Socially distanced walk?

[sweetnsuga123]

My friend doesn't live with her bf but is meeting up with him to go on walks where they stay 6M apart.

Is that acceptable?

You really would errolthedragon but nope! Met 2 lots of people doing this tonight, so rude! See also man on his bike who thought stopping on a narrow bridge to check phone etc with massive field either side of said bridge, some people are just spectacularly inconsiderate.

no it is not allowed.
the police might stop you and ask for an explanation.
the PM made it clear while he was still well, so some time ago, you must not visit any friends or family, or arrange to meet them.
i think we should all follow the rules.
so many are suffering so much, others are struggling so much.
this is very little sacrifice by comparison, the least we can do.
esp when the nhs staff beg us to do so. please follow the rules.

People should be allowed to take reasonable measures to protect their mental health and this seems reasonable tbh.

If your friends ask you to meet up

You should
Stutter mumble stutter

‘Say NO’

How could you forget this part of Bozo’s speach on social distancing?!

It’s one of those seemingly harmless things that FAR too many people are doing & every tiny thing adds up.

Please don’t

Another poster, posted tonight about her husband dying of CV asking people to please stay home!

It stays in the air up to 3 hours - we need to stay home. HOME, not suddenly going out walking/running etc let alone meeting up with people to do it!!

I do understand SO & I are isolating separately and I’m missing him. Initially we thought about going for a walk together each taking a coffee down to the park but I fast came to the conclusion that a) being that close and not throwing myself at him was unlikely & b) even if I resisted that all of these micro opportunities for transmissions will result in the loss of lives. It’s not worth any risk of that - no matter how much I want to see him. 🙁

@sweetnsuga123 erm..because clearly people are still trying to find exceptions and bend the rules to suit themselves, therefore spreading the virus more and leaving us all to be on lockdown longer because they can't follow simple instruction. Your "friend" doesnt need clarification. It has literally been said "do not meet your friends. If they ask, say no". What possible clarification is needed there?

But actually it's a huge sacrifice for people who live alone. It's far, far less of a sacrifice for those who live within a family or with a partner.

The whole point of lockdown is to avoid the spread of the virus. When you go to a supermarket you stay 6 feet apart to reduce it. So if someone meets with a friend and stays 6 feet away how is that any different? What if you bumped into a friend in the supermarket would that be bending the rules still? Your logic makes no sense.

above post meant for @Roweeeeena

Yes it is allowed. The legislation (never mind announcements; this is the actual law) says this:

"To make sure people are staying at home and apart from each other, the Government is also stopping all public gatherings of more than two people.

There are only exceptions to this rule for very limited purposes:
● where the gathering is of a group of people who live together - this means that a parent can, for example, take their children to the shops if there is no option to leave them at home.

So if someone is leaving the house for a permitted reason, e.g. their exercise, or to go shopping, there is no reason they cannot do those things with a friend, 2m apart.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/876279/Full_guidance_on_staying_at_home_and_away_from_others__1_.pdf

Thanks to all the idiots who cannot understand a simple "do not meet up with anyone (that includes friends) from outside your household" we'll be enduring this for a whole lot longer than necessary

I can't see the problem with meeting up and walking 2m apart?

Personally, if I were in a relationship but not living with the person, I wouldn’t say “see you in 3 months then”. No normal couple would. I’d do my own risk assessment and take it from there.

Some people can’t wait for the army on the streets and the Stasi shouting into loudhalers.

It stays in the air up to 3 hours

Evidence please?

This is a fucking ridiculous proposition.

A potentially fatal infectious disease is not going to give a flying fuck how you carefully rules-lawyer an exemption for yourself. It's going to get you and/or your loved ones infected. Some of them may die.

Well done, rules lawyer. You found a loophole. Grandad died, but you put one over The Man.

No, but mainly as it’s so annoying for anyone else they may encounter. Had this earlier 2 people either side of a two metre track- where do the rest of us go to move out their way? Super annoying.

This is making me murderous with rage. I run. My race got cancelled. Fine. My run group is staggering but I'm avoiding them because I'm 'essential' but fine. I do most of my runs on my dreadmill. All fine. Once a week I go and do my long run outside. But all the people wandering three abreast across the path, getting in the way, trying to pet my dog and stay away from their friends while infecting me? FUCK OFF. And none of them are EVER there normally (except in January). They don't ever show up. But they're bored and have decided to get in my way.

They shouldnt. Wtf is wrong with people?! A videocall is surely far better anyway. Why do they need to see each other in the flesh?! Its not like they can touch.

MrsTP - I'm guessing 'dreadmill' wasn't a typo?

Your friend is ignoring the advice we have been given.

"The group of 2 still has to be you and someone from your household.
It's not meeting up with someone else that lives elsewhere."

He actually said groups of two excluding people from your household. I can see why people are confused about this. I initially thought it meant two people can go out, who dont live together, but more if it's your household, so also, if you have a family of 4, you could meet up with another 2!! Obviously I see that's not the case now.

It's simple - No! Stay home! Save lives!

The law says no gruops over 2, so yes you can meet with someone. Wheyther it's sensible, or follows the actual guidance, is another matter.

However I had suggested (before the lockdown but after the social distancing measures were introduced) doing this with members of my running club - ie "meeting" up for a "parallel" run eg running on different sides of the road. Nobody took me up on it, but I realised yesterday that it is a pain, I was out for a run and two ladies were walking along the pavement on opposite sides of the road. Clearly together but not together. Of course, I had nowhere to go and had to run in the middle of the road (fortunately a quiet road). So I would say it's not massively considerate on other people who may struggle to avoid you both.

all the people wandering three abreast across the path I had this yesterday and not only that, when I went into the road to give them space, one of them walked in the road too, so I had to go even wider! What the actual wotsit?

The wording is very confusing - no gatherings of more than 2 unless they are from the same household. In my opinion that implies 2 people from 2 households can meet up. I don't think he meant it to sound like that though!

I think the longer lockdown goes on, more and more people will be meeting friends and family 'accidentally on purpose', in the park or supermarket or wherever. I'm not saying I agree with it by the way.

I thought the guidelines were as follows:

You can go for a walk with members of your household. Not just 2 at a time.

You can NOT meet with anyone outside of your household.

I think the limit on gatherings with no more than 2 people is a bit redundant when the first 2 rules are followed.

No, use video calls to keep in touch