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

[xenon]

I don't know enough to say whether or not you're exaggerating. I'm sure there is a tiny minority of people for whom the need to exercise outside is genuine, and outweighs the risk to others. I just don't think that applies to the vast, vast majority. My point is that we should all exercise self-restraint and sacrifice to the maximum extent we can.

Most people... All on this thread as far as I've read are doing just that though aren't they?

You're quibbling with some of their interpretations but until everyone can get home grocery deliveries, has access to a bit of out door space to blow off some steam where they can garrantee they won't come within several metres of anyone else, it's a bit pointless.

 

[xenon]

I don't deny that outdoor exercise has psychological benefits. What I don't accept is that for anything other than a tiny minority of people a short-term sacrifice of that activity will have worse consequences for society than the increased risk of spreading the virus associated with people going out. But I think we're going round and round, now. I'm happy to agree to disagree on that point.

It's not short term though is it. I'm assuming this is until the end of June, possibly longer. They're not going to lift the lock down end of next week, I'm 99% sure. That does impart a different mindset about the sacrifices. People I think are trying to manage, feel their way into this new normal. Yeah there are a minoroity of selfish cunts out there but I'm discounting them and happy for them to be fined and scorned.

 

[Cid]

I'm not sure it needs to be an either/or. I think there's a place for individual self-restraint alongside different government measures. I'd favour both doing more to shut things down (e.g. individuals choosing not to go on hobby bike rides, and the government to close building sites - putting in place safety nets, of course). The idea being to buy time to increase NHS capacity, taking us closer to testing, vaccines, and treatment becoming available. And progressively relaxing thereafter. I suspect that short term pain would mean we can get back to normal quicker, by getting on top of cases with effective testing, tracing, and isolation.

Back to the hobby bike rides again. Your individual restraint is having the most marginal of effects. I’d go as far as to say it’s pissing in the wind. If, IF there were a clearly laid out programme of government massively increasing contact tracing and testing after a short, hard lockdown then yeah. It might be worth it. But there isn’t.

 

[Athos]

Back to the hobby bike rides again. Your individual restraint is having the most marginal of effects. I’d go as far as to say it’s pissing in the wind. If, IF there were a clearly laid out programme of government massively increasing contact tracing and testing after a short, hard lockdown then yeah. It might be worth it. But there isn’t.

Which is why we need to do all we can to stop the spread in the meantime, else by the time it's available it'll have infected too many to ever get under control again.

 

[Cid]

Which is why we need to do all we can to stop the spread in the meantime, else by the time it's available it'll have infected too many to ever get under control again.

But we’re not. You’re taking about an individual remembering to turn off the switches on plug sockets while the government is merrily deep frying on a gas hob.

 

[Athos]

But we’re not. You’re taking about an individual remembering to turn off the switches on plug sockets while the government is merrily deep frying on a gas hob.

I'm advocating both.

 

[Cid]

I'm advocating both.

You mostly seem to be advocating against hobby cyclists. The point is this: for severe restrictions on movement to have an effect, it must be an enforced policy, with a coherent strategy. Telling people not to go for a walk is utterly pointless when millions of them are still going to work.

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

Having a joint on some wasteground. since flat mate has decreed that this is a non smoking household I am forced go for a wander instead.

 

[Athos]

You mostly seem to be advocating against hobby cyclists. The point is this: for severe restrictions on movement to have an effect, it must be an enforced policy, with a coherent strategy. Telling people not to go for a walk is utterly pointless when millions of them are still going to work.

I'm calling for the government to prevent people in non-essential roles from going to work, and for all of us to voluntarily cut out non-essential leisure activities which risk spreading the virus.

 

[bimble]

Athos you really come across as if you think you’re the only person here who wants to not kill people. It is insulting and a bit absurd.

 

[Athos]

Athos you really come across as if you think you’re the only person here who wants to not kill people. It is insulting and a bit absurd.

I don't think that at all. But I can see that many aren't taking this as seriously as they should, and doing all they can.

 

[teuchter]

I don't think that at all. But I can see that many aren't taking this as seriously as they should, and doing all they can.

You seemed to dismiss my earlier suggestion that you stop using electrical appliances, prepearing hot food, drinking alcohol, etc.

 

[Athos]

You seemed to dismiss my earlier suggestion that you stop using electrical appliances, prepearing hot food, drinking alcohol, etc.

You're right I should have said "... reasonably can". And, of course, I realise other have a different view if what's reasonable in the circumstances - that's the crux of the argument.

 

[chilango]

I would it would be considered "reasonable" for me to and pick up my medication?

...yet seemingly some think that outdoor exercise - which has been shown to just as, if not more, effective in treating my illness - is not.

 

[teuchter]

You're right I should have said "... reasonably can". And, of course, I realise other have a different view if what's reasonable in the circumstances - that's the crux of the argument.

Earlier you were making quite a clear distinction between wants and needs. Exercise is apparently not a need. Are hot food, internet forums and alcohol wants or needs?

 

[Athos]

I would it would be considered "reasonable" for me to and pick up my medication?

...yet seemingly some think that outdoor exercise - which has been shown to just as, if not more, effective in treating my illness - is not.

If you're one of the very small minority of people for whom outdoor exercise is genuinely absolutely essential i.e. the consequences of you not doing it outweigh the risks of spreading the virus, then go for it (in a way that minimises that risk). But that's not the case for the vast majority of people who are out and about exercising - most of whom could exercise adequately at home or even temporarily forego exercise.

 

[chilango]

But that's not the case for the vast majority of people who are out and about exercising - most of whom could exercise adequately at home or even temporarily forego exercise.

I don't think you (nor I) are in a position to make that judgement.

 

[Athos]

Earlier you were making quite a clear distinction between wants and needs. Exercise is apparently not a need. Are hot food, internet forums and alcohol wants or needs?

They're wants. But they don't represent anything like the same risk of spreading the virus, and so are more easily justified.

 

[Athos]

I don't think you (nor I) are in a position to make that judgement.

I am. The view from my ivory tower is excellent.

But, seriously, amongst the people I know who are out e.g. cycling, I am fairly certain that's the case, and would be surprised if the wider picture is much different.

 

[bimble]

I really badly want to climb up a ladder to clean the upstairs windows but I won’t because of the (very small) chance that I’d fall off and waste medical time . It’s not all about going outside. Though the windows are outside obvs. I think it’s odd that the policing and judgement seems mainly focussed on this thing of outdoor time, which is precious and covetable.

 

[teuchter]

They're wants. But they don't represent anything like the same risk of spreading the virus, and so are more easily justified.

They represent a risk of you occupying the emergency services' time when they could otherwise be dealing with the covid emergency. So you are putting at risk the life of anyone who they could be helping if they weren't helping you.

 

[bimble]

How do Internet forums lead to trips to A & E or should I not ask.

 

[Athos]

They represent a risk of you occupying the emergency services' time when they could otherwise be dealing with the covid emergency. So you are putting at risk the life of anyone who they could be helping if they weren't helping you.

I don't see how using internet forums increases the risk of me ending up needing medical treatment. And the risk associated with the others is so small that I would draw the line there. And I'd be very surprised if anyone thought those risks were unjustifiably high, whereas many feel the risks of spreading the disease by going out are, and so refrain from doing so.

I get your point that there's not objective cut-off; I've explicitly acknowledged that already - my point is that, subjectively, my opinion is that in the vast majority of cases the risks of going out are unjustifiable.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Athos, you seem to have spent a large part of the last 2 days getting all hot under the collar over this, it's clearly stressing you out.

Perhaps it would help you to lower your blood pressure a bit, if you left it for now, and go for a long walk in the sunshine instead.

 

[teuchter]

How do Internet forums lead to trips to A & E or should I not ask.

It means the use of electrical appliances, which increases the risk of electric shock as well as domestic fires.

In addition, power stations, internet servers and telecoms networks don't run by themselves and need people to be out maintaining them and those people could be infection vectors. The more people that use the internet, the more likely are problems and calls to call centres which also need to be staffed.

 

[Athos]

Athos, you seem to have spent a large part of the last 2 days getting all hot under the collar over this, it's clearly stressing you out.

Perhaps it would help you to lower your blood pressure a bit, if you left it for now, and go for a long walk in the sunshine instead.

I'm not really hot under the collar, so much as bored, to be honest!

 

[cupid_stunt]

I'm not really hot under the collar, so much as bored, too be honest!

Well, go for a fucking walk.

 

[maomao]

It's not even just exercise. Many people are locked down in rooms, alone and with no access to fresh air. Allowing reasonable exercise now doesn't just have marginal 'psychological benefits', it has genuine long term health benefits that will last years and in the shorter term will prevent large numbers of suicides as well as virus spreading breakdowns in public order later. It's being allowed because it will save more lives than it takes. Sedentary behaviour is one of the biggest killers in the world.

This just reads like Athos doesn't like people who exercise and doesnt believe it genuinely has health benefits. It's a tirade not a reason driven argument. One minute he's railing against 'hobby' cyclists the next he's asking a poster with debilitating arthritis if he could try walking on the spot. Fwiw I've been exercising indoors, dusted off the weights and tried some Youtube yoga and been getting my (lifesaving, expecially with a virus going round) Vitamin D in the back garden but if I didn't have a garden I'd be going for walks observing SD.

 

[Athos]

Well, go for a fucking walk.

I should go for a walk on my private beach, or invite SpookyFrank round to play on my private badminton court.

 

[Cid]

I don't see how using internet forums increases the risk of me ending up needing medical treatment. And the risk associated with the others is so small that I would draw the line there. And I'd be very surprised if anyone thought those risks were unjustifiably high, whereas many feel the risks of spreading the disease by going out are, and so refrain from doing so.

Well you’re coming close to giving many people an aneurysm.

I just think your ideas about this are disconnected. Available evidence (I am not an epidemiologist) seems to suggest that being outside is a very low risk, especially given restrictions. And it is a low risk weighed against a huge sacrifice. Connected to a policy where reducing those marginal risk factors is significant, that makes sense. But that doesn’t exist.

There are other reasons to limit outside contact of course; once you start getting groups, yeah the risk becomes significant. And on that basis there’s a good reason to make people think seriously about their trips outside. But this ‘any trip puts lives at risk’ thing you’re pursuing just doesn’t make a great deal of sense.