Jump to content

Coronavirus

whelk

By whelk,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
In which case it wont make any difference if they travel

 

Everywhere has the disease to some extent but we should still be trying to contain the spread as much as we can. As an extreme example, would you want a plane with 300 people to land at SOU this afternoon and have all the passengers spread out through the city?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedArmy

RedArmy

Posted
Posted
Everywhere has the disease to some extent but we should still be trying to contain the spread as much as we can. As an extreme example, would you want a plane with 300 people to land at SOU this afternoon and have all the passengers spread out through the city?

15,000 people are flying into the UK every day and nobody bats an eyelid.

 

One family drives across the country and people call them murderers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
15,000 people are flying into the UK every day and nobody bats an eyelid.

 

One family drives across the country and people call them murderers.

 

Almost all of them will be Brits who have been traveling abroad before all this kicked off and need to get home. Many of them have probably been through hell - quarantined, embassies closed off, curfews, running out of food, clothes and money etc. There will also be those who genuinely do need to travel and there reason for doing so will outweigh the risk of infection.

 

It’s not as if we have planes full of Spaniards coming here for a weekend in Margate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
The government has already provided guidance on how to interpret exercising - people should stay local and use open spaces near to their home where possible and not travel unnecessarily for exercise. The police used its legal discretion, taking account of this guidance in a way that is perfectly appropriate and proportionate.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/coronavirus-guidance-on-access-to-green-spaces

 

So, a family driving up to the Lake District from Middlesex and intercepted by Lancashire Police at junction 34 of the M6 should get a warning, and only if they try the same trick again get the fine ? What if they decide that their second trip should be to the Yorkshire Dales, so it might be the South Yorkshire Police this time, who are unaware of the first incident so they just get another warning. As Egg states, and as we both have demonstrated by our quoting of the Law, the regulations are vague and in part ambiguous, but for numpties making ridiculous and entirely unnecessary extended pleasure trips I am fully behind the Police.

 

It's absolutely the point. Don't travel, stay local when it's necessary for food/medicine /excersise, and don't visit friends / family is a pretty simple message.

 

I have to say that you confuse me. You appear to advocate travel from hotspots in the UK but not from hotspots overseas. On one hand you understand the risk, but on the other seem oblivious to it. Make your mind up.

 

No it isn't at all. You've been told not to do something by the government in order to get the lockdown finished as quickly as possible. If you choose to ignore that then you should be fined and punished. It really is that simple because if everyone decided to drive 200 miles it's very likely that this would get a hell of a lot worse.

 

 

Because they’ve come into contact, either directly or indirectly, with someone who had the virus. The more people travel around, the more easily it’s spread. Some travel and contact is unavoidable, travelling from Middlesex to the Lakes is completely unnecessary.

 

If they lived in Lewisham or Croydon and they’d driven down the A3 to Ockham common for a walk, I could tolerate that. There’s no need to stop at any services, use any shops, you’re staying roughly in the same area and just trying to get some basic exercise. What this family did goes way beyond that an is completely unnecessary.

 

If you don’t put a stop to this sort of thing, everywhere becomes an inner city ‘hotspot’.

 

It's been a lively debate :)

 

I think everyone agrees they're idiots for travelling so far.

 

The issue seems to be around the fine and whether they should have been told to go home, then fined if they refused, or straight up fined for being idiots.

 

On this matter there seems to be some disagreement about how far someone can travel - again, there is no limit stated in the legislation so it is open to interpretation.

 

So, how far should people be allowed to travel before they are fined? - it seems that the consensus is that 200 miles is definitely out of the question. 47.8 miles or 95.6 miles round trip (Lewisham to Ockham Common) has been mooted as 'tolerable', as has 26.6 miles or 53.2 miles round trip (Croydon to Ockham Common), so how what sort of distance is acceptable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
The government has already provided guidance on how to interpret exercising - people should stay local and use open spaces near to their home where possible and not travel unnecessarily for exercise. The police used its legal discretion, taking account of this guidance in a way that is perfectly appropriate and proportionate.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/coronavirus-guidance-on-access-to-green-spaces

 

So, a family driving up to the Lake District from Middlesex and intercepted by Lancashire Police at junction 34 of the M6 should get a warning, and only if they try the same trick again get the fine ? What if they decide that their second trip should be to the Yorkshire Dales, so it might be the South Yorkshire Police this time, who are unaware of the first incident so they just get another warning. As Egg states, and as we both have demonstrated by our quoting of the Law, the regulations are vague and in part ambiguous, but for numpties making ridiculous and entirely unnecessary extended pleasure trips I am fully behind the Police.

 

It's absolutely the point. Don't travel, stay local when it's necessary for food/medicine /excersise, and don't visit friends / family is a pretty simple message.

 

I have to say that you confuse me. You appear to advocate travel from hotspots in the UK but not from hotspots overseas. On one hand you understand the risk, but on the other seem oblivious to it. Make your mind up.

 

No it isn't at all. You've been told not to do something by the government in order to get the lockdown finished as quickly as possible. If you choose to ignore that then you should be fined and punished. It really is that simple because if everyone decided to drive 200 miles it's very likely that this would get a hell of a lot worse.

 

 

Because they’ve come into contact, either directly or indirectly, with someone who had the virus. The more people travel around, the more easily it’s spread. Some travel and contact is unavoidable, travelling from Middlesex to the Lakes is completely unnecessary.

 

If they lived in Lewisham or Croydon and they’d driven down the A3 to Ockham common for a walk, I could tolerate that. There’s no need to stop at any services, use any shops, you’re staying roughly in the same area and just trying to get some basic exercise. What this family did goes way beyond that an is completely unnecessary.

 

If you don’t put a stop to this sort of thing, everywhere becomes an inner city ‘hotspot’.

 

So how have 135,000 people ended up in a wooden box?

 

A bit melodramatic! I have no figures for the rest of the world but in England and Wales :

 

More than nine in 10 people dying with coronavirus have an underlying health condition, figures from the Office for National Statistics show.

 

The ONS looked at nearly 4,000 deaths during March in England and Wales where coronavirus was mentioned on the death certificate.

 

In 91% of cases the individuals had other health problems.

 

The most common was heart disease, followed by dementia and respiratory illness.

 

On average, people dying also had roughly three other health conditions.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52308783

 

Is the answer that the overwhelming majority of them had existing health issues?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted

I would say if you live in an urban area, to the nearest decent green and open space where you could do some exercise. My example is probably on the upper limits of what I’d deem acceptable as there are plenty of green spaces and parks within the M25. I didn’t realise it was as far as 48 miles from Lewisham, I kind of thought it was about 25 but that’s not really my point.

 

Someone living in Ocean Village should be allowed to drive to the common or Netley Park for a decent walk but not head up the A34 and across to the Brecon Beacons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
A bit melodramatic! I have no figures for the rest of the world but in England and Wales :

 

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52308783

 

Is the answer that the overwhelming majority of them had existing health issues?

 

How is it melodramatic? Those people have died, I am quoting a literal, actual number of fatalities.

 

Yes, most of them had health issues, that doesn’t mean their deaths don’t count. You can’t put a bomb in an old folks home and say, "ah f**k it, half of them wouldn’t have made it to Christmas anyway."

 

My aunt has a history of lung problems and is at risk from Covid19, her GP has advised her to isolate for 12 weeks. Without it she could live another 20 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
The government has already provided guidance on how to interpret exercising - people should stay local and use open spaces near to their home where possible and not travel unnecessarily for exercise. The police used its legal discretion, taking account of this guidance in a way that is perfectly appropriate and proportionate.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/coronavirus-guidance-on-access-to-green-spaces

 

So, a family driving up to the Lake District from Middlesex and intercepted by Lancashire Police at junction 34 of the M6 should get a warning, and only if they try the same trick again get the fine ? What if they decide that their second trip should be to the Yorkshire Dales, so it might be the South Yorkshire Police this time, who are unaware of the first incident so they just get another warning. As Egg states, and as we both have demonstrated by our quoting of the Law, the regulations are vague and in part ambiguous, but for numpties making ridiculous and entirely unnecessary extended pleasure trips I am fully behind the Police.

 

It's absolutely the point. Don't travel, stay local when it's necessary for food/medicine /excersise, and don't visit friends / family is a pretty simple message.

 

I have to say that you confuse me. You appear to advocate travel from hotspots in the UK but not from hotspots overseas. On one hand you understand the risk, but on the other seem oblivious to it. Make your mind up.

 

No it isn't at all. You've been told not to do something by the government in order to get the lockdown finished as quickly as possible. If you choose to ignore that then you should be fined and punished. It really is that simple because if everyone decided to drive 200 miles it's very likely that this would get a hell of a lot worse.

 

 

Because they’ve come into contact, either directly or indirectly, with someone who had the virus. The more people travel around, the more easily it’s spread. Some travel and contact is unavoidable, travelling from Middlesex to the Lakes is completely unnecessary.

 

If they lived in Lewisham or Croydon and they’d driven down the A3 to Ockham common for a walk, I could tolerate that. There’s no need to stop at any services, use any shops, you’re staying roughly in the same area and just trying to get some basic exercise. What this family did goes way beyond that an is completely unnecessary.

 

If you don’t put a stop to this sort of thing, everywhere becomes an inner city ‘hotspot’.

 

I would say if you live in an urban area, to the nearest decent green and open space where you could do some exercise. My example is probably on the upper limits of what I’d deem acceptable as there are plenty of green spaces and parks within the M25. I didn’t realise it was as far as 48 miles from Lewisham, I kind of thought it was about 25 but that’s not really my point.

 

Someone living in Ocean Village should be allowed to drive to the common or Netley Park for a decent walk but not head up the A34 and across to the Brecon Beacons.

 

And if Netley Park has lots of people in it - hence social distancing isn't possible - what about a quick dash to the vast expanses of the New Forest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
And if Netley Park has lots of people in it - hence social distancing isn't possible - what about a quick dash to the vast expanses of the New Forest?

How far is acceptable ? From Southampton to Ringwood ? Brockenhurst ? Lyndhurst ? Bournemouth ? Assumng it is OK for one family, is it OK for ten, a hundred, five hundred ? Who decides which ones are permitted ? At what point do Social Distancing and 'stay at home' become futile propositions ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
How far is acceptable ? From Southampton to Ringwood ? Brockenhurst ? Lyndhurst ? Bournemouth ? Assumng it is OK for one family, is it OK for ten, a hundred, five hundred ? Who decides which ones are permitted ? At what point do Social Distancing and 'stay at home' become futile propositions ?

 

Surely the important thing is social distancing, that is the primary thing which reduces new infections. As long as people stay 2m apart or more if someone wants to go to the park to sunbathe rather than exercise does it matter? Why is it worse to go out to open space in the New Forest than staying home in a tower block in Southampton sharing a lift with 15 other people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
How far is acceptable ? From Southampton to Ringwood ? Brockenhurst ? Lyndhurst ? Bournemouth ? Assumng it is OK for one family, is it OK for ten, a hundred, five hundred ? Who decides which ones are permitted ? At what point do Social Distancing and 'stay at home' become futile propositions ?

 

To be fair, that was the question I was asking. The argument seems to have been that 200 miles is unacceptable but 'local' is no problem at all - I'm just after a definition of 'local' which appears to be about 48 miles!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
To be fair, that was the question I was asking. The argument seems to have been that 200 miles is unacceptable but 'local' is no problem at all - I'm just after a definition of 'local' which appears to be about 48 miles!

 

You shouldn’t be getting in your car to go somewhere for recreation. Simple as that. You walk/run/cycle from your front door.

 

It’s really not complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
Surely the important thing is social distancing, that is the primary thing which reduces new infections. As long as people stay 2m apart or more if someone wants to go to the park to sunbathe rather than exercise does it matter? Why is it worse to go out to open space in the New Forest than staying home in a tower block in Southampton sharing a lift with 15 other people?

 

Please explain why you feel you are in position to challenge or question the advice we are being given which is based on scientific advice. Perhaps those scientists know more than you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
Probably when enough people realise you’ve got a 99.9% chance of surviving the virus.

It's high but not that high. All I know is that the longer I'm sat home near the fridge, I'm gaining weight and getting unfit thus reducing my chances of beating it when I get it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SFC1906

SFC1906

Posted
Posted
Please explain why you feel you are in position to challenge or question the advice we are being given which is based on scientific advice. Perhaps those scientists know more than you.

 

Perhaps he has faith - and his God told him, or wrote it in a book a thousand years ago??

This surely trumps any scientific advice or evidence?

At the very least he is entitled to believe what his God tells him even if it completely contradicts what the scientific advice is - no matter what you believe?

 

Sorry I couldn't resist - no hard feelings???:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
Surely the important thing is social distancing, that is the primary thing which reduces new infections. As long as people stay 2m apart or more if someone wants to go to the park to sunbathe rather than exercise does it matter? Why is it worse to go out to open space in the New Forest than staying home in a tower block in Southampton sharing a lift with 15 other people?

 

Because if you allow sunbathing, people will go out specifically for that purpose and meet in groups, have a beer together etc.

 

From a containment POV, it’s better not to allow anyone out the house at all, be it for exercise, to buy food or otherwise. Clearly those two are both necessary so you can’t ban them, sunbathing is not and you’re basically putting lives at risk for a bit of a tan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedArmy

RedArmy

Posted
Posted
Because if you allow sunbathing, people will go out specifically for that purpose and meet in groups, have a beer together etc.

 

From a containment POV, it’s better not to allow anyone out the house at all, be it for exercise, to buy food or otherwise. Clearly those two are both necessary so you can’t ban them, sunbathing is not and you’re basically putting lives at risk for a bit of a tan.

Outdoor exercise is not necessary at all. There’s plenty of ways to keep fit indoors, HIIT for example doesn’t need a lot of space.

It’s also been mooted that people exercising can actually be spreading their potentially virus containing particles much, much further than 2 metres so if anything outdoor exercise is far more dangerous than sitting down in the sun at a safe distance from others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted
Surely the important thing is social distancing, that is the primary thing which reduces new infections. As long as people stay 2m apart or more if someone wants to go to the park to sunbathe rather than exercise does it matter? Why is it worse to go out to open space in the New Forest than staying home in a tower block in Southampton sharing a lift with 15 other people?

 

Because they don’t want thousands of people heading into Bournemouth or similar popular locations every day. It’s not rocket science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted

We have previously been told by Michael Gove that an hour's walk is the permitted level of exercise. Now it seems that the Police have been advised by internal memo that travelling to somewhere with the intention of exercising should be such that more time is spent exercising than driving, ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-52312560 ). So, even if you go for a 2 hour walk, ( who ever really paid attention to Gove ? ), you shouldn't really be driving for more than an hour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted (edited)
Because if you allow sunbathing, people will go out specifically for that purpose and meet in groups, have a beer together etc.

 

From a containment POV, it’s better not to allow anyone out the house at all, be it for exercise, to buy food or otherwise. Clearly those two are both necessary so you can’t ban them, sunbathing is not and you’re basically putting lives at risk for a bit of a tan.

Abd they've obviously modelled what people should do and this is what they've come up with. It's jot perfect but why people can't just comply for the relatively short period that they are asked to do it rather than being difficult for the sake of it I do not know. Edited by hypochondriac
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
You shouldn’t be getting in your car to go somewhere for recreation. Simple as that. You walk/run/cycle from your front door.

 

It’s really not complicated.

 

Ooooppppssss, damn those internal police memos ;)

 

We have previously been told by Michael Gove that an hour's walk is the permitted level of exercise. Now it seems that the Police have been advised by internal memo that travelling to somewhere with the intention of exercising should be such that more time is spent exercising than driving, ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-52312560 ). So, even if you go for a 2 hour walk, ( who ever really paid attention to Gove ? ), you shouldn't really be driving for more than an hour.

 

With the motorways empty like they currently are, that is theoretically in the region of 60 miles from home. So is that the 'acceptable' distance before the fines are dished out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
Outdoor exercise is not necessary at all. There’s plenty of ways to keep fit indoors, HIIT for example doesn’t need a lot of space.

It’s also been mooted that people exercising can actually be spreading their potentially virus containing particles much, much further than 2 metres so if anything outdoor exercise is far more dangerous than sitting down in the sun at a safe distance from others.

 

It's not, you're right. I think it's a trade off between spreading the virus and the mental/physical benefits of going out for a run or cycle. If we weren't able to control the virus as it is and the government banned outdoor exercise for a brief period, I wouldn't argue with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted

With the motorways empty like they currently are, that is theoretically in the region of 60 miles from home. So is that the 'acceptable' distance before the fines are dished out?

Go out and try it. See how Avon and Somerset Constabulary are interpreting the memo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
I drive every work day - barely been looked at by Avon and Somerset Constabularly, let alone stopped by them...
If you go out and drive for non essential reasons then you run the risk of a fine at the discretion of the police. I'm perfectly happy with that and everyone else should be too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tamesaint

Tamesaint

Posted
Posted
Really? Surely they attract more than two people - thus breaking the legislation that restricts gatherings of two or more. Unbelievable!

 

What you have a queue when you are driving your ice cream van?

 

The clue was in what you wrote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
Outdoor exercise is not necessary at all. There’s plenty of ways to keep fit indoors, HIIT for example doesn’t need a lot of space.

It’s also been mooted that people exercising can actually be spreading their potentially virus containing particles much, much further than 2 metres so if anything outdoor exercise is far more dangerous than sitting down in the sun at a safe distance from others.

Not so. Fresh clean air and sunshine are more beneficial that stuffy recycled air. We all need to build up our vitamin D after the winter.

 

You’re thinking of a different sort of exercise, body building rather than getting your fluids moving. This is more relevant for the older generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
Not so. Fresh clean air and sunshine are more beneficial that stuffy recycled air. We all need to build up our vitamin D after the winter.

 

You’re thinking of a different sort of exercise, body building rather than getting your fluids moving. This is more relevant for the older generations.

 

Take a vitamin supplement.

 

Walking is pretty **** exercise and you can get much fitter doing twenty minutes of intense exercise in your lounge than plodding around for an hour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
Take a vitamin supplement.

 

Walking is pretty **** exercise and you can get much fitter doing twenty minutes of intense exercise in your lounge than plodding around for an hour.

 

Now that is total billhooks. If you really believe this then you haven’t got a clue as to what counts as fitness. I guess from your beliefs that you must be relatively young and that your concept of fitness is having a toned body with good muscle structure. For the over fifties it’s nothing of the sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Lighthouse changed the title to Coronavirus

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})

  I accept