could never go back.

Still, you might get to tick that project you've been eyeing for a while.

off-duty 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

I agree. And in true internet tradition, if we'd just accepted Hitler then the economic and mortality costs would have been a lot less as well ..

wintertree 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> Which is what I was getting at with the economy thing in the first place. Save some lives now by sacrificing the health and wellbeing of the whole population down the road, does that sit okay with you?

Another poster started a thread recently suggesting lives now could be traded for the economy later, and posed it as a thoughtful academic choice worthy of intelligent debate.

Some however might say that there is no such choice (as letting lots of people die also trashes the economy and the health service), and that pretending there is such a choice is just a crock of shit to push a right wing agenda.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/25/21193670/trump-easter-coronavirus-isolation-relax-rules-economy-social-distancing

Neil Williams 26 Mar 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> I agree. And in true internet tradition, if we'd just accepted Hitler then the economic and mortality costs would have been a lot less as well ..

<bzzzzzzzt> Godwin! :D

Lord_ash2000 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Assume you don't want to answer the question of whether or not you've been tested.

> I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you haven't. Just call me lucky I guess.

Quite right I haven't, seems everyone didn't bother reading the line where I said about "even if I do have it". Fact is I haven't been within 2m of anyone outside my household since the weekend and I don't plan to either. If I did have it the odds of anyone having caught it from me are stupidly low.

A lot of these don't do XYZ things now are like super anal marginal gains cycling, put a aero cap on your Garmin to shave off 1W at 40kph sort of stuff. People have to be realistic with their understanding of risk, like I said before every time you take a car journey you risk killing a child. We might try and mitigate it by driving slowly in towns and looking out etc but whatever we do there is always a risk you'll kill a child. So how can we possibly justify driving unless we appsolutely must? Yet we do, and children get run over. Why? Because we deem the risk very low and the cost of not driving very high. 

It's right we should take reasonable steps to avoid spreading the virus but beyond that the sacrifice / risk reduction level ratio sky rockets and it simply becomes not worth it. Just like a few children's lives are not worth the whole country having a flat rate 10mph speed limit on all roads. 

Post edited at 19:55
9
Stuart William 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> I'm just saying it's an option. 

> What I fear will actually happen is the worst of both situations, we'll cripple the economy trying to save as many as possible, fail anyway and still have all the same deaths to deal with, maybe just spread out a bit longer.

The challenge is that it isn't necessarily the same number of deaths over different time frames. How well the health service is able to cope with sudden spikes in demand will have a direct influence on the number of possibly preventable deaths from things totally unrelated to CoVid. Also if services are hit too hard the rate of staff burn out and stress and trauma related absences will mean that there is a longer term impact, again potentially leading to otherwise avoidable deaths.

There are plans for other staff to be redeployed to provide both clinical and psychological support to hospital staff to try to mitigate the impact of an unmanageable surge in demand. So we also have to add into the maths the impact of diverting staff from other services (which were already under a lot of pressure anyway) who are then unable to be delivering services to their existing caseload.

The more the increase in demand is spread out the less impact any of the above has. None of this is something that can be easily estimated, similar to the longer term wellbeing impact you mention (which I agree is a relevant consideration as well). I imagine you know this, but it isn't a simple matter of considering the predicted fatality and infection rates of CoVid as there are any number of other things that will be impacted.

There are no "good" options at the moment, but certainly some mitigation of how hard health services are hit is essential if we want staff and services to still be standing afterwards. 

Post edited at 20:03
Lord_ash2000 26 Mar 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> Some however might say that there is no such choice (as letting lots of people die also trashes the economy and the health service), and that pretending there is such a choice is just a crock of shit to push a right wing agenda.

Well I'm not an economist but I'm not so sure. Looking from a pure economic standpoint if the NHS just treated who it could up until it's capacity and the rest were left to stay at home the NHS wouldn't be battered. And a large release of wealth from the older generations down to the younger would likely boost economic activity. Not to mention helping ease the pension burden and longer term NHS costs due to fewer elderly people.

Post edited at 20:03
5
peppermill 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Blimey. Ash reading a lot of your posts makes me curious. What is your background? I assume nothing in healthcare/responsibility for others. We are very unlikely to agree on much but I'm just trying to work out why you post some of the things you do.

Timmd 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> It's right we should take reasonable steps to avoid spreading the virus but beyond that the sacrifice / risk reduction level ratio sky rockets and it simply becomes not worth it. Just like a few children's lives are not worth the whole country having a flat rate 10mph speed limit on all roads. 

You don't have a clue, do you? A hospital in London today or yesterday declared an emergency due to almost running out of intensive care beds, because of COVID19, death rates are going up around the country, and you're prattling on about the sacrifce/risk reduction level not being worth it, and about UK wide 10mph speed limits to save hypothetical children, to try and justify not taking measures to avoid hospital emergencies all around the UK, which is going to happen if death rates continue to climb. 

It's not an intellectual exercise, it's real and happening as we speak, hospital emergencies and nursing staff struggling to stay on top of things.

Edit: I'm not normally so blunt, but look at Spain and Italy before talking about the sacrifices being too great...

Post edited at 20:13
Stuart (aka brt) 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> It's right we should take reasonable steps to avoid spreading the virus but beyond that the sacrifice / risk reduction level ratio sky rockets and it simply becomes not worth it. Just like a few children's lives are not worth the whole country having a flat rate 10mph speed limit on all roads. 

Man, I don't know where to begin.

I'm out. 

2
Lord_ash2000 26 Mar 2020
In reply to peppermill:

I'm just an ordinary person really, perfectly normal to be around and all round nice guy. Average income, above average net worth, generally right leaning economically bit pretty liberal socially.

I just seem to have a tendency to view things from a purely objective perspective without getting emotionally or personally involved in things. I tend to look at things on a national level where we have people being born and people dieing on mass every day, the government tweaks nobs one way or another and that changes the rate of death one way or another. Same with suffering, turn a nob one way and one section of society suffers but another benefits, if there is a net reduction in suffering overall then that's a good thing normally. Imagen like a bar chart with the values for different factors all moving as you adjust the parameters. Likewis 1 extra death for a suffering reduction in millions seems a benefit to me.

Maybe empathy and things aren't my strong point but I don't see anything particularly controversial in anything I've posted recently. And no I'm not in health care, I'm self employed, I do 3D graphics and climbing wall design with a small property portfolio on the side.

Post edited at 20:14
7
Stuart William 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> Well I'm not an economist but I'm not so sure. Looking from a pure economic standpoint if the NHS just treated who it could up until it's capacity

How is "capacity" determined? I can think of several local services that were already arguably way over capacity. Does any A&E already breaching waiting time targets count as at capacity? Because as of November last year this would mean around 75% of A&E services turning people away.

Who gets treatment? First come first served? Or some kind of eligibility criteria? Who decides who is worth treating?

> and the rest were left to stay at home the NHS wouldn't be battered. And a large release of wealth from the older generations down to the younger would likely boost economic activity. Not to mention helping ease the pension burden and longer term NHS costs due to fewer elderly people.

Fortunately this isn't the way health services and their staff approach things. Staff will continue to do everything they can. No-one is going to stand there and say "sorry but we're busy" when faced with someone dying who they might be able to help. Condemning people to die in the here and now is never going to be an acceptable option. What happens in the future we can work to mitigate or prevent, but we can't bring back someone who is already dead.

Health care in the UK is not doled out based on wealth or occupation. And I for one do not want that to ever be the case.

Post edited at 20:19
peppermill 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

And always the cleverest guy in the room, no doubt....

Hopefully the day you need help whoever comes is not of the same mindset.  

Safe climbing.

1
Lord_ash2000 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Timmd:

It's okay, I think you're just getting emotionally involved because it's a such a big tragedy and we've not seen this in our life times.

The NHS is going to be massively overwhelmed in a few weeks, possibly sooner, maybe even with the make shift wards etc, particularly in the big cities. This is already a near certainty even if the spread stopped dead today, because loads of people will get worse and loads of people already behave it but won't know yet it'll take a certain amount of time for the wave to come through.

The thing is it is an intellectual exercise on here, it's talk discussing the issues, noone is getting saved by forum posts. I think people just haven't faced facts yet of the scale of this. A lot of people are going to die and a lot of people are going to suffer, either directly or indirectly from this virus. What action is taken going forward will decide how many additional people suffer / die now and how many people suffer / die later. 

The aim is to find the best balance, I don't want excess suffering and death any more than anyone else young or old, direct or indirect. 

Post edited at 20:30
3
AdrianC 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

An article you might like to read.  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/25/there-is-no-trade-off-between-the-economy-and-health

One point that he's wrong about is the connection between austerity and death rates.  There was a good More or Less piece about that.

wintertree 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> Maybe empathy and things aren't my strong point but I don't see anything particularly controversial in anything I've posted recently.

I think you are taking a very one sided and simplistic view that happens to support a particular conclusion.  When I linked to a good discussion against that view you dismissed it as “I’m not an economist” and then have some very simplistic statements looking at things from one side and ignored many of the points raised such as the effect of healthcare saturation on recovery rates or the damage down to young people.

Lord_ash2000 26 Mar 2020
In reply to wintertree:

I didn't read your link simply because I don't have time. I've got a dozen people replying to several different posts and I can't take time to go into depth on every post. I'm not claiming to be an expert in any particular area I'm just putting out some options and ideas from a perspective which seems to be unrepresented on here.

Some might work, some might not but all should be considered by those who are experts in the relevant fields and take the action which results in the least overall suffering both in terms of health and general well-being of the whole population not just one section.

3
Lord_ash2000 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart William:

> Who gets treatment? First come first served? Or some kind of eligibility criteria? Who decides who is worth treating?

If things progress as it seems like they might then there will be these sort of eligibility factors coming into place I'd guess. If you have X ventilators and  X+ people needing them then doctors on the wards will have to make a call, do we give it to the 93 year old with terminal cancer who'll be dead in 3 months regardless or the 65 year old for whom it'll have a realistic chance of saving his life and giving them some quality years afterwards.

So far we have the luxury of being able to offer unconditional treatment to all. If and when sh!t really hits the fan that luxury may well go out the window.

3
Coel Hellier 26 Mar 2020
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Asking doctors and ultimately ourselves to decide who lives and who dies based on their viability as economically productive members of society is grotesque, and would permanently traumatise us (maybe not you of course) as a society, so much so we could never go back.

So Italy is now permanently traumatised as a society and can never go back?

By the way, they don't do it on "viability as economically productive members of society", they do it on "quality adjusted life years" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year ).  This is already an accepted way of thinking in the medical world (e.g. how NICE operates) and it's also necessary -- there always needs to be some balance between competing "goods", and an absolutest "if this saves even one life then ..." is rarely appropriate.

Neil Williams 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

>an absolutest "if this saves even one life then ..." is rarely appropriate.

Agreed.  If it was, we would ban cars.

Timmd 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Getting emotionally involved in what happens to other humans is generally thought to be the root of compassion and empathy, and most of the kind and positive things which humans do for one another. In saying it isn't an intellectual exercise, I mean that the individual actions we each take when out shopping and interacting with others, can mean that the virus spreads, due to people who don't know they have it spreading it.

I don't actually mind what you 'think' about the steps being taken, so long as you do what we're all being asked to do, regarding the 2 metre distancing and coughing or sneezing into our arms, and having clean hands when shopping for food or medicines, because, as somebody who says they don't have it, you might actually be symptom free and spreading it around to be picked up by diabetics, old people, and anybody else with a compromised immune system, as well as healthy young people who lose this particular lottery and end up dying from it. So, my being concerned at you (possibly) not thinking that the steps being taken are proportionate, is a normal and healthy emotional reaction to you potentially making things worse, while you're thinking you don't have it while out and about.  

So, you thinking that what is being done isn't proportionate, unless your thoughts and actions aren't aligned, keeps alive the possibility of you endangering others without knowing it...

Post edited at 21:31
Archy Styrigg 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> So far we have the luxury of being able to offer unconditional treatment to all. If and when sh!t really hits the fan that luxury may well go out the window.

Is that a chink of enlightenment I detect there?!?!

This is the whole f*cking point of all this!

You're taking the piss, you must be.

Lord_ash2000 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Timmd:

Have you not read what I've written previously? It's understandable as there is a lot of fast paced posting here and things get lost quickly.

I am following the guide lines, I haven't been within 2m of anyone outside my household since last Saturday. I've been doing my daily exercises, mainly cycling so far. I haven't yet been climbing outside since Saturday and I had one isolated session at a private board on Tuesday with hands washed before and after incase of contamination. As as far as I see it provided I stick to that general advice of keeping away from people and washing hands all is well. If I were to develop symptoms I'd fully isolate until I had the all clear. 

What I don't agree with risk wise is traveling by car to do exercise, I think if done well any additional risk of spreading infection is so small as to be insignificant. As it happens I haven't done this yet but it's likely I will at some point.

Post edited at 21:35
1
Neil Williams 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

I don't think driving is going to cause more spread to any significant extent.  What will is honeypotting - thousands of people on Snowdon or at local attractions, for instance.

I suspect if you drive to a layby in the middle of nowhere for your run, you won't be troubled by the Police.

Lord_ash2000 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

I agree completely, and I wouldn't be stupid enough to go to a honey pot location. Much of this non driving thing has come as a knee jerk reaction to the pictures which circulated a few days ago. Where I live there are a few hot spots under normal conditions but as a local I know plenty of places around the lakes where you're unlikely to meet another person at the best of times let alone now.

1
Timmd 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> Have you not read what I've written previously? It's understandable as there is a lot of fast paced posting here and things get lost quickly.

> I am following the guide lines, I haven't been within 2m of anyone outside my household since last Saturday. I've been doing my daily exercises, mainly cycling so far. I haven't yet been climbing outside since Saturday and I had one isolated session at a private board on Tuesday with hands washed before and after incase of contamination. As as far as I see it provided I stick to that general advice of keeping away from people and washing hands all is well. If I were to develop symptoms I'd fully isolate until I had the all clear. 

Ah, that's alright then. I can chill then.  No I hadn't, pardon me. 

MG 26 Mar 2020
In reply to wintertree:

There is a problem though isnt there? How do we get out of this? Mass death, multi-year islolation,  economic collapse are all intolerable but we are going to have to pick a balance between them. Absolutist positions dont work. The coupling between the options is also unknown, which makes it harder still. 

Stuart William 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:.

> So far we have the luxury of being able to offer unconditional treatment to all. If and when sh!t really hits the fan that luxury may well go out the window. 

Yup. Hence the argument for slowing the rate of people who need care at one time.

Trying to it over and done with and preemptively letting people die who could have been helped guarantees the avoidable deaths. The alternatives remain hypothetical. Faced with a choice between a definite death now and a possible future death, personally I’ll always opt for possible future death.

If the choices about who is worth treatment are unavoidable that’s one thing. Voluntarily making those choices because of the financial burden is something quite different. 

Post edited at 21:44
Oceanrower 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart William:

"possible future death"

Have you discovered immortality? I'd say a future death is pretty much a certainty!

wintertree 26 Mar 2020
In reply to MG:

> How do we get out of this?

The consensus seems to be that we build out our testing capability and then once severe lockdown has got the cases under control we gradually relax it using rapid testing and extensive contact tracing to keep on top of new cases until a vaccine exists or significantly better clinical care / antivirals.  

My suspicion is that the UK government will try and relax it until we’re keeping the 30,000 intensive care beds they seem to be planning full - whilst awaiting a vaccine they push us through infection as fast as “safely” possible; plan B.

> Mass death, multi-year islolation,  economic collapse are all intolerable but we are going to have to pick a balance between them

Althoigh it seems mass death and severe economic damage aren’t separable so cant be tensioned against other in balance.

The other factor in this is that more infections > more chance of a really nasty variant evolving.  That’s unknowable but genuinely I think something to fear.

Post edited at 21:49
Lord_ash2000 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

> Is that a chink of enlightenment I detect there?!?!

> This is the whole f*cking point of all this!

> You're taking the piss, you must be.

I think what you haven't grasped yet is it's when sh!t hits the fan not if. We might slow the spread with self isolation to some degree but things are going to get massively worse than they are now before they get better. 

Archy Styrigg 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Have you discovered immortality?

Someone clearly has, hence his name

Neil Williams 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Have you discovered immortality? I'd say a future death is pretty much a certainty!

Indeed, and if (and I know this is getting a bit deep) I had something serious that would result in loss of independence soon, I might well genuinely want to take my chances with COVID19.

This I think is why the Government advice to isolate for 12 weeks is just that - advice.  If you read it in detail it does go into that issue of individual choice.

Post edited at 21:50
MG 26 Mar 2020
In reply to wintertree:

Maybe. Sounds like an optimistic route to me on several fronts - medically, and in terms of infrastructure. I'd also say we have two months absolute max of people tolerating current conditions. So there is a sociological angle. I am also unclear how soon global restrictions like ours will start to affect food supplies but that must soon become a higher priorty than covid19, I would think - we cant miss either planting or harvesting. 

wintertree 26 Mar 2020
In reply to MG:

> Sounds like an optimistic route to me on several fronts - medically, and in terms of infrastructure.

Yet it’s one other countries are successfully following - albeit with prior planning.  There’s a massive and apparently unreported effort going on to move qPCR machines from research labs to central government labs for detection, and technical staff are being seconded.  

> how soon global restrictions like ours will start to affect food supplies

As far as I can tell from my suddenly very small window into the world, farming continues regardless.  However a lot of farmers are in quite high risk categories which is a worry in itself.

> I'd also say we have two months absolute max of people tolerating current conditions. So there is a sociological angle

Likely but the government have been very carefully building it up, and are making responsive changes - reopening off licences for example.  Perhaps next they’ll commission a TV game show called “Climbing for dollars” to keep people in...

JMarkW 26 Mar 2020
In reply to MG:

> would think - we cant miss either planting or harvesting. 

Seems to be a surplus of people looking for work (claiming cash) at the moment???

Just a thought....

MonkeyPuzzle 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> So Italy is now permanently traumatised as a society and can never go back?

> By the way, they don't do it on "viability as economically productive members of society", they do it on "quality adjusted life years" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year ).  This is already an accepted way of thinking in the medical world (e.g. how NICE operates) and it's also necessary -- there always needs to be some balance between competing "goods", and an absolutest "if this saves even one life then ..." is rarely appropriate.

Italy did not plan its way into that position but was forced. Of course if hospitals are overwhelmed those decisions have to be made but for that to actually be the strategy is another thing entirely.

mondite 26 Mar 2020
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> To knowingly sacrifice the weak and vulnerable is at best passive eugenics and at worst fascism-lite.

It is however the norm.

When the mental health services are underfunded so vulnerable people dont get the treament they need and so self harm or commit suicide thats sacrificing them for the high visibility projects.

When we dont have adequate care for the homeless in a harsh winter thats sacrificing them.

The "postcode lottery" is another classic health system example.

Or when serious diseases which impact millions who have the misfortune to be poor and so not likely to provide a decent ROI vs a hard on drug for the rich westerners thats sacrificing them.

Austerity resulted in unnecessary deaths although the number is highly debatable. Sacrificing the poor.

In any system its inevitable some trade offs have to be made and, most of the time, its the vulnerable and powerless who will lose out.

Bulls Crack 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Driving to places to exercise will shortly (tomorrow maybe) be banned I think

MonkeyPuzzle 26 Mar 2020
In reply to mondite:

> It is however the norm.

> When the mental health services are underfunded so vulnerable people dont get the treament they need and so self harm or commit suicide thats sacrificing them for the high visibility projects.

> When we dont have adequate care for the homeless in a harsh winter thats sacrificing them.

> The "postcode lottery" is another classic health system example.

> Or when serious diseases which impact millions who have the misfortune to be poor and so not likely to provide a decent ROI vs a hard on drug for the rich westerners thats sacrificing them.

> Austerity resulted in unnecessary deaths although the number is highly debatable. Sacrificing the poor.

> In any system its inevitable some trade offs have to be made and, most of the time, its the vulnerable and powerless who will lose out.

All of the above are BAD THINGS. Is your point actually, we already let this kind of stuff go on in the background, so we may as well embrace it and explicitly plan to let all the old, weak and unwell people die?

Up until now I used to think the above were the results of selfish ignorance rather than sociopathy, but I'm starting to have doubts.

Just a reminder: We're talking about not being able to have a *jog* in our chosen spot and we've got people defending passive eugenics! This entitlement is beyond deranged.

Post edited at 22:59
1
off-duty 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Bulls Crack:

> Driving to places to exercise will shortly (tomorrow maybe) be banned I think

I wouldn't be surprised. If  not removing the right to exercise competely.

Too many barrack room lawyers who appear to think this is an intellectual exercise, and an impingement of their right to exercise at the place of their choice rather than an unfolding health crisis with a potential for half a million deaths. As a start.

Post edited at 23:00
7
Archy Styrigg 26 Mar 2020
In reply to off-duty:

Having complied with Her Majesty's Government instructions not to panic buy, will I still be allowed out to purchase my regular day to day shopping?
Or will I have to apply for a special police escort down to shops?

2
Jon Stewart 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Bulls Crack:

> Driving to places to exercise will shortly (tomorrow maybe) be banned I think

You may well be right, but do you think that will have any effect on the infection rate? I went for my first lockdown shop today, and what I saw in town - it was quieter than normal but people were still hanging out and chatting here and there - had me a lot more worried than the people driving for exercise. Stricter controls should be targeted if possible at whatever is pushing up the infection rate. Oh hang on, with no testing we have no idea. Oh well, let's just look like we're doing something then...

In France, they're now only allowed out for 30mins, which isn't even long enough to do whatever essential task you went out for. While we may well be too lax here, I think that this is crazy. The degree of stress is literally going to cause an epidemic of violence including suicide. I don't think people can handle being imprisoned and deprived of sufficient time to fulfil urgent needs without dire consequences.

There is a temptation to believe that stricter is better, but these measures have to be sustained for some time. Perhaps the right thing is to push measures on to see where the breaking point is, and then stick just before the cons outweigh the pros of a lower infection rate; I don't think this will be consistent across cultures. But there is an issue of balance here.

Post edited at 23:10
off-duty 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

> Having complied with Her Majesty's Government instructions not to panic buy, will I still be allowed out to purchase my regular day to day shopping?

> Or will I have to apply for a special police escort down to shops?

If you don't know the regulations, it's probably worth reading them.

For the avoidance of doubt, as I don't know if you are just being flippant - shopping for basic necessities is covered.

1
off-duty 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Legislation was put through today, I'm not sure if the FPN admin is sorted now, but I anticipate more enforcement taking place in some of the bigger forces, currently it seems the smaller ones are doing more enforcement.

1
Neil Williams 26 Mar 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> For the avoidance of doubt, as I don't know if you are just being flippant - shopping for basic necessities is covered.

Which in practice means "anything you can buy in a supermarket" - they aren't checking to see if you buy a bar of choccy with your bread and milk.

Jon Stewart 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Which in practice means "anything you can buy in a supermarket" - they aren't checking to see if you buy a bar of choccy with your bread and milk.

I'm glad I bought that bottle of kahlua today before the new shopping list regulation comes in. Although I did feel judged, somewhat, at the checkout.

Archy Styrigg 26 Mar 2020
In reply to off-duty:

Oh aye, but I might be sneaking a little exercise trip en-route

Face it, mate, you're facing an un-enforcable challenge.

What is currently, 95% crimes don't even get looked into to?

2
mondite 26 Mar 2020
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> All of the above are BAD THINGS. Is your point actually

No my point is people happily ignore it until it starts to infringe on their own social circles or they start to feel threatened themselves.

My point is its the low level norm. Its just that is been brought to peoples attention in a way its hard to avoid.

My point is most of those shouting seem mostly concerned that whilst currently they arent overly inconvencied that further lockdowns will start to bite. They can exercise from the door so who cares about that old vulnerable person who doesnt feel safe doing so and would like to drive 2 miles to a quiet wood.

> Just a reminder: We're talking about not being able to have a *jog* in our chosen spot and we've got people defending passive eugenics!

Really? Personally I have simply been pointing out that for some people the only way of getting exercise safely would be to drive somewhere slightly further away. There seem to be some who dont care about those more vulnerable people since they, like me, can go for a run or ride from their door without feeling too badly threatened.

I can see selfish people on both sides. Those muppets who drive enmass to snowdon to enjoy the nice weather and those who just because they can safely exercise from their door dont bother thinking about those who cant.

Jon Stewart 26 Mar 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> Legislation was put through today

Yes. And if there is any sense, enforcement will be focused where people are endangering others, rather than where they are breaking the rules.

For example, if someone lives in the middle of nowhere, then they can leave their house into their locality as many times as they like to exercise (or indeed do whatever they please) with whoever lives in their household, without any risk of infecting anyone. Rules are great and everything, but they're only an approximate best-fit to what is actually required.

I do fully appreciate the need to have clear rules and not to leave it up to people to use their judgement, seeing as being human they will use that judgement to serve themselves. But the world is a complicated place and every policy has unintended consequences and a multitude of cases that just don't fit within the rules.

I shall be assuming that I've got the virus and doing everything I can not to pass it on. I will give consideration to the enforcement of the regulations!

1
Blue Straggler 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I'm glad I bought that bottle of kahlua today before the new shopping list regulation comes in. Although I did feel judged, somewhat, at the checkout.

Seriously , did I miss something about a shopping list regulation imminently coming into force?

Blue Straggler 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> I haven't yet been climbing outside since Saturday 

Your choice of language here, coupled with the general vibe of entitled pomposity that seems to permeate your posts, sort of suggests that you are planning to go climbing outside quite soon (presumably on ”justifiably” safe rock a “justifiably” short drive from your home). It also implies that you feel you’ve been virtuous in your restraint. 
 

And before you get all knee-jerk knickers-in-a-twist outraged-defensive, read the above again, more slowly. It is loaded with disclaimers, as I like to think you are actually a sound and nice and sensible person who is just slightly misguided and bad at expressing himself (hence the beating you are taking on the forums). 

Post edited at 00:53
2
Jon Stewart 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> Seriously , did I miss something about a shopping list regulation imminently coming into force?

All beverages closely associated with cult cinema have been banned.

Doug 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> In France, they're now only allowed out for 30mins, which isn't even long enough to do whatever essential task you went out for. While we may well be too lax here, I think that this is crazy.

At first some of the rules here in France were not very clear, with some variation from region to region in how they were applied. We are now allowed out for up to an hour for exercise, staying within a km of home. As far as I know there is no time limit for shopping or medical outings. There are still some oddities (eg you can cycle to the shops but not cycle for exercise) but its mostly clear

Post edited at 07:08
Coel Hellier 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I went for my first lockdown shop today, and what I saw in town - it was quieter than normal but people were still hanging out and chatting here and there - had me a lot more worried than the people driving for exercise.

Yep, the police are getting het up about the wrong things.   Yesterday Derbyshire police put out a video complaining about a guy walking on Curbar -- he was thirty metres from the next person.  That really is not a problem.   Take a video of any city park and people are vastly closer to each other.   Yes, we should avoid honeypotting, but cities are one big honeypot.

2
Coel Hellier 27 Mar 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> Too many barrack room lawyers who appear to think this is an intellectual exercise, and an impingement of their right to exercise at the place of their choice rather than an unfolding health crisis with a potential for half a million deaths.

No-one thinks it's an academic exercise.  And yes, the restrictions will have a huge effect on people's lives (once they are sustained for weeks, anyhow), and the implications for the economy will be huge and last for a decade or more. 

We do need balance here, and that means restrictions that actually help stop the virus, and concentrating measures against the behaviours that will most spread the virus.   

Getting all draconian against behaviours that are very low risk (both in terms of spreading the virus and in terms of accidents that would load the NHS) is not good tactics, especially when vastly riskier activities are allowed to proceed. 

2
Coel Hellier 27 Mar 2020
In reply to the thread:

To be specific, videos emphasizing:

-- regular hand washing (and not touching your face except with just-washed hands).

-- don't touch things that others touch.

-- respect distance at all times, always stay 2 m away from everyone**.

-- as far as you can, don't breath in the same space as other people**.  

-- completely isolate at any hint of symptoms.

(**Everyone not in your immediate household anyhow.)

... would be vastly more useful than videos complaining about people walking in the countryside, 30 meters from anyone else, doing no harm to anyone. 

The police need to avoid a rules-for-rules-sake mentality, and instead focus on what matters.  

The above list is what actually matters.  And it will need to be sustained for months.   

2
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

One of the key markers about being a grown up is doing things because you should, rather than because you can, setting an example. Driving a couple of miles to a remote walk or crafty little boulder probably isn’t going to hurt anyone on its own. However, more cars buzzing about adds legitimacy to buzzing about in cars. The two vans parked under Curbar yesterday were visible across the entire Hope Valley which is not helpful, especially when there’s a constituency which says that unless the letter of the law and advice has been written specifically for them down to the tiniest nuance, then it doesn’t apply to them because they don’t have any responsibility to anyone else. 

Max factor 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Plenty been said about the rights and wrongs of getting out already on this thread, so from me a different question.

Is anyone else a little alarmed by the lack of humanity and aggressiveness being shown in dealing with people in the news reports?

Seeing people publically humiliated by loudspeaker for having the temerity to turn their faces to the sun for 5 minutes and take a moment out from all the stress and worry. 

Another one. Last night's news; a lady being harassed for looking at ducks on a pond. By herself. She didn't have the best grasp of English, the whole thing was filmed and it was  pretty unpleasant to watch. I find it hard to believe she is materially contributing to the spread of infection in any way by her actions.

It's a little frightening how quickly we seem to align to dogmatic thinking and lose  courtesy in dealing with others. 

Of course, someone is going to say I don't 'get' the severity of the situation. I do. But let's try and keep our humanity, please.

Yanis Nayu 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Max factor:

Yes, people seem very keen to demonstrate their superiority by criticising others. 

Stuart (aka brt) 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Max factor:

> Plenty been said about the rights and wrongs of getting out already on this thread, so from me a different question.

> Is anyone else a little alarmed by the lack of humanity and aggressiveness being shown in dealing with people in the news reports?

> Seeing people publically humiliated by loudspeaker for having the temerity to turn their faces to the sun for 5 minutes and take a moment out from all the stress and worry. 

> Another one. Last night's news; a lady being harassed for looking at ducks on a pond. By herself. She didn't have the best grasp of English, the whole thing was filmed and it was  pretty unpleasant to watch. I find it hard to believe she is materially contributing to the spread of infection in any way by her actions.

> It's a little frightening how quickly we seem to align to dogmatic thinking and lose  courtesy in dealing with others. 

> Of course, someone is going to say I don't 'get' the severity of the situation. I do. But let's try and keep our humanity, please.

I've not seen any of that but my social media interaction is relatively low key. Was this members of public filming other people 'being wrong'?

deepsoup 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Max factor:

> Another one. Last night's news; a lady being harassed for looking at ducks on a pond. By herself. She didn't have the best grasp of English, the whole thing was filmed and it was  pretty unpleasant to watch. I find it hard to believe she is materially contributing to the spread of infection in any way by her actions.

I ranted at and 'unfriended' an acquaintance from work over a 'Britain First' type meme he shared on FB last week.  (It wasn't actually Britain First, but it was a group with similar aims.)  It was just like poppy-seller-being-hassled-by-muslims thing they always trot out at November.

It was a photo of an Asian chap in Asda with a trolley full of bog-roll.  I tried a reverse-image search but couldn't find the origin of the photo (found a very similar one though - of a local radio DJ in Brum doing a charity 'supermarket sweep' thing in aid of a foodbank about two years ago).

The narrative they were pushing was "lets identify this panic-buying scumbag and name & shame him", and the gist of the comments was that he was a profiteer buying them up so people would have to pay inflated prices for them in his corner shop.  Some f*cking people eh?

deepsoup 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> >lack of humanity and aggressiveness

> I've not seen any of that but my social media interaction is relatively low key.

UKC is social media.

"If you are so unconcerned with the impact of people dying in order to lessen impact on the rest of us, then how about avoiding any of your future potential to drain NHS resources by walking in front of a bus."
- A police officer addressing an undeniably misguided individual a bit further up this very thread.

1
Lord_ash2000 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> Your choice of language here, coupled with the general vibe of entitled pomposity that seems to permeate your posts, sort of suggests that you are planning to go climbing outside quite soon (presumably on ”justifiably” safe rock a “justifiably” short drive from your home). It also implies that you feel you’ve been virtuous in your restraint. 

Rather than reacting from fear and confusion and what people reckon is more or less risky let's try and look at some numbers.

Upper estimates for inflected people in the UK is 500,000 (mostly untested and none serious cases at home). Population of the UK 66,440,000. So the odds of a random person having the virus right now are 1/132. I don't know the percentage showing no symptoms like myself but the odds of me personally having it must be lower than the above as a result as some people have symptoms.

Then take the odds of having a car accident or even a breakdown requiring a call out on a per mile driven bases. I can't find the numbers yet but I think it's safe to say the odds on say a 10 mile journey are very low, particularly so given how quite the roads are now.

Then you take the chances of me having the virus, then coughing on my hand, touching a gate, leaving enough virus material on the surface, then someone else coming along while it's still infectious getting it on their hand then putting their fingers in thier mouth etc.

Then there is the odds of me getting injured on a low ball boulder problem. I'd say no more than training on a home board which everyone seems fine with. But as for numbers, well again I don't have the stats but total A&E visits from injured boulderers per year Vs total problems climbed would likely result in a very low number again especially if you include indoor problems.

When you then multiply all that lot together the odds of me having it the first place, the odds of me passing it on if I did, the odds of needing the NHS or AA for any reason during the time I'm out. It all starts looking vanishingly small. 

You then compare that to the difference in odds of infection spread or NHS use from staying at home or going on short walks from your doorstep which are arguably worse due to density of people walking around towns and you start to see just how much fuss is being made about vanishingly small increases in odds of a problem. We might just as well be trying to condemn people who are spotted in thier gardens catching up on some DIY in their time off because they are probably putting themselves at considerably high risk than someone popping out for some exercise.

9
peppermill 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Dude, just stop, please.

It's getting to the point where you're embarrassing yourself. Stay safe FFS.

1
off-duty 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> No-one thinks it's an academic exercise.  And yes, the restrictions will have a huge effect on people's lives (once they are sustained for weeks, anyhow), and the implications for the economy will be huge and last for a decade or more. 

> We do need balance here, and that means restrictions that actually help stop the virus, and concentrating measures against the behaviours that will most spread the virus.   

> Getting all draconian against behaviours that are very low risk (both in terms of spreading the virus and in terms of accidents that would load the NHS) is not good tactics, especially when vastly riskier activities are allowed to proceed. 

The problem is we are dealing with humans here.

Many of them will listen, think of the consequences and proactively take steps to follow the guidance, erring on the side of caution.

However a significant minority won't. They won't be washing their hands, social distancing, socially isolating and generally adapting their lifestyle to prevent risk to others.

And when we decide to push the boundaries of "what's written down" to go a little further, to somewhere a little busier - those are the people who will already be there. And people will die.

This really isn't about police trying to overstretch legal powers. The law is a blunt tool, and even blunter when it's trying to be the solution to a public health crisis.

1
off-duty 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Really FFS.

The predicted total of DEATHS from this with an 80% infection rate is 500,000. 

And that's ignoring the collateral deaths from a broken NHS.

We are desperately trying to control that with these measures.

You deciding that "right now" the odds of getting it and passing it on are "vanishingly small" is exactly the attitude and behaviour that propagates it and spreads it.

I apologise for getting angry, but you are behaving like an idiot, and clearly you have no contact with anyone in the NHS actually trying to cope with this now.

1
summo 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Anyone whose had certain cancer treatments have a compromised immune system... high risk of covid killing them. Many cancer treatments are being delayed or cancelled. How many additional cancer deaths this year? 

Heart attack survival rates are pretty good if you get cpr, 02 and defib'd .. fast. What about if the public aren't rushing to do cpr and ambulance crews need to put on ppe first? 

The fatality rate from covid isn't as simple and pragmatic as you make out.  Covid will indirectly kill many too. 

Siward 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

That's not really addressing Blue Straggler's post, is it?

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> Rather than reacting from fear and confusion and what people reckon is more or less risky let's try and look at some numbers.

> Upper estimates for inflected people in the UK is 500,000 (mostly untested and none serious cases at home). Population of the UK 66,440,000. So the odds of a random person having the virus right now are 1/132. 

And that's your mistake - the positive population are not "random".

The chances of you meeting a covid19 positive person is not simply the UK population divided by number of cases.

The people who are 'out and about' has been narrowed down including key workers who are either in NHS roles - higher risk, or roles with a high rate of movement or person encounters - such as shop staff and multidrop deliverers - both excellent vectors - this also higher risk.

So your only 1/132 encounters are risky is complete fallacy.

Post edited at 09:33
Coel Hellier 27 Mar 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> However a significant minority won't. They won't be washing their hands, social distancing, socially isolating and generally adapting their lifestyle to prevent risk to others.

I agree, and that's where the police efforts (and information videos) should be focused.     Highlighting, instead, drone video of a lone and isolated walker is the wrong emphasis.

Blue Straggler 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Nempnett Thrubwell:

> And that's your mistake - the positive population are not "random".

I don't think he wants to utilise proper probability statistics, as this would skew his agenda 

kevin stephens 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Yep, the police are getting het up about the wrong things.   Yesterday Derbyshire police put out a video complaining about a guy walking on Curbar -- he was thirty metres from the next person.  That really is not a problem.   Take a video of any city park and people are vastly closer to each other.   Yes, we should avoid honeypotting, but cities are one big honeypot.

True the activity shown in the police drone video was very low risk. However without the crack down the numbers venturing out to the Peak honeypots would greatly increase, and from further afield, especially if word got around that it would be ok. The risk of increasing infection would then be serious

Blue Straggler 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Siward:

> That's not really addressing Blue Straggler's post, is it?

It's a bit like toilet-training a puppy isn't it  

Jon Stewart 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Paul's post at 7.58 explains the wider consequences. It's a bit like a "free rider" problem - if everyone takes your view, for their own benefit (not just climbers, everyone who wants to do what they want in a social space equivalent to a bouldering crag away from home) then you no longer have lockdown.

In general: there's consequences for doing the right or wrong thing; and there's consequences for being seen doing the right or wrong thing as well - and these might be just as important.

wercat 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

you can only take the essential route to the shops.  No diversions for exercise

take it from one who is going into town far more often now because of shortages in the shops/pharmacy ;-)

I'm not half getting through disposable gloves

at least the holiday home aross the road is getting plenty of action - shopping and walking trips!

Post edited at 09:51
Stuart (aka brt) 27 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> UKC is social media.

> "If you are so unconcerned with the impact of people dying in order to lessen impact on the rest of us, then how about avoiding any of your future potential to drain NHS resources by walking in front of a bus."

> - A police officer addressing an undeniably misguided individual a bit further up this very thread.

As I said - " I've not seen any of that but my social media interaction is relatively low key."

UKC is social media. It's one of the few platforms I use. 

As for off-duty's comments. Not great. It was aimed at someone who has said some, not sure what you'd call them, unsympathetic views?

I think I know off-duty, not well, but if it is who I think it is then as someone who is frontline I suspect that they're in the thick of it a bit. Like I said, not great. Maybe the recipient needs to lay off the social media themselves for their sanity and other people's. 

Max factor 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

The first one was some people out on Shepherds Bush green on Wednesday. On both national and local news. Not a group gathering, just people taking a moment. 

The lady and the ducks was London evening news last night.

Message is clear, if you are not actively moving expect to be hounded, even if you are observing the appropriate distancing rules.

deepsoup 27 Mar 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

> True the activity shown in the police drone video was very low risk.

And as a tool to reduce the activity shown, the video was very low effectiveness. 
"Look at this person doing something (which is obviously not causing an immediate risk) - this is not acceptable."

Preaching to the choir.  The people they are trying to dissuade from doing it don't see what the problem is, and this film does nothing constructive to get that message across to them.  It merely invites those who already get it to condemn. 

This might even be counterproductive for the Derbyshire Police.  I wonder if they're ramping up the frustration for some of the locals (and the fear that they're under threat from these people) and perhaps even inadvertently encouraging a few of them to take 'direct action' of their own - go out and vandalise parked cars and such, as we've seen in other areas.

3
Archy Styrigg 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I agree, and that's where the police efforts (and information videos) should be focused.     Highlighting, instead, drone video of a lone and isolated walker is the wrong emphasis.


GMP know of (at least) two pubs opening their backdoors to customers, Billy Goat Inn Mossley being one, "We're going to deal with them." Well deal with them then instead of wasting valuable resources playing with drones and pontificating on niche internet forums.

2
wercat 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

let me make it clear - I don't actually like going into town so it's not giving me any joy to go in more often.   One reason is you can't even make phone contact with the pharmacy any more

and to anyone who would like exercise restricted to 30 mins

I am asthamtic and have had a series of chest infections this winter and until recently was self medicating with the approval of doctors and nurses by driving a little to walk up Heughscar hill.   30 minutes doesn't even get you out of the zone here I'm trying to avoid and I can tell you that as I haven't exercised much in the last week away from here my chest is actually sorer than it was.

explain how drones watching people helps that

Post edited at 09:57
1
off-duty 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I agree, and that's where the police efforts (and information videos) should be focused.     Highlighting, instead, drone video of a lone and isolated walker is the wrong emphasis.

We can't police handwashing. 

We can focus on unnecessary and inessential travel and failure to socially distance.

As an aside it'll be interesting to see how much "essential" travel to allow "essential" exercise that can "only" be carried out safely at these specific locations, is taking place when it's pissing with rain and cold.

2
off-duty 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

> GMP know of (at least) two pubs opening their backdoors to customers, Billy Goat Inn Mossley being one, "We're going to deal with them." Well deal with them then instead of wasting valuable resources playing with drones and pontificating on niche internet forums.

And if we do that, will you stay at home so we don't have to police your interpretation of what you believe a lockdown means for you?

Post edited at 09:57
1
wercat 27 Mar 2020
In reply to off-duty:

when it's damp the air is kinder for my chest - dry dusty air with lots of smoke like this village aggravates it

30 minutes is enough to walk out to the edge of the village and back,

Post edited at 10:00
Stuart (aka brt) 27 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> And as a tool to reduce the activity shown, the video was very low effectiveness. 

> "Look at this person doing something (which is obviously not causing an immediate risk) - this is not acceptable."

> Preaching to the choir.  The people they are trying to dissuade from doing it don't see what the problem is, and this film does nothing constructive to get that message across to them.  It merely invites those who already get it to condemn. 

> This might even be counterproductive for the Derbyshire Police.  I wonder if they're ramping up the frustration for some of the locals (and the fear that they're under threat from these people) and perhaps even inadvertently encouraging a few of them to take 'direct action' of their own - go out and vandalise parked cars and such, as we've seen in other areas.

I think the attack on the farmer in Edale asking people to stay home is probably doing a more effective job of inviting people to take the law into their own hands. 

Post edited at 10:03
deepsoup 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

>  Like I said, not great. Maybe the recipient needs to lay off the social media themselves for their sanity and other people's. 

No, indeed.  (And yes, that would be good.) 
I mean the frustration is clearly understandable in this case, but still..

Lord_ash2000 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Nempnett Thrubwell:

> And that's your mistake - the positive population are not "random".

> The chances of you meeting a covid19 positive person is not simply the UK population divided by number of cases.

> The people who are 'out and about' has been narrowed down including key workers who are either in NHS roles - higher risk, or roles with a high rate of movement or person encounters - such as shop staff and multidrop deliverers - both excellent vectors - this also higher risk.

> So your only 1/132 encounters are risky is complete fallacy.

Maybe if you read my post you'd see I was talking about the chances of me being infected, not other people. Given I'm not any of the above high risk people then I'd say that puts me at an even smaller chance of having it. And who said anything about meeting people? The whole point is to avoid meeting people, if I'm walking along in my isolated field and someone happens to come the other way, we can just give each other a wide berth and keep 2m+ away. 

1
Stuart (aka brt) 27 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> >  Like I said, not great. Maybe the recipient needs to lay off the social media themselves for their sanity and other people's. 

> No, indeed.  (And yes, that would be good.) 

> I mean the frustration is clearly understandable in this case, but still..

👍 

off-duty 27 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> >  Like I said, not great. Maybe the recipient needs to lay off the social media themselves for their sanity and other people's. 

> No, indeed.  (And yes, that would be good.) 

> I mean the frustration is clearly understandable in this case, but still..

I appreciate I used strong words - however that is literally what was being posited:

"You half million people just die, because it probably will be better off for the rest of us in the long run".

It doesn't sound so great when it's personalised in to telling one person to take that action to avoid possible future drain on society, does it. 

1
Coel Hellier 27 Mar 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> As an aside it'll be interesting to see how much "essential" travel to allow "essential" exercise that can "only" be carried out safely at these specific locations, is taking place when it's pissing with rain and cold.

Meanwhile, Londoners are commuting by tube, where it is impossible to social distance.   And planes are flying to the UK (with the government asking people to come home), where people are jam-packed and the cabin air is re-circulated.   And a steady stream of people travel to and get close to each other in supermarkets.  And all sorts of other things are going on that are vastly, vastly more likely to spread the virus.

deepsoup 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> I think the attack on the farmer in Edale for asking people to stay home is probably doing a more effective job of inviting people to take the law into their own hands. 

No doubt you're right.

But that's just whataboutery really - those people were clearly anti-social social f*ckwits of the highest order and I'm no less appalled by that than you are. 

What we were just discussing, with some degree of nuance I thought, was the message being put out by the Derbyshire police. 

All the more reason to either find a way to get the message across or failing that to show enforcement taking place.  How about if they'd filmed themselves calmly stopping people on the way out to Curbar Gap in their cars and turning them back?

Instead of that, the film that they did put out shows nothing particularly concerning going on from the point of view of those who fail to see the problem.  Meanwhile, from the point of view of those who may be frustrated or fearful about it (and most certainly will have heard about that appalling assault in Edale), it shows the Derbyshire police merely filming the behaviour and apparently doing absolutely nothing to intervene.

Stuart (aka brt) 27 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> No doubt you're right.

> But that's just whataboutery really - those people were clearly anti-social social f*ckwits of the highest order and I'm no less appalled by that than you are. 

> What we were just discussing, with some degree of nuance I thought, was the message being put out by the Derbyshire police. 

> All the more reason to either find a way to get the message across or failing that to show enforcement taking place.  How about if they'd filmed themselves calmly stopping people on the way out to Curbar Gap in their cars and turning them back?

> Instead of that, the film that they did put out shows nothing particularly concerning going on from the point of view of those who fail to see the problem.  Meanwhile, from the point of view of those who may be frustrated or fearful about it (and most certainly will have heard about that appalling assault in Edale), it shows the Derbyshire police merely filming the behaviour and apparently doing absolutely nothing to intervene.

All fair comments. 

MG 27 Mar 2020
mondite 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Meanwhile, Londoners are commuting by tube, where it is impossible to social distance. 

With many of those commutes unneccessary since companies are playing the "essential" worker game and all those self employeed/gig workers looking carefully at their bills before deciding to go in.

I do like Off-Duties introduction of "essential" in front of exercise. Especially with the scare quotes. Nice mission creep and redefinitions in play there.

off-duty 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Meanwhile, Londoners are commuting by tube, where it is impossible to social distance.   And planes are flying to the UK (with the government asking people to come home), where people are jam-packed and the cabin air is re-circulated.   And a steady stream of people travel to and get close to each other in supermarkets.  And all sorts of other things are going on that are vastly, vastly more likely to spread the virus.

Which, whilst you may have a point, is essentially whataboutery.

Why does all this remind me of giving people speeding tickets...

3
Coel Hellier 27 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> How about if they'd filmed themselves calmly stopping people on the way out to Curbar Gap in their cars and turning them back?

Just thought I'd point out that, were I to be stopped by police and "questioned", then that would be my closest and most-intensive interaction with another human in the last 5 days.          

And, owing to the nature of their role, such policemen are also likely to have interacted with (and will interact with) a fair number of people in preceding and succeeding days.  

1
Ian W 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Meanwhile, Londoners are commuting by tube, where it is impossible to social distance.   And planes are flying to the UK (with the government asking people to come home), where people are jam-packed and the cabin air is re-circulated.   And a steady stream of people travel to and get close to each other in supermarkets.  And all sorts of other things are going on that are vastly, vastly more likely to spread the virus.

doe the fact some people are acting in an undoubtedly risky manner make it ok for others to act in a less risky manner? If i drive at 90 in a 60 limit, is it ok for you to drive at 70? Less risky than my 90, but still wrong. Would you think that you should be able to drive at 70 until i'm stopped for doing 90, or do you think we should both be stopped form breaking the rules?

Then replace 90 with using the tube and 70 with driving out to the countryside for exercise.

Post edited at 10:29
Coel Hellier 27 Mar 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> Which, whilst you may have a point, is essentially whataboutery.

It is whataboutery, but equally, while you may have a point, there does seem to be an element of "rules for rules sake", rather than "is this activity actually a substantial risk of spreading the virus and thus a priority for policing?".

3
mondite 27 Mar 2020
In reply to MG:

Actually their latest update is

https://twitter.com/DerbyshireRPU/status/1243451519170732032

Way to go setting an example there.

Bunch of cars parked up in close proximity and is high speed training really a good idea at this stage of a crisis? Think of the NHS etc cant it be put off till past the (hopeful) peak in a few weeks.

off-duty 27 Mar 2020
In reply to mondite:

> With many of those commutes unneccessary since companies are playing the "essential" worker game and all those self employeed/gig workers looking carefully at their bills before deciding to go in.

> I do like Off-Duties introduction of "essential" in front of exercise. Especially with the scare quotes. Nice mission creep and redefinitions in play there.

I apologise for my words if they have caused you to continue to nitpick at a blunt law that is trying to control a public health crisis.

For clarity the law is written here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6/made

The whole point is to minimise non-essential travel outside and reduce chances of transmission.

It's not some sort of overreaching police bid for Stasi powers. We are the poor bastards that are faced with acting as the enforcement arm of the NHS to try and stop YOU dying.

It's quite clear from the reactions on social media that this section is the one that is causing the most aggro and likely to provoke the most failure to comply.

I anticipate that this provision will be further restricted and/or removed.

And that's why we can't have nice things.

1
mbh 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

We've driven for 10 minutes every day to go for an isolated 3 mile walk. For the first three days we went to a Forestry England wood, which their website said was open. We met one horse rider. Since then, once the FE website said their woods were closed, we have been on pathless walks across the local moor where we have come close to nobody. Today we didn't even see anyone.

The alternatives from our front door are far more likely to bring us near to people, particularly since the two most popular local dog-walking venues are now shut. Someone I follow on Strava posted a local run in his town called 'Park of a 1000 dogs'

From a risk point of view what we are doing seems OK to me.

1
Coel Hellier 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Ian W:

> doe the fact some people are acting in an undoubtedly risky manner make it ok for others to act in a less risky manner?

Pretty much, yes.  If plenty of activities are going on that are 850 units of risk (on some scale), then yes it does make it ok to do things that are 0.01 units of risk on the same scale.    

2
Coel Hellier 27 Mar 2020
In reply to off-duty:

Nothing there prohibits the behaviour in the Curbar Gap video. 

deepsoup 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

You're certainly not wrong there. 

Unlike many of their duties though, they could at least fairly easily maintain a 2m separation from the individual they're dealing with whilst politely telling people at Curbar Gap car park:  "What you are doing here is unacceptable, get back in your car and f*ck off home."  (Paraphrasing a bit there.)

Stuart William 27 Mar 2020
In reply to mondite:

> I do like Off-Duties introduction of "essential" in front of exercise. Especially with the scare quotes. Nice mission creep and redefinitions in play there.

 I think this all got going from the statement that essential travel is allowed, and exercise has been implicitly deemed as essential in the announcements, therefore travel for exercise must be justified. Off-duty wasn’t the one to start down the line of “climbing is an essential part of my life”. 

But overall, I think it is fair to say that the rules in place are intended to allow for people to maintain health, rather than go out for a jolly. No? Or did I miss the bit where Boris said “stay home, unless it’s more fun not to”

Unfortunately we’ve seen what the response was when we were given advice rather than rules. People all had their own justifications as to why it didn’t really apply to them. Some had better justifications than others perhaps but that doesn’t change the outcome. Hence we’ve ended up with stricter and clearer rules. Plenty will be able to act sensibly and with discretion, but doing so in any way publicly (which arguably includes cars parked up at local beauty spots) opens the door to the “if they can do it so can I” mentality. If people are going to bend the rules, at least don’t do it visibly or come online and share your personal justifications or argue for others to do so.

mondite 27 Mar 2020
In reply to off-duty:

Excellent. Can you show me this reference to essential exercise though? With or without scare quotes since that seems to be missing from it.

Lord_ash2000 27 Mar 2020
In reply to mbh:

Finally, someone who sees some sense. I think after a week or so once people's minds have settled down this sort of thing will become less attacked and accepted as reasonable. At the moment as evidenced on here a lot of people are hyper about it and feel they must do everything they possibly can to reduce the risk from 0.1% to 0.095% whereas in reality, it makes no difference and it's more about following the heard coupled with a bit of oneupmanship about who's taking the least risk even though none of them has any data on just how risky what they are doing / not doing actually is. 

The official guidance is purposely vague and open because they know everyone's situation is different and have left it for individuals to weigh the risks and do what they think is acceptable. 

The government knows full well that not 100% of people are going to follow the advice, it's not about stopping the spread dead, it's about slowing it and the combined action of everyone, even with a few totally ignoring it will have that effect. People arguing about the risk difference between breaking an ankle on a woodland path vs breaking an ankle on a pavement nearer to home as a justification for not venturing out are just being ridiculous really. 

 

8
off-duty 27 Mar 2020
In reply to mondite:

> Excellent. Can you show me this reference to essential exercise though? With or without scare quotes since that seems to be missing from it.

I apologise again for my use of the term essential exercise.

Keep nitpicking at the law. It shouldn't apply to you anyway, as you obviously have a far better plan to combat this public health crisis.

3
off-duty 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

The important thing is that you make your own personal decisions about which bits you decide you are going to abide by and which bits really just impinge on your personal life too much to be worth tolerating....

After all shit happens to other people, doesn't it 

FFS. STAY AT HOME.

8
Blue Straggler 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

People would be less "hyper" (?) if you used less "hyper" language. I mentioned this last night. Your approach and attitude would be attacked far less if you could stoop to expressing yourself less brattishly and pompously, although from your posting history, I don't see this happening any time soon. 

1
Rob Exile Ward 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

You seem to know a great deal about the government's intentions and plans - rather better than they do, I suspect.

FACT: if we all stopped going out and interacting with other people then this epidemic would come to an abrupt halt and people - each of whom is someone's much loved partner, parent, son or daughter - would stop dying. Well that's not possible, - we have to shop to eat, and some of us have to go to work - but the closer we can get to that the better the outcome will be. Simple as that really.

Post edited at 11:21
summo 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> FACT: if we all stooped going out and interacting with other people then this epidemic would come to an abrupt halt 

A month or two of severe lock down versus the rest of year with half heart, half obeyed measures. 

peppermill 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Ash, do you ever wonder how potential clients view your posts and opinions? About 15 seconds on google with the info in your profile and it's not hard to find your website. You're not painting a nice picture of yourself.

3
mondite 27 Mar 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> Keep nitpicking at the law. It shouldn't apply to you anyway, as you obviously have a far better plan to combat this public health crisis.

Pointing out you are making things up isnt nitpicking.

Lets ignore Lord_Ash2000 since their extreme case isnt being supported by anyone else and take mdh instead. In terms of creating risk what is greater them going somewhere isolated, but close by, or walking round with everyone else?

Or my neighbour who is vulnerable and cant walk far on unfirm ground and so would be stuck in the ultra busy part of the local park. Or they could drive a couple of miles to somewhere quieter.

I am fine. I can do my "essential" exercise from the door and have big enough garden to do some stuff in as well (and I made the local delivery drivers cry when i figured the gyms were going to shut so ordered some nice light kettlebells and other bits). There is an unpleasant 500m or so before i get beyond where most people do their exercise but once past that its nice and quiet. My vulnerable neighbour doesnt have that luxury though.

Post edited at 11:34
Ian W 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Pretty much, yes.  If plenty of activities are going on that are 850 units of risk (on some scale), then yes it does make it ok to do things that are 0.01 units of risk on the same scale.    

And therein lies the problem. You are intelligent to be able to recognise the difference between 0.01 and 4.68 against 850. Others dont see that, as long as they are both below 850. 

However, by being able to do that, and insisting it is ok to do the 0.01 activity, you are part of the problem. Get the risk down to 0.00 if at all possible. As off duty said, this is why we cant have nice things. And if a lot of people do your 0.01 activity, it becomes much greater than 0.01.

Archy Styrigg 27 Mar 2020
In reply to mondite:

So far today we've got officers having a nice drive out in the countryside taking pictures of a bunch of numbties (who are most probably already infected) having a pic-nic, and another load of officers practising their driving.

Why don't they go and actually do something useful, like for example, (taking up Coel's point) of controlling the numbers of people cramming onto London Transport trains and buses?

No, that would be too much hard work. Easy targets first, eh?

They don't do themselves any favours.

7
Lemony 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

I'm not sure how much impact Derbyshire police are likely to have on tube usage.

1
alicia 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> People would be less "hyper" (?) if you used less "hyper" language. I mentioned this last night. Your approach and attitude would be attacked far less if you could stoop to expressing yourself less brattishly and pompously, although from your posting history, I don't see this happening any time soon. 

What are you talking about?  It's a long thread, so I may have missed something, but so far I have only seen him/her making reasoned, factual arguments, which people then respond to with emotional language and accusations of being a terrible person.  I haven't seen people make any attempt whatsoever to make counterpoints to those reasoned arguments.  Can you give an example of this "hyper" language?

1
Charloam 27 Mar 2020

There's a lot of conflicting information out there:

"Police said members of the public should not be driving anywhere to walk their dogs or exercise. However, the Guardian checked with the Cabinet Office, which is overseeing restrictions on movement, and a spokeswoman confirmed that the guidelines did not prohibit driving somewhere for exercise or dog walking."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/26/uk-police-use-drones-and-roadblocks-to-enforce-lockdown

TobyA 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Nothing there prohibits the behaviour in the Curbar Gap video. 

I live 10 minutes away from that car park but hadn't driven anywhere since coming home from work last Friday. I went to the supermarket this morning, hopefully meaning we don't need to go again for at least another week. The road up past us towards the eastern edges is definitely getting quieter over the last few days so perhaps things like the police video is making people reconsider. There is lots of great mountain biking routes just up from us and at the weekend and maybe on monday, I saw a number of cars going past with MTBs on them. Nothing unusual there normally, but haven't noticed any in the last couple of days.

The Peak District National Park is asking people officially not to drive into the park now for their exercise. No law against it, but it's a pretty clear request. https://www.facebook.com/peakdistrictnationalpark/photos/a.545123212209812/2780954095293368/?type=1&theater

Stuart (aka brt) 27 Mar 2020
In reply to mondite:

> Pointing out you are making things up isnt nitpicking.

> Lets ignore Lord_Ash2000 since their extreme case isnt being supported by anyone else and take mdh instead. In terms of creating risk what is greater them going somewhere isolated, but close by, or walking round with everyone else?

Risk of what though?

Infection/transmission - we don't know. What we do know is that people travelling is a vector. If we want to stop the spread we need to stop travelling. Absolutely there are contradictions e.g. London but part of me thinks that there's an acceptance they're f**ked. 

Accident avoidance - we don't know. But people just last weekend were arguing a point about climbing and risk and that got brought into sharp relief with the accident on Main Wall. Now I know you don't mean climbing as exercise, you've been absolutely clear and honest about that. Yes, lots of things are risky. We need to be careful in everything we do because people like off-duty, The Lemming, Stichtplate, skog's wife, my wife, are dealing with people making bad decisions. 

Overwhelming the health service - we do know that's happening. Maybe not locally to people specific here, but resource is being diverted to hard hit areas already. And we're not, if the data is correct, even anywhere near peak. If people think location is protection that could bite them on the arse later on if their local unit doesn't have the kit. 

I've given up on Ash because I think in his mind, his defence is based on a world view I don't share. I'm not unsympathetic to his plight though. 

> Or my neighbour who is vulnerable and cant walk far on unfirm ground and so would be stuck in the ultra busy part of the local park. Or they could drive a couple of miles to somewhere quieter.

> I am fine. I can do my "essential" exercise from the door and have big enough garden to do some stuff in as well. There is an unpleasant 500m or so before i get beyond where most people do their exercise but once past that its nice and quiet. My vulnerable neighbour doesnt have that luxury though.

I guess the best that your neighbour can hope for then is that they travel out and explain the situation if they get pulled over. Again, I've got every sympathy for them. 

Post edited at 11:47
Lord_ash2000 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> You seem to know a great deal about the government's intentions and plans - rather better than they do, I suspect.

> FACT: if we all stopped going out and interacting with other people then this epidemic would come to an abrupt halt and people ...

Totally correct. However, another fact is it's impossible to get 66 million people to obey you to the letter and the government are well aware of that.

It's about shifting what people do on average for an overall effect. In this case, some people will take things to the extreme never leaving the house unless it's life or death, some will completely ignore the rules and have friends over, go to gatherings, etc. The majority will be somewhere in-between, making reasonable efforts to socially distance themselves and lower their risks but while taking a common-sense approach dependent on their situation and needs.  

Coel Hellier 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Ian W:

> However, by being able to do that, and insisting it is ok to do the 0.01 activity, you are part of the problem. Get the risk down to 0.00 if at all possible.

In the real world, risks don't go to zero.  The only sensible analysis is in terms of relative risk. 

And, in the medium term, people who keep fit and healthy by driving 5 mins to somewhere secluded to walk, are perhaps less likely to be a call on the NHS than people who take literally advice to "stay at home ffs" (the latter leading to ill-health both physically and mentally).

> As off duty said, this is why we cant have nice things.

Some people seem to want to deprive others of "nice things" as a way of signalling how seriously they take this, and their civic commitment.  Not that there's anything wrong with taking it seriously and having civic committment -- we all should -- but we should also contain our puritanical streak and assess actual risk sensibly.  

3
Stuart William 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

> So far today we've got officers having a nice drive out in the countryside taking pictures of a bunch of numbties (who are most probably already infected) having a pic-nic, and another load of officers practising their driving.

I think I get your point but surely if they were already infected they absolutely shouldn’t be out having a picnic? Not sure I get the implication that if someone is contagious they are somehow less of a concern. 

> Why don't they go and actually do something useful, like for example, (taking up Coel's point) of controlling the numbers of people cramming onto London Transport trains and buses?

I mean, this all started from Derbyshire police posts, followed by footage of people at Curbar. I’m not sure the London Underground is really on their beat... 

1
Ridge 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

I was going to post an erudite rebuttal to your posts, but I've decided just to say “You f*cking tw*t” and leave this thread.

4
Offwidth 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

"Seriously , did I miss something about a shopping list regulation imminently coming into force?"

It's what lots of supermarkets are doing and yes sometimes it doesn't make sense. I was limited to 3 bottles of beer yesterday in my weekly Sainsbury shop (they insited I put one of my 4 back!) and when I asked if was it OK I had 4 jacket potatoes was told they were not limited.  The queue were social distancing as were the shoppers in store. One of the riskier factors I saw was till staff handling discount tokens, nectar cards and cash without gloves. I suggested they need to buy some cheap plastic gloves (as per their petrol station) and if the staff found them too sweaty to just cut the first finger and thumb off for handling such things.

off-duty 27 Mar 2020
In reply to mondite:

To be honest, I give up.

I'd hoped that the "British public" might take it on the chin and be prepared to make some sacrifices to save others.

I guess I was wrong.

The spirit of the law, the plea from the NHS is avoid any non-essential movement outside.

You seem to think I have some hidden Stasi like desperation to enforce more and more Draconian restriction on your private life for my own amusement.

Parks are closed. The peak District is closed. The lakes are closed. Scotland is closed. Wales is closed.

You win the internet argument. Do what you want.

I'm anticipating our COVID19 support teams for assisting the NHS in removal of dead bodies to be deployed shortly.

I desperately wish that wasn't the case. But this thread and social media in general suggests it is.

Oh well, at least we tried.

6
Blue Straggler 27 Mar 2020
In reply to alicia:

He is being a lot more careful with his language on this thread, I grant you that, but there is still an undercurrent of "entitlement" and "superior world-view and approach", with a hint of pomposity. But nothing explicit, I admit. This was one of the worse examples here
"the rest of us just pretty much carry on as normal, let the virus spread quickly and we'll all be over it in a month or two" but if you look at his posts on the thread titled "Bozzer" you will hopefully see what I am getting at. 

1
Stuart (aka brt) 27 Mar 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> To be honest, I give up.

> I'd hoped that the "British public" might take it on the chin and be prepared to make some sacrifices to save others.

> I guess I was wrong.

> The spirit of the law, the plea from the NHS is avoid any non-essential movement outside.

> You seem to think I have some hidden Stasi like desperation to enforce more and more Draconian restriction on your private life for my own amusement.

> Parks are closed. The peak District is closed. The lakes are closed. Scotland is closed. Wales is closed.

> You win the internet argument. Do what you want.

> I'm anticipating our COVID19 support teams for assisting the NHS in removal of dead bodies to be deployed shortly.

> I desperately wish that wasn't the case. But this thread and social media in general suggests it is.

> Oh well, at least we tried.

I thought you lot might end up as the whipping boys and girls.

Appreciate what you're doing. 

Good luck and stay safe.

Post edited at 11:58
Ian W 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I refer you to off duty's post.

Over and out.

Offwidth 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

It's pragmatic crisis politics. The government look at risk and suggest what we should do and people should follow it..... getting hung up on small differences in small real risks is not helpful at present. On real risks people have no idea if their car will say have a sudden puncture and cause an accident, or get hit by one of the criminal loons reportedly having fun joy riding on empty roads. Don't drive unless on essential work travel or doing a weekly shop or helping someone in the high risk group, or dealing with a real emergency is sensible advice that should be followed.

Post edited at 12:00
Coel Hellier 27 Mar 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> I'd hoped that the "British public" might take it on the chin and be prepared to make some sacrifices to save others.

And they are "prepared to make some sacrifices to save others"!  Everyone is already doing that.  But it's also fair to ask what sacrifices are necessary and which do actually save others. 

> The spirit of the law, the plea from the NHS is avoid any non-essential movement outside.

No it isn't.  The advice specifically recommends going out to exercise.  The "spirit" and the "plea" is to social distance as much as we sensibly can.  *That's* what matters.

3
TheDrunkenBakers 27 Mar 2020
In reply to off-duty:

You have my total support, as do your other front line service colleagues.  If the generally bright and sensible folks on UKC don't get it then we're all stuffed.  The attitude of some people on here is quite depressing.

off-duty 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> And they are "prepared to make some sacrifices to save others"!  Everyone is already doing that.  But it's also fair to ask what sacrifices are necessary and which do actually save others. 

> No it isn't.  The advice specifically recommends going out to exercise.  The "spirit" and the "plea" is to social distance as much as we sensibly can.  *That's* what matters.

As previous. You win. Carry on.

I give up. Go and speak to someone who works in the NHS 

4
Coel Hellier 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> This was one of the worse examples here

"the rest of us just pretty much carry on as normal, let the virus spread quickly and we'll all be over it in a month or two" but ...

If you're going to criticise him -- and yes, feel free to do so, that's fine -- it would be fair to quote his full sentence, which was:

"It may be the overall least harm done approach is to keep the elderly locked away as much as it practical and the rest of us just pretty much carry on as normal, let the virus spread quickly and we'll all be over it in a month or two, rather than dragging out the suffering for half a year, save some lives but ruin millions of others for a decade or so."

That's a question that should be asked and answered, even if your answer is that, no, that is not the "overall least harm".    His sentence was not an "I don't care" sentence, it was a "let's rationally assess how we can minimise harm" sentence -- even if you disagree with his assessment. 

2
Blue Straggler 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> "Seriously , did I miss something about a shopping list regulation imminently coming into force?"

> It's what lots of supermarkets are doing and yes sometimes it doesn't make sense. I was limited to 3 bottles of beer yesterday in my weekly Sainsbury shop (they insited I put one of my 4 back!)

You might have to stoop to buying 4-packs of cans! I bought enough wine boxes to build a wendy house from them, before any restrictions came into play. 

Apparently Shipstones are still delivering (I am outside their area but I think you would be OK)

Blue Straggler 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> "the rest of us just pretty much carry on as normal, let the virus spread quickly and we'll all be over it in a month or two" but ...

> If you're going to criticise him -- and yes, feel free to do so, that's fine -- it would be fair to quote his full sentence

It's a fair cop. 
I was utilising similar "cherry picking / altered context" techniques to Lord_ash2000 himself, which I am ashamed of now. 

mondite 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Risk of what though?

That is the question though. What is the primary goal?

> Infection/transmission - we don't know. What we do know is that people travelling is a vector. If we want to stop the spread we need to stop travelling.

Not so simple outside of blocking all movement. Are we wanting to stop transmission outside of an existing cluster or transmission to vulnerable people inside that cluster.

For the former then we want to ban driving outside a set range but that then means those vulnerable people are locked into a high risk area and so are pretty much housebound. Whereas protecting the vulnerable people may allow them to drive to a safer distance.

We then have the disease vector called the supermarket with the half arsed measures put in place.

So rationing food means more trips if you are a family (I am single and used to just a weekly shop. can probably push that to two weeks easily enough even with only so many items at once).

I do particularly like the cunning plan of getting all the vulnerable together at one time so if one is infected (or a member of staff is) then you have a good chance of large numbers of highly vulnerable people being infected. I guess it looked good as a PR gesture though.  Like the NHS hours trying to make sure the key workers can be got at once.

> Accident avoidance - we don't know.

Yes but then we dont just have climbing but we would want to tell people to avoid DIY and stuff. I remember someone on this forum saying how they were going to be chopping lots of logs. In their garden so good for avoiding transmission but I suspect a bigger risk factor than a short drive and probably worse than a careful climb.

>  If people think location is protection that could bite them on the arse later on if their local unit doesn't have the kit. 

Again a tricky one. I cant really blame someone who lives in a small flat in London with kids deciding the nice spacious weekend cottage with a big garden and open countryside is a better place to be.

Stuart William 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> No it isn't.  The advice specifically recommends going out to exercise.  The "spirit" and the "plea" is to social distance as much as we sensibly can.  *That's* what matters.

I’m not sure “recommends” is the right word. It allows for it certainly. But the message, repeated multiple times in the initial announcement, was “stay at home. As much as you possibly can.” That was the clear take home message - stay at home. There wasn’t a whole lot of ambiguity in terms of the “spirit” of it.

If we already can’t manage that after a week, then I’m not feeling hopeful. 

Ian W 27 Mar 2020
In reply to off-duty, in reply to Coel Hellier:

> And they are "prepared to make some sacrifices to save others"!  Everyone is already doing that.  But it's also fair to ask what sacrifices are necessary and which do actually save others. 

> No it isn't.  The advice specifically recommends going out to exercise.  The "spirit" and the "plea" is to social distance as much as we sensibly can.  *That's* what matters.

> As previous. You win. Carry on.

> I give up. Go and speak to someone who works in the NHS 

This ^^ Better still, volunteer to help at the Nightingale hospital. Then let us all know how much extra risk you think is a good idea.

Offwidth 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

London Porter doesn't come in a four pack... Lynn's tipple.  The shop staff could see it was silly (you can buy some much bigger packs of cans than 4)

Harry Jarvis 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> No it isn't.  The advice specifically recommends going out to exercise.  The "spirit" and the "plea" is to social distance as much as we sensibly can.  *That's* what matters.

Does the advice specifically recommend going out to exercise, or does it say that going out to exercise is permitted? There is a difference. 

Blue Straggler 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> London Porter doesn't come in a four pack... Lynn's tipple.  The shop staff could see it was silly (you can buy some much bigger packs of cans than 4)

This is what I was really getting at, compromise and change the tipple. Quantity over quality :-D 

Albert Tatlock 27 Mar 2020
In reply to off-duty:

Keep as safe as you can and the same to your colleagues.

Don’t waste your time on these forums any longer.

Good luck 

Coel Hellier 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Does the advice specifically recommend going out to exercise, or does it say that going out to exercise is permitted?

The advice on the main website does not say "recommend", however some of the statements at government new conferences have said such things. 

1
Harry Jarvis 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> The advice on the main website does not say "recommend", however some of the statements at government new conferences have said such things. 

So the published advice does not recommend going out to exercise. It would be good to be clear about that. 

Rob Exile Ward 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Albert Tatlock:

To be fair, I think the huge majority here are supportive of Off-Duty, and the general principle that following the sprit of government guidelines is the least worst of available options.  

Stuart (aka brt) 27 Mar 2020
In reply to mondite:

> That is the question though. What is the primary goal?

> Not so simple outside of blocking all movement. Are we wanting to stop transmission outside of an existing cluster or transmission to vulnerable people inside that cluster.

> For the former then we want to ban driving outside a set range but that then means those vulnerable people are locked into a high risk area and so are pretty much housebound. Whereas protecting the vulnerable people may allow them to drive to a safer distance.

> We then have the disease vector called the supermarket with the half arsed measures put in place.

> So rationing food means more trips if you are a family (I am single and used to just a weekly shop. can probably push that to two weeks easily enough even with only so many items at once).

> I do particularly like the cunning plan of getting all the vulnerable together at one time so if one is infected (or a member of staff is) then you have a good chance of large numbers of highly vulnerable people being infected. I guess it looked good as a PR gesture though.  Like the NHS hours trying to make sure the key workers can be got at once.

> Yes but then we dont just have climbing but we would want to tell people to avoid DIY and stuff. I remember someone on this forum saying how they were going to be chopping lots of logs. In their garden so good for avoiding transmission but I suspect a bigger risk factor than a short drive and probably worse than a careful climb.

> >  If people think location is protection that could bite them on the arse later on if their local unit doesn't have the kit. 

> Again a tricky one. I cant really blame someone who lives in a small flat in London with kids deciding the nice spacious weekend cottage with a big garden and open countryside is a better place to be.

There's no way of squaring this really, is there? Makes Brexit look like a walk in the park (analogy intended). 

Offwidth 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Albert Tatlock:

I appreciate the sentiment but I'd rather off duty stays. He is one of the most useful posters on UKC in my view and info from the 'coal face' is much appreciated right now.

Post edited at 12:49
deepsoup 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

> So far today we've got officers having a nice drive out in the countryside taking pictures of a bunch of numbties

For reasons I've already gone over a couple of times I don't think that drone footage (or the tweet) was very helpful, but I don't think it's a safe assumption that it was a waste of officers' time.  I don't know, but I would guess it's fairly likely it was filmed by a civilian contractor.

> Why don't they go and actually do something useful, like...

I feel much more confident in saying I'm pretty sure the London Underground is beyond the jurisdiction of the Derbyshire force.

mondite 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> There's no way of squaring this really, is there? Makes Brexit look like a walk in the park (analogy intended). 

It is somewhat tricky and that does mean we dont have the simple answers that some desire and seem to believe exist. Its why there are those mixed messages about exercising.  Since aside from anything else the long term impacts have to be considered. Depending how long it lasts for you may end up harming more people by preventing exercise than you save from the virus.

Short of a full lockdown there are going to be compromises all over the place. The problem is for a full lockdown you need the ability to actually help people in that period eg military delivering daily rations and so on as well as being able to pull out the few key workers.

SNC 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

Agreed.  Off Duty's reports from the real world are very valuable.  To middle class, professional role, work at homers like me.

peppermill 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> I appreciate the sentiment but I'd rather off duty stays. He is one of the most useful posters on UKC in my view and info from the 'coal face' is much appreciated right now.

Yes. We hear from front line healthcare staff but so rarely get a police perspective, especially in the current circumstances.

Cuts through a lot of the crap and entitlement.

Neil Williams 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Does the advice specifically recommend going out to exercise, or does it say that going out to exercise is permitted? There is a difference. 

The press conference yesterday (watch it on the iPlayer, might have been the day before though, I forget) had the deputy Chief Medical Officer *specifically recommend* it, suggesting it was a good use of extra spare time people have gained from not commuting or not working at all.

There is a big risk of an obesity crisis otherwise.  Personally I can easily put a stone on in a week or two if I just sit at home comfort eating and drinking alcohol.  This might well go on longer than that.

Post edited at 13:35
mondite 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> The press conference yesterday (watch it on the iPlayer, might have been the day before though, I forget) had the deputy Chief Medical Officer *specifically recommend* it, suggesting it was a good use of extra spare time people have gained from not commuting or not working at all.

The Scottish CMO said much the same thing and included a comment about driving short distances to exercise. Which is in line with what the cabinet office said to the Guardian yesterday.

Harry Jarvis 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> The press conference yesterday (watch it on the iPlayer, might have been the day before though, I forget) had the deputy Chief Medical Officer *specifically recommend* it, suggesting it was a good use of extra spare time people have gained from not commuting or not working at all.

And people wonder why there is confusion about what is allowed and what is not allowed ...

Neil Williams 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> And people wonder why there is confusion about what is allowed and what is not allowed ...

There is nothing at all anywhere suggesting that taking a short run or walk from your home is not allowed and it seems to be recommended.  That much is clear.

Post edited at 13:58
wercat 27 Mar 2020
In reply to off-duty:

seems subsection (m) would allow me to drive for the purpose of exercising away from smoky air?

reference doctor/nurse approved self medication for chest problems treated over the past months

MG 27 Mar 2020
In reply to wercat:

To quote off duty

"...to nitpick at a blunt law that is trying to control a public health crisis."

1
wercat 27 Mar 2020
In reply to MG:

did you check what I'm f*cking talking about?

do you live somewhere where non asthmatic members of the family complain about smoke and there are days you just can't hang washing out even though it's fine?

Did you live all your childhood in a house where both parents smoked? And just about every adult who came in the house?

Post edited at 14:45
1
MG 27 Mar 2020
In reply to wercat:

> did you check what I'm f*cking talking about?

Yes. If you have genuine health needs the legislation is clear. 

> do you live somewhere where non asthmatic members of the family complain about smoke and there are days you just can't hang washing out even though it's fine?

19th century London. No I dont live there. 

1
mondite 27 Mar 2020
In reply to MG:

> To quote off duty

How about we quote the government guidelines instead?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/coronavirus-guidance-on-access-to-green-spaces

So we start with the starting statement

"The government’s priority is to save lives and the best way to protect yourself and others from illness is to stay at home.

However, exercise is still important for people’s physical and mental wellbeing, so the government has said people can leave their homes for exercise once a day."

So here we hit the immediate ambiguity. Stay at home but its okay to leave to exercise once a day.

Now we get onto the from door or not.

"stay local and use open spaces near to your home where possible – do not travel unnecessarily"

So again ambigious. What does it actually mean? Clearly driving to Snowdonia from St Albans doesnt pass that test but to drive to the Heartwood forest for my walk? Personally I would say it is unnecessary since got walkable options but others could disagree.

It isnt nitpicking to point out the government own advisors arent exactly clear on what it means and that it certainly isnt as simple as some are claiming. Maybe it will change to be so but currently thats not the case.

2
off-duty 27 Mar 2020
In reply to wercat:

> seems subsection (m) would allow me to drive for the purpose of exercising away from smoky air?

> reference doctor/nurse approved self medication for chest problems treated over the past months

You have lung/chest problems that effect your breathing and respiratory function.

You are in the middle of a highly infectious global pandemic of a virus that kills people by destroying their respiratory function.

A pandemic where vulnerable groups - many defined as vulnerable due to respiratory problems-  are self isolating for 12 weeks and not seeing their relatives and families except through glass or computer screens.

You are quibbling about a) wanting to go outside and b) how far you want to travel  "to exercise".

Over the next three weeks of lockdown.

Sheesh.

2
MG 27 Mar 2020
In reply to mondite:

> It isnt nitpicking to point out the government own advisors arent exactly clear on what it means and that it certainly isnt as simple as some are claiming. Maybe it will change to be so but currently thats not the case.

The intent and rationale of legislation necessarily imperfect because of the speed it was produced is entirely clear - stay at home and don't travel unless you need to.  Trying to find lawyerly loopholes to justify individual preferences to bypass it is pretty much the definition of nitpicking.  

Yes, I am sure it will all be tightened up because of the behaviour of those who refuse to following simple, obviously beneficial instructions.  This will mean everyone will suffer more.

mondite 27 Mar 2020
In reply to MG:

> Trying to find lawyerly loopholes to justify individual preferences to bypass it is pretty much the definition of nitpicking. 

So in your mind quoting the governments own guidelines is nitpicking? 

1
MG 27 Mar 2020
In reply to mondite:

> So in your mind quoting the governments own guidelines is nitpicking? 

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.  I just wrote something totally different to confuse you.

Offwidth 27 Mar 2020
In reply to mondite:

It's advice so easy to change (unlike legislation)  and yes it's ambiguous and yes after it was pointed out repeatedly over the last few days they should already have updated it. Most of what they have advised for over 70s is add a strengthening adjective to this ambiguity.

Blue Straggler 27 Mar 2020

I've posted this link in a new thread but some people might miss it or choose not to open a thread started by me. 

Article from the New York Times, showing what it's like right now in Bergamo/Lombardy. 

I will quote another poster, jockster, who captioned it better than I did. 
"To everyone who is arguing the nuances of why their situation is different, why their need to go on that bike ride / hike / run is so important, or is splitting hairs about what constitutes reasonable exercise, I recommend reading this and projecting to the UK in 2 weeks time. "


https://nyti.ms/3dzOuqf?referringSource=articleShare&fbclid=IwAR3xH4rtps7iTrBAKLpiYux7iIGle6OS8DDQdo-RXkQbfQqY7kxN_DE-5Wc

mondite 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> It's advice so easy to change (unlike legislation)  and yes it's ambiguous and yes after it was pointed out repeatedly over the last few days they should already have updated it.

It has been updated and the advice has been repeated by, most recently, the Scottish CMO today and the UK CMO yesterday plus the cabinet office confirming it to the guardian yesterday. Its not an oversight but a deliberate decision.

I am not really a fan of the approach of passing laws and then having the government saying ignore it (the cycling on pavements being a classic example) but it is what it is.

mondite 27 Mar 2020
In reply to MG:

> Yes, that's exactly what I meant.  I just wrote something totally different to confuse you.


You will need to elaborate then. That you are confusing legislation with guidelines isnt a good starting point though.

Neil Williams 27 Mar 2020
In reply to mondite:

The legislation doesn't actually specify the guidance, it enables enforcement of it, whatever it happens to be at that specific time.  It's all online, go read it.

EarlyBird 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Commentary on the legislation by David Allen Green:

"Misuse of these emergency powers will make the regime less credible, thereby undermining the very public health purpose that the Regulations are there to achieve.

Just as it takes one person being idiotic to spread this disease, it takes only one police officer being idiotic to discredit this emergency public health regime.

There needs to be self-restraint on all sides".

https://t.co/5MwZHpmJGl?amp=1

Bulls Crack 27 Mar 2020
MG 27 Mar 2020
In reply to mondite:

I was referring to legislation.  That's why I wrote "legislation" not "guidelines".  See how this writing thing works now?

Neil Williams 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Bulls Crack:

Good, I assume that'll be covered at 5.  We really need to avoid what went on last weekend.  That may genuinely have caused deaths.

Rob Exile Ward 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Bulls Crack:

That's all very well, but why has the BBC chosen to illustrate the point with a picture of IT from the Addams family?

mondite 27 Mar 2020
In reply to MG:

> I was referring to legislation.  That's why I wrote "legislation" not "guidelines".  See how this writing thing works now?

So the relevance of it to what I wrote was what exactly? Are you saying the official government advice is wrong?

1
deepsoup 27 Mar 2020
MG 27 Mar 2020
TheDrunkenBakers 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Seems like the head of the NHS is added to the list of so-called experts telling everyone to stay at home now.

People, do the right thing, don't be f*cking selfish, dont think the rules apply to you and stay the f*ck at home.  10 minutes ago my wife lost her job, I'm emotional and I'm sick to the back teeth of entitled dingbats who think they are outside the rules.

Just f*cking do as you are being told and we will get through this quicker, together.  I don't give a flying f*ck about what you think your privileges are.  For now we have a few rights, all of us, and that is to stop unnecessary travel, to exercise from home, to stop congregating, to keep away from people.  That's it. People are dying, and people are losing their livelihoods and the more you do as you please, the longer it will last.  

We have the heads of every state on the planet, the chief scientists, nhs staff, police, everybody, telling us what we should do.  Stop being so self f*cking centred.  If it means all you have is a walk around a shagging industrial estate for a few weeks/months or that you have to do lunges in your lounge then so be it.  It's not too much to ask. 

Listen to the experts, including our very own resident police/critical care/scientists/emergency services and stay the f*ck at home.

Post edited at 18:08
4
Moley 27 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I would give you a "like" but the button doesn't work, (beyond me).

So, farming friends up the valley have a bridleway through their yard up to a very beautiful and remote valley, they are good as gold and 100% fine with people - no grumpy farmer issues. They have 4 young kids running about.

Yesterday two pairs of people came through the yard having driven up there. Probably no harm, but ffs is it too much to ask people to simply leave it for a while? 

This does not help, town is over 10 miles away, farmers are getting niggly about the public using prow, why give them ammunition? I have a suspicion they may have been twitchers as the valley normally records the first cuckoo's and other migrants, temptation too great?

Sans-Plan 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Sans-Plan:

A dislike for quoting the government guidelines and suggesting you can exercise in cities, hmmm, I guess that tells me all I need to know about some of the selfish pricks out there.

Post edited at 20:52
2
Roadrunner6 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

:"The spirit of the law, the plea from the NHS is avoid any non-essential movement outside."

And yet we have London tubes pretty much full of people, and others bent out of shape if someone goes for a second run. 

Plenty of non-essential businesses are calling themselves essential.

Coel Hellier 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> And yet we have London tubes pretty much full of people, and others bent out of shape if someone goes for a second run. 

For info, this is from a new article in The Times:

"Deputy Chief Constable Sara Glen, the NPCC [National Police Chiefs’ Council] lead for charging and out of court disposals, admitted that police are effectively powerless to stop people from exercising more than once a day.

She said: “There is nothing in the legislation that talks about once a day exercise. It talks about exercise only with a household member.”

She added: “The law doesn’t say once a day. The law doesn’t specify what that type of activity might be. Many people need to be out in the fresh air. We can’t specify what that exercise should be.”

She said: “Can anyone get in their car and drive to an area? These are unprecedented times. We don’t want everyone driving to the same area to do their exercise.

“All we are saying is exercise on your own or with other household members, not where there are other people.”

That last bit, "avoid other people", really is the important bit and the spirit of the rules. 

The article also says: "The Times understands that the NPCC has privately expressed its displeasure at seeing drone footage posted online by Derbyshire constabulary targeting ramblers and hikers."

And then there's this:

"Lincolnshire has also used drones in its enforcement of the government lockdown. The force launched a drone and deployed a dog unit to pursue a boy who abandoned his moped and fled on spotting officers in Lincoln. He was later found at his home, where he said he had done nothing wrong but admitted to running off because he knew he was violating the rules, telling officers “he shouldn’t have been out”."  

Hmmmm ....

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/senior-officers-divided-about-rules-to-deter-public-in-open-spaces-cb36j9njc

And yes, social distancing, staying away from others, and not touching things other people have touched (or will touch), and regular washing of hands, really are important and crucial. 

mik82 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

I hope I'm wrong, but with the debate that's going on here, I suspect the next thread will be to do with a tighter lockdown, there'll be no exercise, and whether going to the shop to buy teabags counts as "essential"

Roadrunner6 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

"That last bit, "avoid other people", really is the important bit and the spirit of the rules. "

For me that's the spirit of the law. It's to enforce social distancing because people were too stupid to use common sense. I've seen people arguing against someone driving 5 minutes to a local trail area to run so they see nobody, yet should run from their front door where they will see 10's more people.

We should be doing everything possible not to mix outside of our households, and also isolate if we say share kids with an ex.  Then you treat two households as one and isolate. Once we start making further odd exceptions and not isolating households this is all pretty much useless.

Post edited at 20:52
Stuart (aka brt) 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> :"The spirit of the law, the plea from the NHS is avoid any non-essential movement outside."

> And yet we have London tubes pretty much full of people, and others bent out of shape if someone goes for a second run. 

It's my belief that the planning is being escalated in London because they know a shit storm awaits them because distancing wasn't even a thing a few weeks ago and so why not carry on. They're going to end up taking 'on the chin'. The PM has it. London is f**led! Measures should have been put in place and they weren't. 

Just like people were saying 'we need to not make the same mistakes as Italy' I can see in the not too distant future we'll be saying 'we don't want to make the same mistake as London'. Except unless we act now, that's exactly what will happen. Just because tubes are packed doesn't make it OK not to take action on a regional or local level.

Bergamo in Italy is taking a battering because, it's thought, of the Champions League match plus an ineffectual strategy and residents not taking heed. I can't recall the name but there is another Italian region or city that had a very tough clampdown and has much lower rates of infection. I think it was Vo something. They did do testing though I believe and the lockdown was very strict. 

The very last thing the head of the NHS said on tonight's briefing was stay at home. 

> Plenty of non-essential businesses are calling themselves essential.

See above. Mendacious b*stards are not the standard to try and emulate. (Not aimed at people genuinely having to work. I'm thinking Mike Cashleigh - sp. intentional) 

Unless of course we've stopped caring, in which case balls to it. 

Post edited at 21:04
1
Archy Styrigg 27 Mar 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> Oh well, at least we tried.

By filming a few people going for a walk.

Admirable effort!!!!

For the fifth day running, I haven't seen a single copper in South Manchester.  Too busy driving around the countryside, no doubt?

Who the hell are you anyway?  Currently some anonymous who claims to be in the police.
Time to reveal yourself if you want to be taken seriously.

15
Stuart (aka brt) 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

> By filming a few people going for a walk.

> Admirable effort!!!!

> For the fifth day running, I haven't seen a single copper in South Manchester.  Too busy driving around the countryside, no doubt?

> Who the hell are you anyway?  Currently some anonymous who claims to be in the police.

> Time to reveal yourself if you want to be taken seriously.

off-duty is known well enough by people on here. He doesn't have to reveal himself. 

1
Coel Hellier 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

> By filming a few people going for a walk.

At least they're not quite as dim as Lincolnshire police, insisting on entering a youth's home and talking to him, when they had no need (since, having run off, he'd already had a scare).  Which part of social distancing don't they get?

That's the problem with the police's rules-for-rules-sake mentality, rather than understanding the purpose and spirit of the rules.

According to the local paper:

"Police have shared the details of the incident to warn others that their resources could be better used and officers are actually there to help."

Errr, yes!!  Your resources could indeed have been better used! Say, for something actually useful rather than something counter-productive, don't you think?

"The tweet continued: “All very well but numerous resources and time taken up that could have been deployed elsewhere.""

Err yes, any chance you could try reading your own statements? 

https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/lincoln-news/coronavirus-lincoln-police-lockdown-powers-3990387

4
rubble 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier ... or, youth on moped realises he has been spotted by police, dumps moped and does a runner.  Was the moped stolen? Was he a drug courier? Was he involved in some other nefarious deed? 

Police subsequently trace him and discover he's just been a prat and panicked because he knew he shouldn't have been out. Good work all round.

Yes, precious resources were taken up by this - but I'm sure if any crime had been committed and the police had just ignored the the person running off after just having dumped a moped, then I'm sure we'd have howls of derision from other sources, no????

Hence the comment from the police not to tie up their resources by being said prat.

Sir Chasm 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

> Time to reveal yourself if you want to be taken seriously.

Hahahaha. What did you used to be called? 

1
Blue Straggler 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> off-duty is known well enough by people on here. He doesn't have to reveal himself. 

Well said 

2
Coel Hellier 27 Mar 2020
In reply to rubble:

> Yes, precious resources were taken up by this - but I'm sure if any crime had been committed and the police had just ignored the the person running off after just having dumped a moped, then I'm sure we'd have howls of derision from other sources, no????

These are not normal times, so, unless they were aware that a crime had indeed been committed, then they could have just let it go.     But sure, they could have checked whether the moped was stolen.  (They didn't need a team of dogs to chase the boy to do that.)

rubble 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I agree these are not normal times however, in order to determine if a crime has been committed, investigation is required and what better way than to trace the person who is seen to dump a moped and do a runner.  Yes check to see if the moped was stolen which would necessitate a visit to the registered keeper (perhaps in this case the runner) but, bear in mind that the registered keeper of a vehicle is not necessarily the owner and this always assumes that the details held at DVLA are current.

Roadrunner6 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

But by social distancing and exercising responsibly, not going to work, we aren’t going to end up like the major capital cities.

somehow it’s gone to either use the tube or be locked in your house and have the police called if you dare run twice. It’s all about the R value.

are we in any social contact? I’ve been living without a lockdown in place, just guidance, and haven’t ran or spoken to anyone in two weeks. I’ve a wife 36 pregnant with twins so it’s fair to say I take this more serious than most.

i doubt there are many even in the UK who have socially distanced more than I have. There’s a recent Cochran’s review out on social distancing and quarantining  it talks about if you are too restrictive you lose compliance.

i think the U.K. police is on the verge of that in areas with relatively little Covid and already practicing good social distancing. 

You’ve people deciding just how much running is allowed, even if they can travel, which the police say just stay in your area. If you live on a bloody busy road you are safer driving 5 minutes to a local trailhead. The police should focus on large scale abuse. FFS in that curbar car park there was 4 cars or something, which may have been locals who lived on busy roads and couldn’t exercise from their front door.

just use common sense.

Post edited at 22:04
5
Stuart (aka brt) 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/stark_snapshot_article_of_bergamolombardy-717568?v=1#x9160591

Sorry. But we need to take heed to those on the frontline. Using common sense as a strategy is a licence to be negligent. 

Archy Styrigg 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Ha! I'm just another gobshite like you, posting my bullshit opinions out there.
People who claim to be members of the 'authority' posting advice and what we should and shouldn't do, need to reveal their true identities.  Otherwise, they're just another bullshit artist like we are.

11
Roadrunner6 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

But there’s room for interpretation.

my parents live on a rural road in Aberdeenshire. Cars do 60-70 down it, one dog was killed already.

they jump in their car drive 1 mile (less I think), down a farm track and walk their dogs in forestry land. In a decade I don’t think we’ve seen anyone.

whats less risk and safer and less stressful for them? My dad has had heart surgery my brothers type 1D so they take it very seriously, but for some they should only be walking down a main road.

Sir Chasm 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

> Ha! I'm just another gobshite like you, posting my bullshit opinions out there.

> People who claim to be members of the 'authority' posting advice and what we should and shouldn't do, need to reveal their true identities.  Otherwise, they're just another bullshit artist like we are.

Go on, tell us your previous names? 

Bulls Crack 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> :"The spirit of the law, the plea from the NHS is avoid any non-essential movement outside."

> And yet we have London tubes pretty much full of people, and others bent out of shape if someone goes for a second run. 

> Plenty of non-essential businesses are calling themselves essential 

But that doesn’t give anyone licence to do as you please

Roadrunner6 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Bulls Crack:

It’s not as they please is it.

its every Tom dick and Harry thinking their interpretation of the law is correct.

bojo didn’t write the law. Unless what he says is suddenly gospel and the NHS do have 350 million a week..

the police say don’t drive to another area and exercise in your area.  

The Derbyshire police were shites for filming what could’ve locals walking their local trails. They’d parked apart and from what I saw were social distancing.

tbh I don’t see what they did wrong for the police to Shame them..

Post edited at 23:31
2
Neil Williams 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

The law for England is here.  Some parts of it are devolved, so Wales and Scotland are slightly but not much different.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/contents/enacted

It's apparently the largest single Bill ever to pass through Parliament (says someone I know in PHE who was involved in writing parts of it).

It does many things, but one of them is to allow the Police to enforce most of the Government advice (not quite all of it, in particular some Police Forces are openly stating they can't enforce the "once a day" thing, whereas some are perhaps more sensibly keeping quiet about it).

So in a way Bojo is making the law.  Sort of.

Present Government guidance can be found on gov.uk.

Post edited at 23:33
Blue Straggler 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> I doubt there are many even in the UK who have socially distanced more than I have.

1) it is not a competition

2) do you seriously doubt that? Show your working, please. 

Roadrunner6 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

1. I said doubt.

2. I never said it was.

3. A rather odd post even for you.

1
Roadrunner6 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams: I mean he didn't write it.

Have you gone through the PDF? I searched through for terms like exercise, travel.

People here, not you, are being very clear on what is meant, without having read the document by the sounds of things because there is very little in there on specifics around exercise (from what I've seen and others, and you, have said).

I was very critical of my own school for not closing on the 12th March, I argued with management that cases were high enough then that we were already showing exponential growth (I even instagramed it which is open so you can check - most know who I am). So I am very much in support of social distancing. But it is all about lowering the R value. We do that more effectively by seeking solitude than say walking from a house in a busy city center still full of essential workers.

I'm just not happy with this videoing of people who seem to be doing little wrong. Somebody did drag stones away from the entrance way but after that we don't know if it was obvious for others. From the video the people do not seem to be in any way risking transmission (no more so than people typically exercising in a city), and could be local. Without knowing we are thinking the worst of all those involved in that situation being filmed.

The police have said you shouldn't drive to a different area (again nothing in the law itself), but they do not say you shouldn't drive at all. That's just people's interpretation. Personally I don't think you should drive far. If I was in Sheffield now I'd run or bike from my parents on the edge of Sheffield out to Totley Moss/Houndkirk. It's about a 13-15 mile loop from their house. But I'd use the car to drive to one of the local woods or golf courses in Sheffield to walk the dogs. 

Post edited at 01:20
1
Roadrunner6 28 Mar 2020
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> We don't have an inalienable right to exercise somewhere pleasant in the midst of a pandemic. Walk, run or cycle near your house. If it's too crowded for safety then do something over YouTube at home. Or sack off exercise for 3 weeks for the greater good. I can't believe how many people are trying to fit in fighting this pandemic around their routine!

We really should be exercising, and outside. That is why they left that in. To 'sack of exercise' at a time of immense anxiety and stress would be very detrimental and I'm actually impressed the Tories recognised that. In the US we've roughly half (I think) of the nation under lockdown and no state has banned outside exercise.

The 'green gym' is beneficial for mental health. And it may not be 3 weeks. My friend is in Spain and they are already at 4 weeks of lock down now, he thinks it is going to be much longer.

Also we are dealing with a respiratory illness that if bad cuts down our lung function permanently.  https://www.sciencealert.com/even-those-who-recover-from-corona-can-be-left-gasping-for-breath-afterwards

The last thing we should be doing is stopping exercising and being outside. We can do that safely and the Government were very clear that we should continue to do so.

https://www.evidentlycochrane.net/quarantine/

If you read these rapid reviews, one of the findings was people won't follow restrictions if they are too strict. I think that's why they made sure you can leave the house to exercise.

Post edited at 01:40
2
Coel Hellier 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> The 'green gym' is beneficial for mental health. And it may not be 3 weeks. My friend is in Spain and they are already at 4 weeks of lock down now, he thinks it is going to be much longer.

I would agree. We're going to have such restrictions until either: (1) most of us have had the virus, and we have antibody tests that prove that; or (2) we have an effective vaccine, it's been mass produced, and we've all been vaccinated.    We're talking many months.

1
summo 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

I'll agree exercise is good.

But what is worse, a month of proper lock down early on to put the brakes on. Or 2 months of this pretend lock down followed by another 2 of proper lock down. Anyone can cope without exercise for a month, especially if it means sport will get back to normal in the long run quicker. 

There are countless stable doors being slammed on this daily. 

Post edited at 07:28
1
MG 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Or 3) people no longer tolerate them. I think this will happen quite fast, certainly before many months. 

Coel Hellier 28 Mar 2020
In reply to MG:

> Or 3) people no longer tolerate them. I think this will happen quite fast, certainly before many months. 

Good point.  So, common sense enforcement!

There's a photo in The Times today of a policewoman "moving on" a man sitting on a beach enjoying the sun.  The policewoman's reasoning is that since he is sitting he is not "exercising" so does not have an excuse to be out.   And yet, other than the policewoman, he is isolated, there are no other people within 20 metres or so.

As above, we need to concentrate on what's important: (1) don't breath in space where other people are breathing, and (2) don't touch what other people have or will touch.    That's how the virus spreads; that's the message the authorities should be hammering home continually. 

Offwidth 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Sitting down might be more of a problem than some might realise. Public seats are an obvious issue but so might be natural prominent good places to sit. Given the applicable advice says its OK to go outside to exercise I don't have much sympathy with people going out to sit down in really visible places, such that it might attract police attention.

It is clear that things are not clear enough:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/27/police-acknowledge-confusion-over-uk-lockdown-rules

summo 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Good point.  So, common sense enforcement!

> There's a photo in The Times today of a policewoman "moving on" a man sitting on a beach enjoying the sun.  The policewoman's reasoning is that since he is sitting he is not "exercising" so does not have an excuse to be out.   And yet, other than the policewoman, he is isolated, there are no other people within 20 metres or so.

Then 1000 people see the image, think it's acceptable and head there today. Half of them drive, many need to tank their cars, use a toilet, want a take out coffee etc. Etc. It's not quarantining, it's a joke. 

I don't really grasp how people think we'll get this virus under control. Wuhan - house bound apart from 1 representative allowed to shop every few days, for 3+ months. 

MG 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

That aspect may be true. I was thinking more of working. There needs to be an effort now to find ways people can continue their work in new ways. I dont believe people will simply allow their businesses and livelihoods to evaporate for strangers health. A few weeks pause may be possible but not much longer. 

Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

The way they've done it in terms of enforcement is to make a relatively generic law banning gatherings and similar, then tied it to advice which is generally being given out on a daily press conference at 5pm but is also repeated here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/full-guidance-on-staying-at-home-and-away-from-others

The reason for this is effectively to give the Cabinet/PM "executive order" type powers that other countries have been using for this but that the UK doesn't have as standard, so they can respond quicker than Parliament normally would.

The bits to look for in the law are stuff on gatherings and "actions likely to spread" (I think).  You have to read the two together.  Though some forces have acknowledged that they don't have a means to enforce a duration of activity nor the "once a day" things.

summo 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Folk have been educated in school at the very least from 5-16years, that's 11 years, many 13years, many 16 or 17years.. How hard is it for a population to understand "don't go out unless you have to". No government in Europe is saying, find every get out clause going to flex the rules. The UK is going into massive debt paying people indirectly not to work, to sit at home, only they aren't sitting at home... They keep going out. 

Ian W 28 Mar 2020
In reply to summo:

Like i said on a different but similar thread; some will only get it when looking at the sharp end of a gun with a squaddie at the other end, and an armoured personnel carrier on the street corner.

neilh 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

This again is incorrect information. 

Gov advice is that manufacturing , engineering etc etc are allowed to say open and operate. 
 

I wish people would wind their neck in and actually read what businesses are allowed to operate. 

Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to summo:

> Folk have been educated in school at the very least from 5-16years, that's 11 years, many 13years, many 16 or 17years.. How hard is it for a population to understand "don't go out unless you have to". No government in Europe is saying, find every get out clause going to flex the rules. The UK is going into massive debt paying people indirectly not to work, to sit at home, only they aren't sitting at home... They keep going out. 

The UK is SPECIFICALLY saying an exception to that is a short period of outdoor exercise once per day near to your home alone or with your household and more than 2m from anyone else, which is ENCOURAGED.

What is it about that that you're having difficulty with?

If you don't believe me, watch last week's press conferences on the iPlayer, it was the deputy Chief Medical Officer who said it very clearly.  She spoke about it and why for a good 30 seconds to a minute or so.

Post edited at 09:43
1
Offwidth 28 Mar 2020
In reply to summo:

You are arguing against human nature and conflating this with education. It doesn't require much education to get why public seating is a potential higher risk place in the outdoors where the virus might be spread; plus those here arguing against police moving people on from such seating shows the best educated can be ignorant. Keeping 2m seperation in public isn't the only issue that affects risk and in the end a policy that people can clearly understand and follow should override minor differences in real risk. The government advice, that the police will enforce, still needs to be clearer.

People also need to think on their own health status. Someone deciding to go for their daily run from their house despite recognising what might be initial symptoms and possibly spraying infected phlegm would be stupid.

Post edited at 09:46
bpmclimb 28 Mar 2020
In reply to summo:

> How hard is it for a population to understand "don't go out unless you have to". 

Well, we don't have to go out at all. We could stop using our gardens, too - to guard against the tiny chance of some virus wafting over the fence. We could do an online order of 2 large sacks of potatoes and lentils, live on that, and drink nothing but water. All windows and doors to be kept continually shut. You still get some air to breathe inside your house. That is what can reasonably be described as absolutely essential.

How hard is it for some people to understand that any departure from the above is to some degree a compromise?

1
deepsoup 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> What is it about that that you're having difficulty with?

I think we're seeing a moral panic here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic#Characteristics

mudmonkey 28 Mar 2020
In reply to wercat:

Particularly if you are not doing it somewhere full of Covid-Invaders or crowded at the time you do it.

The obvious thing to point out is that driving somewhere for your exercise makes you a Covid Invader yourself......

Post edited at 10:14
summo 28 Mar 2020
In reply to bpmclimb:

> Well, we don't have to go out at all. We could stop using our gardens, too - to guard against the tiny chance of some virus wafting over the fence. We could do an online order of 2 large sacks of potatoes and lentils, live on that, and drink nothing but water. All windows and doors to be kept continually shut. You still get some air to breathe inside your house. That is what can reasonably be described as absolutely essential.

How do you think folk in northern Italy are living right now?

How do you think wuhan stopped the spread?

Tiny chance of virus spreading... that's all it needs to keep ticking along, a tiny chance here, a tiny chance there. Like bacteria, viruses are the ultimate survivors, millennia of evolution and they are still here. 

> How hard is it for some people to understand that any departure from the above is to some degree a compromise?

I hate to burst your bubble, the virus doesn't compromise. It does not care that folk are bored, want to walk the dog, need to cycle, sunbathe etc. Etc. 

1
Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> I think we're seeing a moral panic here.

Agreed, and I am hearing anecdotal reports of vigilanteism, albeit mostly on the level of the "drive by shouting"[1].  That needs to be strongly discouraged.  If you're genuinely concerned about someone's behaviour to the extent you feel you need to do something about it, ring 101, and that way the law can be enforced to at least a vaguely consistent level.

Other than that if you don't want to go for a short run/walk from home, don't, but be aware the Government are actually encouraging it so it is wrong to suggest that others should not unless and until the Government change their tack.  This may well happen if cases accelerate too much, but we won't really usefully know for a couple of weeks yet (any increases occurring now will be a result of two things - increased testing and the previous looser measures), and any increase or reduction in deaths will potentially take a month to filter through because people are mostly not just dropping dead from this the moment they catch it, it's taking weeks (and this is the danger for NHS capacity).

[1] thanks to Half Man Half Biscuit (Chatteris)

Post edited at 10:19
summo 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

30 mins of exercise great.. personally I think it's increasing risk. Imho of course, when UK deaths top a 1000 daily, it will no doubt be stopped. Just as all movement in Italy and Spain has. 

Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to summo:

> 30 mins of exercise great.. personally I think it's increasing risk. Imho of course, when UK deaths top a 1000 daily, it will no doubt be stopped. Just as all movement in Italy and Spain has. 

If you think it is increasing risk, then you should choose not to do it.  I think that it is overall of benefit, agreeing with the point the deputy CMO has made.

It is however wrong for you to be pushing others that way.

I agree it may need suspending for a period IF the NHS gets overwhelmed.  That is the aim of the measures, not wholly preventing spread which is basically impossible.  I'll go with the Government's decision on when that is necessary as they have a far better overview of the situation than I or anyone else on UKC does.

Post edited at 10:21
Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to mudmonkey:

> Particularly if you are not doing it somewhere full of Covid-Invaders or crowded at the time you do it.

> The obvious thing to point out is that driving somewhere for your exercise makes you a Covid Invader yourself......

True.

But in general, if you see lots of people you chose wrongly, try elsewhere.

In MK I'm quite local to Furzton Lake which is a lovely place to go for a run/walk, there's a nice 4 ish mile route from mine round it and back.  But I'm choosing not to go there because it's a honeypot (and some paths are under 2m wide), I have a route where I'm unlikely to see one other person other than those driving down the road so I'm choosing that.

Post edited at 10:26
wintertree 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I agree it may need suspending for a period IF the NHS gets overwhelmed.  That is the aim of the measures, not wholly preventing spread which is basically impossible. 

I can’t shake the suspicion they are trying to tune it to keep the infection rate at the level needed to push victims through intensive as as fast as possible without collapse.   
 

summo 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

May be folk should do the right thing, without being told, minimise the spread faster. Shorter lock down, less immediate deaths, less unnecessary health care worker deaths from mass exposure to covid, everyone gets back to work and sport quicker overall. 

I just fail to see how the find any excuse possible mentality is going to help in the long run. It's incredibly selfish, but it just follows the trend of the selfish shoppers and so on. 

Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> I can’t shake the suspicion they are trying to tune it to keep the infection rate at the level needed to push victims through intensive as as fast as possible without collapse.  

I think they basically are doing exactly that, yes, and there are solid reasons to do that.  Stopping it "entirely" has no viable exit strategy.

It is near enough exactly the same thing France are doing, as barring a petty piece of paperwork our restrictions are very similar to theirs.  Ireland too, now.  We were an outlier at first but we now are not.

Post edited at 10:28
wintertree 28 Mar 2020
In reply to summo:

>  Shorter lock down, less immediate deaths, less unnecessary health care worker deaths from mass exposure to covid, everyone gets back to work and sport quicker overall. 

Its not clear lowering short term deaths leads to faster exit from lockdown. That would rely on reducing infections to a very small number and having an aggressive “test and trace” strategy.  Winding things back to the level this could work needs a lot more planning and preparation than I think we are seeing.  I hope to be wrong.

Oceanrower 28 Mar 2020
In reply to summo:

See wintertree above.

If we go into complete lockdown then the moment that is lifted it will spring right back up again. Unless we wait for a vaccine which could take years.

I'm sure the plan is that some people get it and pass it on. Just not too many. In which case the advice to exercise outdoors makes perfect sense...

Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to summo:

> May be folk should do the right thing

Which to me is to follow the Government guidance, including using the recommended period of exercise (yes, it is recommended, as I said review the press conferences from last week if you don't believe me) to keep fit and healthy, as the fitter and healthier you are, the more chance you have if you get it.

Driving to honeypots isn't.  Walking to the shop daily for a bar of chocolate and the Daily Heil isn't.  Visiting your elderly family clearly isn't.

But I'm not suggesting any of those things.  You are suggesting that Spain/Italy have it right, which is your opinion but you neither have any moral nor legal right to impose those upon me or anyone else here.

Stuart (aka brt) 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> If you think it is increasing risk, then you should choose not to do it.  I think that it is overall of benefit, agreeing with the point the deputy CMO has made.

> It is however wrong for you to be pushing others that way.

> I agree it may need suspending for a period IF the NHS gets overwhelmed. 

You do know that it's potentially game over by then, don't you? The preparations are to include makeshift field hospitals and refrigerated haulage units being used as temporary morgues. 

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-temporary-mortuary-being-built-at-birmingham-airport-11964675

It's when, not if.

> That is the aim of the measures, not wholly preventing spread which is basically impossible.  I'll go with the Government's decision on when that is necessary as they have a far better overview of the situation than I or anyone else on UKC does.

The government that decided to go against 'test, test, test'; the one that stated 'keep shaking hands' (remind me how that worked out); the one that isn't getting PPE out to frontline staff (some will die because of this); the one that opted out of ventilator procurement because 'we're not in the EU' - sorry backtrack - 'wed didn't get the email'.

Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> I'm sure the plan is that some people get it and pass it on. Just not too many. In which case the advice to exercise outdoors makes perfect sense...

I'm certain that's the plan, and it does make a lot of sense.  Add to that the "12 weeks for really vulnerable people" thing which should keep the death rate lower.

summo 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

I'm not saying Spain and Italy have it right, I'm saying they have much tougher measures and have still barely managed to slow the rates.

With the uk in paid holiday mode, how bad do you think it's going to be in the hospitals in London by mid April? 

wintertree 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I think they basically are doing exactly that, yes, and there are solid reasons to do that.  Stopping it "entirely" has no viable exit strategy.

Yes; it’s one backup approach to hoping for a vaccine or a miracle cure.  It’s the only approach that to my limited understanding has a somewhat predictable path.  It’s deeply unsettling to feel that I and my family are being statistically planned (in general not in particular, that is) to be infected and to go on and infect others and so kill as part of this apparent plan.   We started to lock down in advance of the country because of that.  Difficult though because I can see the logic and arguably necessity in having a robust, reasonable timescale backup exit strategy.

Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to summo:

If you're talking death rates, neither has had the stricter measures in place long enough to really know the effect it's having.  There's about a month lag on deaths (and that is one of the issues with it - if people just dropped dead the day they caught it if they were going to, it would be a lot easier to manage in that regard).

It's like steering a supertanker, not a go-kart.

Post edited at 10:38
summo 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> If we go into complete lockdown then the moment that is lifted it will spring right back up again. Unless we wait for a vaccine which could take years.

But it won't be complete lock down..  folk will still shop. It will still spread. 

> I'm sure the plan is that some people get it and pass it on. Just not too many. In which case the advice to exercise outdoors makes perfect sense...

Vaccine..  there might not be one, it's a virus that mutates, not a static disease. We don't even know if you catch this strain, you can't catch it again. 

Better to aim for eradication.. big goal but better than just accepting it will always be here. Health services can't function if we have a constantly mutating strain of covid that kills. 

1
bpmclimb 28 Mar 2020
In reply to summo:

> How do you think folk in northern Italy are living right now?

> How do you think wuhan stopped the spread?

> Tiny chance of virus spreading... that's all it needs to keep ticking along, a tiny chance here, a tiny chance there. Like bacteria, viruses are the ultimate survivors, millennia of evolution and they are still here. 

> I hate to burst your bubble, the virus doesn't compromise. It does not care that folk are bored, want to walk the dog, need to cycle, sunbathe etc. Etc. 

Very odd reply!

I was trying to get to a picture of what could reasonably be described as "essential", since the word is being banded about so much at the moment, and reminding myself (and others) that there's a lot of compromise going on - even if you stay strictly within the current guidelines, because there's compromise written in to them, too.

How you got from that to thinking I needed a lecture from you about Italy and Wuhan, I don't know; and as for "I hate to burst your bubble, etc" .... I daresay I know as much as you about the virus, you patronising git.

1
Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to summo:

> Better to aim for eradication.. big goal

Actually impossible.  The only way to eradicate it barring a vaccine would be full lockdown, i.e. nobody goes out at all for any reason (has any country done that, I don't think they have?), but that would require accepting deaths from starvation, diabetic hypo etc because even going for a quick shop is going to cause some spread.

The only disease that has ever been wholly eradicated is smallpox, which was done through vaccination.

Post edited at 10:40
summo 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> If you're talking death rates, neither has had the stricter measures in place long enough to really know the effect it's having.  There's about a month lag on deaths.

Exactly. The worst in the UK is yet to come and quarantine is still a game. 

My partner in her job speaks to other people in northern Italy who are home working daily, they've been house bound apart from shopping for a month. 

It sounds like you are willing to accept several hundred dying daily.. but don't stop my 30mins exercising? 

1
Offwidth 28 Mar 2020
Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to summo:

Food shopping is a far greater vector.  Going for a run isn't really, you leave the house, you run away from others, you don't touch anything with your hands at all, you take your shoes off and wash your hands on return.

summo 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Actually impossible.  The only way to eradicate it barring a vaccine would be full lockdown, i.e. nobody goes out at all for any reason (has any country done that, I don't think they have?), but that would require accepting deaths from starvation, diabetic hypo etc because even going for a quick shop is going to cause some spread.

In parts of China, one state person took food orders and shopped for the whole building etc. 

> The only disease that has ever been wholly eradicated is smallpox, which was done through vaccination.

And your solution is? The current European plans aren't working. 


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.