FFS

You’ll be fine buddy using same shops and medical infrastructure… enjoy!

Which part of “essential travel only” do you not understand?

Tell you what, roads are empty at the moment, so its obviously ok to ignore speed limits on your way to the holiday home you’ve been told not to use. You’ll get there quicker, so f..k everybody else!

By the way, I’m going to the park/beach 1 mile from home tomorrow with household, going to have BBQ, not going to use any shops, but will use same medical infrastructure if BBQ explodes. Unacceptable?

JUST READ THE ADVICE OR IT WILL GET WORSE

Enjoy the BBQ, make sure you thoroughly cook the chicken. You don’t want to get ill

I wasn’t really unsure about it, from the POV of behaving irresponsible. I don’t believe it is.

However, I was more interested in what people perceptions are in the current crisis.

So how far away would you start to be unsure about disregarding the current all but essential travel ban?

Crack on and do what you see fit, but the specific advice for people with two homes, even if in the same town (eg couples not always living together) is for individuals to stay in one home, not move between them. The small village you are looking to go and stay in may be entirely virus free so far, and you could be the people who take it there.

I’d say this. If you going to do it, do it for weeks. A few days probably puts it into non-essential to me.

Plod stopping you and your family packed nto a car with all the stuff you need for a little holiday (in their eyes) may not be so lenient but chances of being caught in a 2 mile trip is probably minimal. The curtain twitchers in the next property however….

On principle I’d probably not.

The more minor bending of the rules that goes on, the more it becomes normalised and the bigger the transgressions get.

I have a realtively young family member with two young children being ventilated in ICU with this bastard disease so I ask you nicely and politely to knuckle down and follow the rules and try and minimise the possibility that you or others will help spread it.

Sorry to hear garage dweller. Fingers crossed for them.

Why would you even need to ask .?

Humble brag that you own two properties and one is a “holiday home”?

I can’t think of anyone who has a “2nd home” 2 miles from their primary residence. I must be in a very unusual situation.

My parents bought a second home about 100m from their first. You can see one from the garden of the other…

My dad still pops between the two at the moment either to mow the lawn or to read some of his books. Don’t think I’d describe it as him going on holiday though.

I’d say acceptable so long as you stay there for the duration of the lockdown.

The more minor bending of the rules that goes on, the more it becomes normalised and the bigger the transgressions get.

Very well put, and best wishes to your family member buddy.

 so I ask you nicely and politely to knuckle down and follow the rules and try and minimise the possibility that you or others will help spread it.

Thats as well put as you are going to get.  My dad lives in an isolated village with a lot of second homes in it and their biggest worry is people coming out for a ‘break’ and taking it with them

The more minor bending of the rules that goes on, the more it becomes normalised and the bigger the transgressions get.

This.

I think people in this situation should all stay home. We know what we’re supposed to do. If we all start making our own judgement calls then we don’t have a lockdown and people are going to die.

family packed nto a car with all the stuff you need

This too. You need some brass neck to arrive at your destination in that style.

Postscript: I was just asking myself what I’d do in the OP’s position and I suddenly realised I *am* in the OP’s position. I have a boat 3km away. It would be a glorious place to spend time away from anyone. I can even cycle to it because everything I need for a couple of overnights is already on board. I’ve thought about it a lot. I haven’t slept on it, and I won’t be. Nor should anyone else.

This thread is exactly what the term ‘humblebrag’ was designed for! 😬

If its 2 miles from you’re current home just go for your ‘one a day’ exercise walk to the beach.
Rules is rules, you’re just bending them to suit your own purposes.

I heard someone on the radio asking a question about which house was their main house because they work in London but travel to Yorkshire every weekend, and would now be working from home so could just as easily stay in Yorks. The answer given by the government person was they should be at the address where they are registered with a GP. There seemed to be some logic about that.

Obviously you can argue it doesn’t matter which address you are registered at if you are walking distance away – right up until the point where you actually need a Dr and can’t walk…

Thats as well put as you are going to get. My dad lives in an isolated village with a lot of second homes in it and their biggest worry is people coming out for a ‘break’ and taking it with them

The logic falls over there if the incomes only go to their house and no where else and don’t fail to social distance. Even if next door was a viper’s nest of virus you are not going to get it from them unless you elect to associate with them in some inappropriate way.

It’s a huge conundrum of inconsistencies that is melting the minds of rule followers (esp those in the fortunate position to be able to rule follow in relative comfort – people still doing their usual 100km bike rides, builders still continuing non essential work and going into peoples houses to do it. But someone traveling 2miles in the same gp’s constituency yet chastised because they put their head on a pillow.

It’s good that we have a big number of rules driven people doing the right thing because the rules say do. It makes things much easier. But the bigger picture was that we were aiming to reduce social contact by 75% to slow down the infection rate. Not 75% each; that is irrelevant. But 75% as a nation. There is a level of sophistication in thought in that that is lost on most people. We need enough of us to be do gooders to bring down the average of that nation to make up for the idiots getting it wrong and those we need to continue to be in social contact for the country to keep on functioning.

It’s the movement of people that help to spread the virus, which is why the advice is to minimise movement.

We aren’t doing great at that, the reason is presumably because so many people feel they have valid exceptions to this advice, like the OP.

I’m sure that some of those that have gone out unnecessarily thought it would be fine because they didn’t have it. Or so they thought at the time.

It’s the movement of people that help to spread the virus, which is why the advice is to minimise movement.

This is incorrect. It is the interaction of people which is helping to spread the virus. Huge difference.

We are being asked to minimize journeys to reduce the manpower needed to keep the road and transport systems going. It also stops us getting it wrong and traveling to a small number of honeypot locations where we are more likely to balls up our social distancing.

We are also being asked to stay in our normal place of living because that is where medical assistance has been provisioned to assist us not in far flung lands. In the OP’s rather unusual situation there is incredibly minimal impact despite melting the minds on those that excel in following rules because.

<It’s the movement of people that help to spread the virus, which is why the advice is to minimise movement.

This is incorrect. It is the interaction of people which is helping to spread the virus. Huge difference.>

Maybe we can agree you need movement and interaction? Interaction in a isolated place won’t spread it to new places. Movement without interaction won’t spread it.

Some interesting comments on my OP.

Just to clarify, the medical infrastructure that supports me will not change, whichever property I am at.

The local infrastructure that supports all the surrounding villages, is in the village where my permanent residence is. The residents of the smaller villages will all have to travel here for the supermarket, butchers, bakers, chemist and GP.

Realistically it probably provides this for an area of 5 miles.

Should the residents of my village object to travel into here from the surrounding area?

Where I am now, I have neighbours and we all share back garden boundaries. The other place isolated by about 30m. Far less contact with other people.

Well said Convert.

It’s difficult not to get frustrated with people being pedantic and sanctimonious with regard to the rules, but I’m trying to remember that if someone is being a dick then it’s most-likely born from their anxiety.

But was this thread a subtle troll?

But was this thread a subtle troll?

It was a little bit.

It’s a real situation but I was curious about how people would view it.

IMHO I don’t think it increases the risk of spreading the virus, probably reduces it if anything.

Also, the area where I walk, is perfect for avoiding contact, you can literally see for miles and avoid anyone else walking there. It also washed down in salt water twice a day.

We are being asked to minimize journeys

Wrong, we are being told not to make non essential journeys

It’s quite plain if you understand English.

Some interesting comments on my OP.

Just to clarify, the medical infrastructure that supports me will not change, whichever property I am at.

The local infrastructure that supports all the surrounding villages, is in the village where my permanent residence is. The residents of the smaller villages will all have to travel here for the supermarket, butchers, bakers, chemist and GP.

Realistically it probably provides this for an area of 5 miles.

Should the residents of my village object to travel into here from the surrounding area?

Where I am now, I have neighbours and we all share back garden boundaries. The other place isolated by about 30m. Far less contact with other people.

See above

It’s good that we have a big number of rules driven people doing the right thing because the rules say do. It makes things much easier. But the bigger picture was that we were aiming to reduce social contact by 75% to slow down the infection rate. Not 75% each; that is irrelevant. But 75% as a nation. There is a level of sophistication in thought in that that is lost on most people. We need enough of us to be do gooders to bring down the average of that nation to make up for the idiots getting it wrong and those we need to continue to be in social contact for the country to keep on functioning.

This.

The more minor bending of the rules that goes on, the more it becomes normalised and the bigger the transgressions get.

And this.

Time for my 2 pennies…

i agree with what convert said, there needs to be physical interaction for the virus to spread. (So don’t tough anything/anybody outside the home!)

I also agree with bushy, without movement it won’t spread far.

Anecdote coming!

I’m still working, I go to my van in the morning and touch nothing but the door handle. I then drive to site (atm one of 2, with no other staff on site unless breakdown/fault repair) gloves on when opening the padlock and gate, gloves in the bin. I clean my door handle and wash my hands. I’m still travelling (approx 20mile round trip for each site) but there is no physical interaction with anything else between home and work. If OP took similar precautions I can’t see why he couldn’t go to his other house (although I’d suggest staying there!).

Stgeorge is right, we are being told to not travel however I think this is to have a simple message that makes it easy for people who…perhaps would not think their actions through completely (trying to be nice)

I just had weeks holiday before returning to the ward. I wanted to ride up into the hills or woods for an overnight camp, or go for a night or two on a remote loch in the canoe. I could have done both things safely and with bugger all chance of going near anybody.
Instead I sat at home bored, because it seems to me that everybody has an excuse why they should be allowed to travel, and every one of them justifies bending the rules because ‘its safe’ or ‘neccesary’ or the rules ‘aren’t logical.
We live in a varied country, but we can’t have a wide variety of rules, so whether they fit my case or not i’ll follow them. I want to be part of the solution, not the problem.
Tomorrow I have to sit in a car with 3 other people for a patient transfer to a hospital 150 miles away, I could do without that.

I have a super yacht only 8 miles away. Well actually I have two but it would be a problem getting to the one in San Marino. Anyway I’m worried that the V8 in the Aston would draw attention to myself as it’s quite loud, especially as the roads are so empty and it would be rude not to make good progress. So should I go to the superyacht or furlough the butler and the cook?

My parents bought a second home about 100m from their first. You can see one from the garden of the other…

The epitome of having too much money.

The epitome of having too much money.

Or running a holiday cottage as a retirement income stream a convenient distance away to do the changeovers….

I’m with @gobuchul on this one. I know the area pretty well and can see that spending time in his family’s holiday home is very low risk. He can walk there easily. Or ride his bike there with very little effort. If the family are all well and continue to be well, do not interact with others etc. I wouldn’t object, I am very jealous though.

If they do get ill then it’s the same GP surgery so they’re not overwhelming the local healthcare system. It’s very different to some one from Manchester deciding to spend the weekend at their caravan in N Wales.

As I also live in a semi rural area it’s easy to see how this approach would annoy people in a town or city. Let’s face it the Govt don’t care about the NE, they are focused on controlling the spread in the major metropolitan areas.

If you weigh up the consequences, then on balance it’s not that different to staying at home in this particularly unusual case but will be good for  the family’s mental and physical well-being.

Instead I sat at home bored, because it seems to me that everybody has an excuse why they should be allowed to travel, and every one of them justifies bending the rules because ‘its safe’ or ‘neccesary’ or the rules ‘aren’t logical.

A result of mixed messaging and everyone being an armchair lawyer 🙂

My 2c’s if your asking whether it’s right or wrong you probably know the answer.

The epitome of having too much money.

Not really. Parents downsized when we (3 kids) left home, put a load of furniture in to storage and thought they could cope with a much smaller house (a two bed terrace). On reflection it wasn’t big enough and had the choice of upsizing again which meant looking for a bigger house nearby or thinking of alternatives. They love the first house location so when the second one came on the market (another two bed terrace) they bought that, took furniture out of storage and split the time between the two. Also on a personal level they were finding it difficult being in each other’s pockets after retirement (my dad can be a touch difficult) so this gave them their own spaces each. Sure no one would blink if they’d upsized to a 4 bed detached.

They have 2 homes because they dont want to spend 100% of their time together?

They dont need two homes so close together, too much money and a cause of house price increases due to shortages created by examples like this.