Starting to get annoyed at people who don't think rules apply to them

[WelcomeToShootingStars]

So the rules say we can go outside for 1 form of exercise a day. Yet I see so many people saying things like "but we live in the countryside and it's quiet", or "my dog is used to 3 walks a day" etc

Then there's the newer stipulation of not driving anywhere non essential. And yet I see people saying it's OK less than 10 miles, or it's OK if you're driving somewhere remote to exercise.

Why are people unable to make such a tiny miniscule sacrifice? And why do they think the rules (designed to keep everybody safe) apply to everybody else but them?

FFS just stay at home, it's that's simple.

No it's not. You are lucky if you can do it. I have to go to work.

I know what the law says. I also know what the government are asking us to do, without making it law. Just as they asked us a few weeks ago, to follow guidance in order to stop it spreading and without having to make it law. Except hoards of people decided that they wouldn't follow advice because they didn't have to. Over the next two weeks we will see the effects of that. How many healthcare workers are going to die because people followed the law and not the advice?
Exactly.
It's grown adults acting like petulant children telling their mum and dad "you can't make me!!!" before throwing a strop when they get grounded.

It shouldn't have to be legislation. Boris has very clearly said 1 form of exercise outside a day. Why can't people listen.

Driving for a dog walk or run is non essential travel. How difficult is that to understand. Stop trying to find ways round things.

I agree that people are behaving like petulant children. One of the national parks reported their highest number of visitors EVER recorded on 21st March. It is complete craziness.

If there is zero risk then why has the government told one and a half million people not to go out? Because there isn't zero risk. Even if the risk is small, there is still a risk.

You have to use your common sense here. There obviously had to be a blanket rule for all shielded people as many of them will be in highly populated urban areas where going outside could pose a risk due to the high density of people living there. But if you live really rurally and know you won't come into contact with any one and are careful about opening gates etc, then surely your powers of reason would allow you to make an informed decision about going for a walk?

Starting to get annoyed? I've been annoyed for days already.

Kazzyhoward

To all these people driving around for non essential journeys... Would you be happy to be left to fend for yourself if you broke down or had an accident? Would you be happy for the police/ambulance/fire service to not attend to help you? If so, fine, crack on. But you're potentially putting other people at risk because you're so selfish you can't follow simple guidance not to do things that aren't essential!

Well said. Why can’t everyone get that they are NOT exceptional? The instructions apply to YOU TOO.

CeibaTree

Well, no, I don't know that going outside anywhere, rural or not, is safe because that evidence doesn't exist.

The WHO have announced that it isn't airborne but there have been studies showing that droplets can remain in the air for 3 hours so is there research to show that if an infected person walks along, coughs, and then you walk there an hour later that there is no risk?

The shielded are under such extreme lockdown that there must be some concern that just going outside poses a risk.

If you know differently I'd love you to post the evidence.

Oh goody, another competitive quarantining thread! This got so extreme on our local facebook group that people had decided that the rules were actually no one was allowed out for exercise because you were told to stay at home - and what would Boris and the experts know anyway - everyone should stay at home, no going outside - even into their garden, don't eat a takeaway, no one needs it - you never know if they have coughed into your food, alcohol should not be bought or drank either, no laughing or joking, blah blah blah....I think we are going to need quite a lot of mental health support for the frothers - we've only just started this thing - what state are they going to be in, in six months time.

"Boris said"
I'm telling on you!
It's not fair!

but there have been studies showing that droplets can remain in the air for 3 hours
Please link to those (seemingly implausible) studies as they seem to contradict the WHO advice.

There were 3 teenage lads walking to the shop yesterday. My first thought was what idiots they were. Then I felt really sad because why are their parents not keeping them in. Unless of course the parents were at work.

Then I felt really sad because why are their parents not keeping them in. Unless of course the parents were at work. Do you have teenagers? have you any idea how difficult some of them can be under normal circumstances? Go hang on on the teen board and get an eye opener...everything is not as black and white as you paint it.

My police force is one who have a National Park in their territory and have taken a strict tone about travel due to people flocking in their thousands to well-known honeypots and ignoring social distancing.

The problem is that when faced with that kind of herd mentality, or even the bunch of idiots caught at a large house party with buffet and kareoke, you have to put out a very simple, blunt message to hope that the idiots might actually get it into their thick heads. The problem is the world is a subtle, nuanced place. Pretty much nothing is zero risk, indeed our government is working from the line of reducing the spread of Covid19, not fruitlessly attempting to eliminate it by hard lockdown. I don't have an issue with people undertaking low-risk, risk assessed deviations from the rules.

Live in the middle of nowhere with no one around? Who can you infect?
Disabled and need to access somewhere quiet nearby that is more accessible? I'd be stunned if the police took issue with that.
I can think of buildings on rural roads that I really would not want to be a pedestrian on.

I don't want to see rules restricting time/ distance from home as in some circumstances it will increase the risks of human contact. I live on the edge of a suburb. Short local runs expose me to far more passing people than going beyond 1km/ 15min from home to lesser known open countryside and doing a longer run beyond that point. The farmers who own the 5 gates/ stiles that I touched on a 10km/ 6 mile run have significantly more risk when they go shopping in the same supermarkets that I use. Once beyond 500m of home, I saw not a single person in 9km of that run. 5k in my neighbourhood would expose me to tens of people in passing.

I have no issue with critical thinking based around minimising risk to people that actually exist.

mooboy

I have a teenage son.

There's been people around for years who don't think the rules apply to them. That's why we have speed cameras.

I'd love to see the virus droplets' chances of hanging around over the course of 3 hours in an open windy field of brisk north wind, in sufficient quantities to overwhelm the immune system of the next fit dog walker/ hiker/ runner to pass through a moderately inaccessible location

Purpledaisies I did see a clearer post but can’t find it for now but this was an earlier one.
Spikeyball your circumstances are exceptional so I wouldn’t think at all that you are doing anything wrong.

I think when lockdown is gradually relaxed (and that time WILL come thank god) then the shielded will be asked to remain indoors and on strict for longer.

MIL is shielded and is bracing herself to be indoors for much longer than the rest of the family.

strict lockdown

"Boris said"
I'm telling on you!
It's not fair!

Or more accurately

Government: "please do this otherwise we'll have to change to stricter measures. We really appreciate some common sense so avoid busy places"
Public: "you can't tell me what to do so even though I've never been bothered about the peak, country parks or rural areas I shall drive there in droves to join the crowds"
Government: "we warned you so now we've made legislation and closed lots of places. This is the letter of the legislation, but we aren't asking much so only leave the house for these limited reasons in law and avoid non essential journeys, only go out to exercise once a day".

Most people: "ok these are tough times but the sooner we slow the spread of the virus, the sooner we get back to normal"

Minority of pet: "waaah waaah waaah. You can't make me. I could remain 2m away from people near to home but I want you all to tell me I'm fine to drive 10 miles to walk my dogs somewhere better. Some of you are goody two shoes worshipping Boris, apply your common sense because I am the exemption from all these rules... People are so sanctimonious. Why shouldn't I join the queue at Tesco because I fancy a bar of chocolate? The supermarket said we couldn't have a family outing there AIBU to think that they're discriminating against families."

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras I also don't see why some people are determined to do things because the law hasn't said they can't, despite the government advising against it.

I think Hear Hooves talks sense.

I am very pro police but am extremely concerned about the wholesale misinterpretation of the Corona public health legislation that some forces/ police officers are doing. It would be sensible for some individual officers to stop spouting in Twitter for their bosses to get a grip on the message. The whole Steven Kinnock thing was ridiculous. Nothing in the law stops you having a piece of cake when dropping stuff off if sensible about distancing.

Equally driving to exercise. This should be common sense as well. Ie I don't need to drive as I'm surrounded by green, but friends live in very built up areas and is far better to drive 10 minutes to get some space as otherwise maintaining 2 metres is difficult. If people start getting stopped at roadblocks for this and issued tickets, I will be fascinated as to what provisions they will be ticketed or convicted of. They won't because it is not against the law.

The point is as is said, people should be sensible and think of others

Well, I think the situation with transport in London is ludicrous, and anybody with a hint of common sense could have predicted how packed the trains would become.

However, I'm also not entirely convinced that all of those getting on the trains are going to front line roles either.

Anybody who works in an office should have the capacity to work from home. It may not be the ideal option, and it may add some inconvenience to doing the job, but it should be possible.

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?“
Similarly, if I go for a walk in the middle of nowhere at breakfast lunch and dinner and see no one, have I broken the rules?
If I own a large area of land with a public right of way across it and I walk round my land twice a day, back and forth over the public footpath, have I broken the rules?
Another example of government not really considering how life in country differs to that in towns and blanket rules don’t always work.

And the Stephen Kinnock thing. It rather reads as he was going to see his dad for his birthday, dressed up as delivering essentials.