Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

[Swinglowandslow]

It was a ridiculous and heavy-handed move by Plod to fine them for that. Having a coffee makes it a picnic? That is a load of Pro V1s. This nonsense about driving is a red herring. Driving makes no difference to risk, you are probably never safer than alone in a car. It is what you do when you get to where you are driving that matters, and walking outdoors in the hills is safer than visiting Tesco.

Yes, if it stopped at that. What you have described is correct, but it isn't as safe as being at home meeting no one other than your household.
People driving to a beauty spot, walking area, etc are safe. As you say, it's what happens when you get there. Inevitably when there are enough , there will be some interaction, conversation, etc and SD will go by the board.
It won't with you because you are careful and respect the limits.
But a lot of people will be driven more by what they want from that meeting up, conversation etc than what is correct SD.
An example of outside non SD was the crowd who watched the Spurs team coach arriving for their recent Cup match.
Because the authorities know that enough people will breach the SD, then they ask and demand restrictions. You find that not necesssary, but though it isn't for you, it is for enough people who would otherwise spread the virus.
I've seen it on the golf course. 4 balls who get too close , too often, in the enjoyment of the game . Talking too close for too long. And this new variant I suspect can breach outdoors non SD that the original didn't.?
You may know if that is not the case. May I ask,, genuine question, is it??

 

[oxymoron]

I am not alone in thinking that the issue is not simply that relatively small number of individuals breaking the rules/guidelines/laws - but those many more taking advantage of what we are allowed to do rather than adhering what the CMO exhorts us to do - and that is to stay at home and only go out for short period of exercise or when absolutely essential shopping requires you to go to a store.

Whilst i broadly agree with you , you must see that if you are doing something you are "allowed" to do you are not taking advantage , you are merely doing what you can do without breaking any perceived law. Many folk are mentally on the edge without worrying if an over zealous plod is going to charge over the hill like Atilla the hun and slap you with a fine .
Doing something that is allowed is not a crime, it may not be ethical , but it is not a crime by any stretch of the imagination so why we are standing for the criminalization
of someone going walking in a safe, socially distant manner beggars belief .

Perhaps criminalizing is a bit strong , maybe demonizing is better ?

 

[Ethan]

Yes, if it stopped at that. What you have described is correct, but it isn't as safe as being at home meeting no one other than your household.
People driving to a beauty spot, walking area, etc are safe. As you say, it's what happens when you get there. Inevitably when there are enough , there will be some interaction, conversation, etc and SD will go by the board.
It won't with you because you are careful and respect the limits.
But a lot of people will be driven more by what they want from that meeting up, conversation etc than what is correct SD.
An example of outside non SD was the crowd who watched the Spurs team coach arriving for their recent Cup match.
Because the authorities know that enough people will breach the SD, then they ask and demand restrictions. You find that not necesssary, but though it isn't for you, it is for enough people who would otherwise spread the virus.
I've seen it on the golf course. 4 balls who get too close , too often, in the enjoyment of the game . Talking too close for too long. And this new variant I suspect can breach outdoors non SD that the original didn't.?
You may know if that is not the case. May I ask,, genuine question, is it??

The new variant is more transmissible, certainly, but transmissibility is based on 2 elements, one the virus reaching you and second, the virus attaching, as it were. The social distancing rules are intended to prevent the first of those. The second is a lot to do with your host immunity and resistance, and an element of dumb luck.

There is no evidence the new variant can leap further through the air. Outside remains pretty safe, though, and I would imagine a windswept hilltop is safer again. Proximity and duration are also important. It seemed from the reports, though, that if these two were walking near their homes, the cops would not have been interested. The variable which caused the trouble was the 5 mile drive to wherever it was. I can't see that 5 mile journey caused any risk. If it did, sending cops in multiple cars to lean on them was also a major risk.

 

[Tashyboy]

That is a rather stupid statement from Dick. Not everybody wants to walk, it may not be suitable to ride a bike and the journey makes no flipping difference. Plod needs to concentrate on the stuff that is important and not persecuting people who take care to go to somewhere quiet and suitable.

My problem with it is police commissioners are being asked there views. They are not all singing from the same song sheet. Why is that. Because there is not clear clarity, or is there. People are driving anywhere between five miles and hundreds of miles for there local exercise.

 

[Ethan]

My problem with it is police commissioners are being asked there views. They are not all singing from the same song sheet. Why is that. Because there is not clear clarity, or is there. People are driving anywhere between five miles and hundreds of miles for there local exercise.

During the 2020 version, the National Police Chiefs Council issued some sensible advice to local forces which helped get things both proportionate and consistent.

Interestingly, the current guidelines say "Stay local means stay in the village, town, or part of the city where you live.". Therefore the same Met Commissioner now considers the Olympic Park to be in the same part of London as Number 10 Downing Street. That is exactly the sort of comment that undermines public trust and adherence to the rules, so perhaps she should stay quiet.

 

[Tashyboy]

During the 2020 version, the Police Chiefs committee issued some sensible advice to local forces which helped get things both proportionate and consistent.

On the east midlands news the Notts police commissioner was asked his views on the fine issued. He said he thought it was a bit strong and they would not of issued them. The problem with such as Derbyshire. north, south east and west, It is rammed with cites and towns within half an hours drive of the Pennines and it gets rammed with Locals and they/police just don’t want them there.

 

[Tashyboy]

But the guidelines you published says you can travel in local area, I disagree with your definition, so we are both right and both wrong! It’s not straightforward or simple.

And your last sentence is my point? It does say you cannot travel outside your local area. What exactly is local area.

What I will say is that for me there is a massive massive difference between people who deliberately break the rules and people
( like the two women ) that are unsure of what constitutes local exercise.

 

[Ethan]

On the east midlands news the Notts police commissioner was asked his views on the fine issued. He said he thought it was a bit strong and they would not of issued them. The problem with such as Derbyshire. north, south east and west, It is rammed with cites and towns within half an hours drive of the Pennines and it gets rammed with Locals and they/police just don’t want them there.

The police are there to fairly and legally enforce the law, it is unfortunate for them if there is something that is legal but which they don't like or want. The Pennines are quite a big space and are outdoors, so provided entry and exit is managed, should not be a risk. Traffic jams don't spread Covid.

 

[Deleted member 21258]

I really cant believe we are going again on outside stuff. 10 months into a pandemic and we are still discussing it.

So many studies out there, science based, evidence based, via track/trace, reports from other countries, personal experience, outside is very low risk with any element of social distancing and unless you wish to stay indoors forever(which by all means you can), but outside exercise is as great thing for your body and mind.

It has kind of become a control thing, rather than the more important control the transmission of the virus thing.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Depends what that one person is doing. If they are walking outside 1.9m from a friend while drinking coffee, they should be politely reminded to socially distance slightly better but no more.

If they are holding a house party with others, they should be arrested.

On the medical exemptions, it is, in my opinion, ridiculous that people can self-certify. Masks do not interfere with breathing in or out, many asthmatic theatre buses and surgeons demonstrate this daily, so the valid reasons for exemptions are things like trigeminal neuralgia, a painful condition of the face triggered by contact, and some psychiatric and behavioural conditions, but not general everyday self-diagnosed phobias. People who do not wear a mask, whether valid or not, are at greater risk of both getting but also transmitting, so if genuinely unable to wear one, should not be able to freely move around places where masks are required. Why should I have to accept the risk of someone she's imagined pseudophobia?

Interesting - I was thinking that for most who claim exemption from wearing a mask there is nothing stopping them having a go wearing it when going into a store - and if it becomes problematic for the wearer then they can remove it.

Heard one fella on radio give reasons he doesn't have to wear one. And as far as I could hear they were OK (though my comment on wearing one until it was problematic applies). He was then asked why he doesn't wear a visor (I know they are not equivalent but that is what he was asked). His response? He wears glasses and they steam up. Well OK...however.

I'm not convinced that we are all doing everything we can to minimise the spread of the virus; we are not all looking terribly hard for ways around problems the constraints, guidance and law imposes on us. Many seem to prefer to take advantage of what we are allowed to do, rather then aim to comply with what we exhorted to do - stay at home as much as we can. For a few months more.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

On the east midlands news the Notts police commissioner was asked his views on the fine issued. He said he thought it was a bit strong and they would not of issued them. The problem with such as Derbyshire. north, south east and west, It is rammed with cites and towns within half an hours drive of the Pennines and it gets rammed with Locals and they/police just don’t want them there.

Just to be clear, I think you mean the Peak District rather than the Pennines and Foremark Reservoir and Calke Abbey another site that witnessed heavy handed policing, are nowhere near the Peak District.

 

[bobmac]

He was then asked why he doesn't wear a visor (I know they are not equivalent but that is what he was asked). His response? He wears glasses and they steam up. Well OK...however.

Rubbish
I've worn a visor and glasses in a supermarket and nothing steamed up whatsoever.

 

[garyinderry]

The amount of couples that are exempt is staggering.

 

[Beezerk]

Re the driving to exercise, I understand it's necessary for some but it's more than that for others. The majority ive seen are using this as an excuse to have a day out with friends or other families. The amount of large groups I've seen in the local area is staggering, boils my pash it does.

 

[Tashyboy]

Re the driving to exercise, I understand it's necessary for some but it's more than that for others. The majority ive seen are using this as an excuse to have a day out with friends or other families. The amount of large groups I've seen in the local area is staggering, boils my pash it does.

There’s some lovely stories on the sky news as we speak. One guy who lives in Chesterfield ( Pennines next door) was pulled over by police in his car at Lincoln. he was travelling to all 92 football league clubs ?.

 

[Ethan]

Interesting - I was thinking that for most who claim exemption from wearing a mask there is nothing stopping them having a go wearing it when going into a store - and if it becomes problematic for the wearer then they can remove it.

Heard one fella on radio give reasons he doesn't have to wear one. And as far as I could hear they were OK (though my comment on wearing one until it was problematic applies). He was then asked why he doesn't wear a visor (I know they are not equivalent but that is what he was asked). His response? He wears glasses and they steam up. Well OK...however.

I'm not convinced that we are all doing everything we can to minimise the spread of the virus; we are not all looking terribly hard for ways around problems the constraints, guidance and law imposes on us. Many seem to prefer to take advantage of what we are allowed to do, rather then aim to comply with what we exhorted to do - stay at home as much as we can. For a few months more.

We take a reasonably simple approach. Work from home unless my wife needs to go into office (less than once a week and needs a good reason, key worker). Ocado if we can get slots, one visit a week to the supermarket if not. One take-away dinner or delivery a week, mostly for the kids, my wife goes out for a run a couple of days a week early in a quiet area where she usually sees very few people, and the kids either play football in the garden (although rather bogging at the moment) or take a local walk around the block. That is it.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Rules should be clear and unambiguous. It's not fair on the Police or Public if they need to make a personal decision on what 'Local' means. It should either be within your local postcode or say five miles then everyone knows right from wrong. The Picnic issue was just plain daft.

I agree that it should be clear. The leadership of the police should be demanding of the authorities that it is clear, (but demand is a word forgotten unless they are speaking to a lower rank.)
However, in these times people should forget this attitude of how far can I use this law, and think of what is best to beat this virus.
To say , e.g. "Well that is human nature isn't it?" as an implied justification is not good enough.
We believe we have become intelligent and civilised. Let's demand that we behave as such.

 

[GB72]

We take a reasonably simple approach. Work from home unless my wife needs to go into office (less than once a week and needs a good reason, key worker). Ocado if we can get slots, one visit a week to the supermarket if not. One take-away dinner or delivery a week, mostly for the kids, my wife goes out for a run a couple of days a week early in a quiet area where she usually sees very few people, and the kids either play football in the garden (although rather bogging at the moment) or take a local walk around the block. That is it.

Pretty similar here. Yes I go to work every day but I do not have the security necessary at home to store confidential files that I need or fireproof cabinets for deeds and wills so I go in. That said, I am in my own office on my own all day and everyone wears a mask and social distances in communal areas. Wife works at home except for the odd time she needs to go out of site (utilities construction). I go shopping once a week and top that up with a hello fresh order every fortnight for variety. I go nowhere during the week but do go for a long walk on both days at the weekend just to maintain some sanity. Had a takeaway last weekend for the first time in ages.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Police should never be put in a situation where they can be Judge, Jury and Executioner.

I remember getting a Section 59 Order. Completely unfair and incorrect use of the thing, quite frankly an abuse of power. I may not have been particularly polite to the coppers, but that shouldn't matter.

Don't know what you mean by that because it isn't true.
Issuing a FP isn't being all three. Arresting someone isn't being all three.
There was a time when most offences were dealt with by reporting someone for summons, or by arrest. Convenience and volume has necessitated FP etc.
In any event, the recipient of the police action can argue it in a Court.

 

[PJ87]

I really cant believe we are going again on outside stuff. 10 months into a pandemic and we are still discussing it.

So many studies out there, science based, evidence based, via track/trace, reports from other countries, personal experience, outside is very low risk with any element of social distancing and unless you wish to stay indoors forever(which by all means you can), but outside exercise is as great thing for your body and mind.

It has kind of become a control thing, rather than the more important control the transmission of the virus thing.

So true, I just took the youngest on a mile walk because she having a rough day and needs a nap

Saw 3 people

Essienal? Who cares