UKH

Access and conservation campaigner Nick Kempe feels that hill-goers in Scotland are being unfairly penalised by the Scottish Government's restrictive attitude to travel and the outdoors, a lockdown regime that contrasts starkly with the freedoms now being enjoyed in England.

Completely in agreement with your argument here Nick. 

Alas, you admit to having broken the lockdown rules (even though, as you point out, the rules are stupid and make no sense).

So prepare for the mother of all tellings-off. The tut-tutters are likely in-bound...

I live in England and stuck to the rules like a good boy even tho I didn’t agree with it. However if I lived in Scotland or Wales I would definitely be breaking the rules by now, its gone on long enough and it’s ridiculous. I’d pay the fine and count it as part of the cost of a good day out, it’s not as if I can spend it on flights anytime soon anyway! 

What struck me as particularly stupid was the rule that you couldn't be travel more than five miles from home. It guarantees that beauty spots on the peripheries of our cities are going to be crammed while the remoter spots remain empty.

I can see what you are saying, but I do think that Scotland has generally handled this situation much better than England.  I am in England but I’m looking to Scotland for guidance.  I personally make my decisions based on the Scottish rules.  Local to me 3 schools have had already staff and students with Covid since opening to more children just over a week ago.  

I assume the 5 mile advice is to make an attempt to avoid spreading the virus from one community to another.  I can totally understand that being in the middle of nowhere isn’t particularly risky but as I understand it 5 miles is guidance not law?  Could be wrong.  

Suddenly our politicians have granted themselves power that would make Kim Jong-un blush.

Some of them seem to be rather enjoying themselves...

My assumption on why there is the 5 mile rule is that most people who travel to a "beauty spot" will want to use toilets and buy food and drink in the shops etc. This means that people will leave Glasgow, where the infection rates are still quite a bit higher than the rest of the country (or were when the rule was brought it, don't know about now), and then use the infrastructure elsewhere and risk spreading it there. I feel there could have been more regional restrictions like if your neighbouring council area has a different R rating then you can't go there, but you can move around within your own area or any neighbouring ones which are at a similar level, or something like that. 

I think we have to recognise that we are the minority in the general population in that we will happily take our own food, pee in the bushes (well away from car parks and not leave any paper etc!!) and have a nice day out without meeting anyone. Most of the population will want to use infrastructure. I presume that is the logic anyway.

I’m trying to find comparisons, it seems whichever figures you look at, Scotland and Wales have significantly fewer deaths per capita compared to England.  

It's a win-win for Sturgeon. She'll make headlines with a lower covid death-rate than England, then when the Scottish economy proves worse-off as a result, she'll simply make England pay for it! Genius.

If Scotland removes its distance regulations does this open up the whole of Scotland for English tourists?

Look closer and outside London the spread is fairly uniform. Scotland is no better or worse than many other regions. There was a good graphic in a Guardian article. I'll see if I can dig it out.

I was one of the “tut tutters”. However that was at the point where it was felt that car crashes and so on would make a difference between ICU beds being available or not.  I would still say anyone for example driving from London to stay in a low populated area such as the Highlands or Cornwall with few ICU beds was being very very selfish. Or Durham for that matter, with symptoms.  But given that Cummings can do what he likes I’m certainly not going to say anything about someone driving round Scotland being sensible.  

I think it’s now moved from London a bit.  Hence why many schools in the North of England have refused to open.  However it could well be that London has very different rates.  I suppose it would be interesting to compare something like Manchester vs Glasgow vs Cardiff or whatever.  

I know it is only an opinion piece, but I am uneasy about UKC publishing an article which if effectively encouraging us to go out and ignore the guidelines. Without the restrictions, most people travelling would not be going for outdoor recreation in the middle of nowhere, but to do stuff which would require facilities where social distancing might be more problematic, and I can understand why some remoter communities might still be wary of being flooded with people from the cities just now. Given that it would be impractical to have one rule for us and another for other activities (the guidelines have to be kept simple) I think it best that we just put up with understandably cautious guidelines and stay local for a few more weeks if necessary however frustrating it is. The mountains will still be there.

Edit: It also strikes me that the title of the article is misleading. The restrictions are on distanced travelled, not outdoor activities as such. 

Hopefully it won’t be long.  

And this is exactly what happened in Glencoe. It was a lot more than three times the traffic. The local supermarket was rammed with tourists. In one situation a group of bikers asked a local policeman where they could stay in a hotel for the night. 

And this is with a 5 mile restriction in place. I think the government realised what would happen if they  opened things up completely. 

I, for one, don't want to see our village outnumbered by tourists 10:1 at this point in time. We have an elderly population as it is (including a large care home) and we've seen mountain rescue and paramedics out and about for the first time since the lockdown. 

Perhaps the 5 miles is over-restrictive but the in reality this is just about stopping the floodgates of the central belt from overwhelming the Highlands. Perhaps that wouldn't cause the first deaths in the lochaber area but I have a feeling it might.

There are plenty in England who disagree with the relaxation of lockdown regulations, thinking then unwise and premature.

But on the plus side, you probably wont see a second spike in infection, which seems a near certainty in England.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. Besides, the hills aren't going anywhere.

"but as I understand it 5 miles is guidance not law?  Could be wrong."

So far it is. That didn't stop Police Scotland dredging up a bit of common law to charge two hillwalkers who came to their attention after a mountain rescue call. Guidance not law? What else can we use?

  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-52892409

This is also covered well on Nick Kempe's blog.

Here you go: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/09/coronavirus-uk-map-the-latest...

Scotland as a whole is somewhere in the middle.

Whether you agree with the arguments or not, I think one of the more important points in the article is that this is not a debate that is happening. These are unprecedented restrictions on people’s freedoms and there is no meaningful public debate about whether each and every one of them is justified - which there should be.

You should be free to argue that laws are right or wrong without fear of censorship, particularly when human rights and public health are at stake.

I suspect part of the reason the five mile limit is not law is that it would be unlikely to  meet the tests to derogate from the human rights act and ECHR. The guidance is I suspect (as others have commented) in place to discourage mass travel to popular areas, while recognising that a legal limit would be disproportionate. 

This is a public debate isn't it ?

Sorry what has gone on long enough ?

The lock down in general. I don’t have the energy anymore to elaborate further because it falls on deaf ears. It’s all about what side of the argument you’re on not facts, figures and common sense. Like most topics these days and I’m tired of it. 

I've nothing against having the debate about the guidelines. My unease, as I said, is that the article is effectively urging people to ignore the guidelines

Maybe not, but I don't see why that would necessarily stop it being a sensible guideline - hasn't this whole business depended largely on public spirited goodwill?

Quite right.

Regarding this important point I have today engaged the services of m'learned friend Cherie Blair QC to represent our interests in the matter

A 5 mile 'limit' is (naturally, this is my opinion) too restrictive and unjustified. This creates a bottling effect on the parks in Glasgow where I live. I've never seen Pollok Park or Queens Park as busy as they are now. If the R rate is higher in the Central Belt, any wonder? People are rattling around like flies in a jamjar. Is the welfare of those in the Central Belt of less concern that that of the rural communities?

A more reasonable approach would be 20 miles or so, allowing for less concentration within the cities but still keeping the Highlands isolated.

The cynic in me thinks those approving of the 5 mile limit have access to hills or climbing within or close to that distance.

Generally agree with this article,although I have sympathy for Nicola Sturgeon as she has handled this crisis much better than the Westminster government.

Personally, I have been most frustrated living just North of the border,and seeing people from South of it being able to travel as far as they like.Having said that ,I must confess to have broken the Scottish guidelines to do outdoor activities several times ,whilst remaining cautious on such things as social distancing, and surface contacting with the use of gloves where necessary.

I think it's about the facts

I agree. That is more what I was expecting and hoping for. The 5 miles was a bitter pill to swallow.

I doubt that minority things like hillwalking and climbing were much of a consideration!

At last! Can't believe it has taken this long for these views to be aired and given some prominence in the outdoor community!  Completely agree with the sentiments in this article and I have already expressed them to my MSP.  Please share this article and lets get these ridiculous restrictions lifted!

I concur completely with your points. The Scottish restrictions are senseless (at least from a climbing/walking point of view). I've seen plenty of climbers out in the north of England and it's clear no one is doing anything harmful. I'm just thankful I live near the border.

Glasgow (according to your profile)?  So are you driving to the north of England to climb?

Flouting the rules is not the best way to campaign for a change in guidelines. It's infuriating that such an opinion article has made it to UKC.

Is this ‘click bait’? 

Because I’m really not sure what this article offers to the efficacy of Scotlands lock down, that hasn’t already been aired on here 100 times in the forums.

I deeply share the authors frustrations of not being able to get out into the hills. But I found this to be an insensitive rant masking as an opinion piece. 

Some people reading this may be grieving that their Mum, Dad, Son or daughter has prematurely died or will die in the weeks and months to come. 

I’m not sure now is the time for climber(s) to talk about their human rights.

Given the current social climate and uncertainty surrounding the Pandemic, I can see how this article could be offensive to non-climbers and potentially be damaging to the reputation of UKC.

Sent from my iPhone

But the number in Scotland as a whole is irrelevant for this rule. It's about not spreading it from higher infection areas to lower areas of infection. Tonight there are 289 people in hospital with it in Clyde and Greater Glasgow, and none at all in many other regions.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-daily-data-for-scotl...

This is why there is the limit, to stop it moving around! Those numbers were presumably higher when the limit was introduced, so I guess we will see at the next review whether the feeling is that the reduced numbers now justify changing this. 

I think lifting restrictions slowly and carefully is the right approach, even if it means we have to wait to get to the hills. It's sad, I want to go up north, but I get why now is not yet the time!

Could be true for me but I think the majority of our village also approve of it and there are only a few climbers and hill walkers around. 

As for the limit being 5 miles or 20 miles - the onus has been placed on using your common sense. I would say 20 miles would be fine if you can find a place with few people and parking. Even 30 miles would probably be OK. There was enough 'leeway' suggested if used with sense. 

Perhaps people have missed this bit in the guidance. 

"It is acceptable to travel outside your local area to meet members of  another household in an outdoor space such as a private garden, but you should use your judgement about how far to travel. Keep in mind that the purpose of the continuing restrictions is to prevent the transmission of the virus, including to those we care about.

For this reason, you should avoid long journeys that would require you to use indoor facilities such as toilets while away from home, as the risk of transmitting the virus is greater indoors, and the virus could be transmitted by or to you when you touch surfaces."

This suggests that you can drive as far as your bladder and petrol can take you, being sensible and sticking the intent of the guidance. People are getting quite stuck on the 5 mile limit.

That's been changed on the quiet in the last couple of days, though. See

https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-what-you-can-and-can...

where it now says:

Are people allowed to travel to meet friends and family outside?
Yes, but you should stay in your local area if possible. As a guide we suggest ‘local’ to be no more than five miles from your house.

This was specifically for visiting family and friends. It did seem odd that you could travel a long way to visit people but have to stay local (roughly 5 miles) for outdoor recreation. However, the Scottish government now seem to be trying to sort out this inconsistency. This is dated 8th June:

https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-what-you-can-and-can...

Specifically:  "Are people allowed to travel to meet friends and family outside?"

"Yes, but you should stay in your local area if possible. As a guide we suggest ‘local’ to be no more than five miles from your house".

So the 5 mile guidance now seems to be for all travel. Though they have made  a bit of a hash of things by moving the goalposts for vising people.

However, I certainly, I don't think  the guidance can be interpreted  as allowing us to travel as far as a tank of petrol can take us for walking or climbing (that would get me virtually anywhere!). 

There appear to be two theories. The non-cynical one is that they realised there was a disconnect between the limited only by one's bladder family/friends thing and the five miles exercise thing, so it was resolved by going harsher on the social aspect rather than making the exercise one more liberal.

The cynical version is that during the few days of the longer travel allowance Sturgeon, Swinney and probably others in the higher echelons at Holyrood took the chance to visit elderly parents, after which the drawbridge was pulled up.

Not that it's likely to make much difference, however: we have neighbours here who are regularly now toing and froing for outdoor visits with family members 20 miles away, and we ourselves were visited on Monday by friends from 50 miles away who came through for a cuppa in the garden (which appeared to do them the world of good - they'd hardly seen anyone or gone anywhere for weeks). It's hard to imagine that such social expeditions are now going to stop just because the goalposts have again been moved. Sensible and conscientious people have been very patient, but there are limits.

Agree about not spreading from high to low infection level regions, so why not introduce a regional unlock? Especially for geographically isolated areas such as the Highlands, the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland.

I don't really understand the desire to have everyone moving at the same pace within each of the four Nations. France was split into green and red zones at the start of their unlock a month ago (not sure if it still is). If politicians think people won't be able to follow local rules, that's an insult to people's intelligence.

This is totally meaningless. By adding 'if possible', they're basically accepting that it's fine to travel further if it's not possible to travel locally. If your family live 100 miles away, clearly it's impossible to see them by travelling on 5 miles, so you can travel 100 miles instead. I wonder who on earth thought it's a good idea to add 'if possible' at the end of what is supposed to be a clear instruction. 

Even Matt Handcock recognises this argument is nonsense.   Death and, illness are really bad for the economy.  For every person who dies many people need hospital treatment and many more have serious health problems which require convalescence for months.  Nobody knows how bad the long term consequences of Covid infections can be bewcause it has not been around long enough but the initial signs are not great.  

In six months nobody will remember whether we had a 12 week or a 14 week lockdown, but many people will still be suffering from the effects of a Covid infection or mourning a dead relative.

We are getting the infection rate right down now.  If we keep going it will get to near as dammit zero, like it has in China with only infections imported from abroad to worry about.  At that point life could return to pretty much normal, schools can go back, public transport will be relatively safe.

If we quit now, and relax too much so R gets close to 1 while there is still a fair bit of infection around infections will stop falling and we will level off into a limbo state where it is mostly but not quite gone and you still need to be careful and small numbers of people are still getting ill.

It's far more sensible to stick it out, take it slow and finish it and it will be better for the economy too because we'll be able to properly open and feel safe.

We have published a review on COVID-19 & sport together with Roger Everett and others for those that are interested: (https://www.germanjournalsportsmedicine.com/fileadmin/content/archiv2020/He...)

A few weeks ago there was a corona "fog of war" with many new infections and deaths and that justified a "better be safe than sorry" approach in my view. Part of the "fog of war" was this unfortunate social distancing 2.0 paper which arguably oversold its data (http://www.urbanphysics.net/Social%20Distancing%20v20_White_Paper.pdf) by suggesting that social distances well in excess of 2 m would be needed during walking, running and cycling. The reality is that there are no published reports of transmissions during cycling, walking or running and all my google skills failed to identify suspected transmissions during walking, running or cycling elsewhere on the internet. So the reality seems to be that SARS-CoV-2 mainly spreads indoors. This is further supported by a report that found that only 1 out of 318 SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks occurred outdoors (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.04.20053058v1; again some caveats though!)

That's plausible: SARS-CoV-2 mainly spreads via droplets (no problem outdoors if you keep a 2 m distance and wear something in front of your mouth if you are closer to someone else esp. when you talk). Transmission via aerosols is highly likely indoors esp. if there is a superspreader in a small room with poor ventilation but it is no issue on the hills as there is a constant exchange of air. Finally, surface transmission could theoretically be a problem during climbing but if ythere was SARS-CoV-2 on your hands then every time you touched rock you would have less SARS-CoV-2 on your hand and also UV light should destroy it esp when the sun is shining. So probably only a potential problem on heavily used routes and during indoor climbing.

In summary, it is now clear that it is much more likely to get infected on the tube, in a supermarket, at school or in other indoor venues with poor ventilation than on the British hills as long as you do not behave like a covidiot. For that reason, politicians should stop to limit access to the British hills. Some simple precautions will go a long way to reduce the risk of a SARS-CoV-2 infection to almost nil.   

Ok I'll bite the bullet.

This sounds exactly like a spoilt kid reaction. "Its not fair, I want my ball back".

Take up the debate about whether travel restrictions are necessary or desirable with your government (unless you really, really want to follow the chaos and nil strategy that is south of your border).

Just have the debate on the grounds of what is best for the overall community, not whether it happens to support "me, me, me"

It has always been clear that outdoor transmission isn't a problem. This restriction isn't aimed at reducing outdoor activity. It's aimed at stopping people moving around the country and taking the virus to areas with low rates.

Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS have 289 people in hospital with it, Forth valley have 10. A 30 mile travel restriction would see many people from Glasgow travelling to us. I don't want that just yet as we don't want more of the virus coming into the community. Many people will use toilets and shops when they go out for the day. Outdoorsy folks like us are the minority in being happy to stay away from infrastructure and pee outside. We just need to suck it up a bit longer and pretty much wipe out infection, or unlock different regions at different rates. As the government seem unwilling to do different rules for different regions (not sure why?) I agree we have to tailor the rules to fit the highest risk regions, or else we lose our progress.

Completely agree. Mountaineering Scotland need to wake up and start representing and campaigning for its members. It tells us something that a private individual has to lead opening this debate.  

Unless they start making significant noises, or can demonstrate they have achieved benefit I will be tabling an AGM motion at the Mountaineering club of which I am a member that we disaffiliate for a year, and donate their fees instead to a Mountain Rescue team*.

* One which hasn't 'shamed' themselves on facebook .

Maybe I am being cynical but this doesnt seem to have much to do with what might be right with respect to CV, but simply a gamble on the part of the SNP that by holding tighter restrictions in Scotland that the infection rate in England would start to rise relative to Scotland and they can get back to what they like the most which demanding independence... At the moment I am not sure its paying off, but who knows where we might be in few weeks  

It may be political,  but I suspect it's more likely that someone is trying to formulate a policy based on the Covid 19 situation.  Ideally based on an understanding of the current international scientific consensus.

It absolutely shouldn't be down to pandering to what people want to do in their hobby time.

For all the talk of "following the science", there'll be a lot of fairly raw politics in this. The FM is a career politician who wants to win elections and maintain her power, and different rules for different regions of Scotland would surely lead to harsher restrictions for Greater Glasgow and other urban areas. That's where much of her core vote resides, so she's not very likely to do that.

and the five miles, followed by undermining the five miles 'you can go a bit further'  is deliberate politics as well.  So that those outside of the cities and towns blame their fellow citizens for 'breaking' the guidance, rather than the Gov. for allowing wider travel, while allowing people in towns to feel they have wiggle room, and not backlash.  Plus they are banking on the fact their core voters aren't too bothered by travel. So they are hoping they can win one vote and retain the other, and sod the science that its what people do when interacting, is more important than where people are.

Politics is the elephant in the room.

I really do doubt that this is being driven by politics. Sturgeon is simply taking a more cautious approach than Johnson is south of the border and I think this is probably generally seen as a good thing. Of course, if Scotland comes out of this better than England, it will give her political capital, but I would be surprised if that is her main motive in diverging from what has generally been seen as a shambles in England.

Hmm...and what could we do about this?

Not a lot. But at least Scotland is not completely tied to it.

Yeah, that's a good thing not being tied to England isn't it?

Yet we are. Furlough scheme needed to be approved by UK gov for Scotland to allow a lockdown. We couldn’t start it any earlier. 

What if some of these hobbyists end up in the queue at the depression clinic, or on the phone to the Samaritans, and thus become a burden on the NHS - or worse?

You realize that there are always people who are grieving lost ones and others who are not? I don't follow that because some people are having a bad time, others should not be allowed to enjoy themselves. If that is your argument I would suggest that you should never be happy, because there is always suffering.

A more reasonable argument is that travel can cause infections, and this is correct excepting that it isn't the travel and outdoor activity that causes infections but close contact indoors - which is the whole point of the article, that the current restrictions are too harsh in banning safe activities.

If there were some way to prevent casual walkers from popping into a shop in Glen Coe and breathing all over the locals then we should be doing that instead of banning travel entirely. There isn't, unfortunately, so I support travel restrictions. That being said the five mile limit is still ridiculously harsh and is causing huge overcrowding in the only green spaces I can access, while the Pentlands which are tragically 6 miles from my front door are basically empty. Yet I'm more scared to go to the Pentlands for fear of being fined or arrested than I am to go to Holyrood park which has a higher chance of me being infected.

It is always the time to talk about human rights, because crises like this are how we lose them; first by agreeing to suspend them for a good reason and then by not working hard enough to get them back. I support the lockdown and sensible travel restrictions but I will still argue for our rights on that principle.

The differing policies in Scotland and England are both highly illogical and nonsensical in their own ways. 

However, compared to Boris's utterly irresponsible policy of "travel as far as you want" the Scottish 5 mile limit is easily the more sensible of the two extremes. 

As much as I would normally be very happy with the news that numerous Scots are disowning Sturgeon and the SNP over a policy issue, it is both in equal measures depressing and predictable that lots of people are behaving like spoilt kids over this. 

Not impressed with the article and not impressed with UKC for publishing it. 

Nail on the head. In times of pandemic, the laws/guidelines/messaging will inevitably have to be imperfect, blunt instruments if there is to be a chance that the general public will understand and adhere to them. 

I'm as desperate as anyone to get into the hills, but hopefully a few more weeks of finger-boarding and local buildering is a small and manageable sacrifice given that we're facing the biggest public health crisis of a generation. 

Not wanting to go into details, but the mental health thing is real and devastating. Caused more fear than the virus.  There were real consequences of that five mile announcements.  

Yes, no doubt politics comes into it - they are politicians after all!! However, I am still appreciating the more cautious approach over the gung-ho Bozo approach.

I'm not convinced there would be any justification of harsher restrictions in Greater Glasgow than there currently are if we went for a regional approach, but I'm sure it would feel hard to live there vs the rest of the country as restrictions would ease elsewhere. 

I guess we will see what next Thursday brings!

Sorry, worded it badly - I meant they would retain the current level of restrictions (as opposed to getting even harsher ones) while other places would ease.

Quite possibly an announcement about the following Thursday!

Its a fair point but "how big is the actual risk?", "can it be controlled effectively?" and "what is the cost versus the benefit?" At the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic it all made sense but with a face mask and good ventilation and moderate infection numbers, the risk of a central belter infecting someone in a Highland shop is low. You can close toilets if you feel that is a risk that you cannot control. If people worry about infections in shops then put a sign "we respectfully ask visitors not to visit our shop to avoid infecting vulnerable Highland communities". I am sure most people would adhere to it. Finally, many folks in Highland communities also rely on the income from visitors so it is a question whether the benefit (fewer infections but there have been transmissions in the Highlands) versus cost (loss of income, insolvencies). In summary, the risk is of new infections is now low to moderate, most risks can be well controlled and there are also major costs to Highland communities where many jobs depend on visitors. Key is to decide with the Highlanders on board. 

You got some links to studies/articles? Been looking for something else non-covid related but can only find indoors vs outdoors, very limited outdoors vs mountain outdoors...

While the mental health issues associated with the lockdown are doubtless serious, I very much doubt that the five mile thing is a significant factor. I think twenty or thirty miles would have been more sensible and preferable but would that really have alleviated real mental health issues (as opposed to the sort of frustration that people are feeling in not being able to get to the hills)?

Given that the five-mile thing is (unless you're in Stirling police area) being interpreted to mean you can drive five(ish) miles then walk as far as you want, could you not drive part of the way to the Pentlands (assuming you have a car), park somewhere sensible and then just have a fairly normal hill outing from there? Yesterday on the Ochils I met an office bearer from a notable hill organisation who was on Whitewisp having walked there from Alva - which I think is pretty much exactly five miles of a drive from his house by the shortest route. He'd then walked for a good three hours and was just about to start the homeward leg which would be another three hours. That all seemed entirely above board in terms of the current legislation and advice, and he was having a very good hill day.

(Personally in your position I would just drive the six miles and park normally - the published advice speaks of "broadly five miles" and the FM spoke in similar terms a couple of weeks ago. Also, the five miles thing is from "your local community", not from your front door, so that gives you some extra leeway.)

PS - I keep meaning to say that I recently decided to see where exactly five miles took me on my standard driving route to the Ochils. It turned out to be level with the main entrance of Glenochil jail. Hmm...

Looking at the data there is no reason to single Glasgow out over, for example, Forth Valley:

Current know infections V population:

Greater Glasgow & Clyde: 3,990 and 1,183,00 = 0.34%

Forth Valley: 948 and 306,000 = 0.31%

https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-daily-data-for-scotl...

https://statistics.gov.scot/atlas

Notably the infection rate is nearly the same despite the difference in population density: GGC 452 square miles V FV 984 square miles. 

Glasgow has more hospitalized, yes: 289 v 10 but that 289 are hardly going anywhere in a car for a day trip soon. Probably a reflection of the deprived areas contained within the Glasgow region as well as care home infections (again, hardly going to be day-tripping)

Mental health is of course very personal, but being outdoors and having some diversity in where you can go is generally considered good for your mental well-being. This will be particularly true in communities of people whose main leisure activity and escape is getting outside.

The 5 mile limit significantly reduces the level of diversity and what activities you're able do. If you live for the outdoors and are suffering from depression/anxiety what can you do in five miles to help you recover? 5 miles just about takes you from one side of the Edinburgh by-pass to the other. In 5 miles you can be rammed into the local park which has been your only escape for the last 12 weeks but you can't be alone in the hills. Some here have mentioned local bouldering which I expect is a luxury within a five mile radius for most. 

These are hard times. The limits that the 5 mile rule impose when you are already suffering with depression and anxiety due to the mononity of lockdown will of course have an impact on some people. 

These are of course debilitating conditions that can take years to recover from, ruin relationships, lead to unemployment and serious financial hardship in their own right.

They are also deeply personal illnesses and it would not be right to trivialise the impact that this particular restriction has had on any one individual. Some may be fine with it, but it may affect others very deeply and they deserve sympathy and support.

Or what if they knock someone off a bike whilst on their extended drive ? Any number of what ifs but I seriously doubt that many people have a life threatening dependency on driving large distances to walk up hills.

I’m at a bit of a loss as to why People think going back to normal at this stage is a good idea.  Lockdown has worked.  Infection rates are down, deaths are down.  Those facts have led to an easing of restrictions.  Each lifting of restrictions to the next phase is based on the current situation re infection and death rates.  If those rates increase lockdown is back.  We are getting there folks!  If we keep at it then lockdown will be history in just a few weeks and we can get back to the hills.  Just be patient.  Yes it’s frustrating, yes it feels like a terrible imposition of our freedoms, but it’s NOT permanent and there is no suggestion that it is going to be.  If we all just stick to it for the final phases then life gets back to near normal much sooner.

 > Glasgow has more hospitalized, yes: 289 v 10 but that 289 are hardly going anywhere in a car for a day trip soon. Probably a reflection of the deprived areas contained within the Glasgow region as well as care home infections (again, hardly going to be day-tripping)

Perhaps also a consequence of seriously ill patients from outside the region being moved to specialist hospitals.

If you close toilets, can you imagine the mess that will be left in every "secluded" corner? Think Pooh boulder on the Ben but much worse. And people are pretty good at exceptionalism, so asking visitors not to use shops is unlikley to work as many will say "but I really need this one thing, it's super urgent, and if it's just me then that's fine". If you are going to let people travel to communities, you need to open facilities.

Yep, it is dire for the economic situation, and if we were to reopen regionally then at least other people in the highlands could travel and support tourism to a small extent. I would definitely support regional unlocking, if it was done properly, but if we aren't going to then we really do need to be suitably cautious. An influx of infections to these remote communities is hardly going to help their economies!!

I think the concerns and/or frustrations really fall in to two camps:

1) There's no assessment of the risks against the benefits, it's absolute risk minimisation

Perhaps lockdown was the right thing to do, but when we're forced to take a medicine with no consideration or recognition of the side effects, people are rightly concerned. The Department of Health & SC frequently weighs up the advantages of extending the lives of the elderly and the sick, versus improving the quality of life for the young and healthy (have a google of QALYs), so it's not an abhorrent or unconventional thought to question millions being a little bit sad, versus thousands dying or living with permanent disability. One year of life at full health is valued at £30,000 by NICE (or two years at half health and so on...).

The point being, it shouldn't be intervention to minimise death, but intervention to maximise social welfare. Therefore, activities that provide benefits to personal welfare, but huge issues for disease spread (mass transit for non-essential reasons, mass gatherings etc.), they should rightly be restricted. When we have things that provide benefits to personal welfare at a negligible risk of disease spread, why should they be restricted, especially as the evidence for infection spreading vectors becomes more apparent?

The reason that's currently doing the rounds is about risk of spread to rural communities etc - or rather - people being idiots. Which leads neatly on to the second point:

2) People are being patronised and devolving personal responsibility to the Government

The approach taken from the start, which they've unfortunately had to perpetuate now, is: "follow the Government guidelines and everything will be okay."

When the Government rules are simple, that's simple. But we're now at a stage where there's sufficient nuance that simple rules don't work anymore and aren't appropriate. There's an emphasis on personal judgement and people are rightly terrified at this new responsibility.

We're being told to exercise personal judgement, without an honest discussion from politicians about sensible things to do and silly things to do. The reason being touted that people can't be trusted and the population sees "green lights" and "red lights" and no in-between. Whilst that may be true, the "green light" and "red light" messaging and simplistic media narrative no doubt perpetuates that. 

And on rural communities, yes, regardless of any amount of information, huge sections of the population will make poor, ill-informed decisions (such as using rural shops, petrol stations and toilets - not to mention leaving their rubbish everywhere) that may directly lead to the deaths of those in rural communities. Yet, in all other sectors of our society, we accept liberty and personal choice, in the knowledge that some poor decision making will lead to death and suffering.

Examples: driving (with or without alcohol and drugs in the system) leads to all manner of impacts on those other than the driver (air pollution, greenhouse gas emission, noise pollution, congestion and of course accidents involving other road users and pedestrians). Smoking & alcohol, we're allowed to smoke and drink, killing or harming ourselves and others, because society has decided liberty is more important and/or the benefits outweigh the risks. Fast fashion, we're allowed to buy clothes that pollute rivers and exploit child labour, because liberty outweighs the human cost, it's up to the individual to assess risks and decide where to spend their money. Single use plastics, food products, refusing child vaccination etc etc.

All our decisions impact others whether we like it or not, yet we're allowed to do as we please (or have specific, proportionate controls in place), even if that harms others, despite government being well aware the could reduce suffering and death by restricting personal freedoms.

Appreciate that some may think the government should do more on the above policy areas - but we must at least see the hypocrisy in the approach taken to managing harm in society.

This has been driven (as many policies are) by significant media interest, leading to the population demanding the Government fix it, leading to throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. By and large, it's institutional arse-covering. This risk aversion may be justified in the short-term, but we now have the space and time to progress that conversation, of which this opinion piece is a part.

So what now?

We know human's attitude to risk isn't rational. Any risk we're exposed to over time diminishes in our mind as we become familiar with it (even though the level of risk is largely stable) - because human's are shitty at risk assessing high consequence, low probability events. (Think about the fear of falling on bolts outdoors, or driving on the motorway for your first time versus your thousandth).

Whilst the specifics of the science is still developing, one thing is clear: to pass on the coronavirus, infected water droplets must make their way in to another persons mouth, eyes or nose. This is impossible when you're nowhere near anyone else, and highly unlikely when not sneezing, spitting or coughing directly in to crowded spaces or on to high-touch surfaces.

The level of risk varies hugely by the individual (their exposure to health and care settings, the amount of time they spend around others having illegal cups of tea indoors, the number of eye tests they conduct etc.), which can never be communicated in 3 word platitudes, so perhaps it's time for a change in message.

I've gone on long enough - but finally to add - I'm highly sympathetic of MRTs at this time. All the more reason for individual decision making in place of simple guidelines. 

Who has suggested a return to normality? I'm advocating for greater distancing to travel. No mention of opening pubs or climbing walls, i.e. normality.

I think frustration and mental health issues are linked for many people, and the five miles factor is certainly in play for them (as is the proper stay-at-home lockdown and the shielding situation). From previous discussions it appears that you and I are both lucky in that we have ready access to a lot of open space and hill country within five miles or so. Others are less fortunate and are not only awkwardly placed in five-mile terms but also find themselves in a hotspot that draws people in, so their local area gets very busy at times. Such people can end up feeling trapped, and the recent "easing" of the restrictions won't have been much of an easing for them as they're still very limited while their home patch becomes busier with incomers.

You sound pretty robust in mental health terms, and that's good. I'm on the OK side of middling (I think). Others are less fortunate and this is a very difficult time for such people in those terms.

I've been running down to the Pentlands throughout lockdown, and now that the car parks are open I expect I'll just drive over to Swanston or Hillend this weekend. I don't think the risk of being fined is high. I'm just put out that it's more substantial than the infinitesimally small risk of catching the virus doing the activity.

Also salty that until phase 1 there was no suggestion I was doing anything wrong at all by running 6 miles to the Pentlands, then another 5 through them - which seems to have become against the spirit of the regulations once they began to "ease"

For me, bluntly, yes. I hate cities, and living in Edinburgh is a compromise between my dislike of living in a busy place, not wanting to commute, and ease of access to the outdoors. The five mile limit doesn't even get me outside the ring road.
Were the distance 20 or 30 miles I could drive to a secluded place for a walk or run and not be breaking the letter or spirit of any guidelines. I could walk in actual hills, rather than just treading the same ground in Holyrood or the Braids every time. As is I'm trapped in this city without any of the things which made it worth living here in the first place, and it's been killing me.
I know its nearly over - hope so, anyway - but it's been hellish for me these past three months.

Unfortunately we are not the only target audience for travel restictions. I am fortunate to live within walking distance of Ben Ledi and have seen cars parked most days from mid-april onwards. They were not all walkers, but include  fishermen,cyclists,families out for a picnic and "neds" out for a wee swally. Last weekend on the other side of Loch Lubnaig the A84 was much more crowded with abandoned cars and people on the loch side having fires and barbecues. The road up past Brachlin Falls was blocked with badly parked cars so the Tesco wagon couldnt make deliveries.

Bikers have been roaring up and down the A84 throughout lock down. I had to help one who lost control coming through the Pass of Leny and crashed fortunately he was unhurt just really embarassed. Last weekend also saw a big team of "neds" having a wee swally and a dance on the alp half way up Ben Aan. We collected 3 bin bags of rubbish after they left (haven't had to buy any morning rolls this week).    

The midges are out now and its raining so maybe its best we all just wait just a little bit longer and set a good example.

Despite four years in Glasgow a long time ago, I have no idea what a "wee swally" is? Please provide a definition, so that I can start using ASAP - it sounds great fun!  

All very conspicuous.... similar story here, now tempered by the poorer weather.

worth remembering that those on quiet hills seeing nobody are probably being seen by nobody.

Whilst these are all issues, none of them are really public health risks due to the risk of infection from Covid.

You can construct arguments around catching Covid off picking up people's litter, which feels a bit of a stretch, but I'd argue that risk isn't worth unprecedented restrictions on personal freedom for the entire population.

The general anti-social behaviour with a disregard for our wild spaces is undoubtedly an issue. Forcing people to stay within 5 miles of their home (or only allow you to travel outside 5 miles when the masses can be distracted by shopping centres and pubs) is potentially sensible, but should not be veiled as a public health measure.

Education and respect for wild spaces from an early age would be a fine thing though.

Apologies if I underplayed the effect the travel restrictions might be having on some people's mental health. I am sure it will have caused real problems (I have a friend with a history of depression who was advised by his GP to travel outside the city even before the five mile thing came in). What I was really trying to say is that there are probably more significant aspects of the lockdown affecting mental health, in particular social isolation, especially for the old, and for some families with problems cooped up together.

I like lots of others am chafing at the 5  mile thing. However this thread is exemplifying why critical debate flops over into “why my special interest “ exceptionalism. We have a (hopefully) once-in-half-a-millennium, life threatening and highly contagious virus outbreak going on worldwide and the priority at the minute is to buy enough time to develop effective treatments and vaccines. The virus hasn’t read the European Convention of Human Rights.  Girlymonkey is exactly right that most folk will want to shuffle about Balloch  or Ambleside eating ice cream and using the shops, pubs and toilets so hill goers are in a bit of a minority. It’s annoying, but frankly not so much of a problem in the bigger scheme of things. We need to be a bit grown-up about it and expect change when circumstances allow.

It will be a different matter when we do get back and find gates locked, paths blocked and wildlife poisoned by landowners playing dirty while we’re all absent....

... it's a wee social gathering where beverages are consumed and general bonhomie abounds ...

The discussion isn't really about "extended" drives, however (although both Nick Kempe and the Crianlarich Two drove 50-odd miles which is much more than I'd do just now). It's about people fretting over six or seven miles rather than the stated five. (Far and away the biggest distances for exercise that I've been hearing about have been from cyclists - 100+ milers, really big seven/eight-hour days etc - but that's a different debate.)

I'm no expert, but I have worked in situations involving people with mental health issues and I've also for years taken an interest in the hill bagging world, which has a considerable number of people who are on what nowadays tends to be termed "the Asperger's scale", to a greater or lesser extent. From what I've seen both in my work and "hobbyist" life, I think it's important not to belittle the way in which, for people with mental health worries, losing touch with habits, routines and "normality" can have a pretty devastating and remarkably rapid effect on their general wellbeing.

Thank you! Fantastic. In the gathering gloom last night, after we had walked back to the road below Bamford crag, we had a socially-distanced wee swally in the layby (only one lower strength alcoholic beverage each, as we all had to drive our own cars home - no lift sharing yet!). The climbers were joined in the swally (does it have to always be a wee swally?) by many bats flittering around our heads whilst we chatted - and I saw a beautiful barn owl take off from the road just in front of me when driving below Higgar Tor once the wee swally had concluded.

I'm looking forward to next week's climb and swally on t'other side of the Peak, weather permitting.

I'm a good, law abiding citizen. Wouldn't dream of doing anything like hill walking or climbing in the outdoors, in a sensible manner socially distanced from other people, even if hypothetically I did happen to think it was perfectly harmless and held the opinion that it's completely irrelevant whether or not you're on one side of imaginary line (aka 'border) or the other, but of course, I don't.

I'm not trying to belittle people with genuine issues who have been deprived of their lifeline passtime (be it darts players, hill walkers, ballroom dancers, footballers etc. Etc.) I suspect they are the minority, however, and most cope.  It's just an easy card to play, unfortunately, because it's looking heartless to gainsay it.

So I see from your logbook on here that you have been blatantly taking the piss out of the restrictions to drive distance of about 100 miles from Glasgow not only to climb in Scotland but also in the Lakes and Northumberland (do you really think it would be a good idea if every climber in the Central Belt saw fit to drive across the border to climb right now?). And were you not aware of the fact that there are serious concerns about access in  Northumberland at the moment even for locals? 

I live near Balloch, the day before phase 1 they were putting up a stand at Duck Bay to sell ice cream, inflatables etc. That weekend was sunny and hundreds of people came down, had picnics, went swimming, played football etc and that has continued. I imagine plenty of other locations throughout Scotland have been equally busy with outdoor recreation. Could be interesting to see whether this has any significant impact on infection rates.

That statement could literally also be applied to those who have caught Covid. A minority of the population has caught it, and most who did coped. But you can see that, while you can't "see" the mental health issues I've been dealing with as a result of the isolation.

I... are you seriously suggesting that we're making this up for sympathy, because we oppose lockdown for other reasons?

I supported the lockdown, and I support the ongoing travel restrictions. But my mental health is as bad as it has ever been and the one thing which could get me out of the hole I'm in is denied to me. But I guess because the mental health epidemic isn't as exciting or new as the Covid pandemic we should just ignore anyone who is affected by it, right?

The emergence from lockdown needs to be done slowly to work out what level of lockdown is necessary when locking down is needed again.  If everything is unlocked at once you can't tell what effect each thing has on the spread of the virus.  Keeping people within 5 miles of their house also makes contact tracing much easier than it would be with unrestricted travel.

Sounds like you should do that - especially if as forecast the weekend weather is warm and mostly dry (unlike today on both counts). Pretty sure there's a very low risk of you getting into police trouble. If it helps, as mentioned on the earlier thread on the same theme, I've been pushing the drive out beyond five miles along the Hillfoots (from the eastern edge of Stirling). Mainly just seven or eight miles to Alva/Tillicoultry, but have twice now driven to Dollar (11-12 miles depending on route) to get at the usual batch of hills but from a change-of-scene direction. I haven't gone beyond the Ochils since the 23 March lockdown (was on Ledi on the slightly crazy Saturday just before that), so I've stayed very much in familiar territory, just as it sounds like you would with the Pentlands.

Incidentally, I've just been checking stats and I've had 57 hill outings thus far this year, 55 of which have been on the Ochils - and that's without counting 20-odd times up Abbey Craig (the Wallace Monument hill). That's pretty lopsided even by my standards, but gosh it's been a help - I've no real idea how I might have coped mentally without having local hills within range during all this - and the people who haven't had any such options have my considerable sympathy.

"Keeping people within 5 miles of their house also makes contact tracing much easier than it would be with unrestricted travel." 

In what way? Contact tracers look for people you have been  in close contact with for 15 minutes. Driving somewhere to climb a hill then driving home would result in zero contacts.

As for a slow lockdown to establish what effect each measure has I think you over estimate the capability of our governments.  For example It is well know that care homes are one of the primary places for infections and deaths. Months most of  Scotland's care home staff have not been tested.  Only 15,000 of the country's 35,000 care home residents have been tested. All this while Scotland is only using 1/3rd of it's testing capacity.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52993859

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18438525.coronavirus-scotland-actual-te...

It is a restriction on travel, not specifically on climbing hills. But of course you actually know that.

People aren't making it up for sympathy.  Some people will be genuine and others will claim mental health to justify carrying on as normal.

You can't compare mental health with a viral pandemic simply because one has the potential for exponential growth. 

It was more concerned with group transmission., Using mobile data illustrates this well youtube.com/watch?v=cq2zuE3ISYU& 

I had a run in the Touch hills today, with a friend showing me a cracking wee spot, so if you need a change and reckon that is still within your distance limits, it's well worth a visit. I reckon there is a lot of worthwhile exploring to do there!

The announcement that the tourism sector will be hopefully reopening on 15 July also suggested that will also be the point when travel restrictions are lifted.

That would suggest over a month more of not being able to travel more than 5 miles for recreation. This while shops, outdoor hospitality and indoor social gatherings are likely to be allowed from the end of next week. 

All of those things will result in more transmission risk than any of the activities people have been describing on this thread. 

Like much of the Scottish Government's policies (not just on lockdown but on a range of other issues), lockdown guidance and rules is a turbid, shitey-arsed fudge, open to various mis-interpretations. There is no actual 5 mile rule, but it is jut a recommendation. Driving further for recreation (allowing social distancing) would appear to be completely legal. There is a remarkable pig-ignorance in the Scottish government about what is a majority sport here - they refer to "hiking" rather than "hillwalking". Seems a strange americanism, but betrays their spectacular lack of knowledge of the culture of this country.

I know Westminster have been worse overall, but at least they managed the outdoor sports situation better.

I would like to know what the Scottish Government think about the mental health benefits of climbing and hillwalking, the prevention of which is far more damaging to society than the infintesimal risk of hillwalking when avoiding social distancing.

knowing the climbing community quite well, it could just as easily be a wee toke!

Hooray! 15th July it is then, if all things go to plan. It takes me a few weeks these days to bend down and tie me boots.

If I can spend 6 months in an Antarctic tent with a mono syllabic scientist, I can handle another 5 weeks, eroding a groove in the local streets. 

Looking at the body count across the UK and considering the Scottish Government's phuq ups on care homes, track and trace and testing I don't think there's really any difference.

The PR is definitely better though.

I don't think this announcement is really anything new. When the phases were announced I think mid July was the date being aimed at for non-local travel and the opening up of accomodation and so on.

Yes. My point is there is no justification for a 5 mile limit.

On a side note it has been claimed on this thread that the SNP have handled this better. There is no evidence for this in overall deaths. Beck and neck with UK average.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18486762.scotlands-coronavirus-death-ra...

I accessed Northumberland carefully as I wouldn't want to frustrate access for anyone. Northumberland, the region, isn't closed. I'm perfectly capable of considering advice however I see fit and seeing as the 5 mile limit is advice, you can [insert expletive].

If you had made that case then fair enough, but you have really just gone on about hillwalking not spreading the virus. 

You have treated the advice and guidelines as a joke - as I said, you have taken the piss. It is just a good thing that most people have taken a more responsible approach. If the idea was that everyone should feel free to ignore the guidelines then there would be no point in having them in the first place.

"You have treated the advice and guidelines as a joke - as I said, you have taken the piss."

This from someone who has admitted, on the previous thread, bivvying out overnight even before the partial easing of lockdown in Scotland, which was an actual breach of the CoVid regs in place then (and still), as opposed to ignoring some wishy-washy, probably non-enforceable ScotGov 'advice'. Complete hypocrite.

For the record, I have no problem with anyone bivvying out or doing any other activity unlikely to propagate CoVid, but I do have a problem with someone setting themselves up as the CoVid police after a (legally) more serious breach themselves.

Jesus!

This article is hard to read or take seriously as it is full of exaggeration verging on trolling. It says nothing positive, or offer any balance or, heaven forbid, acknowledge anything positive. It seems to ignore the gravity of a global pandemic.  This isn't a human rights abuse issue, it's merely a time where the pendulum from rights to responsibility, for a change, swing towards responsibility.  Pandemics call for out of the ordinary measures.

Yeah it's shit, yeah it's frustrating. But it's a global pandemic we are going to have to get used to. It must be so draining being so determined to be consistently negative. 

The guidelines are a joke (at least the part that prevents people from hill walking and climbing). That's why this thread exists in the first place...

Look, I'm not throwing a party. I may be beating a dead horse, but travelling to climb and walk is, relatively speaking, harmless, so I'll continue to go climbing and walking without fear of disturbing the sensibilities of others like yourself. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve from your ramblings, but I'm going to spend the rest of my evening planning my next climbing trip.

Wow. Not only selfish but narcissistic to boot. He couldn't just take off and keep quiet about it, he's got to trumpet it from the rooftops. The reason we had such a basic 'stay at home' instruction was because of people like him, and some people here too. By all means apply common sense to your situation, but when blatantly ignoring the simple rules becomes your version of common sense, you're part of the problem. I'm reading comments from people here who already have their own version of rules for themselves that pay no heed to any restrictions because they obviously don't apply to them, and they feel entirely justified. It's not difficult, you just have to contain yourself for a little while longer, and the hills aren't going anywhere. I'm a biker and hillwalker, and I haven't been out on a bike or up the hills yet - not because I haven't wanted to, I'm just not that selfish, and waiting isn't a problem for me because I'm not a child.

I don't think there is anything in the guidelines saying that I can't go up a local hill in the evening and come down first thing in the morning rather than, say, go up in the morning and come down in the afternoon. If you said I had maybe stretched the guidelines a bit then fair enough but to compare that with someone who clearly thinks the guidelines don't apply to them and has repeatedly driven 100 miles to go climbing including, it would seem, overnight two day trips to England when the guideline is to stay local seems a bit silly to me.

Well you and Nick Kempe and seem to think they are a joke, buy it doesn't seem to be anything like a majority view. That is why this discussion is happening.

The law at that stage said leaving one's home was only permitted in very limited circumstances, one of which was for exercise, and for a reasonable amount of time. Bivvying overnight is clearly not exercise, and clearly extends the time outside one's home unreasonably. Furthermore, the 'guidelines', by which you appear to set so much store (for others), remain consistent in stating that spending the night outside of one's home is also not permitted, unless doing essential key work or the like.

I suspect you know this all very well. You're just another "Do as I say, not as I do" merchant. 

You seem to be an expert on the law and guidelines when it comes to other people's behaviour but conveniently ignorant regarding you own.

Pretty disappointing piece for UKC to be promoting. 

If you want to go do some hills 50 miles away it has been made clear that no one is going to stop you. Why not just go and do it quietly instead of turning it into some righteous quest for liberty?

There is still a pandemic going on and the government has had to make general advice for the whole population.  Yes they are being cautious but can you blame them given the media outcry when even any out of context stat will make headlines?

Unfortunately a 'common sense' approach does not work with much of the public. It translates to 'do what you want' for most. On the other hand we have been told that we won't be penalised for breaking the guidance. So maybe just think about what your doing, be sensible and do it quietly?

Also comparing the response of countries at this stage is a bit premature. People used Sweden to suit anti lockdown arguments until their stats began to dwarf those of their Neighbours. Comparisons to the easing of lockdown between Scotland and England would be better left for when things are back to normal and there is no pandemic. 

There's a lot of frustration and it's understandable but this isn't over yet.

I've just looked at the guidelines for before the easing again and it says:

"Travel including walking and cycling in local area for daily exercise" and "Daily unlimited exercise". I cannot find anything specifically saying my bivi was forbidden as part of my walk. As I said, I may have stretched it a bit  I really don't think I've ignored the guidelines.

Here's the law, specifically the reasonable excuses for being out of your home:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/103/regulation/8/2020-03-26

Camping outdoors is not exercise, you don't have a need for it and it's not a reasonable excuse.

Thanks - might well do. Have done bits/bobs around there over the years but not much really. Last time was a couple of years ago when I was getting over a black ice prang and needed some pottering walks, so I went up behind the Touch business centre and soon found myself sprottling about in snow-covered clearfell which was precisely the kind of thing I shouldn't have been doing! Talking of such places, the weirdest thing in terms of my own lockdown intentions is that right at the start I reckoned the Great Earl's Hill Expedition would happen, possibly repeatedly. Can see the summit masts from here and I've been on it a few times, but never on foot from the house. Would be a couple of hours each way, so it seemed to fit well with the early "one form of exercise" strictures. However I soon realised I didn't at all fancy crossing the footbridge across the Forth - quite narrow and there have been issues with people meeting bikes and parents with buggies halfway. Think I've only been across (and back) once since the miserable mid-March evening when the chess club (in town) went into abeyance. Normally I'm across the bridge four or five times a week, so it has felt strange to stop that completely - whenever I've been across the river for shopping I've driven round, and for exercise/headspace I've contented myself with industrial quantities of western/central Ochils stuff.

Actually, I do now have a plan to go somewhere different, while still staying pretty local. <Totally esoteric tangent alert> I'm never keen for the sequence of same-Graham Grahams (aka consecutive Ben Cleuchs) to get to three figures (dunno quite why), and it's crept up to 96. The last such run got to 97 before being broken by Ben Venue a couple of Novembers ago. All the usual candidates to break the sequence - Venue again, Sgiath a' Chaise beside Loch Lubnaig and the Artney things - are too far away or stricken with blocked car parks, so I'd more or less given up on breaking the sequence before reaching 100. However it's struck me that Uamh Bheag from the south might work - it's only eight miles from here to Doune, so feels within range in "broadly five miles" terms - and the hill looks doable via the Braes of Doune windfarm tracks which go to 2km or so of the top. It'll be an experiment and a bit of an adventure, and there could be access issues that will scupper it, but I'll likely give it a go one day next week. Going west of the M9 for the first time since mid-March might make me feel light-headed, however, and I'll need a sit down.

(You did well to get out today - has been a bit cold/wet/windy for June.)

He's a campaigner, whatever that means. I am yet to understand what was the point of his actions, but oh well. 

This forum thread must be one of the most controversial in a long time. Which, I would say, is good, but the discussion or the article itself are not really productive. 

And you believe the propaganda that comes out of China? Bless...

It does seem senseless to prohibit access to the most wide open spaces in the country at a time when the population is supposed to be giving each other a wide berth. But the emergency services are a large part of the equation unfortunately so it does make sense for the government to urge caution just now. Could change in the next couple of weeks though. I'm sure everyone here hopes that it does.

Well said.

Yes, fingers crossed. It looks like fairly widespread hill access (although possibly not to islands) from when the tourist side of things kicks back in, 15 July all being well. That'll be Phase 3, I believe, so it's also a question of what Phase 2 permits and when it starts. It could be that Phase 2 begins soon after the review statement a week on Thursday, although whether that allows much more travel to hills etc remains to be seen.

It's certainly going to be a bit weird when regular hill habits can be resumed. I can see me being a mixture of wary and cautious at first - parking in popular rather than obscure places (ie where my car isn't the only one) but then going up by obscure routes (for quietness). Dunno really, though - haven't properly thought it through and we're not there yet.

It's one I've never done, funnily enough. Somehow it's always been just far enough that if I am going that far I will do something bigger.

I have found it to be fine early morning. When someone does insist on starting to cross it when I am past the halfway point, I tend to just turn sideways so my back is towards the bridge traffic and I am overlooking the Forth. I figure that way at least my breath is going away from them. I don't consider myself to be at risk from them, but feel duty bound to make sure I don't breathe on others!

The Ochils are not a bad place to content yourself with though!!

I have cycled up to and through that windfarm as part of a bigger route, nice enough wee place and I don't remember it being tricky to get to. I didn't go to the top of the hill though. I hope you can contain your excitement of being on the other side of the M9!! lol

Very pleasant running conditions, I like a bit of drizzle to cool me down! I can't be doing with all this hot muggy weather - it just gives me head aches and makes everything hard work!

Yes, a bit sad about restrictions to the Islands. One of the trips we were keen to do again when we could travel further was another round of the 5 ferries on the bikes. 

Interesting, why parking in the popular places? I would go the opposite! Not really thought it through much either but see no need to stay with popular car parks?!

Well it really just felt like a way of making my evening cycle/walk more interesting. I certainly wasn't treating the guidelines as a joke which could just be ignored.

Where have you seen that the islands might be later - a ferry thing (in which case Skye ok)? I think it is perfectly possible that the distance guidelines might be changed and relaxed at phase 2 - the 5 miles is probably widely seen as a bit too restrictive, and it might seem odd to retain that for a few more weeks then jump to no restrictions.

I've not read beyond headline level as yet - is there actually mention of different arrangements for islands? (I was just guessing.) Can well imagine there might be.

Remains to be seen, but I might be bit jittery about leaving the car where something might happen to it while I'm up the hill - that's very rare in Scotland in my experience but there could be a transitional period where some local might object and take action. A sort of safety in numbers approach, possibly unwarranted but a lot of people will be testing the waters for a week or two. Having said that, I can see me starting the first Stuc/Vorlich outing from Edinample as usual, rather than Ardvorlich along with the masses! (And the shepherd at Edinample always seems friendly - at some stage I discovered he came from Cumbria so that has led to occasional chats about such matters.)

Arran (and maybe others, not sure) are pushing for any non-essential ferry spaces to be given to people who are staying overnight on the Island rather than day trippers as ferry spaces will be reduced so they want those to go to people who will boost their economy more. If I do the 5 ferries, I will spend absolutely nothing except the ferry ticket, so I can see their point a bit!!

Ok, I guess that makes sense. I hope it isn't necessary, but I can see why it might be.

Ferry spaces will still be limited (as with other public transport), so Arran, and maybe other islands too, are trying to convince them to only let non-essential ferry spaces to go to people who are staying on the island rather than day trippers as they will spend more money. Who knows if they will get away with it, but I can see why they might want that.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-52997026

girlymonkey has just beaten me to it, but...

I've now had a bit of a rummage and found this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-52997026

where Arran's "biggest accommodation provider" thinks this will be the case:

"Ms Johnston said: "It is now clear that the Scottish government sees the islands exiting lockdown and moving through the phases of the route map behind the rest of Scotland, and that ferry capacity to the islands is expected to be below 20%.

"Both of these present an unprecedented threat and clearly leave the islands at a disadvantage to the rest of Scotland and the UK. Clearly there is currently no plan for the islands."

Ah, ok, so it's about ferry capacity. Arran seems to want tourists (or at least tourists' cash!). I had imagined island comunities wanting to remain isolated - I wonder whether that is the case for some islands. Anyway, seems Skye might be ok. 

I'm sure it'll be fine so long as we don't linger within 2 metres of each other and we use hand gel after touching gates, styles etc. I wouldn't worry about it too much really. The 2 metre social distancing rule is not being followed in my office as strictly as it should; I'm frequently within 2 metres of my colleagues every day. Coppers haven't doled out fines to us yet and no heath issues so far either (touch wood).    

Wouldn't surprise me at all if some - eg Harris, the Uists, Barra - take that line. Maybe Shetland and Orkney too, at least in part. Remains to be seen.
 

You broke the emergency coronavirus law - as well as the guidelines - and your justification is that it made things 'more interesting' for you? And yet you've been repeatedly shaming others on UKC for what you consider infringements on the guidelines.

I respect that you might interpret it like that, but I can assure you that my conscience on this will allow me to sleep easy tonight - I don't feel bad about finding ways to make my walks more interesting; exactly the same ground was covered as on previous occasions.

Thanks - yes, suspect it'll all be fine come the time. It'll be an enormous relief for a lot of people.

Re gates, like a lot of people I've become adept at opening them using an implement - in my case I'm carting round a walking pole partly in case I have a mishap and need to hobble down (hasn't happened as yet, thankfully) but also to open gates, particularly those now-commonplace metal walkers' ones, without having to handle anything. Is quite satisfying when achieved. A pal in Cumbria tells me he's doing likewise by pole-tapping trig points and summit cairns rather than patting them with a hand.

Is maybe more of an issue for proper rambling-type walkers - I have a sister in Derbyshire who does a lot of footpath walking and there's a continuous stream of gates and stiles with that, whereas there's not much on the hill.

Well worth visiting on a proper clear/sharp day - for all that it's quite a scruffy summit it's a very good viewpoint. It's more than 20m higher than Dumyat, not that it looks like that when you can see them both from Stirling. I've mostly just pottered up it from somewhere nearby, but once had a surprisingly good half-day with a pal when we started with that, then crossed the road and walked through the windfarm before ending with a full Lewis Hill / Sauchie Crags traverse.

Interesting re the footbridge here being quiet early on. Ta for the Braes of Doune thoughts - will let you know how I get on whenever the time comes. I've been on Uamh Bheag a few times but mostly from the Artney side and not at all since January 2001 (funnily enough just before FMD started). Feels like a ridiculously long gap - is definitely due a visit and the southern approach makes sense in the current situation.

I'd love to hear your 'interpretation' of how camping out didn't break the law?

I'm not sure I'd even describe it as camping. Just chucking a sleeping bag/bivi bag on the ground and getting a few hours sleep until sunrise.

In this case I think what they said was basically accurate for two reasons.

First: the results they say they got are consistent with what other countries have experienced.  They locked down tighter than us and segregated patients and the medical staff treating them.  We locked down for longer.  Right now Scotland has near zero new infections.  So do the 26 EU countries.  Lock down works.

Second: you can lie about the numbers to an extent.  But you can't pretend to have suppressed Covid when you haven't.  There are too many physical signs of a lot of people dying or cities under lockdown.   China is a major trading nation, it isn't cold war Russia or North Korea: there are continuous contacts with other countries.  There are hundreds of millions of phones with cameras and internet connections.   And there are a ton of satellites watching.

I live in Orkney.  There is still a fair amount of fear (fairly elderly population and need to be airlifted off of seriously ill), but as tourism is the largest employer and biggest earner, many people also desperate to get open again.

At the moment you can only travel on the ferries or on any of the very rare flights if you have good reason (keyworker or resident with reason).   Even once ferries are open for all, they will be working at a much reduced capacity to allow for social distancing.  

Only just started using gated routes - hand gel before and after.  Fortunately gates are still seldom encountered (I am still mostly on  a bike).   Earlier in the week on Fala Moor, where there is a gated road, there were hand gel bottles on the gateposts.

You either agree with the letter and the spirit of the lockdown laws and guidelines, or you agree that individuals can use their personal judgement, and operate outside of the guidelines with a negligible increase in the risk of infection.

Saying it's fine for you to camp/sleep for a number of hours that doesn't constitute camping, but not for others to drive over 5 miles to climb on their own is just hypocrisy.

I think there's room for debate around what "sensible" judgements are (for which forums are a great place to share information and alternative viewpoints), but we have to accept individual judgements will vary. I'd personally conclude sleeping on the floor in the middle of nowhere, or travelling to an isolated crag 50+ miles away both have near-zero risk of transmission, especially if you've been otherwise isolating. And even though that risk of transmission may be near-zero, I'd also use my judgement to consider the local opinion, perception of the climbing community through my individual actions and try to understand the rational (and irrational) fears of others, then I'd arrive at a decision on how to behave.

But you either operate within the laws & guidelines, or make your own personal judgement calls either breaking the law (overnight stays - for which sleeping outside until sunrise certainly constitutes, even if it's not camping), or stretching the guidelines (travelling outside the "local area"). Acting as if your judgements are superior to everyone else's; with no demonstrable risk of infection in either scenario is patronising at best.

It's almost like asking others to give up their self-advocacy and cognitive ability to assess risks, whilst operating heavy machinery on your wife's birthday with your child in said heavy machinery to test your eyesight.

Again, here's a list of reasonable excuses for being out of your home. If your actions do not fall under any of these you have committed an offence under the Coronavirus Regulations:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/103/regulation/8/2020-03-26

You are claiming that "chucking a sleeping bag/bivi bag on the ground and getting a few hours sleep until sunrise" is one of these excuses. Which one?

I think there is a difference between "stretching the guidelines", which I think I did (and I can accept that people might think I overstretched) or people are doing by driving a more than 5 miles while remaining broadly "local" and just saying "I think the guidelines are a joke so I am going to completely ignore them".

Well, obviously the exercise one. Equally obviously I wasn't actually exercising when in my sleeping bag. But then the same could be said for any rest during a walk. I stretched it, quite possibly overstretched it in some or many people's opinion. 

Yeah, because sleep is 'obviously' a form of exercise. How much time did you spend walking and how much sleeping?

If sleeping overnight in a sleeping bag is the same as taking a rest on a walk, travelling 100 miles is local because you view your local area as the "the north".

Ok, so I may, in hindsight, have overstepped the mark. I'll admit that.

I suppose my approach to this right from the start was that I saw the exercise thing at least as much about getting outside and having some fresh air and some headspace as about keeeping fit, burning calories or raising my heart rate or whatever. I am lucky to have nice countryside on my doorstep.  I never really pushed myself physically and consciously  focussed on making my walks enjoyable rather than any sort of chore that I might struggle to maintain for the long haul. So yes, I went looking for wildlife and doing some photography along the way. Staying out and seeing the sunrise from my local hill (having several time previously lingered for the sunset) just seemed a natural extension of this really - it really didn't feel like a big deal to me at the time, certainly not in any way giving two fingers to the guidelines.

In your own words:

"the problem is that they are balatantly taking the piss out of the guidelines. I struggle to have any sympathy with anyone doing that who then comes unstuck."

"The important thing is not to take the piss."

"I'd be quite happy for them just to be named and thoroughly shamed."

"I think that the way I have decided what is reasonable throughout the lockdown is to ask myself whether I could, hand on heart, defend my behaviour as being within the letter of the law."

I think we both posted more or less simultaneously. I admire your persistence in digging out that lot! I don't think I really have anything to add to my last post and am happy to be judged on what I have said. If I did, in fact, go beyond the letter of the law then it certainly wasn't with any intent to do so (though I know that is not a valid defense).

We have too much free time at the moment!

haha! what a stupid comment

I think you should all stop complaining... The hills are going nowhere and you WILL get back out there again. I'm "shielding" because I've been diagnosed recently with Myeloma cancer (a blood cancer) and had a stem cell transplant in December, which means that if I get Covid, I'll be deaded, since I have no immune system (yet) to fight it. In my REAL LIFE I teach dancing for Scottish Ballet, am up the hills every week-end, grew up in the hills, belong to a mountaineering club, passionate about being out there. My mother (now 94) was a founding instructor at Glenmore Lodge, so it's in the blood. In my veins... It's a massive part of me. At the moment, I don't know when I'll be able to when I'll be able to hear a skylark again, to squelch through sphagnum moss, to lie on my back in the heather, to feel the earth and rocks under my boots, to jump over the burn, to point out an alpine saxifrage to a walking mate, to be drenched by something that came out of that dark sky.... I LONG, I LONG, I LONG to be out there.... At the moment I don't know if I'll be strong enough or even alive, to get into the hills once I can stop shielding, once I've recovered from this transplant.... So just be patient my friends, be patient! At least you WILL get back out there. I would give the whole world to be able to know that for certain.....

Sorry to hear of your health situation - that sounds very difficult even without the Covid factor. Hope you can indeed get back out on the hill in due course - stay positive and it'll be a great day when it comes.

I'm not sure people on here are complaining (at least for the most part) so much as worrying - and health-related issues in various forms are at the heart of those worries, given how fundamentally important it is for so many people to be able to get out on the hill in whatever form they choose. Mental health concerns have cropped up quite a few times in this thread and are something I worry about a lot - and there's plenty of evidence that mental health and physical health are closely linked, so the current physical/social restrictions are having a knock-on effect into mental health aspects for a lot of people. Another area which particularly interests me - and which hasn't really been mentioned here thus far - is staying fit and healthy into old age. I'm not yet into my 60s (59 next month), but I've always climbed hills with people older than me, and several of these are now well into their 70s. They're still very strong and active (in some cases remarkably so), but the C-19 situation has brought an interruption to good habits and with it a risk of serious loss of fitness and all that accompanies such a thing. Thankfully the active over-70s I know have almost all kept at it in hill terms insofar as they can - with adjustments of course but also with a determination to stay healthy that I'm sure is absolutely the right approach. There's one chap I chat with from time to time on the Ochils whom I only really know in passing but who is very strong and fit for someone in his late 70s. Normally he'd be doing a mix of Munros and local-Ochil stuff, but the first part of that hasn't of course been possible since March. He has however kept going with the second part and I applaud and admire him for that - as were he to properly stop for a few months it's quite possible he wouldn't get back, at least not to anywhere to the same degree, and consequently he would likely become a burden on the NHS in a way that he isn't at present (plus he'd simply become less happy).

For me, issues of this sort are why the current situation is such a concern - and why it's imperative that getting people back into their active habits, in a safe way, should happen without any unnecessary delay as soon as the general Covid situation allows. Clearly this is a very complex and difficult thing to wish for, but the worry is that progress is coming slower than it should in those terms and a lot of collateral health damage - both mental and physical - is being done to a lot of people.

No, it's not.  There are many obvious ways in which operating heavy machinery when impaired could cause injury to others.   There are no ways I can think of that sleeping on a hill hundreds of metres or more from the next person can contribute to spreading Covid.

If someone, like Cummings or Prince Philip, knowing they are infected travels hundreds of miles that isn't just illegal, it is immoral and dangerous.   That's like your heavy machinery analogy.

Someone that sleeps out in a location they'd be allowed to be in for exercise (so no long distance travel) may be outside the guidance and possibly past the limits of the enforceable rules but it isn't immoral or dangerous.   That's more like someone who has a couple of pints and sleeps in the back of their parked car with the keys beside them.  Technically, they might get done for be 'over the limit and in charge of a motor vehicle' but morally and practically they never drove it, or had any intention to and there was zero risk.

It seems to me that it is increasingly clear that the Scottish Government (and the rest of the EU, China, New Zeeland etc) have got this right. 

What we are seeing is that the lockdowns are capable of getting infections right down to near zero.   Ireland is now saying it might reconsider its phased approach and move faster to full opening.  This is because they have near zero infections and if you've not got any infected people you can relax a bit.  Scotland is now getting close to this state - no deaths and getting to be less than 20 new infections per day.

England, meanwhile is determined to keep opening up, despite having relatively high infection rates.  The Tories have started to realise that things like 2m distancing make it impossible to operate schools at capacity and greatly affect business.  So they want to chuck those rules out.   The problem is they have not grasped that to get rid of the inconvenient infection control rules safely you first get rid of the infection and to do that you keep locked down a little bit longer than you would like.   What they are doing is letting R get close to 1 while there are still a lot of infections which means that condition is going to persist and the need for infection control will also persist.   

If the Westminster government were a little more patient they could get what they want - near zero infections and very few restrictions.  They'd also be a much better neighbour to nearby countries that get to the near zero infection state instead of a potential source of re-seeding.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-uk-deaths-daily...

The English govt are not the only ones wanting the 2m distance reviewed. A Nationalist economist want the same thing. Along with faster release from lockdown because he recognises the economy is being destroyed.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/06/10/nicola-sturgeons-favourite-...

Remarkably fierce negative reactions to all this from the hardcore baggers across on RHB:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/RelativeHoB/

And the link to here now seems to have been taken down...

The 2m is fairly arbitrary and many countries (even ones with lower infection/death rates) only went 1-1.5m distancing and actually had less restrictive lockdowns than the UK. I've been going to work this whole time and with the best will in the world keeping a permanent 2m distance from all other human life is impractical in many if not all workplace settings (I'm sure you've seen your local supermarket staff unable to keep a permanent 2m from each other and customers).

In practice it just serves to keep many businesses/schools that could operate safely closed for longer. Norway for example didn't actually close shops or restaurants where people could remain 1m apart.

This map shows the point I was trying to make about Scotland following the default strategy where England is doing something  unusual.

https://twitter.com/suleskerry/status/1271127829342818304/photo/1

If Scotland was an independent country within the EU we'd be able to go on holiday to other EU countries which have also suppressed the virus.

If Scotland wants the benefits of suppressing Covid (i.e. the ability to reopen more fully and relax more) and England keeps going the way it is we are going to have to put checks on the border e.g. ask visitors from England to show a recent negative Covid test.

The first time round 51% of the initial clusters of Covid in Scotland were seeded from England, if we raise lockdown with a relatively high infection rate in England and free travel between Scotland and England the same thing will happen again.

This is from the Prof of Public Health at Edinburgh Uni.  

https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1271050770604011520

Scotland shouldn't be asked to choose between closing the border or accepting continued Covid infections.  England should get its act together and be a good neighbour and keep going until it is near zero the same as everyone else.

I don't agree with you.  The lockdown restrictions were implemented too slowly and have never been strict enough.  It is far too early to lift the restrictions.  There will be another peak and it will be far worse than the second one.  The Scottish government  and Westminster have both been as bad as each other.  Other countries who have previously eased the lockdown restrictions have now had to tighten them again.  In Britain the government is guilty of irresponsibility and failing to properly enforce the lockdown restrictions, resulting in Britain having the worst virus statistics in Europe.  As for travelling about and hill walking:  On the surface, there appears to be nothing wrong with being allowed to participate in these activities.  However, a person can be carrying the virus without having any symptoms.  This person simply needs to pass through a gate, touching the gate to open and close it, and in doing so will then inadvertenly and unknowingly leave the virus behind.  The next person to pass through that gate will then likely pick the virus up on their hands while opening and shutting the gate.  It has been estimated that every person carrying the virus will pass it on to at least two to three other persons.  This Coronavirus is completely different in many aspects to every other known virus, including having a much faster transmission rate and a much higher mortality rate.  It can also take up to 28 days for an infected person to develop any symptoms, if they develop any symptoms at all.  Until a reliable and safe vaccine is available to everyone this virus needs to be taken much more seriously.  Too many are not taking this virus seriously enough and until they do it will continue to spread and more lives will be lost.  Complacency, selfishness and ignorance are most certainly not helping the situation.  

What a load of B*ll*cks

"It has been estimated that every person carrying the virus will pass it on to at least two to three other persons."

  The news media have been full of stories about the R number being below 1. Not 2 or 3. That includes high risk places like care homes and hospitals. In comparison the risk while hillwalking is zero. A work colleague was coughing constantly in a small 10ft sq office with 2 other people for over 30 minutes. He was sent home and tested positive. The other occupants of the room did not catch it.  I've seen nurses during down time chatting elbow to elbow with no PPE on.  Bad practice for sure but they have not been falling like flies.

"his Coronavirus is completely different in many aspects to every other known virus, including having a much faster transmission rate and a much higher mortality rate."

Covid motality rate estimates vary but are  under 1%. Ebola is 25% to 90% fatal. 

Flu is 0.1% So it's worse than flu but it isn't world ending.

 "Until a reliable and safe vaccine is available to everyone this virus needs to be taken much more seriously"

There might never be a vaccine. There is a difference between taking it seriously and locking down life compLetely and destroying the economy. Tell me? If you are so risk averse I take it you avoid and car use and go everywhere by train? The stats show it is far safer.

https://www.cgdev.org/blog/predicting-covid-19-infection-fatality-rates-aro...

That's a well researched, brilliantly thought out, balanced, well written erudite response huh?

Obviously the R number is lower now than it was before *because* of the social distancing measures which have been brought in.  Obviously, when you remove or weaken these measures it will go up again.  

Infections were doubling every 3 days or so before lock down started as were hospital admissions and deaths.  This will *for certain* happen again if we restore the pre-lockdown conditions while there is significant infection in the community.

If R is now 1 in England it means the infection rate has stopped falling.  One new case will infect 1 other person.  The condition you have created and the measures needed to control it will persist indefinitely until it a signficant fraction of the population catch it and are (hopefully) immune.   If you kept R well below one the number of infections would fall fairly rapidly as they have in Scotland and Ireland.  In a few weeks they'd be near zero and you could do all the things you want to do now safely.

The Tories are creating their own problems by rushing it.  

Arguably there is a fundamental flaw in this article contained within the proposition that it is the activity at the end of a journey that increases or does not increase the chances of spreading the virus. 

The journey is far more the issue. If nothing goes wrong then all well and good but with sufficient journeys something will happen. Whether it be a two tyre blow out in Glen Shiel or a rescue near Crianlarich the subsequent mixing of people from different areas and the potential to spread the virus would not happen without the travel. 

What you do at the end of the journey, assuming it is an activity that would be currently acceptable close to the place where you live doesn't really matter. It is worth noting that all the activities the author does and describes would be entirely within the guidelines without the drive to get there. 

If you accept that the journey is the problem then the current restrictions are neither senseless nor unjustifiable. 

Whether the current level of restriction is now necessary is a different question. 

Absolutely. And this is why the title of the article is so disingenuous.

That proposition is a reasonable one, given that the current guidance allows socialising outside of your local area, but not outdoor recreation outside of your local area.

"You should stay within your local area when you go outside for exercise or other activities."

"It is acceptable to travel outside your local area to meet members of another household in an outdoor space such as a private garden."

https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-phase-1-staying-at-h...

If the measures included a blanket 'local area only' clause for all non-essential travel, not just for travel for outdoor pursuits, I'm sure the author of this article would be more sympathetic to the measures.

Yes, the 2m rule is arbitrary, there are a large number of factors at play as well as a judgement about what level of risk is acceptable.  People have been infected at far longer distances than 2m.  In one case they had a seating chart from a restaurant and you could clearly see a 'plume' of infected people 'downwind' of the seed case based on the air flow direction of the ventilation system.

Two things are clear:

a. 2m is 'safer' than 1m.   If England changes the rule from 2m to 1m it will increase R.  It is not clear by how much or whether another measure like wearing masks could compensate.  But R is already close to 1 in England and all the policy changes (except for masks) are in the direction of increasing it further.

b. If nobody in the community has Covid and you have a system which is able to find and isolate any new seed cases really efficiently then you can relax a bit.  You aren't going to catch it because nobody else has got it.  This is the situation with many tropical diseases, in the UK we aren't immunised, R would be > 1 if they got here but we don't have a problem because we keep them out.

The problem with the Tories is they are trying to have it both ways.  They want to relax the measures which keep R low before they've stopped transmission in the community.

As mentioned somewhere upthread, that's not now the case. A few days after that particular bit of Scottish government guidance came in, it changed to this:

Are people allowed to travel to meet friends and family outside?
Yes, but you should stay in your local area if possible. As a guide we suggest ‘local’ to be no more than five miles from your house.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-what-you-can-and-can...

So the recommendation of five miles now covers both the exercise and social-visit aspects. Large numbers of people appear not to have realised that the social advice has been made stricter - hardly surprising given that it was (for whatever reason) done on the quiet and wasn't the subject of any big announcement.

The update on 8th June actually went back on this to apply the same travel guidelines for visiting friends and family as for exercise.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-what-you-can-and-can...

"Are people allowed to travel to meet friends and family outside?

Yes, but you should stay in your local area if possible. As a guide we suggest ‘local’ to be no more than five miles from your house."

It does seem sensible that the guidelines are now consistent, but they shouldn't really have made a hash of it in the first place. And it is probably a case of bolting the stable door to late.

Thanks both - I had missed that. The measures make much more sense to me now, frustrating as they are to a hillgoer.

Looks like they have only amended it in some parts of the guidance but not others (e.g. not in the link I posted). Indeed the opportunity has been missed to publicise this update more widely.

I was going to reply on the basis that given the Scottish Government still has a law that bans you from leaving the place where you live without a reasonable excuse it is the family and friends guidelines that  if the SG truly believe in their strategy, could be described as unjustifiable. They appear to have realised that already though. 

The Scottish government legislation and guidance has been a bit of a guddle at times - a mix of vagueness and definite stuff, with some apparent contradictions and illogical things. It's no wonder a lot of people have been feeling confused. The UK legislation and guidance, perhaps because it has generally moved towards easing faster, has arguably been easier to understand. My better half has been busy writing a long email to our MSP about various confusions (not sure if she's sent it yet), whereas I've just been rambling away on here...

It is still over restrictive. Too much about going to the Highlands, while some of us would like to get to somewhere local not urban, not tar and not under water. The principle of  restricting travel is sound, you can support that and still believe that the current limit is punitive and indefensible and for some of us represented a tightening of the restrictions at a time when we expected a bit more leeway. The light being the oncoming train.

I am very disappointed that UKC/H have published Nick Kempe's opinion piece in which he clearly advocates ignoring public health advice. This, in my opinion, is extremely dangerous as it is likely to encourage more people to take selfish individual action that may cause the coronavirus to spread further.  I feel that by publishing his piece UKC/H have overstepped the mark and have done a disservice to society at a time of great peril. If Nick had posted his views as a new topic or response to a comment, then I would have still had a different opinion, but would have been less concerned. Publishing his piece has given much greater prominence. Sadly, having read most of the comments, I have concluded that there is a majority that support Nick's view. I am therefore considering whether I wish to remain part of such a community.

It seems we approach things from different directions. I would know that bivi-ing out was doing no harm whatsoever and so if I wanted to do that I would, and would continue to do so. I certainly wouldn't care whether it was 'allowed' or not. That is irrelevant as to whether it's a sensible thing to do or not. But I also wouldn't advertise on UKC that I'd done so! 

That's a very good point. 

UKC would not publish a view advocating ignoring accepted opinion on climbing, arguing, for example, that we should all feel free to drytool and bolt crags wherever we please, or that we should tie in with a rethreaded overhand knot.

Yet, it is acceptable to publicise an article promoting ignoring public health advice.

How twisted is that?

I posted on Tuesday at 19.57 making very much the same point as you. My post has 94 likes and 25 dislikes so far (for what they are worth), so I'm not at all sure that the majority do support Nick's view.

I didn't really consider it (quite possibly mistakenly) not to be allowed, so I wasn't too bothered about admitting it when asked. But I am a bit surprised that people who have knowingly and flagrantly ignored the travel guidelines are happy to advertise the fact though.

No they weren't. Infections started going down before lockdown. Social distancing and handwashing etc did it. So a socially distanced activity like hillwalking is perfectly comparable with staying on top of the virus. When I went to Arrochar this week the only time I came within 50 yards of any locals was when a woman chose to come out her house and approach me to complain about my legally parked car being where it was.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/new-study-shows-covid-infections-were-f...

I find this a weirdly contradictory post. But I suppose it depends on what you expect of this site in the first place; whether or not you expect the site per se to have an editorial stance (and, if so, exactly what that is); and how you assess that posts to this site (like this one!) in any way reflect the general opinion of other posters to this site.

On your final sentence, what's your proposal: to ask for your supporter's fee back?

I obviously missed that (sorry) and another early comment with a similar view.

To be honest, I was a bit angry about UKC/H publishing Nick's piece that I clearly missed yours and other comments.

I am now more reassured that the UKC/H is a more balanced community.

I still feel that UKC have made a mistake with this. They could have easily referenced Nick's early blog, from a few weeks previously, in a more balanced article.

PS: I'm a long standing friend of Nick's and have enjoyed many a good day in the hills with him. I respect what he has done for mountaineering in Scotland and his good work on access & conservation. However, on this issue, we clearly have a different view.

It seems you miss the nuance of the debate. Nick Kempe is pointing out that driving 50 miles to go hillwalking does no harm whatsoever (except a wee bit perhaps to the environment); i.e. that it has virtually no negative impact on public health. I think he is questioning the guidelines rather than actively encouraging people to ignore them.

Because people and businesses and devolved governments started to take action themselves before Johnson got round to it.

No they didn't.  It took the actual lockdown which stopped people going to work, using public transport and going to school.   Probably we would have got away with social distancing and hand washing if we'd had effective contact tracing, face masks, robust isolation policies (i.e. don't stay at home with your family and go out whenever you like because nobody is watching) AND border control to prevent seeding.   That's effectively the bet when we open up again.

I agree.  But this is like the scenario I mentioned before about having a drink and sleeping in your car with your keys beside you.  There is no risk of you running somebody over but it is still illegal.  The reason is that if it was allowed the cops would find it harder to enforce the drink driving laws.  Hillwalking or wild camping isn't dangerous but if everyone who felt they wanted to drive to the Highlands just had to say they were going hillwalking it wouldn't be practical to stop far more common reasons for travel which do involve risk.

The main point though is that the whole debate should be moot because, as can be seen from where Scotland and Ireland are now compared with England it is only an extra couple of weeks of harder lockdown needed to get the whole country to near zero infections.   There's going to be months of managing the current infection level because they can't admit they were wrong and spend a couple of weeks clearing it down to near zero.

"On your final sentence, what's your proposal: to ask for your supporter's fee back?"

Prior to posting I suspended my 'supporter' payment.

However, it was done in haste, so I may reinstate it.

I don't think UKC/H is bad, just not right on this occasion.

Ian

I think that is the fundamental flaw in his argument. True the hill walking, unless he is meeting people is unlikely to have an impact on public health however the travelling bit may well depending upon events. For the individual an event that causes unnecessary interaction is unlikely but if you multiply that individuals journey by hundreds or thousands then unnecessary interaction becomes likely. Essentially he is using the Dominic Cummings defence (even though he tries to distinguish himself from Mr Cummings). The question to ask is : If everyone behaved in this way would it have a negative impact on the effort to control coronavirus?

Given that the virus is spread by people travelling, and the more people travel the more likely an interaction is with someone from another area, the answer in this case, at the moment, appears to be yes. 

This is a hot topic. So here's my tuppence worth.

We have all witnessed people doing things like nipping to the shops for non-essential items, visiting family and friends etc etc; things that have been doing far more harm during lock-down than hill-walking would. And without the forementioned being policed effectively, people will naturally take the view that because the government isn't adequately dealing with the situation, well then stuff it. I'm going for a walk up the hills. And it's unavoidable to mention the gruesome twosome of Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson being major factors in peoples attitudes towards (dis)obeying the rules. So, what can we do as a nation to repair this moral rift?

So you think we should be arguing with facts and figures but you can't be bothered?

How Fermatian.

I think it depends what you mean by "everyone". If you mean hillwalkers, I'm sure even for the popular Munros interaction can be easily avoided by stepping off the path, much as you would do on your local walks. And for the less busy ones risk would be pretty much negligible. The virus is also spread by meeting other people in one's local area, no?

As I said I don't think hill walking in itself is likely to be a risk. It is the journey that is the potential problem. The more people travel and the greater the distance they travel the more likely an unplanned interaction between people from different communities. At the moment it's not so much what you do its how far you travel to do it that is the issue. 

Although on some narrow bits of Munros there could be situations where stepping off the path isn't really feasible - eg two people encountering each other while heading opposite ways along the Aonach Eagach. The Devil's Ridge would be another example. A bit of passing place-type waiting might sort it, but the evidence from other narrow places (eg the footbridge across the Forth in Stirling near where I live) is that not everyone is minded to wait.

Once travelling to climb Munros is an option again, I can see me heading to Glen Shee-type hills rather than Glen Coe-type ones for a while.

I can’t comprehend how people don’t understand these rules aren’t about hillwalking. Your average joe will want an ice cream, a toilet, chippy and a cup on their way to and back from some honeypot. 

Damn, even I fancied an ice cream today on my way back from a hill run. It took me a minute to realise that was a stupid idea! 

Please quantify the statistics which lead you to that conclusion. Are you talking about health policy? For example carehome discharge without test, was changed a week after PHE made the change. Or are you just talking shite because you are a mindless SNP following sheep who has a serious case of wool pulled over their eyes?

Its the complete illogicality of the Scottish Administration Policy that stands out.

The Administration claims  to be 'science led' and will allow a person to drive (distance unspecified) to a garden centre.

At the garden centre hundreds of people will interact some of whom may be less than careful.

However for exercise you cannot drive more than 5 miles to get access to a quiet forestry path where probably you will meet no one at all.

Surely any  science based 'risk assessment' of the two options would conclude that the quiet forestry track its much safer for all concerned.

 The question to ask is : If everyone behaved in this way would it have a negative impact on the effort to control coronavirus?

It's about more than that. If impact on virus was all that mattered we would stay in full lockdown. We need to distinguish between low risk and high risk activities and between easily avoidable activities. Nobody is suggesting going back to hugs and handshakes when you meet everyone. It is avoidabe with little impact. But we need to get back to normal where itis low risk.

The 'stay local' advice now applies to all activities. It is in the 'Getting Around' section of the June 8th update.

 That bit of the guidance makes no sense at all. If your family happen to stay more than 5 miles away it is obviously not possible to see them without travelling more than 5 miles and therefore you are allowed to travel further.

I don't disagree but travel is the issue not the activity.

I might question the need to have the same travel advice across all of Scotland. Why can't people move about more within the Western Isles for instance?Should the Northern Highlands have the same restrictions as West Central Scotland? However if some of us do our own thing because we disagree with some aspects of the the handling of this crisis then it is reasonable for all of us to do our own thing. At which point any attempt to control the spread of infection has failed.

I don't think we have reached the point where we can reasonably say that the crisis is over. There are clearly many different ways of easing restrictions. Italy with its greater distance limits, France with its different zones, Ireland with keeping to your county. All of these may work. Whether the Scottish Government has found the optimal path I doubt but it is not a stupid path and, if we want it to work, we need to follow it. 

From the guidance, it is clear than the reason for the 5 mile limit is to avoid over-crowding, not any risks due to the journey itself.

"Travel for exercise, recreation and to meet friends and family outdoors

You should avoid crowded places where physical distancing may be difficult.

For this reason, our advice is that you should stay within your local area when you go outside for exercise or other activities.

As a guide, rather than a fixed limit, 5 miles from your home would be within your local area. This is to reduce the risk that places such as beaches or popular beauty spots could become crowded and make physical distancing harder to maintain. For that reason we would not encourage the re-opening of car parks that are currently closed, other than a phased re-opening to support local travel."

Well yes. Restrict travel, restrict mixing. 

Travel on it's own doesn't create mixing, it's what you do when you get there!

No travel, no mixing. 

Obviously, but most people are not travelling to spend their time on an empty hill. Most will need toilets, cafes, shops etc. You either have a blanket restriction (which is tough on hillwalkers) or you just say "make your own judgement". Unfortunately, many people would make rubbish judgements.

I agree the "if possible" is ambiguous. I think the clear intention is to discourage leaving your local area to make visits, but maybe they want to leave the door open in particular circumstances. 

They do seem to have made a bit of a mess with this guidance with its backtracking.

This - on the NTS position - seems quite encouraging re the removal of car park barriers at places such as Ben Lawers - although quite how soon most people will be able to legitimately drive to such places remains to be seen.

https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2020/06/10/trust-plans-to-re-open-scottis...

It does however rather imply that the Trust thinks its hills are currently closed, which I don't believe is the case - the main access legislation still stands. At least it does suggest progress is being made - during FMD the NTS were very poor (particularly at Lawers) in terms of reopening, lagging well behind (long into the summer of 2001) increasingly firm statements from the Scottish Executive as it then was. I know this because I was sent a series of leaks from someone quite high up at the SE who was keen to shame the NTS and various other orgs into action.

Mixing is perfectly possible without travel (I see lots of it going all all around). Travel is perfectly possible without mixing.

I seem to recall the opposite! I remember going to Torridon for the weekend in February of that year because NTS land was ok whereas most places were not open.

Tricky to do so with someone from a different community though. 

That's interesting - it might well have been left to local managers. Mind you, your Torridon experience sounds like it was early in the outbreak - the access restrictions didn't really start to come in until late Feb / early March, so could it have been that NTS Torridon had yet to shut down at that stage?

The main thing I can remember from a Beinn Ghlas / Ben Lawers outing in mid-May (by when the Scottish Executive had said it was to go back on the hill and was actively encouraging people to do so) was that the local manager emerged from the visitor centre (which was still there at that stage) and tried to stop us. She said that if we went beyond the end of the wooded area and on to the open hill we would have our NTS memberships cancelled - which made us laugh as I don't think anyone in the group was a member.

I also remember Ben Nevis opening up with some great late season conditions. I was up there immediately while it was still all  but deserted!

Interesting to look at the confirmed case percentages for each NHS Scotland Health Board:  Lowest rates would seem to be Western Isles and Orkney, 0.02% and 0.04% respectively, then Highland and Dumfries & Galloway, 0.10% and 0.17%.  Remaining ten regions are between 0.20% and 0.40% (Tayside), with Greater Glasgow and Lothian at 0.34% and 0.33%.

The original post seems to miss the point of the advice and restrictions that form part of the Scottish Government's approach to containing the virus in Scotland. While the activity of walking or climbing may not represent a threat, the travel may well do. Stopping for fuel, sharing cars, dropping into a local shop for something to eat. If everybody and not just the outdoor community ignored the travel restrictions, the corresponding spread of infection could be significant. The cautious approach adopted by the Scottish Government seems to be working and bringing infection rates down more successfully than in England. So for a little bit longer, staying local seems to be a small price to pay to try and keep our communities safe and well. On a separate note it's disappointing to read the original post declare so proudly that they broke the travel restrictions that most of us are trying to follow. And I question whether it's a good idea to publish an encouragement to disregard government advice at such a critical time. Particularly without a balancing comment from a representative from NHS Scotland or similar.

I remember her asking us who we represented, and being totally scunnered by the reply of nobody.

The balance on UKC/UKH to date has been very much the other way. For instance we've published several pieces over the last few weeks uncritically reporting official advice from government, governing bodies, Mountain Rescue etc.

MRTs in Stay off the Hills Appeal https://www.ukhillwalking.com/news/2020/05/mountain_rescue_teams_in_stay_of...

Lockdown Scotland https://www.ukhillwalking.com/news/2020/05/lockdown_scotland_-_limited_scop...

New corona advice for walkers and climbers in Scotland https://www.ukhillwalking.com/news/2020/05/new_corona_advice_for_walkers_an...

At the start and during the height of the crisis we were also at pains to promote a don't climb/hillwalk message, as a very deliberate editorial standpoint. 

Now that lockdown restrictions are beginning to ease, and parts of the UK are diverging in the speed and emphasis of this lifting, space has opened for debate as to what's proportionate and effective. The engagement on this thread suggests this was a good time to introduce a contrasting opinion. As it is very clearly marked an opinion piece I'm not convinced we needed to publish an opposite view at the same time. Pending the detail of the Scottish Government's new announcement next week it may perhaps seem appropriate at that stage to consider a different opinion piece.

I think what concerns some of us is not the criticism of the travel guidelines but the example and more or less open encouragement in the article to ignore them. It is perfectly possible to consider them unnecessarily restrictive (and, indeed, in some ways counterproductive), while thinking it correct at this time to stick to them.

Thanks for the prompt response. You've clearly given some thought to balance and a "right of reply", so I accept what you say. It's important that we hear a variety of opinions and that government policy is scrutinised and challenged appropriately. I do however still question how responsible it is, given the seriousness of the difficulties we all face, to amplify the view that it's acceptable to disregard restrictions and ignore rules that most of us in Scotland are observing for reasons of public health and safety. I would urge you to consider the implications of publishing content that encourages the breaking of our current lockdown arrangements.

The opening sentence reads "On Saturday, I once again ignored Scottish Government guidance". The article then explains the author's rationale for doing so. Publicising these broadcast the view to others that it is ok to ignore the guidance.
 

I'm not sure saying he's broken the guidelines is the same as encouraging others to do so.

I took the decision to publish it, and I still don't feel I've been encouraged. I'm as suggestible as the next person but I haven't travelled anywhere for exercise since the start of lockdown, and wouldn't change that after reading this piece.

I'd hope anyone reading it could make up their own minds. Let's remember that these are guidelines, not strict rules, and that the five mile thing is pretty nebulous. A degree of personal judgement is already required.

And while I don't wish to pick quarrels, is broadcasting the fact you've been bivvying really that different in principle? To me that also seems counter to the spirit of the guidelines.  

If you do decide that you wish to continue to publish the content under discussion in its current form, I strongly suggest that you make it clear in a  prominent way, that UKC does not support or condone the breaking of the restrictions that we presently have in place across Scotland.

Thanks, that may be a solution. I'll give that some thought

Nice one. I think it would be the right thing to do.

It didn't take much thought. You're right. Thanks! 

I'm not going to go over the same ground as in previous posts, but I didn't exactly broadcast it - somebody saw from my photo gallery that I had been on top of a hill at both sunset and sunrise, so asked me, and I wasn't going to be dishonest. Anyway, I think admitting to what I saw at the time as a little stretching of guidelines is somewhat different to openly making a point about completely ignoring guidelines in a published article.

There's also the point I made in an earlier thread - in which I flagged up Nick Kempe as a voice worth hearing on all this - that there has been remarkably little comment from other writers (at least that I've seen) about how the hillgoing community might best try and steer a route through the complexities of this crisis. Some normally very vocal people have suddenly gone mysteriously silent or found other things to talk about.

I don't agree with everything that Nick Kempe has written and done - eg I certainly wouldn't drive 50 miles for a walk just now. As I've mentioned previously, I'm based in Stirling and have been doing industrial quantities of stuff on the Ochils, with a furthest drive thus far of 12 miles (to Dollar). I'm very keen to get back to the Munros and would normally have climbed between 20 and 30 of them by this stage of the year, but all I have is just a solitary one, from January, and I'm going to wait a while longer until the fug of legislation and government advice clears a little. More generally, I also tend to come at things from a basic pragmatics viewpoint rather than Nick's human rights angle.

But I admire greatly his willingness to stick his head above the parapet and be shot at: whether or not one agrees with him, his having aired his thoughts on the outdoors aspects of Covid strikes me as a very principled thing for him to have done. I also appreciate UKC having published what is clearly an opinion piece - running it feels to me like good journalism. Were The Angry Corrie still in existence, this is the kind of piece - and subsequent discussion - that as editor I would have been looking to provide, and thank goodness someone is doing it.

Thanks Dave, that's appreciated!

Wish I had the Ochils on the doorstep. Even the Lomond Hills seem a bit far as yet from our bit of Fife.

But I'm mostly jealous of those lucky folk who live in the highlands 

Even that doesn't always help. I can see the hills but they are rather more than 5 miles away.

I disagree with Nick Kempe, I think his central premise is flawed, but you are right to publish the article. 

It's not luck that we live here...

Not so sure - it made me think UKC/H had no trouble with someone who is flouting the rules publicly in order to campaign for our needs (not rights!). It's not about Nick anymore, it's about what UKC/H thinks of when publishing such article. With all due respect to Dan, I wish it was never posted or at least taken down.

In parallel golf forum, golfers are probably saying "look, I saw an article on UKC where this dude travelled 50 miles each way to climb a hill, what a crazy lad!". Meanwhile, UKC/H are bashing golfers. We don't need either.

I also wish we had a campaigner who showed example of staying local, finding out new parts of local paths, hills or green areas instead, which would be in line with guidelines which are meant to help with lowering the R number. I know I have found some nice gems around my local area. 

I think as it is labelled 'opinion' and, at least now, there is a disclaimer and it has hardly received overwhelming support, it is clear that it doesn't speak for any UKC/H editorial view.

There are however many who support Mr Kempe's views. It seems unreasonable to deny those views a hearing. 

Newspapers and magazines often publish standalone opinion pieces and - particularly - regular columns written by people whose views, eg politically, are at odds with the perceived readership. One notable example that comes to mind is the Guardian weekend edition for a good few years including a column by Alexander Chancellor, who was more usually a Sunday Telegraph writer and who used to edit the very non-Guardian-esque Spectator magazine. There will have been plenty of instances of this the other way around, too - left-wing-ish writers appearing in right-of-centre papers.

If it works, this can draw in readers like almost nothing else in the paper, as it engages, enlightens and quite possibly infuriates them. At some stage early on in my own rather meandering journalistic career, I was told (not now sure by who) that the key thing with columns and opinion pieces was to get the reader either loving it or hating it. What was to be avoided was dull middleground stuff that the reader would dismiss with a lack-of-interest shrug. Much better to get them firing off letters to the editor - or, in the modern world, posting comments on a discussion thread. I think that in those terms UKC has followed a long and noble tradition here.

We've had quite a number of lockdown-friendly pieces along those lines on UKH, such as Lockdown Diaries:

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/news/2020/05/lockdown_diaries_-_springtime_in...

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/news/2020/05/lockdown_diaries_-_keeping_it_to...

etc

Also stuff like this extolling the virtues of staying local:

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/articles/features/finding_beauty_in_the_local...

Why is buying an ice cream a stupid idea? A lot of chip shops are open now, with a one in one out policy. Seems pretty safe.

Edit - by which I mean only one customer in the shop at a time

I think you're approaching dangerous ground PPP.  

Need to remember that there is no "5 mile rule" ... only 5 mile guidance.  It is not law.  I am subject to it.

I often don't enjoy the UKC opinion pieces - of which this was one and hence not indicative of UKC as a company's position on the matter.  I find them often unnecessarily divisive but I don't ask UKC to never post opinion content or take certain opinion content down only because I personally disagree with it.

I think if we were to go down the road of UKC removing opinion content because some forum commentators didn't like it ... there soon would be no opinion content to post.  

I for one agree that the 5 mile guidance is punitive and, IMO, breaks with the SNP's stance that they are science led.  Clearly one can adequately socially distance on a munroe to a much greater extent than I can socially distance inside a 5 mile radius of my house.  It is quite clearly counter intuitive that we leave such large swathes of our country empty and keep people packed so closely together - when the objective is to actually keep people apart.

Many things seem counterintuitive until you think about them a bit harder in their full context.

Please refrain from cherry picking an absolute number in support of an argument, I'm sure it does you a disservice.

Taken in an holistic sense; Forth is very similar to Glasgow, and one could just as easily make the argument that Forth is worse, given lower population, lower levels of deprivation, and greater surface area. As such, 'bad' non-townies should stay away from the 'good' townies whom are displaying almost equal rates of infection under far more straightened circumstances.

Punitive requires an intention to punish. Perhaps a little harsh. Strict or even over strict might put it better.

Does 5 mile s break with science led? The argument of the Scottish Government looks to be that as coronavirus can only be transported from one area to another by being carried by a person or an object then restricting movement will restrict its transmission. That is not illogical, it is not unjustifiable, it is not unscientific.

Can you adequately socially distance on a munro to a much greater extent than within 5 miles of your house? If you live within any sizeable community clearly you can.

On the other hand;

If you remain within 5 miles of your house can you meet someone who lives more than 10 miles from your house? Clearly you can't.

If you travel to a munro further than 5 miles from your house can you meet someone who lives further than 10 miles away? Again clearly you can.

If you accept the Scottish Government's premise that by restricting travel you restrict the transmission of the virus then whether you agree with the 5 mile distance or not I don't think that it can be reasonably argued that it is punitive, whom is it designed to punish? or without any scientific merit.

Should 5 miles be the limit, even if you accept the rationale behind the policy, is a different question. The Italians went with 60km. The French one is I believe variable and the Irish based on counties. 

There is no longer any limit in France but for a while it was travel within your département (more or less equivalent to county) or 100km from home. Travel beyond those limits was possible for one of a small N° of reasons & with a copy of a completed form stating your reason.

Even the First Minister isn't keeping to her own 5 mile limit for family visits. Edinburgh/Uddingston to Ayrshire?

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/nicola-sturgeons-joy-reuni...

Seems a common problem with those who set the rules... 

It says she made the visit the Sunday after lockdown was eased. This was before the guidelines were changed to bring in the 5 miles for visiting as well as excercise. So what she did was fine.

Hey Roger!

Conceded. 

Scottish government would do well to publish the science behind their policy choice to implement the 5 mile guidance explaining why Scotland has a unique stage of pandemic, demographics, culture, age, race, extent of infection etc make up that made the 5 mile guidance necessary in Scotland but not necessary in so many other European countries.

Doing so would put down much of the discussion around the 5 mile guidance.  

Excuse my ignorance if this has been published already.

No, it doesn't. The instagram is dated 14th June and quite clearly states "this evening". 

Her biggest media supporter says it is a 45-minute drive to her parents' home. I don't begrudge her or anyone making a similar visit, but it sounds like a lot more than 5 miles to me.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18516928.nicola-sturgeon-tells-joy-first-...

And, what's more, on checking the wording of the Phase 1 guidance, unbelievably, I think they've changed it again. It now says:

"How far are people allowed to travel by car?

Under Phase 1, you can now travel short distances for leisure or exercise but you should stay in your local area, which is within five miles of your house. 

You should not be travelling long distances for leisure or exercise and should think carefully before travelling further than five miles for any reason."

https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-what-you-can-and-can...

As far as I'm aware, this is the first time that local area has been defined, not to mention that AFAI can remember, the previous wording suggested 5 miles from one's local area was fine.

Let's face it, this is a farce.

Sorry, misread it as " on the Sunday after....."  rather than " on Sunday".

I wonder whether much will be made of this. The quiet changing of the guidelines and then Sturgeon either ignoring or (like most people it seems) not being aware of the change is all a bit of a mess.

Edit: Just seen your post. Yes, a farce. They have swapped one vagueness for another.

On a brighter note, no word yet of any charges resulting from this:

"Arrochar Mountain Rescue said: “The team were called out this afternoon to assist a fallen climber on Creag Tharsuinn.

“With assistance from Maritime and Coastguard Agency #Rescue199 we quickly got rescue and medical equipment to the scene.

Once the casualty was secure in the stretcher he was winched directly into the helicopter from the scene. Best wishes for a speedy recovery.”

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/dramatic-footage-shows-sco...

Best wishes for a speedy recovery to the casualty also

It would indeed. 

Is it travel that spreads the infection or ignorant and irresponsible behaviour that spreads the infection. We've done well with lock down as far as reducing the original rate of infection. Is it possible that the time could have been spent preparing us for a return to travel by focussing on "how to behave" procedures for petrol stations, small shops, car parks, public toilets etc? Community Councils in rural areas could have been sent simple sets of instructions  to download and display. People in Kinlochbervie were complaining this week that "outsiders" had brushed past them in the shop - why were two groups of shoppers allowed into that shop in the first place? I fear we are going to have restrictions lifted because the government doesn't want to subsidise business any more, not because we're ready to travel. 

It's interesting to contrast this with the situation in Devon and Cornwall.  Restrictions on travel for locals are very much less here compared to a few weeks ago.  All the gyms and climbing walls etc, are still shut though.  As a result, the moors have more people on them than I can ever recall seeing before.  The local facilities remain closed though.  I feel this works well.  The moors are large open areas well capable of providing safe recreation for a few thousand walkers.  They don't suffer the route congestion seen in Snowdonia either.  As long as people are sensible around the car parks this works well. 

Opening up the facilities is a different matter all together. Toilets Cafes, pubs around the moor.  Personally even once they are reopened I don't plan to use any of them until this Virus is under full lockdown it's self and that is still a way off I fear. Much as I would like to support the local economy, I'm no spring chicken and safety comes first.

And, if there's no vaccine and no immunity, then what?

It’s all a bit of a pointless discussion anyway because this 5 mile thing isn’t at all being enforced. Plenty of hill users out being discrete and keeping to themselves without challenge. I heard some honey pot locations had some groups broken up a while ago, but there is plenty of freedom available if you are discrete.  

I've not yet properly studied all that's been said by the FM today, but it appears that from tomorrow people in Scotland can visit friends and use their inside loo, but it's still the case that "we are asking people not to travel more than around five miles or so from their home" (whatever that means - there are two vagueness in that).

Putting these two announcements together, it's debatable whether much science is actually being followed. It certainly doesn't feel like the hillgoing community is getting much of a look in. If there's any lobbying going on by Mountaineering Scotland or whoever, it's not working.

Living in a (non hill) honeypot, five miles is being treated with the respect that it is due - how much better a humane but effective limit that is enforced?  

Sun's back so booted off the coast again and even early this morning paths and roads were very busy inland.   And then there are all the camper vans!

Will continue to ride the same loops from home as I was able to do in April.  

From STV:

It does appear that hill goers are punished a fair bit, but I still think it’s because of broader issues than hill walkers who are happy to pee anywhere and don’t need an ice cream.
My nearest (and only) family members are 1700+ miles (by car) away anyway. I haven’t met with any friends yet either, but that’s due to my antisocial nature . Can’t wait for phase 3. 

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

From the bbc 

12:47

People should still not travel more than five miles for leisure

The first minister say: "At this point, for leisure and recreation purposes, we are asking people not to travel more than around five miles or so from their home."

She stress that does not apply to meeting family and friends.

So we could drive across the country (though I'm not advocating that) and meet up, but we can't go on the hill avoiding all contact if its out of 5 mile range.  Thus the arguments by several people in the thread above that its about preventing contact/interaction between differing communities are false (They always were weak arguments as folks have been traveling 50-60 miles into Aberdeen, Inverness, Glasgow, Oban etc to work , shop and access services, then travel back home).

Inconsistent deliberate politics going.

Agree with you there.. i live in Edinburgh on a busy main road and I see the coaches are back rumbling up and down the road with 'inverness' on the front of them.. Whos travelling to inverness??

So im allowed to jump on a bus and travel half way across the country – but im not allowed to travel more than 5ish miles for exercise... seems to be a bit of a joke really. Nevis Range is apparently opening on the 15th of July so I would imagine they would have eased the distance restrictions by then?

Please lets stop using the word "punished". Nobody is being punished.

Yes, I think so. 

Here's the formal version of what's been said - I'm just about to have a proper read of it. We're mostly now in Phase 2, it appears. The Scottish Government also appears not to know how to do tinyurl-type stuff - apols for the long link:

https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/progre...

More and more people seem to be ignoring the five mile thing already, I can't see it being enforceable for much longer. 

Aren't we?

The 5 mile guidance only applies to exercise and recreation, not to meeting friends and family. There was guidance that you couldn't use someone else's indoor toilet so that might restrict how far you travelled, but after visiting her parents Sturgeon changed her mind.

Suspect that is indeed the case, although I'm not in any position to really assess it as while I've been stretching the "broadly five miles" thing a bit (maximum 12 thus far), I've not gone into the Highlands (from Stirling) as yet, despite being increasingly tempted.

Incidentally - mainly for girlymonkey who was asking a few days ago - I've now (yesterday) ventured west of the M9 for the first time since a pre-lockdown Ben Ledi outing on 21 March. Felt a bit weird to be going beyond Keir roundabout (only four miles from here), but go I did and I went as far as Buchany, then up the useful estate road leading towards the Braes of Doune windfarm - I didn't know until last week that one could drive a couple of miles up this, but a local friend provided very useful info. Anyway, where I parked (11 miles from home) was still nearer than Dollar, where I went twice during Phase 1, and I had a very good circuit of Uamh Bheag and the rough tops to the east of it. Have been on those a few times before but not since 2001, and it felt like a great change-of-scene treat to sit in the sunshine on Uamh Bheag having lunch. Vorlich and Stuc looked tremendous (and very close) across the glen - strange and quite frustrating that they're still effectively out of bounds, given that I'm not prepared to drive to Callander never mind Lochearnhead. Had hoped for progress on that with today's announcement, but it wasn't to be. Hence back to the Ochils for a while - yesterday's jaunt broke a sequence of 33 consecutive Ochil outings, and I'll be starting another batch of those tomorrow...

It was never a question of being enforced, it was always about whether the public would respect and abide by it. 

It clearly is now completely inconsistent and not related to the science, and being increasingly recognized as such.  So with infection being the interplay of proximity and time in the presence of a carrier (with mitigation in the form of self imposed quarantine if symptomatic, hygiene and masks) & a magnifying factor of enclosed spaces.  

So we are to believe the Scot Gov. is right and that people (of potentially disparate communities as is now allowed)  meeting in each others gardens, observing social distancing, but with probable multi-hour exposure, is less risky than not interacting with anyone at all by visiting the coast, hills or mountains over 5 miles away?

If we are to believe the statistics that the virus is fortunately present in very low and decreasing abundance, hence easing lockdown, and outside transmission is minimal (hence gov advice to meet outside), there is no logic to the governments 5 mile position with regard to exercise (particularly since people from differing communities can now meet). It is all about politics and the SNP trying not to face a rural back-lash, or rather garner rural votes.

So essentially the Scot Gov. doesn't trust its population to behave, or hasn't the ability/desire  to educate them.................not good.

It never has been enforceable. But that should not really have any influence on anyone's decision whether or not to stick to it.

That bit is the inconsistency if they believe in the policy of restricting travel, which is a reasonable policy if followed and enforced there should be no such dispensation. 

Not a weak argument, weak application. 

No argument there 

The 5 miles seems unduly harsh 

The Scottish government has never claimed that to be the case. It is simply a matter of hillwalkers being caught by a blanket restriction which has defensible intentions; it can be argued that complicating the guidance by making all kinds of exceptions for hillwalkers and others would simply give licence for everyone to interpret the guidance how they like and defeat its purpose.

What do you think we are being punished for?

But it might now - or at election time next year - face at least a partial urban backlash given that the FM and her people appear to have underestimated just how many city/town people (probably including lots who in general support her party) are absolutely itching to get back out to the hills.

Re gman's point upthread about the Sturgeon parental visit thing (the guidance on which has now changed three times in pretty quick succession), the great imponderable from a hillgoing point of view is how matters might have been different were the FM fond of a wander up Tinto or Ben Lomond or an evening at Auchinstarry every few weeks - which she appears not to be.