@GinnyStrupac
Keep your knickers on, Pants. I see you are ignoring and not responding to valid reasons given though, and there have been plenty. I refer you to my own about our local firefighters, for one.
You're right that I haven't yet replied to anyone who's answered in the actual spirit of the thread - I was hoping to first stem the tide of irrelevance in the hope of building a decent body of actual argument to respond to. Yours was welcome, though, I'll reply to yours.
So many reasons not to go and why it is neither essential travel nor is it helpful to the effort to limit viral spread or pressure on emergency services, have already been given on other threads
Indulge me, please. I understand why people shouldn't be out if they don't need to. But the government has already deemed daily exercise to be essential, so we're not comparing "walk in the countryside" to "don't walk at all", we're comparing "walk in the countryside" to "walk locally", and I've not seen anything on other threads to explain why walking locally helps to limit viral threads. If you want to just link me to another thread where that argument has been effectively made, that would be fine.
Your 'middle of nowhere' and 'the countryside' is actually home to some people, including me, my vulnerable family member and many others. Even if you feel healthy and are asymptomatic you could be a carrier and spreader, as could we. We don't want your viral spread risk and we don't want you to get ours either
Two parts to this.
Firstly, the huge area of parkland a few miles away from my house, where I went the other day and saw nobody, isn't home to anyone.
Secondly, my neighbours also don't want my viral spread risk, and I don't want theirs. Nor do the people a few doors down, nor those in the next street, nor the street following that. Why is it more important that I avoid you than it is that I avoid dozens of people in my town? Minimising viral spread risk means minimising the set of people I get close to, so if we're comparing "walk past a hundred houses" with "walk past yours", telling me to do the former sounds like it's just NIMBYism rather than public health advice.
One example is that our volunteer and part-time firefighters, all of whom have other jobs and have to dash from them to answer 999 calls, are now being asked to undertake other emergency tasks, like driving ambulances. As happens sadly too often on our accident blackspot rural roads, if you and your children crash and need a fire engine to cut you out of your car or put out the fire, or an ambulance or paramedic to treat you and get you to hospital, they might not be there. Now that would really be 'rubbish', wouldn't it?
When comparing two options, it's insufficient to demonstrate that one of them has a risk that the other doesn't. That risk has to be more significant.
With a local walk, I have a significantly increased risk of virus transmission, which will directly put pressure on the public service that's under the most strain.
With a remote walk, I have a minuscule risk of vehicular accident (reduced even further by the vast reduction in traffic on the roads), which will put pressure on a public service that's less strained. That is a risk unique to this option, but it's preferable to the first option.