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

[teuchter]

So... in my opinion I could go off on a bike ride for 2 or 3 hours, and not come into contact with anyone or anything (I think quite plausibly be 4m from anyone at any time). Alternatively I could go to the local park for an hour's walk or a run, where I'd do my best to keep a distance, but a 2m distance there is more realistic than a 4m one, and I'd pass a large number of people albeit at that distance. So to me, the longer bike ride has less risk of causing harm, and given the free choice between them, that's what I'd go for. If it's OK for someone else to go to the park for 1 hour is there a reason it's not OK for me to go on a solo bike ride for 3 hours?

Perhaps you would argue that I should go for a 1 hour bike ride so I get a similar "time outside" benefit to others but whilst causing less risk. But I don't even know if most people consider themselves under a time limit.

 

[Athos]

So... in my opinion I could go off on a bike ride for 2 or 3 hours, and not come into contact with anyone or anything (I think quite plausibly be 4m from anyone at any time). Alternatively I could go to the local park for an hour's walk or a run, where I'd do my best to keep a distance, but a 2m distance there is more realistic than a 4m one, and I'd pass a large number of people albeit at that distance. So to me, the longer bike ride has less risk of causing harm, and given the free choice between them, that's what I'd go for. If it's OK for someone else to go to the park for 1 hour is there a reason it's not OK for me to go on a solo bike ride for 3 hours?

Perhaps you would argue that I should go for a 1 hour bike ride so I get a similar "time outside" benefit to others but whilst causing less risk. But I don't even know if most people consider themselves under a time limit.

Perhaps you could just stay in for a couple of weeks and not risk any lives?

 

[teuchter]

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.

The problem is that the extension of that logic is that no-one should go out at all except for essential stuff, and that is clearly not what the current guidance is.

 

[Athos]

The problem is that the extension of that logic is that no-one should go out at all except for essential stuff...

Bingo!

 

[SpookyFrank]

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

You can't just keep waving dead people in everyone's faces to win arguments you know. We all want this to end as soon as possible, with the smallest possible loss of life, and we are taking any and all steps to contribute to that outcome as best we can. You are not the one who gets to decide what constitutes 'any and all steps', nor are you the arbiter of who does or does not care about human suffering.

 

[kebabking]

Bingo!

You're entirely free to hold that opinion, and to exercise it in your own life.

 

[Athos]

You're entirely free to hold that opinion, and to exercise it in your own life.

I do, and will. Equally, for ther moment at least, you're free to do otherwise. I can only appeal to your better nature, not compel you.

 

[[62]]

It's all a bit hard to gauge.

To begin with I was going out on my bike along the main cycle/foot path in town, but everyone is doing the same now so not only is there increased contact it's less fun slowing down and having to think about swerving all the time.

As the main roads are so quiet I've taken to riding those instead. Cycled out of town to an isolated spot to photograph a train yesterday (because I'm like that) but found that what I thought would be a deserted railway bridge was actually the main route for people from a new housing estate to do their permitted runs, rides and walks. Felt a bit of a twat just hanging around, although the bike and gear obviously visually explained things a bit.

I now realise that unless I can guarantee total isolation I really shouldn't be using my permitted exercise as an excuse to indulge in a hobby, no matter how slightly.

 

[Athos]

You can't just keep waving dead people in everyone's faces to win arguments you know. We all want this to end as soon as possible, with the smallest possible loss of life, and we are taking any and all steps to contribute to that outcome as best we can. You are not the one who gets to decide what constitutes 'any and all steps', nor are you the arbiter of who does or does not care about human suffering.

You're not taking all steps you could to prevent the spread, though. You could forego hobby cycling. But you've chosen not too. Yes, that's within the letter if not the spirit of the current guidelines, but at least own the fact that you've chosen not to more than that minimum.

 

[teuchter]

Perhaps you could just stay in for a couple of weeks and not risk any lives?

If the guidance was that everyone should do that, I'd follow it.

This is not going to just go on for a couple of weeks though.

And after this is over, should we stop people doing any leisure activities that pose any risk to others? Should we for example ban all use of motor cars, except for essential tasks? And close all pubs?

 

[Athos]

If the guidance was that everyone should do that, I'd follow it.

This is not going to just go on for a couple of weeks though.

And after this is over, should we stop people doing any leisure activities that pose any risk to others? Should we for example ban all use of motor cars, except for essential tasks? And close all pubs?

No, but I think a temporary health emergency that will see tens of thousands of people dying is a different situation from the norm.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

The problem is that the extension of that logic is that no-one should go out at all except for essential stuff, and that is clearly not what the current guidance is.

People need to stop thinking in terms of what they can do and focus on what they should do.

 

[teuchter]

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

you've fucked the poll up

Hope you're well Pickman's model

 

[xenon]

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 you can do what you want, just don't tell us about it. jealous

 

[maomao]

Bingo!

PHE obviously consider exercise and access to open space essential then.

 

[teuchter]

People need to stop thinking in terms of what they can do and focus on what they should do.

Well, that's essentially the point of this thread.

 

[Athos]

PHE obviously consider exercise and access to open space essential then.

I'm not sure how much their advice is informed by the need to ensure measures are palpable to a selfish public.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Well, that's essentially the point of this thread.

Yet people cling to "but the guidance says..."

 

[Looby]

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.

1. People are being asked not to book slots if they don’t need them. I haven’t been able to get one for several weeks.
2. my nearest supermarket is Waitrose which is expensive and has a more limited range. I can’t afford to shop there regularly.
3. Two of us have to go as I’m not going in shops but my husband can’t drive.

 

[bimble]

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

No mention of the One Hour thing at all in here. Where did it come from ?

National lockdown: Stay at Home

Coronavirus cases are rising rapidly across the country. Find out what you can and cannot do.

www.gov.uk

 

[SpookyFrank]

You're not taking all steps you could to prevent the spread, though. You could forego hobby cycling. But you've chosen not too. That's fine, but at least own it.

Foregoing hobby cycling (again, excercise is a necessity, not a hobby but we'll use your phrase) would only prevent the spread because you say so though. I don't consider you an authority on the matter.

 

[tim]

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.

Everyone may have had the same idea, but given the given the amount of open land available they would still have been well dispersed. As to the argument that those with cars all park together, since they don't all arrive and leave at the same time the amount of contact between them would be minimal.

 

[teuchter]

No, but I think a temporary health emergency that will see tens of thousands of people dying is a different situation from the norm.

I don't actually see why it's relevant whether it's a temporary or long term health emergency.

The only difference I can see here is that the level of risk of spreading the infection via different activities is basically unknown. That may justify temporary advice until the risks are better understood.

 

[SpookyFrank]

No mention of the One Hour thing at all in here. Where did it come from ?

National lockdown: Stay at Home

Coronavirus cases are rising rapidly across the country. Find out what you can and cannot do.

www.gov.uk

I think Gove said it in one of the press conferences. It's not written down anywhere, does not appear in the legislation and is of course entirely arbitrary.

 

[Athos]

1. People are being asked not to book slots if they don’t need them. I haven’t been able to get one for several weeks.
2. my nearest supermarket is Waitrose which is expensive and has a more limited range. I can’t afford to shop there regularly.
3. Two of us have to go as I’m not going in shops but my husband can’t drive.

1. Then that's a reason to go (as I said).
2. Heaven forbid that saving lives should come at the price of you having less choice of groceries.
3. If you stay in the car, that doesn't seen a problem.

 

[Athos]

I don't actually see why it's relevant whether it's a temporary or long term health emergency.

The only difference I can see here is that the level of risk of spreading the infection via different activities is basically unknown. That may justify temporary advice until the risks are better understood.

We can wear restrictions in the shirt term to stave off an emergency that we wouldn't tolerate on an open-ended basis.

 

[Athos]

Foregoing hobby cycling (again, excercise is a necessity, not a hobby but we'll use your phrase) would only prevent the spread because you say so though. I don't consider you an authority on the matter.

You're either disingenuous or a fool to say you don't understand that being out and about increases the risk of spread more than staying in, even if you do try to maintain social distancing.

 

[Looby]

1. Then that's a reason to go (as I said).
2. Heaven forbid that saving lives should come at the price of you having less choice of groceries.
3. If you stay in the car, that doesn't seen a problem.

Oh fuck off. I said I can’t afford to shop there. The limited range is also more expensive so we’d struggle to get a full shop there. We haven’t seen a tin of beans or tomatoes in there for weeks and the only pasta last time was 3 quid a packet.

You know what, I’ve been stuck in my fucking house for weeks, poorly and frightened and anxious. What I probably need more than anything at the moment is a walk outside to get my body moving and some sun on my face but I’ve been too scared.
This place is full of arrogant, angry and aggressive men at the moment that think they have all the answers and zero fucking sensitivity or humanity.

 

[Athos]

Oh fuck off. I said I can’t afford to shop there. The limited range is also more expensive so we’d struggle to get a full shop there. We haven’t seen a tin of beans or tomatoes in there for weeks and the only pasta last time was 3 quid a packet.

You know what, I’ve been stuck in my fucking house for weeks, poorly and frightened and anxious. What I probably need more than anything at the moment is a walk outside to get my body moving and some sun on my face but I’ve been too scared.
This place is full of arrogant, angry and aggressive men at the moment that think they have all the answers and zero fucking sensitivity or humanity.

People are dying. Not getting a "full shop" or not seeing beans is not really comparable. And I'd say 'need' applies more to things like ventilators than a stroll in the sunshine. But, hey, you do what you like.

 

[tim]

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

What has the scandal of your sister not being provided with the resources to do her job safely got to do with somebody doing something that poses no real risk to themselves or others?