Your interpretation of non-essential "leaving the house" acceptability parameters

[teuchter]

In the absence of clear official guidance I want to see what the groupthink is, on what is and isn't OK, in terms of being out of the house for what is being broadly described as "exercise time". In other words, not including things like going to the shops or doctors or helping other people with deliveries and so on.

For example, is a 4 hour bike ride staying on roads and not touching anything OK or is it too long out of the house?

Is maximum length of a run determined by distance from home, length in time, or simply by how far you can run?

Is driving a short distance OK?

Is the number of other people trying to do the same thing in the same place relevant?

etc etc

You can tick the relevant boxes in the poll and then give further details if you want.

Obviously some argument about my choice of poll options is expected and fully anticipated.

 

[andysays]

There is clear official guidance on how long you should be out exercising - it's a maximum of one hour.

 

[Pickman's model]

you've fucked the poll up

you ask 'which factors should be considered' and then have as answers statements which do not correspond to the question

 

[magneze]

There is clear official guidance on how long you should be out exercising - it's a maximum of one hour.

Is there? I didn't know that.

 

[bimble]

Is the number of other people trying to do the same thing in the same place relevant?

This should be in the poll. This is my conundrum. Or my justification.
I know that writing this will probably attract a load of righteous fury but my situation is ridiculously lucky right now:
I live in the middle of a national trust forest which is closed to visitors - gate has been shut for it must be about two weeks - so I can walk for miles without seeing a single other human. If I lie down on a fallen tree this afternoon in the woods then there is a 0% chance than anybody will see me. So not only do i not have any realistic chance of spreading the virus (unless it is on the tree trunk) but I also wont be adding to any general sense of 'if they are doing it then it must be fine'.
So should I be keeping to strictly 1hr a day despite these circumstances?

 

[Athos]

The thing is a practically workable rule won't be able to capture the nuance, especially when many people's approach is to look for loopholes rather than to abide by the spirit. So it needs to be quite blunt. I'd say exercise to be confined to the home for a couple of weeks, until we've got a better lid on things. Shopping for food or medicine only if you can't get an online spot, and restricted to the nearest supermarket/ pharmacy, and then only once a week for anyone with a car, and one person per household per week. But it'd be better if all non-essential activity was shut down i.e. building sites.

 

[maomao]

It took me three and a half hours to do the shopping today and that was pretty unavoidable with four mouths to feed. I could have spread it over three days (or longer) but that would have increased the amount of times I was entering the house from outside (I did three trips putting the shopping in the garden and going straight back out inbetween). Should be good for eight days now.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

This should be in the poll. This is my conundrum. Or my justification.

Well, quite. Where we live it's a quiet little village, so I can go out to walk the dog and probably only see one other person while I wander round the fields or woods.

If I lived on Brighton seafront and wanted to do the same thing, I can imagine I would feel extremely guilty that I was "part of the problem" with crowds of people being out all at once ... but also that the vast majority of the other people there would be in exactly the same situation as me. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to adequately self-isolate outside the home, even if you try to avoid the crowds on a bike ride or run.

 

[kebabking]

Worth remembering that 'guidence' isn't the law.

For me, the substantive answers are around contact with others (primary or secondary), and impact on others - so if you can walk, or ride a bike for four hours without being within the 4/5m of coughs and sneezes, and you don't leave your germs on surfaces others will touch, and you aren't taking up a space in a carpark that someone else can't access 'clean' exercise without, then crack on.

It's contacts, contacts, contacts. That's all that matters - no contacts, no problem.

 

[hegley]

This should be in the poll. This is my conundrum. Or my justification.
I know that writing this will probably attract a load of righteous fury but my situation is ridiculously lucky right now:
I live in the middle of a national trust forest which is closed to visitors - gate has been shut for it must be about two weeks - so I can walk for miles without seeing a single other human. If I lie down on a fallen tree this afternoon in the woods then there is a 0% chance than anybody will see me. So not only do i not have any realistic chance of spreading the virus (unless it is on the tree trunk) but I also wont be adding to any general sense of 'if they are doing it then it must be fine'.
So should I be keeping to strictly 1hr a day despite these circumstances?

I think it would be ridiculous for you not to make the most of your situation (jammy git! )

 

[bimble]

I think it would be ridiculous for you not to make the most of your situation (jammy git! )

Thank you. Logically I know that i'm not going to harm anyone but have been feeling guilty which doesn't help anyone at all. Will go see if the bluebells are out yet.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

if you can walk, or ride a bike for four hours without being within the 4/5m of coughs and sneezes, and you don't leave your germs on surfaces others will touch, and you aren't taking up a space in a carpark that someone else can't access 'clean' exercise without, then crack on.

The trouble with that attitude is that it means it's okay for me personally to go to the park and have a picnic - it's everyone else that is the problem. All those people going for walks in the Pennines or wherever it was probably thought they'd be fine because nobody else would be there - except everyone else had the same idea.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Contact with others, contact with things that others will come into contact with. Those are the factors. All other things are irrelevant to the actual purpose of distancing.

 

[bimble]

Worth remembering that 'guidence' isn't the law.

For me, the substantive answers are around contact with others (primary or secondary), and impact on others - so if you can walk, or ride a bike for four hours without being within the 4/5m of coughs and sneezes, and you don't leave your germs on surfaces others will touch, and you aren't taking up a space in a carpark that someone else can't access 'clean' exercise without, then crack on.

It's contacts, contacts, contacts. That's all that matters - no contacts, no problem.

Don't think that's quite it you know. At least part of this is about 'social modelling' so if you are sunbathing or whatever with your household members with a safe 5 meters space around you but you can be seen by a load of other people, say people looking out of their windows or walking their dogs, then you're contributing to the sense that what you're doing is fine and normal and the whole thing would stop working. So its not just strictly about physical contact or the trasmition risk of what you are doing.

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

Just don’t bump into any fucker. Easy

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

There is clear official guidance on how long you should be out exercising - it's a maximum of one hour.

As far as I know Gove mentioned an hour. The government then clarified that that isn't official policy but it seems to have got around a bit.

Keeping the messages clear aren't they.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Don't think that's quite it you know. At least part of this is about 'social modelling' so if you are sunbathing or whatever with your household members with a safe 5 meters space around you but you can be seen by a load of other people, say people looking out of their windows or walking their dogs, then you're contributing to the sense that what you're doing is fine and normal and the whole thing would stop working. So its not just strictly about physical contact or the trasmition risk of what you are doing.

I'm steering clear of everyone no matter what I do, so anyone following me around waiting for social cues will do likewise.

 

[Athos]

Contact with others, contact with things that others will come into contact with. Those are the factors. All other things are irrelevant to the actual purpose of distancing.

They're not, though. Because it's not possible to guarantee you'll avoid contact, and the risk of accidental contact increases with time outside. And, the further you travel from home, the greater the risk of accidental contact introducing it to another community. And, if you lie around for hours others will feel it's ok to fo the same, which increases the number if people out ar any one time, which increases the chance of inadvertent contact.

 

[SpookyFrank]

They're not, though. Because it's not possible to guarantee you'll avoid contact, and the risk of accidental contact increases with time outside. And, the further you travel from home, the greater the risk of accidental contact introducing it to another community. And, if you lie around for hours others will feel it's ok to fo the same, which increases the number if people out ar any one time, which increases the chance of inadvertent contact.

Ah, but I live in a densely populated inner city area. More people to accidentally come into contact with. If I ride my bike out to the middle of nowhere, the chance of accidental contact goes down. In fact, when you think about it, everyone should immediately go to the countryside and stay there for the duration.

 

[Clair De Lune]

I'm very good at avoiding people. I didn't come within 15 feet of another soul on my walk this morning. Fresh air, burning off energy and nature is incredibly important to me and my mental health. I was very lucky to have my garden when I was in quarantine.
Like fuck can we get all high n mighty with people like my uncle who lives in a high rise or my mate who lives in a tiny pokey, hot flat to not have a walk or bike ride once a day when it's the only relief they get from the oppression of those walls and loneliness. Dogs need more than one walk a day too unless you want a sad dog n a garden full of shit.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

I’ve posted about this before. My son catches a bus to work at the hospital. He works all day at the hospital and then caches the bus home. During all this time he encounters people. He does his best to distance himself, but others aren’t always so attentive. Once he gets home he is lucky enough to be able to walk up onto the moor. Even at the height of a normal summer you can do this without getting near anyone else, if you try. Right now there are far fewer people and those that there are keep their distance. So I can see nothing wrong with that.

Not everyone can do this. Location, location, location, as it were. But if you can go outside and avoid people, why not?

 

[maomao]

The thing is a practically workable rule won't be able to capture the nuance, especially when many people's approach is to look for loopholes rather than to abide by the spirit. So it needs to be quite blunt. I'd say exercise to be confined to the home for a couple of weeks, until we've got a better lid on things. Shopping for food or medicine only if you can't get an online spot, and restricted to the nearest supermarket/ pharmacy, and then only once a week for anyone with a car, and one person per household per week. But it'd be better if all non-essential activity was shut down i.e. building sites.

Luckily you're not in charge.

 

[Athos]

Ah, but I live in a densely populated inner city area. More people to accidentally come into contact with. If I ride my bike out to the middle of nowhere, the chance of accidental contact goes down. In fact, when you think about it, everyone should immediately go to the countryside and stay there for the duration.

If you can't effectively socially distance while exercising near your home, then, in my opinion, the socially responsible thing to do would be to exercise at home. The alternative - being out for longer, and furter from home - risks unnecessary contact including with those in hitherto uninfected communities.

 

[Athos]

Luckily you're not in charge.

It won't be lucky for those who die unnecessarily.

 

[teuchter]

There is clear official guidance on how long you should be out exercising - it's a maximum of one hour.

Where's this official guidance?

 

[Athos]

... unless you want a sad dog...

My sister it's working in ITU with insufficient PPE. Frankly, fuck 'sad dogs'.

 

[teuchter]

This should be in the poll. This is my conundrum. Or my justification.
I know that writing this will probably attract a load of righteous fury but my situation is ridiculously lucky right now:
I live in the middle of a national trust forest which is closed to visitors - gate has been shut for it must be about two weeks - so I can walk for miles without seeing a single other human. If I lie down on a fallen tree this afternoon in the woods then there is a 0% chance than anybody will see me. So not only do i not have any realistic chance of spreading the virus (unless it is on the tree trunk) but I also wont be adding to any general sense of 'if they are doing it then it must be fine'.
So should I be keeping to strictly 1hr a day despite these circumstances?

In my opinion that's all completely fine, no reason to feel guilty, and you should knock yourself out (not literally, though, unless you can do so without requiring medical assistance).

 

[kebabking]

They're not, though. Because it's not possible to guarantee you'll avoid contact, and the risk of accidental contact increases with time outside. And, the further you travel from home, the greater the risk of accidental contact introducing it to another community. And, if you lie around for hours others will feel it's ok to fo the same, which increases the number if people out ar any one time, which increases the chance of inadvertent contact.

You think this because you live in a city. I can walk out of my back garden and keep going for three hours and see perhaps 4 people to wave at. None of us will get within 200 metres of each other - and this is the same as it was last spring, and every spring for the last decade.

It's about adapting to your environment. I have lots of space and few people - conversely, I could have a very long wait for an ambulance, and the number of ventilators within 20 miles of my house could probably be counted on the fingers of both hands.

 

[Chemical needs]

Where's this official guidance?

Maybe it was official at one time but isn't anymore? I thought it was a thing, too, but haven't heard it in a while.

 

[Athos]

You think this because you live in a city. I can walk out of my back garden and keep going for three hours and see perhaps 4 people to wave at. None of us will get within 200 metres of each other - and this is the same as it was last spring, and every spring for the last decade.

It's about adapting to your environment. I have lots of space and few people - conversely, I could have a very long wait for an ambulance, and the number of ventilators within 20 miles of my house could probably be counted on the fingers of both hands.

I don't live in a city. I could easily walk for miles without seeing anyone. But it's hard to see how we could have clear and workable rules that take everyone's individual circumstances into account, and so I'm willing to forego my exercise/time outside/hobbies, in the hope that others will do the same. It seems a small sacrifice given that meant are literally rising their lives to protect the most vulnerable in our community.