To clarify the one hour of exercise 'rule'

[Itstheprinciple]

I've seen this mentioned on so many posts and I've seen people clarify it within the post but I've not seen a specific post about it. I thought this could help people who seem confused about what is 'allowed'.

Michael Gove was asked on the Andrew Marr show what he considered to be reasonable exercise. This is his response:

"I would have thought that for most people, a walk of up to an hour, or a run of 30 minutes or a cycle ride of between that, depending on their level of fitness is appropriate."

So it is not a hard and fast rule or law. No one is standing with a stopwatch as it gets to 59 mins. It's guidance and it will vary between individuals as Mr Gove says himself.

I knew the name was ringing bells

Indeed.

The irony is that everyone being locked down still won't make a jot of positive difference to their problems, but may well add to negative impacts.

Dog in a manger.

There's no way to police once a day, anyhow, out here where I live (it's rural).

They managed in France and Spain, hopefully they'll do the same here.

Don't hold your breath waiting for exit plans tomorrow. That will be a way off yet.

The irony is that everyone being locked down still won't make a jot of positive difference to their problems, but may well add to negative impacts

As I've just been told, not my problem. A stricter lockdown will give others the opportunity to go out. That's good.

A stricter lockdown will give others the opportunity to go out.

You could make a case for local authorities in towns to impose stricter conditions if they deemed it necessary. If Paris can do it I can't see any reason other overly busy urban areas can't. Some cities are already making local adjustments eg banning cars from some streets to allow more room for pedestrians and cyclists.

They should do it wherever necessary - wherever too many people are making distancing impossible. It's not right that some people can't go out at all because it's too busy for them to avoid others.

Maybe some areas need a 'shielded group only' exercise hour?

One thing I have learnt about this experience is that on one has surprised me in how they've behaved
Wankers have remained wankers
Those that get on with life and help and support others have remained that way
The drama llamas are...
and the self absorbed were ever thus

And I'm curious
If you're vulnerable and meant to stay in for twelve weeks
What the fuck has how other people exercise got to do with you
Dog in the manger alright

If you're vulnerable and meant to stay in for twelve weeks

I'm shielded. Vulnerable people can still go out.

I am meant to stay in for twelve weeks, but why is that? Does that make any sense if we supposedly can't catch it from walking in area where others have walked? What is the rationale there? Either, we are being lied to and this virus does remain hanging in the air or the fear is that we may unwittingly end up in a place where we are too close to others.

If that's the case then if less people were out it would be ok for me to go out.

Equally, vulnerable people aren't going out because they can't maintain social distancing due to the volume of other people out at the same time. Just reading another thread questioning etiquette when cyclists and runners need to overtake walkers on a path with not enough room. Posters are saying either they, or relatives, have stopped going out because they cannot avoid being closer than two metres to other people. Now that just isn't fair is it, especially if some of those are out for their second or third period of exercise that day or have been out for a long time. If space is limited then it needs to be shared fairly.

Maybe some areas need a 'shielded group only' exercise hour?

It should, especially if shielding extends after this twelve weeks. They can't expect us to stay inside for six months.

Is no one thinking about our vitamin D?

Well it's more common sense, isn't it? I don't think there is an actual law in most parts of the UK regarding length of exercise/how long you go out for/how many times a day you go out but I would think that as rational adults, most of us know that going out several times a day is not necessary (in most cases) and therefore would act sensibly and go out and about in public as little as is possible for their own personal situation.

The needs of Jane who really only needs to go to Tesco once a week and maybe a walk 2/3 times a week would be different to that of Janet who needs to provide care to an elderly/vulnerable relative and therefore needs to go out daily.

If space is limited then it needs to be shared fairly

If space is limited then councils and other authorities need to stop limiting it.

And I am sure that even if you are shielding you could go out at a time when nobody is around. It's not because it's hanging in the air, it won't jump over the fence and get you, it's because in most places you can't always keep 2m apart at all times, there will always be little pinchpoints.

But how is that policed? If Jane decides that she wants to go out twice a day, every day and that combined with Janet being out means it's very busy so Sue can't go out at all, then that's not right is it? But if Jane and Janet only go out once a day and that leaves space for Sue to go.out once a day then that's fair to everyone.

Is no one thinking about our vitamin D?
Tablets can be ordered from most main supermarkets or Boots, Amazon...not a very valid excuse!

Commonsense and self-assessing your own risk can be applied to shielding too. The guidance for shielding states you should not leave your house and you should isolate yourself as much as possible from the people you live with, it does not say you must do that. A friend of mine is in the shielded group and she decided that the risk of catching it from her husband and children was low as they aren't at work/school and are following social distancing guidelines so she does not isolate herself at home and spends time with them in the house as she would normally. She also decided that her risk of catching it from being outside in her fenced-in back garden was also low so she goes out into her garden for some fresh air and daylight. Other than going into the garden she doesn't leave the house.

If space is limited then councils and other authorities need to stop limiting it.

How are they limiting it? If they've shut parks I guess they can open them but then does that encourage people into them, making them crowded? There's nothing here that councils could do to make more space. The pavements aren't six feet wide so you can't meet someone coming in the opposite direction and no one can overtake without someone stepping in the road.

I don't know when I could go.out when it isn't busy ( other than during the night). Even now there are lots of children playing out and various neighbours going in and out multiple times a day. Some seem to be walking dogs two or three times, then out on their own. It's too busy to go.out and not cross paths with anyone else.

Tablets can be ordered from most main supermarkets or Boots, Amazon...not a very valid excuse!

Strange how when I suggested tablets earlier I got told off. Apparently people can't afford them so they have to get outside in the sunshine.

TimeAintNothing

I am applying common sense. My husband is a key worker, still at work, so I don't see much choice other than to isolate as much as I can from him.

The garden is difficult. Our neighbours have six living in their house, including a young child and they are in the garden a lot. I've been trying to go out when they aren't in the garden but it isn't for very long and is often not until after 6pm. Our gardens are small as well so it's hard.

I'd be amazed if we get a stricter lockdown, despite all the people on here and elsewhere who apparently yearn for the jackboot of a repressive regime on their neck...not least as the level of co-operation has taken the Government by surprise and is higher than they modelled for or wanted.
The minute we seem to have peaked and the NHS is stable, we will start opening up. The unbelievable damage to the economy, and the other death tolls e.g. of cancer patients whose treatment has been paused while hospitals prioritise Covid-19 treatment, simply isn't worth the number of lives at stake. I am aware of how callous that sounds, but it's true.

I just googled population density figures to see how where I live compares with elsewhere . I understand that in some parts of London it can be over 10,000 people per sq km. Whereas where I live...less than 100.

It is absurd to think that someone in my area going out twice a day for a walk would have any sort of effect on anyone else going for a walk. And, for clarity, I have been sticking to the guidelines and I don't go out more than once.

Whereas those in London are clearly not so fortunate. I am sympathetic to that but I also don't believe people in sparsely populated areas should be made to adhere to rules just for the sake of adhering to rules. Either the rules are to limit the spread of the virus, or they are rules for the sake of rules.

The guidance is guidance and anyone who can't understand that is thick..

The reason for guidance is to try and get people to be sensible WITHOUT the need for legislation.

However if people ignore the 'guidance' (as in the guidance for social distancing bought in before the lockdown) then LEGISLATION is produced to enforce the guidance..

Yes you CAN go out for a 70 mile run for 8 hours.. according to the guidance.... but should you ?

You CAN go out 8 times a day for a 40 minute walk .. but should you ?

The answer is simple. If in any of those scenarios you will touch ANYTHING that another human being can subsequently touch (lamp post, zebra crossing, stile, door knob etc .. ) Then the answer is NO you shouldn't.

If however you live in a vast expanse of open space where you have no chance of coming in to other human contact and have NO chance of touching any of the above.. then carry on.

It's NOT hard.. Sometimes people need to employ their brains.

It's spread by TOUCH of surfaces AND human droplets .

Not possible for you on your exercise regime ? Then carry on. If it's possible, then STOP !!

isabellerossignol

But then you must be able to see how difficult it is for people living in London or other cities? But there will still be people here (London) with the attitudes apparent on this thread - simply must go out two or three times per day for a 10k run or a 6 hour bike ride or whatever. That just isn't fair when there isn't enough room for everyone.

As far as I'm concerned the lockdown isn't to stop us from catching it, it's to stop us from catching it all at the same time, because the nhs would be overwhelmed. I would imagine that there will be a slight lifting of the whole shutdown in a few weeks, and a few things will allow to open. The cases will probably start to increase, so everything will go back to being shut again, and so on, until a lot of people have had it, or we get a vaccine, whichever comes first. (Unless of course by some miracle it becomes less dangerous or even just goes away). Shutting everyone away so they don't catch it at all, ever, would never work because in the time it took for a vaccine to become available, the country's (and the worlds) economy would be shot to pieces and we would be back in the dark ages. No government can afford for that to happen, they can't afford what's happening now.
Calls for a stricter lockdown totally miss the point, as far as I'm concerned (and @Hearhoovesthinkzebras you constantly advocate this in many of your posts). I was under the impression that the government was surprised at how compliant the majority of the population have been.
I think I will probably catch it at some time, may be next week, may be next winter. Who knows? In the meantime I will continue to walk or cycle for longer than an hour if I want to. I live in a very quiet rural area. I think, as a pp pointed out, it must be difficult to accept, if you live in a crowded city, that there are many places in this country where you can have way less than 1000 people living in an area of 50 to 80 square miles (and often larger areas) and your chances of seeing someone, let alone breathing on them, are remote.