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

[Athos]

Regular cardiovascular excercise reduced the risk of heart attacks.

Yes, which is why nobody is proposing that people don't exercise. Merely that they do it in a way that doesn't expose others to the risk if death i.e. at home.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Yes, which is why nobody is proposing that people don't exercise. Merely that they do it in a way that doesn't expose others to the risk if death i.e. at home.

No. Enough out of you. Get to fuck.

 

[Athos]

No. Enough out of you. Get to fuck.

Err... no.

 

[magneze]

Yes, which is why nobody is proposing that people don't exercise. Merely that they do it in a way that doesn't expose others to the risk if death i.e. at home.

That's clearly not what the government guidance is though. In fact it's the opposite. You can go outside to exercise. It's very clear. Walk, run, cycle.

 

[platinumsage]

That's clearly not what the government guidance is though. In fact it's the opposite. You can go outside to exercise. It's very clear. Walk, run, cycle.

Only when you have a "need" to do so though, not just as a pretext for going out.

 

[Athos]

That's clearly not what the government guidance is though. In fact it's the opposite. You can go outside to exercise. It's very clear. Walk, run, cycle.

Yes. But is the government right? And, just because they say we can, should we? Why not voluntarily sacrifice more than we're required to, so as to save the lives of the most vulnerable?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Yes. But is the government right? And, just because they say we can, should we? Why not voluntarily sacrifice more than we're required to, so as to save the lives of the most vulnerable?

You'd be reducing the risk still further if you entombed yourself in a shipping container buried 30 feet underground. Why not do that?

 

[8ball]

Yes. But is the government right? And, just because they say we can, should we? Why not voluntarily sacrifice more than we're required to, so as to save the lives of the most vulnerable?

I can't see why supermarkets are open when the Army could be air dropping rations.

 

[Athos]

You'd be reducing the risk still further if you entombed yourself in a shipping container buried 30 feet underground. Why not do that?

I don't have access to a buried shipping container, so can't. You, however, could take measures to reduce the risk to others, but won't. Quite different

 

[magneze]

Only when you have a "need" to do so though, not just as a pretext for going out.

Nope. It's like no-one actually reads the guidance.

Here it is.

National lockdown: Stay at Home

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

www.gov.uk

 

[Athos]

I can't see why supermarkets are open when the Army could be air dropping rations.

Fatuous point. We need to get food. In the short term, we don't need to go out in order to exercise. People elevating their wants to needs will hamper measures to control this, and cost lives.

 

[crossthebreeze]

Maybe I'm lucky in that although i live in an inner city, in an area with lots of high density population housing, there's also lots of green space nearby. But its also kind of obvious which pavements are busy (local shopping streets and the streets leading up to them), staying off of those its quiet. So long as everyone sticks to 1hr max, once a day max, only stops/sits when necessary for their health (ie breathlessness), only goes as far as they can get on foot or cycle, and has a bit of uses eyes, ears, and brain to avoid other people and busy areas, and doesn't use it as a pretext to go to the corner shop or meet up with people, i can't see why exercise wouldn't be fine. In really highly populated, busy, areas with limited of green space maybe the councils need to do some organisation (ie runners only on certain paths).

There's still non-essential building sites, warehouses, factories, and call centres open - those are spreading this virus much quicker than people getting fresh air and sun.

 

[The Octagon]

I had to replace a car battery yesterday, it's our only feasible way to get to the pharmacy for my partner's epilepsy meds, without being out walking for well over an hour.

The amount of filthy looks I got in the 20 mins it took, despite deliberately positioning myself as far away from the pavement and moving into the road whenever someone walked past, was almost comical.

Call people out when they're clearly taking the piss (sunbathing, playing football, etc), but most of the time you have no idea why people may be out, so this curtain twitching / fb shaming stuff can get to fuck.

 

[SpookyFrank]

There's still non-essential building sites, warehouses, factories, and call centres open - those are spreading this virus much quicker than people getting fresh air and sun.

Yeah but the curtain-twitchers can't see them from their pleasant country cottages or their three-quarter acre gardens so they don't give a fuck.

 

[8ball]

Fatuous point.

Good thing you didn't read it, then.

 

[platinumsage]

Nope. It's like no-one actually reads the guidance.

Here it is.

National lockdown: Stay at Home

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

www.gov.uk

Silly me I read the actual law, which clearly lists "the need to take exercise" as a valid reason for going out.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Silly me I read the actual law, which clearly lists "the need to take exercise" as a valid reason for going out.

So it only applies to people who are alive then. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[teuchter]

I think it's relevant to consider something like air pollution. Depending on which figures you choose to accept, air pollution in London is responsible for 4,000 to 9,000 premature deaths per year. These numbers are in the same order as it appears will die prematurely from Covid-19.

Anyone who does anything during normal life that contributes to air pollution is "costing lives". Anyone who drives to B&Q, or has a barbecue, or uses a bus to go to the cinema, or gets an amazon delivery, or any other number of "wants rather than needs".

Some attempt could probably be made to quantify the effect of driving X miles, in terms of its contribution to the overall air pollution emergency. We can't as far as I can see quantify the increase in risk associated with going outside for exercise whilst being careful to maintain social distancing and so on. It seems entirely plausible to me that it is a lower risk than that associated with (say) going out in a car in "normal" life.

So I think I'm going to continue to resist those who want to try and guilt trip people about going to for a walk in the park for an hour, or going for a 2 hour bike ride once or twice a week.

And when this is over, I'll continue to believe that we should get rid of private cars in London, but not buses, because you can never reduce risk to zero whether it's normal life or a pandemic.

 

[platinumsage]

So it only applies to people who are alive then. Thanks for the clarification.

There is an obvious distinction between allowing any exercise and only allowing exercise that people need. If the law was worded to permit the former, anyone who is outside for any reason could claim they were exercising as a reasonable excuse.

 

[xenon]

I think it's relevant to consider something like air pollution. Depending on which figures you choose to accept, air pollution in London is responsible for 4,000 to 9,000 premature deaths per year. These numbers are in the same order as it appears will die prematurely from Covid-19.

Anyone who does anything during normal life that contributes to air pollution is "costing lives". Anyone who drives to B&Q, or has a barbecue, or uses a bus to go to the cinema, or gets an amazon delivery, or any other number of "wants rather than needs".

Some attempt could probably be made to quantify the effect of driving X miles, in terms of its contribution to the overall air pollution emergency. We can't as far as I can see quantify the increase in risk associated with going outside for exercise whilst being careful to maintain social distancing and so on. It seems entirely plausible to me that it is a lower risk than that associated with (say) going out in a car in "normal" life.

So I think I'm going to continue to resist those who want to try and guilt trip people about going to for a walk in the park for an hour, or going for a 2 hour bike ride once or twice a week.

And when this is over, I'll continue to believe that we should get rid of private cars in London, but not buses, because you can never reduce risk to zero whether it's normal life or a pandemic.

Not just London. According to the council, the road I live on in Bristol is one of the worst regarding nO levels.

Anicdotally, I do seem to be coughing less since the drop in traffic. And it's certainly more pleasant to have the window on that side open.

 

[SpookyFrank]

There is an obvious distinction between allowing any exercise and only allowing exercise that people need. If the law was worded to permit the former, anyone who is outside for any reason could claim they were exercising as a reasonable excuse.

And 'need' in this context is only ever going to be up to the interpretation of individuals, so we're back to square one. I consider a psychological need to spend time outside to be real and valid. Denying that to people arbitrarily would cost lives, almost certainly more than it saved. And the evidence that it would save any lives at all is thin at best. More likely it would serve only to hasten widespread public rejection of all lockdown measures, even the stuff that's actually known to help.

 

[andysays]

Here is one that I am pondering

I have a lock up garage full of crap with some stuff there is no room for in small flat. The plan was that as soon as the weather improved I was going to spend a day (or likely two) sorting through it all to see what needs to be kept, thrown out, given to charity or sold.

This is hardly an 'essential activity' and is a couple of miles from home. That said I have never seen anyone in the small block of garages and it is well away from pavements/public. If it was a garage attached to my house I would have been in there already sorting it out. Only thing is that the garage block is overlooked by a fair number of houses so a 'well meaning' person might cal the feds.

You could follow the example of the (former) CMO for Scotland and say it was your second home

 

[platinumsage]

And 'need' in this context is only ever going to be up to the interpretation of individuals, so we're back to square one. I consider a psychological need to spend time outside to be real and valid. Denying that to people arbitrarily would cost lives, almost certainly more than it saved. And the evidence that it would save any lives at all is thin at best. More likely it would serve only to hasten widespread public rejection of all lockdown measures, even the stuff that's actually known to help.

It's going to be up to the interpretation of the courts. No one is talking about arbitrarily denying anything. If you feel the need to exercise outdoors every day I doubt you would be convicted of an offence. However waggling your toes while lounging next to a barbecue on the beach isn't going to cut it.

 

[magneze]

Silly me I read the actual law, which clearly lists "the need to take exercise" as a valid reason for going out.

Thanks for proving my point with more evidence.

 

[andysays]

I had to replace a car battery yesterday, it's our only feasible way to get to the pharmacy for my partner's epilepsy meds, without being out walking for well over an hour.

The amount of filthy looks I got in the 20 mins it took, despite deliberately positioning myself as far away from the pavement and moving into the road whenever someone walked past, was almost comical.

Call people out when they're clearly taking the piss (sunbathing, playing football, etc), but most of the time you have no idea why people may be out, so this curtain twitching / fb shaming stuff can get to fuck.

Do you live next door to Athos?

 

[lizzieloo]

Fatuous point. We need to get food. In the short term, we don't need to go out in order to exercise. People elevating their wants to needs will hamper measures to control this, and cost lives.

Fuck you. Loads of people absolutely do need to go out in order to exercise, I'm not one of them, I can however see past the end of my own nose.

 

[Athos]

I think it's relevant to consider something like air pollution. Depending on which figures you choose to accept, air pollution in London is responsible for 4,000 to 9,000 premature deaths per year. These numbers are in the same order as it appears will die prematurely from Covid-19.

Anyone who does anything during normal life that contributes to air pollution is "costing lives". Anyone who drives to B&Q, or has a barbecue, or uses a bus to go to the cinema, or gets an amazon delivery, or any other number of "wants rather than needs".

Some attempt could probably be made to quantify the effect of driving X miles, in terms of its contribution to the overall air pollution emergency. We can't as far as I can see quantify the increase in risk associated with going outside for exercise whilst being careful to maintain social distancing and so on. It seems entirely plausible to me that it is a lower risk than that associated with (say) going out in a car in "normal" life.

So I think I'm going to continue to resist those who want to try and guilt trip people about going to for a walk in the park for an hour, or going for a 2 hour bike ride once or twice a week.

And when this is over, I'll continue to believe that we should get rid of private cars in London, but not buses, because you can never reduce risk to zero whether it's normal life or a pandemic.

But you could take that logic to the other extreme and say why bother doing anything about C19 given we don't do enough to stop 'ordinary' deaths. Clearly, it's about balance. In this short- term health emergency, I'd say that it has to look more like only taking risks where absolutely essential. Others draw the line in a different place/ have a different definition of 'esssential'. I think many of them are selfish; no doubt, many think I'm unreasonable.

 

[Athos]

Fuck you. Loads of people absolutely do need to go out in order to exercise, I'm not one of them, I can however see past the end of my own nose.

I bet the vast majority of people who are going out could exercise at home if they wanted to.

 

[Athos]

Double post.

 

[Athos]

Double post.