Government advice discussion

[yorksrob]

I think most people are genuinely trying to work out how to do the right thing and follow instructions in these unusual times.

Even those who ended up at Snowdonia last weekend were probably trying to keep to the social distancing guidance of the time - it's just that this being a small island, whenever you try and find some space, three hundred thousand other people turn up.

 

[JohnB57]

We're

We're doomed.......

......aaaalll doomed!

Don't panic. Just behave yourself.

 

[JohnB57]

...being a small island, whenever you try and find some space, three hundred thousand other people turn up.

Then do what you should be doing and stick to your own space. It's not a difficult concept.

 

[yorksrob]

Then do what you should be doing and stick to your own space. It's not a difficult concept.

I have been. For the past two weeks.

I'm intrigued to know what makes you think I haven't ?

 

[JohnB57]

I have been. For the past two weeks.

I'm intrigued to know what makes you think I haven't ?

Nothing. It was a general, but, accidentally, a quite badly worded comment.

My bad. My apologies.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

I went out on a bike ride from my home today. Ended up cycling 40 miles and was out for about 3 hours. Yet during that time I didn't come within 2 metres of anyone (excluding motorists of course, who had their windows down anyway). Even if I had, I would have passed them so quickly that any risk of infection was pretty much non-existent. Have I done anything wrong or illegal?

 

[yorksrob]

Nothing. It was a general, but, accidentally, a quite badly worded comment.

My bad. My apologies.

Apology accepted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I went out on a bike ride from my home today. Ended up cycling 40 miles and was out for about 3 hours. Yet during that time I didn't come within 2 metres of anyone (excluding motorists of course, who had their windows down anyway). Have I done anything wrong or illegal?

No, you have not.

 

[Greybeard33]

Whilst I certainly don't disagree that that is good advice and what everyone should be doing, it isn't what the regulations that actually give this weight of law say:


Now I like I said I think that that is excellent advice from the Government and everyone should follow it. But it isn't the law.

Surely the key phrase in that regulation is "a reasonable excuse". I would expect the police and courts to refer to the Government guidance when deciding whether or not a particular exercise outing is "reasonable" in terms of the regulation. So more than one outing per day, or a form of exercise that did not minimise the time outside the home, would be considered unreasonable unless there were exceptional circumstances.

 

[JohnB57]

I went out on a bike ride from my home today. Ended up cycling 40 miles and was out for about 3 hours. Yet during that time I didn't come within 2 metres of anyone (excluding motorists of course, who had their windows down anyway). Even if I had, I would have passed them so quickly that any risk of infection was pretty much non-existent. Have I done anything wrong or illegal?

But you might have. That's the point that most people seem to miss.

You may have had an accident or medical problem during your ride. Precious NHS resources that could have saved lives?

You couldn't guarantee not coming within 2 metres of other people. Who can?

What about the motorists with their windows down? Is their fresh air less valuable than yours? Is their journey more or less justifiable than yours? They may have it... You may have it...

There's no real way to justify any of this activity. Just stop it.

And stop finding spurious reasons to convince yourself it's ok. It isn't.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

But you might have. That's the point that most people seem to miss.

You may have had a medical problem. Precious NHS resources that could have saved lives?

You couldn't guarantee not coming within 2 metres of other people. Who can?

What about the motorists were their windows down? Is their fresh air less valuable than yours? Is their journey more or less justifiable than yours? They may have it... You may have it...

There's no real way to justify any of this activity. Just stop it.

And stop finding spurious reasons to convince yourself it's ok. It isn't.

Perhaps you could try reading my post again. Specifically the bit where I said "I didn't come within 2 metres of anyone (excluding motorists of course, who had their windows down anyway). Even if I had, I would have passed them so quickly that any risk of infection was pretty much non-existent."

I could rebuff your points one by one but to be honest you don't sound like the kind of person who listens to rational argument. So I will wish you a good night and completely ignore your spurious and erroneous advice.

 

[yorksrob]

But you might have. That's the point that most people seem to miss.

You may have had an accident or medical problem during your ride. Precious NHS resources that could have saved lives?

You couldn't guarantee not coming within 2 metres of other people. Who can?

What about the motorists with their windows down? Is their fresh air less valuable than yours? Is their journey more or less justifiable than yours? They may have it... You may have it...

There's no real way to justify any of this activity. Just stop it.

And stop finding spurious reasons to convince yourself it's ok. It isn't.

The government guidance specifically allows a bycicle ride as an act of daily exercise.

I'm sure that the Government have weighed up the risks of someone passing someone coming the other way on foot or on bycicle against the risk of infection, or the risks of injury during exercise against the risks of being indoors for a long time.

I'm sorry - I really don't agree with people deciding that they don't agree with the clear Government guidelines, and trying to strong-arm other people into feeling that they're not allowed to follow the guidelines.

 

[Bantamzen]

But if the alternative, for a few months at least, is a world in which an arrogant, selfish minority get away with - almost literally - murder, is that a world in which you want to live? I sincerely hope you're lucky enough to avoid your life being put at risk through contact with those people. I'm certainly making sure mine isn't.

Honestly, you want to label them murderers? In that case we are all potential murderers because every time we cough or sneeze we might be passing on a virus that results in someone else's demise. Think about that for a moment before you start throwing accusations like that around, because this is exactly how society starts to break itself up by treating everyone else as a threat.

I could get even more boring about this. But in two or three weeks, if things are as projected and "those people" still haven't seen the point and modified their behaviour, I'll be very surprised. At that point I guess they'd be a lost cause.

This is very serious. We need to do whatever it takes to make everyone treat it as such.

"Whatever it takes", a phrase that should send shivers down the spines of everyone. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

But you might have. That's the point that most people seem to miss.

You may have had an accident or medical problem during your ride. Precious NHS resources that could have saved lives?

You couldn't guarantee not coming within 2 metres of other people. Who can?

What about the motorists with their windows down? Is their fresh air less valuable than yours? Is their journey more or less justifiable than yours? They may have it... You may have it...

There's no real way to justify any of this activity. Just stop it.

And stop finding spurious reasons to convince yourself it's ok. It isn't.

More accidents occur at home than anywhere else. So we should basically stop moving, yes?

https://www.rospa.com/Home-Safety/Advice/General/Facts-and-Figures

 

[Smidster]

But you might have. That's the point that most people seem to miss.

You may have had an accident or medical problem during your ride. Precious NHS resources that could have saved lives?

You couldn't guarantee not coming within 2 metres of other people. Who can?

What about the motorists with their windows down? Is their fresh air less valuable than yours? Is their journey more or less justifiable than yours? They may have it... You may have it...

There's no real way to justify any of this activity. Just stop it.

And stop finding spurious reasons to convince yourself it's ok. It isn't.

Sorry but this type of post actually makes me pretty angry.

There is nothing to suggest that your exercise should not be of regular length but you should be commencing it at home. This is what Gove said on Tuesday.

The permitted forms of exercise, not a sentence I would have expected to write, come with zero chance of transmission - frankly as long as I am not near anyone else it is nobody else's business if it is 30 minutes or 3 hours.

We all need to find a way to get through this - for some that means taking as much exercise as they possibly can - as someone who lives alone and has no social life you have no idea how valuable exercise can be. To those saying "but NHS recommends 150 minutes per week" this is an absolute bare minimum across the whole population - you are trying to find a number that gives some benefit but doesn't scare people. Same with "5 a day" - evidence suggests we need more than that.

Then the "you may hurt yourself and need the NHS" argument - I may also set my house on fire burning toast or fall down the stairs trying to declutter. Shall I just sit on the sofa for ever?- which will of course cost the NHS way more in the long run.

All for keeping everyone safe but we must maintain a sense of proportion

 

[Islineclear3_1]

1984 anyone?

 

[farleigh]

I went out on a bike ride from my home today. Ended up cycling 40 miles and was out for about 3 hours. Yet during that time I didn't come within 2 metres of anyone (excluding motorists of course, who had their windows down anyway). Even if I had, I would have passed them so quickly that any risk of infection was pretty much non-existent. Have I done anything wrong or illegal?

Nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

 

[Meerkat]

Call me over-cautious if you like but I have been walking rather than cycling as I want to reduce the chances of needing A&E to the absolute minimum.
I certainly wouldn’t want to venture too far from home in case I had a major bike issue - would normally plan on the bus or get a cab to come home and get the car...but now not the time.

 

[Greybeard33]

Michael Gove was interviewed on the Marr show this morning and was specifically asked for guidance on how long the daily exercise outing should be. He said it depended on individual levels of fitness, but for most people a walk of up to an hour, or a 30 minute run, or a cycle ride of between that, is appropriate.

 

[scotrail158713]

Michael Gove was interviewed on the Marr show this morning and was specifically asked for guidance on how long the daily exercise outing should be. He said it depended on individual levels of fitness, but for most people a walk of up to an hour, or a 30 minute run, or a cycle ride of between that, is appropriate.

So a typical politician answer with nothing clear at all then?

 

[ainsworth74]

Surely the key phrase in that regulation is "a reasonable excuse". I would expect the police and courts to refer to the Government guidance when deciding whether or not a particular exercise outing is "reasonable" in terms of the regulation. So more than one outing per day, or a form of exercise that did not minimise the time outside the home, would be considered unreasonable unless there were exceptional circumstances.

Now I'm not a legal expert and the legislation I have the most experience with is social security but that's not how it reads as far as I'm able to interpret. Regulation six is comprised of four paragraphs and for purposes only paragraphs one and two are actually relevant.

Paragraph one tells us that: "During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse." so far so simple. A plain English reading of that unarguably means that people are no longer able to leave home on a whim they have to have a "reasonable excuse".

Paragraph two is then the next most important for it tells us: "For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need..." and then lists a large number of different things. Note the wording "a reasonable excuse includes the need" that means that paragraph two is providing some definitions of a "reasonable excuse".

If we then consider the list of reasonable excuses the one relevant for our purposes is (b) which states: "to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household". Which means that to take exercise is a reasonable excuse which means that you are allowed to leave home to do so.

Now if (b) was phrased more like "to take limited exercise" or "to take the minimum necessary exercise" then I would agree with you that the plain English reading clearly infers limits and therefore the Government's guidance would seem a reasonable yardstick. But it isn't. "To take exercise" is simply defined as being a reasonable excuse no suggestion of any other consideration is implied. Taking exercise is a reasonable excuse for the purposes of paragraph one.

Like I said previously I would encourage everyone to stick to the Government's guidance on this as it's clearly the best thing we can all do for the sake of everyone.

But the law, in my view, as written, does not give that guidance legal weight. You cannot, in my view, be prosecuted under that law if you exceed the limits set by the guidance. Because the law does not match them. It is indeed silent on what the limits should be. I would argue had the Parliamentary intent been to proscribe the limits of exercise (or other factors) they would have chosen different wording to the quite explicit wording chosen.

 

[edwin_m]

Now I'm not a legal expert and the legislation I have the most experience with is social security but that's not how it reads as far as I'm able to interpret. Regulation six is comprised of four paragraphs and for purposes only paragraphs one and two are actually relevant.

Paragraph one tells us that: "During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse." so far so simple. A plain English reading of that unarguably means that people are no longer able to leave home on a whim they have to have a "reasonable excuse".

Paragraph two is then the next most important for it tells us: "For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need..." and then lists a large number of different things. Note the wording "a reasonable excuse includes the need" that means that paragraph two is providing some definitions of a "reasonable excuse".

If we then consider the list of reasonable excuses the one relevant for our purposes is (b) which states: "to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household". Which means that to take exercise is a reasonable excuse which means that you are allowed to leave home to do so.

Now if (b) was phrased more like "to take limited exercise" or "to take the minimum necessary exercise" then I would agree with you that the plain English reading clearly infers limits and therefore the Government's guidance would seem a reasonable yardstick. But it isn't. "To take exercise" is simply defined as being a reasonable excuse no suggestion of any other consideration is implied. Taking exercise is a reasonable excuse for the purposes of paragraph one.

Like I said previously I would encourage everyone to stick to the Government's guidance on this as it's clearly the best thing we can all do for the sake of everyone.

But the law, in my view, as written, does not give that guidance legal weight. You cannot, in my view, be prosecuted under that law if you exceed the limits set by the guidance. Because the law does not match them. It is indeed silent on what the limits should be. I would argue had the Parliamentary intent been to proscribe the limits of exercise (or other factors) they would have chosen different wording to the quite explicit wording chosen.

Not an expert either but I think "reasonable" applies to the amount of exercise not just the need for it. Going for your fourth five-mile run of the day might not be considered reasonable.

 

[ainsworth74]

Not an expert either but I think "reasonable" applies to the amount of exercise not just the need for it. Going for your fourth five-mile run of the day might not be considered reasonable.

Perhaps, like I say this isn't the side of legislation that I usually have to deal with and I could certainly see that interpretation being correct. But I just feel that if that was the intention it would have been worded differently.

But hey, this doesn't really matter to me as I intend to follow the guidance whether or not it carries the full backing of the law (and again would encourage everyone else to do so)!

 

[bussnapperwm]

It's like the legislation permits one to visit ones bank. My nearest branch of the bank that is on my bank card is two buses, a train and a tram (and a hour and half from my house.).

Would I be right saying that one could still visit it (even though it's sister company has a branch closer to my home and would still accept deposits for one's account) as one would be complying with the letter of the law?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Not an expert either but I think "reasonable" applies to the amount of exercise not just the need for it. Going for your fourth five-mile run of the day might not be considered reasonable.

The legal use of the word "reasonable" was that of the man on the Clapham Omnibus.... what a reasonable person might expect to see. That's not the same as average though. Reasonableness is a vague legal term.

It is reasonable to expect the ability to take exercise. Probably. That exercise to be a 10 mile cross country run.... well it's not something the average person would do but it is probably reasonable. Driving from Birmingham to climb Cadir Idris.... not really.

I'm struggling to get why people aren't quite getting it. You don't leave your home unless it is essential - to get food, medicines or for work, or to get exercise once a day. Exercise can be taken from your front door.

 

[Darandio]

It's like the legislation permits one to visit ones bank. My nearest branch of the bank that is on my bank card is two buses, a train and a tram (and a hour and half from my house.).

Would I be right saying that one could still visit it (even though it's sister company has a branch closer to my home and would still accept deposits for one's account) as one would be complying with the letter of the law?

Why not just use your common sense and go to the closer branch? Who cares whether going to a branch further away complies with the letter of the law, just be reasonable in your actions.

 

[trainophile]

Just a silly thought I had last night - for anyone who has trouble working out how much distance 2 metres is, it's about the length of your bed!

 

[JonathanH]

It's like the legislation permits one to visit ones bank. My nearest branch of the bank that is on my bank card is two buses, a train and a tram (and a hour and half from my house.).

That is unlikely to be essential travel. Almost all banking can be done electronically or over the telephone. You may even find that the branch you are hoping to visit is closed.

 

[bussnapperwm]

That is unlikely to be essential travel. Almost all banking can be done electronically or over the telephone. You may even find that the branch you are hoping to visit is closed.

It's essential travel if one had To deposit cash in one's account to avail oneself of the luxury of internet shopping. Not that I had actually planned to actually do that journey, but I was just pointing out the loophole in the law and how it could be used.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So a typical politician answer with nothing clear at all then?

Do you need him to tell you how to wipe your backside?

It seems perfectly clear to me - the sort of thing anyone would do if they said "I'm just going for a walk" or "I'm just going for a run". Not a long day out, a short thing.

 

[bussnapperwm]

Just a silly thought I had last night - for anyone who has trouble working out how much distance 2 metres is, it's about the length of your bed!

Or one Richard Osman