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

[Yossarian]

I

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

Yep - I'm not much of a stickler for following the letter of the law in most circumstances but I think people should now be trying to do just what NHS workers are asking us to do, even if somebody in a city going to the shops without a mask on is probably far more likely to cause infections than somebody going for a long bike ride somewhere less crowded.

Might be a different story if you're actually living In the middle of a forest or somewhere else so isolated the only person you'd be likely to encounter in a day is Goldilocks though.

 

[Athos]

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?

I don't accept that it does pose no real risk.

 

[Looby]

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.

But you’re saying people should shop once a week in their closest supermarket and I’m saying that’s not always possible.
People need food, they need to shop and we’re trying to do that as little as possible which means travelling further to a bigger and cheaper supermarket.
I’ve almost certainly already had it/still have it. It’s possible I caught it when out socialising a month ago but probably more likely I got it when I was working in the community as a frontline worker and my colleagues continue to put their health at risk for our profession so I don’t need lectures from you thanks.

 

[kebabking]

I don't accept that it does pose no real risk.

Probably best that you stick to law then, and leave epidemiology to the experts.

 

[Athos]

Probably best that you stick to law then, and leave epidemiology to the experts.

If you find an epidemiology expert who says that going into public spaces doesn't represent more of a risk of spreading the virus than staying at home, let me know.

 

[SpookyFrank]

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.

The countries which have been most successful at containing the virus and preventing deaths, have they banned outdoor excercise? I'll give you a clue. No. It has only been done as an act of desperation by governments that have already failed. It is not an evidence-based policy.

 

[Athos]

But you’re saying people should shop once a week in their closest supermarket and I’m saying that’s not always possible.
People need food, they need to shop and we’re trying to do that as little as possible which means travelling further to a bigger and cheaper supermarket.
I’ve almost certainly already had it/still have it. It’s possible I caught it when out socialising a month ago but probably more likely I got it when I was working in the community as a frontline worker and my colleagues continue to put their health at risk for our profession so I don’t need lectures from you thanks.

I explained in my opening post that rules would need to be pretty crude, as they become unworkable if they take into account everyone's individual circumstances. Of course there'll be people who can obey to the letter, but that doesn't mean the rules should be different.

 

[kebabking]

If you find an epidemiology expert who says that going into public spaces doesn't represent more of a risk of spreading the virus than staying at home, let me know.

Going into a public space doesn't present a risk of spread, going into a public space either at the same time/space as others, or leaving your germs for others, does.

As any Epidemiologist, rather than fuckwits on Facebook, will tell you....

 

[Athos]

The countries which have been most successful at containing the virus and preventing deaths, have they banned outdoor excercise? I'll give you a clue. No. It has only been done as an act of desperation by governments that have already failed. It is not an evidence-based policy.

We are where we are, though. The cat is out of the 'tracing and isolation' bag. The only way we'll get it back is by getting a lid on the numbers, which will require relatively brief spell of harsh restrictions, desperate though they are.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

I explained in my opening post that rules would need to be pretty crude, as they become unworkable if they take into account everyone's individual circumstances. Of course there'll be people who can obey to the letter, but that doesn't mean the rules should be different.

If rules are to be followed they need to be reasonable and seem reasonable. As you can see from the ding-dong on this thread, crude simplistic rules which take no account of people’s circumstances will not be obeyed unquestioningly (is that really a word?).

 

[Athos]

Going into a public space doesn't present a risk of spread, going into a public space either at the same time/space as others, or leaving your germs for others, does.

As any Epidemiologist, rather than fuckwits on Facebook, will tell you....

Only a fuckwit could fail to understand that having everyone go out, albeit with the intention of avoiding contact, will necessarily increase the risk of passing the virus.

 

[JuanTwoThree]

I explained in my opening post that rules would need to be pretty crude, as they become unworkable if they take into account everyone's individual circumstances. Of course there'll be people who can obey to the letter, but that doesn't mean the rules should be different.

This. It's an emergency not a finely tuned legal instrument

eg In Spain they made a law that you couldnt go to your land unless you were registered for tax as a farmer or the like. They didn't take into account that loads of people have allotments or market gardens on the outskirts of those compact Mediterranean towns.

People have complained that they partly feed large families with their smallholdings. The government has said " Look its a crisis, everybody has a good reason for their being an exception. We may get round to it but we've got better things to do so probs not. Tough shit"

 

[Athos]

If rules are to be followed they need to be reasonable and seem reasonable. As you can see from the ding-dong on this thread, crude simplistic rules which take no account of people’s circumstances will not be obeyed unquestioningly (is that really a word?).

Yes, which is why I'd actually people use self- restraint rather than see stuff imposed.

 

[tim]

I don't accept that it does pose no risk.

The fact that you don't accept something doesn't make you right. I can go out and walk/run (personally, I'm unlikely to actually run) and not be in close proximity with anyone or touch anything that s likely to have been in contact with anyone, which is what the epidemiologist, virologists and other experts tell us we need to do to avoid contracting this virus. Like HIV/AIDS, it's not a curse from Nobodaddy which is going to strike-down sinners regardless of the precautions that they take

 

[MickiQ]

I'm working from home at the moment and the only time I venture out is for a walk up to the dual carriageway and back which is about an hour round trip, go in the evening so I don't see many people saw 4 last night,(well 5 but 2 were a couple) and we all crossed the road to avoid each other. People have started to give each other friendly waves now.
Haven't been the shops for over two weeks because we don't need anything critical at the moment and it isn't worth risking exposure for something that isn't critical.
I don't want "He gave his life because he was desperate for a doughnut" on my tombstone.
I'm still at risk of getting it because while 2 (3 from Wed) of the 5 people in the house have no need to go out to work now, the last two still have too (a teacher and a nurse).
I'm a dead (hopefully only figuratively) end as far as the virus is concerned. If I get it then I can't spread it any further so I feel I am doing my bit.
But whilst I definitely think people shouldn't be going to the beach or driving anywhere for exercise, I'm reluctant to condemn those who are half a dozen to a 2 bed council flat if it is driving them mad being indoor all day. Not everyone is lucky enough to have a house with a garden or have the room or money to stock up supplies.
If I was in bimble position I would take full advantage of it.
Looby has a point we have a Tesco delivery booked for the 17th April (booked at least a week ago) and we're lucky we have enough to last that long not everyone is.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Yes, which is why I'd actually people use self- restraint rather than see stuff imposed.

Self restraint implies a certain amount of self-interpretation and common sense. Some people have both, some neither but most people right now are being sensible.

 

[kebabking]

Only a fuckwit could fail to understand that having everyone go out, albeit with the intention of avoiding contact, will necessarily increase the risk of passing the virus.

Which is what I wrote in the very post you quoted you drooling shit-gibbon.

Is this why you're no longer a solicitor, because you can't read?

 

[SpookyFrank]

We are where we are, though. The cat is out of the 'tracing and isolation' bag. The only way we'll get it back is by getting a lid on the numbers, which will require relatively brief spell of harsh restrictions, desperate though they are.

I think we'd be better off with a longer period of less harsh restrictions. Both in terms of the likelihood of people continuing to abide by those restrictions, and in terms of reducing infection rates to managable levels. Looking at where we are on the curve, we're likely to be entering a week or so where the death rate is relatively steady, followed by a couple of weeks where it consistently falls. Harsh restrictions on a time scale of two weeks, which is maybe the longest people could be expected to adhere to them, wouldn't really help much with that, and would be counterproductive if they ended up causing enough people to fuck off lockdown altogether that we ended up with higher rates of transmission than we're seeing now. Keeping the current status quo for at least another month must be the priority, and not jeapordising it for the sake of harsher restrictions with only spurious possible benefits and profound, known costs.

If restrictions are to be tightened they should be on workplaces, not on private excercise. Construction work in particular should be shut down across the board.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I am comfortable with a short drive to a deserted spot for a walk. We don't come in to contact with anyone getting there or parking up, should we come across people on the walk we veer off to avoid each other. We drive home. That activity can't spread the virus. The dog needs to be walked, that is the safest way to do it.

I draw the line at the cunt marching past my house yesterday towards the canal at the end of my road, holding a paddle board under his arm. Or the equally twattish arsehole who drove past in the same direction with a fucking canoe on the roof of his car.

 

[Athos]

The fact that you don't accept something doesn't make you right. I can go out and walk/run (personally, I'm unlikely to actually run) and not be in close proximity with anyone or touch anything that s likely to have been in contact with anyone, which is what the epidemiologist, virologists and other experts tell us we need to do to avoid contracting this virus. Like HIV/AIDS, it's not a curse from Nobodaddy which is going to strike-down sinners regardless of the precautions that they take

Maybe so, in isolation (pun intended). But if everybody thinks they can go out and avoid others, we increase the risk of accidental contact, leading to transmission.

I'd appeal to everyone to stay in for a short time until we get a grip on it, regardless of the fact that some trips out are less risky than others.

I mean, we all accept that we shouldn't drink and drive, notwithstanding that there's pubs near me I could drive back from with little chance of seeing another car. I don't not do it because it's the law, but because of a social contract.

 

[platinumsage]

The law is a rushed mess. For example the regulations for Wales state you can only go out once a day for exercise, but the regulations for England omit that stipulation despite it having been in the PMs announcement.

 

[SpookyFrank]

He wants brownie points for not drink driving now.

 

[Athos]

Which is what I wrote in the very post you quoted you drooling shit-gibbon.

Sorry, you're not making any sense. My point was that, whilst I accept that going out without contact with others doesn't spread the virus, the act of going out increases (when compared to staying away home) the risk of contact with others, and thereby the spread if the virus. Is that something you accept?

 

[teuchter]

I mean, we all accept that we shouldn't drink and drive, notwithstanding that there's pubs near me I could drive back from with little chance of seeing another car. I don't not do it because it's the law, but because of a social contract.

And yet you drive when sober? It's like you have decided that there's a level of risk that's acceptable, and a level that's not.

 

[elbows]

Unfortunately it is just too early to tell whether countries who have left some holes in their lockdowns are still going to be able to bring the rates of transmission down to the levels they are after within the timeframes that are hoped for.

Its not a risk I would be prepared to take, so I ended up in the 'slam the brakes on very hard and early' camp and some of the eceptions people try to find do my head in a bit, understandable though many of them are.

I am also not a believer in being slack in certain areas just because obvious terrible flaws exist on other fronts. eg there is clearly a problem with spread within hospitals, and probably care homes and other institutional settings too. If we dont see the right scale of hoped for reductions in transmission, much of my anger will be pointed in that direction. But it doesnt mean I will overlook or downplay the other possible vectors.

It bothers me that supermarkets etc could still be a big hole, I would be feeling more confident right now if we'd had a home delivery system that could have been vastly scaled up to reduce the in-store risks for staff and customers. We dont, and in the absence of that I would focus more on what could be done to improve safety in-store, thats a much bigger deal than quite how far, within reason, some people need to travel to find a suitable source for their essential shopping.

Large funeral gatherings have made me angry, and such things have caused clusters of cases elsewhere. Some scenes in certain public spaces in particular places on particular days have made me angry. Some of the wriggling makes me angry. The now former Scottish CMO made me angry with their unnecessary travel to their 2nd home . But most of my anger hasnt been pointed at any individual acts so far, its mostly been some of the things some people have said that made my blood boil so far. This anger has been partially tempered so far by the fact I dont know how much difference such things will actually make, but I only have the luxury of waiting to see because I'm not the one making the decisions or doing the enforcing.

I'd also say that things like peer pressure and community attitude policing and angry discussions are all inevitable parts of the picture in human societies that are under pressure to come to terms with and define a new normal, and the resulting 'values', 'virtues' and moral codes. Since the current lockdown situation is temporary and an intense example of this stuff, in some ways I was fearing it would already be worse. In some sense I'm actually more interested in the next version of this, the next 'new normal' that will have to be figured out when it is time to relax things a bit. The most obvious example that has already started to loom large is the question of face mask wearing in public.

 

[Athos]

He wants points for brownie not drink driving now.

Like you did for eventually cancelling your trip to Cornwall (when the government told you to, rather than when locals were begging people not to overwhelm their health infrastructure) you mean?

 

[Athos]

And yet you drive when sober? It's like you have decided that there's a level of risk that's acceptable, and a level that's not.

Yes. Clearly, that's what this comes down to - different people's perceptions of acceptable risks. Personally, I don't think it acceptable to risk others' lives to e.g. pursue a cycling hobby; others disagree.

 

[elbows]

Theres also the fact that the actual transmission of the disease isnt the only reason for some of these measures. Its also about trying to reduce other sorts of normal pressures on the health services and the police. eg having to be rescued and treated after having an accident on a mountain. And reducing the implications of the police reconfiguration, and planning for that service to cope during a period where high levels of staff unavailability may be anticipated.

Of course that stuff doesnt always work out neatly either, eg a possible rise of DIY or gardening accidents, domestic violence, or people taking certain advice too far and not seeking treatment for non-Covid-19 matters in a timely enough fashion.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Like you did for eventually cancelling your trip to Cornwall (when the government told you too, rather than when locals were begging people not to overwhelm their health infrastructure) you mean?

You're a piece of fucking shit do you know that?

 

[teuchter]

Of course that stuff doesnt always work out neatly either, eg a possible rise of DIY or gardening accidents, domestic violence, or people taking certain advice too far and not seeking treatment for non-Covid-19 matters in a timely enough fashion.

Indeed and I hope that Athos while at home and not going out, does not engage in any activity that has even the smallest chance of resulting in any assistance from the emergency services. For example, using stairs, any kind of hot food preparation, the operation of any gas or electrical appliance, reaching for things on high shelves. Having showers or baths. Drinking alcohol. Unless any of these things are unavoidable for basic survival of course.