Surely this can’t be right...?

[Peasbewithyou]

A few weeks ago (before the second spike started), I signed up for an outdoor exercise class. I didn’t feel comfortable going back into the gym but thought this would be an ok compromise.

The rule of 6 came out and apparently formally organised fitness classes aren’t affected so it was ok.

Anyway, for various reasons I couldn’t make the class until this week. Due to the poor weather they moved the class into the village hall, with a door open. So we had 12 people exercising hard in a single room with a door open. We were about 2m apart, but surely it’s in the air isn’t it?? Schools aren’t allowed to have singing at the moment because of the added risk of deep breathing and vocalising. But cardio exercise and plenty of panting and sweating in an indoor space with no ppe is ok?

I just don’t understand how this is “safe” yet I can’t have both of my parents over to sit in my garden (because we are a family of 5).

I felt really uncomfortable about the class and I probably won’t go back but apparently it’s all above board. It just seems total madness!

Am I missing something here? Am I being ridiculous to avoid the class in future?

[LilyPond2]

No, I don't think you're being ridiculous. All sorts of illogicality in the rules. I'm not allowed to have one friend in my garden. But legal for me to meet five friends in a pub.

[MJMG2015]

The rules aren't illogical if you understand the reasons behind them

@Peasbewithyou. Indoor Classes are allowed if you're spaced 2 m apart

Some of these things aren't 'ideal' for health, but it's part of balancing the economy.

I personally wouldn't go, but I'm vulnerable & thus risk averse. Do what feels right for you.

[MJMG2015]

@LilyPond2

No, I don't think you're being ridiculous. All sorts of illogicality in the rules. I'm not allowed to have one friend in my garden. But legal for me to meet five friends in a pub.

That's because far more transmission is happening in private homes than in public places. We are much more likely to sit closer/hug/share things etc in private homes than public spaces.

If everyone had only had one friend in the garden, stricter measures wouldn't have been necessary.

And they can't say 'except for Lily, who has proven herself to be responsible'.

[LilyPond2]

@MJMG2015 What is logical about banning two people from meeting in a garden, but allowing six to meet in a pub?

[LilyPond2]

I'm not aware of any evidence that transmission is occurring in gardens (as opposed to inside houses). There is also the issue that if people think the rules don't make sense, they are more likely to ignore them altogether.

[Scarlettpixie]

I don’t think it is safe and I wouldn’t go.

[dementedpixie]

I'm attending fitness classes indoors at my local sports centre - numbers are limited, squares are marked out for you to stay within so you're socially distanced i feel safe enough

[MJMG2015]

[quote LilyPond2]@MJMG2015 What is logical about banning two people from meeting in a garden, but allowing six to meet in a pub?[/quote]
@LilyPond2

They're banning people from meeting in peoples homes/gardens because that is where the vast majority of the transmissions are occurring.

They are allowing up to 6 people to meet at the pub because life is a compromise & that number is felt to be practical (for the venues) & less risk than a higher number. If it was ALL about the science pubs would be closed. But it's not it's about the economy, compliance & MH.

They have come to realise that many people don't stay in the garden - and it's difficult to enforce. Much easier to say not in private homes/gardens.

People meeting in public are less likely to hug/kiss/share food etc.

[dementedpixie]

In scotland the 6 people can only be from 2 households so less chance of spreading between families