Forum menu
I totally get the mental health concerns of lockdown, I’ve had my issues in the past. But I think we we lose 6-7000 a year to suicide in the UK. Awful as that is, that’s looking like 1 weeks Covid deaths in the next few weeks.
My biggest concern around mental health would be wait times which in some trusts is likely a year or more right now. Staff are being relocated to fight covid which is stretching an already stretched system. Although you may not be too far wrong regarding deaths the impact of mental health related lockdown/covid will take a lot longer to solve at this current rate.
The mental health impacts of lockdown are real. That truth doesn’t help hospital staff stretched to the limit this month and next. Any reduction in road accidents right now genuinely will.
Do you have any references or metrics to back up that statement?
We are talking the risk of some people making a local journey once a day, VS the risk of mental health issues, overdoeses, self harm, and increase of at home injuries DIY, garden etc. Not to mention the unquantifiable aspect of millions of people just being ****ing miserable.
I suspect the balance isn't as you infer. And for what's it worth, neither does Scot Gov.
Which statement do you disagree with?
I read from your response Kelvin that you believe that the impact on the NHS from accidents associated with limited lockdown vehicular travel (as per Scotland for example) is greater than the impact on the NHS from mental health issues and at home incidents (DIY, Garden) associated with the apparently total (English) lockdown? Is that correct?
Ignoring the word limited (no one is saying don’t drive), this month, and next, yes, avoiding unnecessary driving right now in England makes sense to me. Only because trauma from road accidents require the same NHS resources that look likely to be overrun by this winter wave of this virus. The mental health impacts of all this are very real, and absolutely need paying attention to, and minimising/mitigating them with outside exercise is something I would always be encouraging… like most mountain bikers I’m probably a bit evangelical overly proselytising about it. I have nothing to say about driving rules or guidance in Scotland, I don’t live there, I don’t know what’s happening in your hospitals. Go ride…
The devil is in the detail here and I fundamentally believe that the rules the government have put in place are fundamentally misjudged, politically minded, and worst of all, inciteful; causing disagreement and malcontent via vague wording and contradiction. Inciting the masses to look on each for fault, for breaking the rules, rather than on the government themselves for not having the courage to lockdown earlier, harder, shorter. It's an obsence failure of government.
And you are right that the accidents require the same NHS services as Covid patients. But do you have evidence that the net impact balance is in favour no vehicular travel? It's not wrong but in the absence of evidence its not a statement of fact either.
But do you have evidence that the net impact balance is in favour no vehicular travel?
No. And no one is saying no driving. I certainly am not. What evidence are you after about what? I really don’t know what you want, or if you even disagree with anything I’ve said. As for the government’s handling, wording, timing, action, inaction, dithering, vagueness, blame shifting, lying… I’m not exactly a fan.
Sorry Kelvin, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you specifically. My beef is with those blinding advocating that we all follow the guidelines to the letter, as if they were a defacto guide of what is right and wrong, and what is best for the country. Personally I don't believe they are but most importantly I think there is enough evidence or at least an absence of evidence to not judge those who think similarly. Peace to all men and women and all that jazz.
Peace to all men and women and all that jazz.
Wise words. Ride on…
NPCC Guidance
As you can read from the NPCC guidance, the police have no mandate or interest in preventing travel within the bounds of reasonable reasons to leave home. Why would they? There is zero evidence of Covid transmissivity being significant in open spaces.
The NPCC guidance does raise an interesting question. What differentiates outdoor recreation from exercise? It's statement that the new legislation prohibits outdoor recreation isn't however true, it just removes it from the list of reasonable excuses that clearly states it is not exhaustive. It may still be reasonable but you'd need to take your chance in court.
Something we can all agree on?
The fact I'm not riding a bike at the moment is probably a win for everyone.😉
That said, I fell on my are in the mud whilst out on a walk a couple of weeks back...
Stay safe all.
That said, I fell on my are in the mud whilst out on a walk a couple of weeks back…
I did, too, and the wife did very recently. Everywhere round here is super muddy (and consequently slippery) due to the weather and volume of users. While it was just a bit messy and embarrassing it could easily have been a mangled wrist or turned ankle. Not quite sure what the point is, but trying not to end up in casualty isn't as simple as not driving or not riding off road.
trying not to end up in casualty isn’t as simple as not driving or not riding off road.
What we need is a message to stay at home to protect the NHS, and some guidelines....😉
Except the home is the most likely place to have an accident. 6000 deaths a year from accidents in the home
Except the home is the most likely place to have an accident. 6000 deaths a year from accidents in the home
Might that be because folk spend more time at home than anywhere else? Have a look at that again taking time in location into account.
I think you will find that mental health issues are a bit more of an impact that just to those that kill themselves.
I know that going out cycling helps my mental wellbeing but it is not as simple as no cycling = ending up with mental health issues that may lead to serious issues.
I think you will find that mental health issues are a bit more of an impact that just to those that kill themselves.
Oh absolutely. I still live with it.
But Covid is not just those who die of it. 5% apparently end up with long Covid? Despite the best efforts of the NHS, people with other health conditions are going to start to miss vital treatment as the system gets overloaded with Covid patients.
The only way to tackle those problems is to stop people passing it on to other people. We are arguing over the grey area about how that is best done. If the government had said "you have an hour to exercise door to door", we might not like the consequences but the grey area is vastly reduced.
Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.
If the government had said “you have an hour to exercise door to door”, we might not like the consequences but the grey area is vastly reduced.
I could live with that as long as it is increased for spring/summer 🙂
The problem with a one hour limit would be mostly experienced in cities where you'd have lots of folk cramming into the same space, notably during limited daylight hours. This is why the guidelines have some wiggle room.
Wasn't it Derbyshire police who kicked off based on their own rules about people daring to be out in the countryside last time?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55560814
So the moral is, if you do go for a ride be sure not to carry any food or drink that could be confused with having a picnic.
What about a scotch egg?
What about a scotch egg?
No that's a bar meal not a picnic.
got to be more to that story
Coronavirus: Women on exercise trip 'surrounded by police'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55560814
I saw this happening whilst walking my dog. How can the police hand out fines based on their individual discretion for behaviour that is deemed to break guidelines rather than the actual law. Derbyshire police have a history of his in first lock down.
There are always some selfish entitled types who will spoil it for everybody else and just do what they want based on their own interpretation of the rules - unfortunately its almost impossible to weed them all out of the force.
I saw this happening whilst walking my dog. How can the police hand out fines based on their individual discretion for behaviour that is deemed to break guidelines rather than the actual law
Because the officer might regard driving five miles and it seems grabbing a coffee for a stroll with a mate as not being a necessary and reasonable excuse to be where they were ticketed and a breach of the law (which should all be on the penalty notice). If the women are that bothered they can fight the penalty and reasonableness of their actions can be decided by the judicial system. Just seen one of the women is from Ashby de la zouche, quick google shows plenty of parks, streams etc in her home town, go figure.
It does seem like the police have overstepped their authority here...
Human rights barrister Adam Wagner said: "There is no law against travelling to exercise. The guidance is not legally binding and the police have no power to enforce it unless it is reflected in the lockdown regulations which in this case it is not."
It's going to be hard to get the support of the public if this is how they behave. I hope the women refuse to pay the fine.
Too slow
It seems there is a generally inability to distingiush between
- Actions which are explicitly against the law
- Actions which migbt be deemed against the guidance, where that guidance provides the best or most appropriate way to adhere to the law.
- Actions which migbt be deemed against the guidance, but where that guidance is merely what it is recommended should be done and has no standing in law.
To be fair, these three categories are explicitly recognised in the legislation (which states "The law is what you must do; the guidance might be a mixture of what you must do and what you should do").
So the issue is which of the foregoing categories travel to exercise (and having a picnic, albeit categorising a take away coffee as a picnic appears a bit of a stretch) falls into.
Given that there is nothing whatsoever in the legislation that I can see which even refers to travel for exercise, it must logically fall into the third category. Indeed the none of the words "travel", "distance" or "local" is in the legislation by reference to exercise.
So whilst the armchair moralists of STW may happily criticise the actions of the women in this story, it should be recognised that this is not because they have broken any law but because they have offended individual views of what people should or should not be doing.
Derbyshire police have a history of his in first lock down.
I was genuinely shocked it was Derbyshire again. My immediate reaction was that there was more to this than is being reported, maybe the coppers offered advice and the women kicked off.
I know a few of Derbyshire's finest, and while I wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of them, I can't imagine they would be this far up themselves. This was a notorious problem location in the first lockdown, car park was closed and parking on the road was horrendous, the Police were ticketing and towing cars for weeks
Given that there is nothing whatsoever in the legislation that I can see which even refers to travel for exercise, it must logically fall into the third category. Indeed the none of the words “travel”, “distance” or “local” is in the legislation by reference to exercise.
Not sure I agree with your finding, the law states
Restrictions on leaving home
1.—(1) No person who lives in the Tier 4 area may leave or be outside of the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.
As you say there is no mention of travel for exercise, the law just states
2.—(1) These are the exceptions referred to in paragraph 1.
Exception 1: leaving home necessary for certain purposes
(2) Exception 1 is that it is reasonably necessary for the person concerned (“P”) to leave or be outside the place where P is living (“P’s home”)...
(c)to take exercise outside
so it is arguable that travel for exercise is actually illegal l because as you state it is not detailed in the legislation as a permissible exception to the law nor is it in itself taking exercise. Obviously ianal and this is all hot air until a court of record gives some precedence.
Love the fact alot of trendy types who now visit the great outdoors seem incapable of doing so without a coffee on the go
Forgetting of course that the plastic top has been pushed on manually with the hand of the barista, which they then put to their mouth, who may have a glove on or may not, who may have corona, or may not.
Forgetting of course that the plastic top has been pushed on manually with the hand of the barista, which they then put to their mouth, who may have a glove on or may not, who may have corona, or may not.
If that's where the risk comes from then it's takeaway coffees that need to be restricted.
Love the fact alot of trendy types who now visit the great outdoors seem incapable of doing so without a coffee on the go
Forgetting of course that the plastic top has been pushed on manually with the hand of the barista, which they then put to their mouth, who may have a glove on or may not, who may have corona, or may not.
the sanctimony of people on here...so now takeaway coffees are not allowed..give me a break
Yes, but if you carry that takeaway coffee into the countryside how many people might you infect on the way. 🙄
Not sure I agree with your finding, the law states
However your interpretation of the law (that you can exercise as a permitted reason for leaving home but not travel to it) would also preclude anyone for travelling to any of the other permitted reasons. So you can go to work, but not travel there. Buy goods or services, but not travel to do that. Etc etc.....
Love the fact alot of trendy types who now visit the great outdoors seem incapable of doing so without a coffee on the go
I think there's a degree of snobbishness with that comment.
I know "proper" outdoors types, the likes of which inhabit STW will only drink coffee if it's made on a stove behind a dry stone wall with beans picked by a Columbian virgin, or at the other end, concider coffee to be a luxury to be left at home. But the rest of the world isn't like that, they like a coffee with their stroll and I don't see why they should not do that.
Not sure I agree with your finding, the law states
Restrictions on leaving home
1.—(1) No person who lives in the Tier 4 area may leave or be outside of the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.
As you say there is no mention of travel for exercise, the law just states
2.—(1) These are the exceptions referred to in paragraph 1.
Exception 1: leaving home necessary for certain purposes
(2) Exception 1 is that it is reasonably necessary for the person concerned (“P”) to leave or be outside the place where P is living (“P’s home”)…(c)to take exercise outside
so it is arguable that travel for exercise is actually illegal l because as you state it is not detailed in the legislation as a permissible exception to the law nor is it in itself taking exercise. Obviously ianal and this is all hot air until a court of record gives some precedence.
It seems you appear to know more than the Human rights barrister quoted on the BBC article. Tell us more...
I’m taking a coffee on my next stroll now.
However your interpretation of the law (that you can exercise as a permitted reason for leaving home but not travel to it) would also preclude anyone for travelling to any of the other permitted reasons. So you can go to work, but not travel there. Buy goods or services, but not travel to do that. Etc etc…..
I think the difference here is that most people can't walk out of their front door and immediately start working or buy goods and services, they have to travel to do so. Most - obviously not all - people can walk out of their front door and immediately start exercising. It might be the form of exercise they would normally choose, but they can do it.
Indeed it’s a fairly crappy piece of legislation to work with and can have a semantics coach and horses driven all over it.
The legislation includes “ : leaving home necessary for certain purposes” one can argue that travel to the shop or workplace is necessary for the purpose of shopping or working. Driving to take a walk - is that a reasonable requirement for the purpose of taking exercise, some would argue you can, in a lot / the vast majority of cases take exercise by walking from your door it all eventually comes down to the nature of reasonableness, Clapham omnibus, one mans fixed penalty notice v another’s no problem etc.
Again ianal
Maybe that was the plan to keep us all indoors arguing about it.
Hah - beaten to it 🙂
Maybe that was the plan to keep us all indoors arguing about it. blaming other people for spreading the virus, rather than looking critically at an ineffective government, and an underfunded NHS that works at maximum capacity in any normal winter.
It seems you appear to know more than the Human rights barrister quoted on the BBC article. Tell us more…
Does this help;
Obviously ianal and this is all hot air until a court of record gives some precedence.
Love the fact alot of trendy types who now visit the great outdoors seem incapable of doing so without a coffee on the go
Forgetting of course that the plastic top has been pushed on manually with the hand of the barista, which they then put to their mouth, who may have a glove on or may not, who may have corona, or may not.
People go Tesco Forgetting of course that the food has been put on the shelves manually with the hands of the staff, which they then put in their mouth, who may have a glove on or may not, who may have corona, or may not... lets just remove all small joys from life. And yes I still stop by my local coffee shop (its 4mins from my house) on my way to tesco or to have a nice warm drink while going for a walk.
Maybe that was the plan to keep us all indoors arguing about it. blaming other people for spreading the virus, rather than looking critically at an ineffective government, and an underfunded NHS that works at maximum capacity in any normal winter.
Not far wrong.