Can my children go out for another walk today?

[1278kj]

I’m aware it’s episode of exercise today. I have not been out today.

Basically my partner took dc and the dog out this morning before he went to work - he has to go to work. I was waiting in for a delivery so couldn’t go.

Going a little crazy and thinking of going out for a walk myself but that means two walks for dc today!

I live in a rural area. Hardly anyone around. Probably wouldn’t meet anyone and plenty of open space to socially distance anyway.

Aibu to take them out for another walk?

I live in a rural area and life goes on as normal

@Ihopeyourcakeisshit thank you

@FunkyKingston they are not and you know that. However we have been told once a day so people do not make choices that may be more dangerous. How hard is it for so many people just to do as the government say.

You're entitled to one outing a day, you can't leave your DC at home, they'll have to accompany you. Enjoy your walk.

We're not going out today, so the OP can have our allocation. Total increase in exercise excursions = Nil.
Problem solved.

DowntonAbby ffs get a grip and sense of perspective please.

*Practically salivating at the prospect of soldiers on the street.
*
😂

However we have been told once a day so people do not make choices that may be more dangerous

The op going out for her walk won't make anything more dangerous for anyone.

@FunkyKingston they are not and you know that.
So as a sensible rational adult I will exercise good judgement, taking account the risk to others.

How hard is it for so many people just to do as the government say.

Have you heard yourself? You've basically admitted that an hour and a half risk poses more risk than two half hour walks and the only response you have is 'becaise the government told me to'.

That's chilling.

So even if half of the available officers were deployed on road block duty (unlikely) and a quarter of all serving soldiers, distributed across c58,000 sq. miles, I'd be surprised if you'll get a road block at the end of Acacia Avenue, Chalfont St Peters demanding to know at gunpoint whether you'd taken little Timmy for two half hour walks or one hour long walk

Some posters would consider this all their Christmases at once

Let's apply the same to drink-driving. Not enough police to enforce that and out here in the sticks where I live it would be very unlikely you'd see another car or person driving the 3 miles down the lane we live on to get to the pub at the other end. So just go slow and that's fine too?

If you seriously consider that the potential risk of strolling across a deserted field, on foot, with a young child carries an equivalent risk as any form of drink driving, then I despair, frankly.

FRO @Applejaxx

However we have been told once a day so people do not make choices that may be more dangerous. How hard is it for so many people just to do as the government say.

Jesus wept!

How the fuck is it dangerous to go for a walk when you live in the middle of nowhere where you are highly unlikely to bump into anyone else? How is that going to wipe out humanity?

Once again get some perspective, and some common sense while you're at it!

The lack of common sense and the willingness to get the army out are really worrying me.

if you go out again you double your chances and so on.

This is not always the case. If it was there should also be a restriction on the length of time you are allowed out, as someone that is walking for 1hr would obviously have more chances of getting infected that someone who only left for 30min.

Also, if I go out of the house for a run, and when I get to the corner realise that I forgot my phone, can I go back and, leave again?!
Probably not, as if I do that I will be going out once, and as we all know SOMEONE WILL DIE.

I really want to remind people that the main reason we are self-isolating and extremely reducing social contact is to avoid the collapse of the health system. A properly funded NHS would not struggle so much. Look at Germany.

Those shouting that someone will die should redirect their anger towards the actual culprits here, instead of following their rules blindly.

We're not going out today, so the OP can have our allocation. Total increase in exercise excursions = Nil.
Problem solved.

Brilliant. 🤣

I’m only talking my daughter out for 20 mins and was only out for 20mins earlier so, OP, you can have my extra 20 mins. Make sure you socially distance from any farm animals. 😁

Yeah carry on not following the rules OP and ruin things for those of us that do... cheers

Yeah carry on not following the rules OP and ruin things for those of us that do... cheers

I don’t think there are going to be too many police hiding in the hedges in the arsehole of nowhere. No offence, OP.

So I’ve just finished a run, if I stand outside and then get the kids to join me for the cool down walk part is that ok? Or is that a 2nd exercise and likely to kill 1000s? For reference I didn’t see anyone on my run.

Yeah carry on not following the rules OP and ruin things for those of us that do... cheers

Again, no one will be harmed in the slightest by the op's walk.

What you and posters like you fail to appreciate is that there's a spectrum of risk from none (such as doing what the op proposes) to highly risky/selfish (holding an all day eye touching flash mob in central London) if you cannot make sensible balanced judgements about risk, god knows how you ever make it out of bed in the morning.

Yeah carry on not following the rules OP and ruin things for those of us that do

I cannot work out how the OP going for a walk in rural relative isolation impacts on you at all?

I'm following the rules. I know that the OP going for her walk doesn't make a single bit of difference to me.

The idiots gathering on benches, drinking beer and having bbqs, yes. They risk everyone's movements being more strictly controlled.

We still have enough common sense to realize the two things are different, surely?

Some of the responses on this thread make it obvious why the government can't allow people to apply common sense. So many people have none, and need to be given precise instructions and limitations. They are the ones who have fucked it for the people who know it will make no difference if your kids go out twice for 15 minutes and meet no one, or once for half an hour and meet no one. Engage brains people.

@damnthatanxiety

The problem is though. One person bends the rules. Someone else does. So on.

I wonder if these posters attacking the OP are all from the London/South East bubble? That's the only reason I can fathom for them being unable to understand that the countryside is vast and has lots of open space with far, far fewer people about?

I think the annoyance is driven by envy from city dwellers who do have to follow the rules more stringently (as would if I was city based).

It’s also clear the rules are formed to assist police with the dispersal of annoying teenage groups. Imagine if the rule wasn’t there and after an hour they recongregated under the auspices of ‘exercise’. The rules were not formed to prevent sensible isolators using directly accessible deserted open space each day.

I personally would go .Many people will say no ,but a short 25 min walk in a rural area would be fine IMO .

I wondered the same. This is the only crisis we can think of where there is a definite advantage to living in the middle of nowhere. We can walk for miles here and see absolutely no one.