And I shall say it again. We are allowed out once a day for fresh air

[Borkins]

It's like there is competitive isolation or folk who think they know better than government guidelines.

Masala buzz it's not unreasonable because of the circumstances you've described, but it's not what the government has asked us to do. And therein lies the problem; if everyone interprets their rules to suit them then very quickly some people won't observe them as they see others choosing not to.

It sounds very sensible.

PRACTICE SOCIAL DISTANCING

Is the nub of it.

I think that's it if some people live in busy towns they think there is a risk to going outside. I only saw 2 people yesterday outside .
I'm going again today for my exercise it's a lovely day and I want it to be a routine . If I lived in a congested town then I would avoid it but I'm lucky to have some fields and wildlife near me and no one is about . I think a lot of people are either key workers near me as a lot of cars gone yesterday or they are all working from home . So the streets are deserted apart from the odd dog walker .
I appreciate the concerns of some but most of us are very mindful and aware of the consequences of contact .

"It may become an issue. I've just seen a neighbour putting bikes onto his car. They're heading as a family to a local beauty spot as he heard on tv last night that it's ok to drive to where you want to do your daily exercise...."

Yes, and that would be absolutely fine. He would not be doing anything wrong.

MN is full of people who even before C19 would have a panicky meltdown and call 111 if someone walked by their house at night or rang their doorbell without an appointment.

It’s no surprise they think going outside is an unimaginable and baffling luxury.

Very sensible vegetable.

We live in a suburb of a big city, but literally right next to a couple of parks and woods. We do have a garden. So does everyone else around here. If the guidelines change, we would obviously stay within our property lines as instructed. Until then, we will go for our daily singular state-sanctioned exercise around the woodlands and parks. It wouldn't make any sense to "reserve" these spaces for people without gardens around here, because there aren't any people without gardens around here.

So in the fantasy full-lockdown-do-not-leave-your-property scenario, you'd have neighbours in every house perambulating round and round their own gardens in relatively close proximity to each other, whilst the parks and woodlands are completely empty (except for the people from elsewhere who don't have gardens, who could drive to the parks... oh wait, that's a no-no too 🤔).

Furthermore, in our specific situation, we are able to access the parks and woodlands, and move around them freely, without having to touch any handrails, gates, stiles or other contaminated objects.

Also, I have these things called windows. When deciding a good time to exit my property to go on our daily singular state-sanctioned exercise, we can look out of the window to see if the pavements are filled with perambulating humans (clue: they're not, because it's a suburb) in order to not barge out into a crowd. If there was a crowd of humans swarming along my pavement to the park, I'd decide not to go out. (This happened at the weekend, where we arrived at our other local park via one of the little side entrances, saw that it was busy on the main paths that non-locals use, and so we went home).

Finally, our neighbourhood actually set up a residents' WhatsApp group, in which we provide practical and moral support to each other. Part of this involves encouraging each other to take our daily singular state-sanctioned exercise, to keep spirits up.

When we took our daily singular state-sanctioned exercise yesterday afternoon, every group we saw kept a (very large, more than 2m) distance from each other; one single chap was practising martial arts, some were running, others strolling, some walking dogs, some with small children even sat down on the grass or a log. If people saw someone they knew, they did distant polite waving. Nobody abused anyone else. I saw nobody using the exercise equipment, touching gates/handrails (of course it's possible they were all waiting for me to walk by before gathering in a giant neighbourhood scrum and all licking the playground).

MN has always had a big problem with tunnel vision. MN tends to skew pretty middle class, and there are loads of posters who genuinely can’t comprehend that not everyone lives in a big house with a garden in a lovely MC town somewhere without too many people and with lots of shops around.

That's very true. I think we're also seeing MN London-centrism in action too, always a problem on here at the best of times. There are a number of posts not comprehending that large swathes of the population, even some of the urban population, live in places where we're not that densely packed. The problem is the inability to think outside one's own normal.

And most of them are on mumsnet!

MN is full of people who even before C19 would have a panicky meltdown and call 111 if someone walked by their house at night or rang their doorbell without an appointment.

It’s no surprise they think going outside is an unimaginable and baffling luxury.

People’s OTT posts are silly.

@HopelessLayout you would assume that people going out for fresh air are exercising in some way though? They aren't just going and standing in the street having a breathe of the fresh air.

I'm off for a long walk this afternoon. I'm still debating whether or not to drive somewhere or just walk from the house - driving somewhere will reduce my already quite low chance of not being able to social distance still further, and will reduce the number of gates I would touch from three to zero (and if I touch gates, I'll try and use a twig to lift the catch). I will take the younger dog, who has very good recall, and put her on the lead whenever I see any of the things that reduce that recall (another dog's frisbee...). I'll wash my hands thoroughly before I go out and when I get home.

I don't want to shed any virus I might unknowingly have, or to pick it up as at the moment I'm delivering things almost daily to a vulnerable person along my road. So I'm thinking through what doing, and honestly, where I live, an hour or more walking in the countryside isn't going to cause anyone any problems.

I'm glad for this thread. I've been tempted to come off of all social media as people revelling in this lockdown situation is getting on my nerves.

Yes exactly! I’m London, but the greater lockdown measures were introduced because people were ignoring all common sense and flagrant flouting even mild guidelines: having parties, packing into pubs, getting their hair cut.

Use common sense. If you live in a busy part of London trotting round the block every lunchtime might not be the most sensible option even though it’s allowed so maybe think about other options if there are other options available to you.

On the flip side it really doesn’t matter if someone living in a desolate cottage in the middle of a Highland moor with not a soul for miles walks her dogs twice a day even if it is against the rules. That’s not the kind of behaviour the rules were brought in for.

We are a large family, and could not safely take the children for a walk where we live.

So taking all of us out in the car, to the countryside, for them to run around, get some fresh air, and then return straight home again.......that's surely fine? Once a week or so?

@debbs77 yes absolutely fine just stay away from people that don't live with you.

I'm in London and perfectly capable of thinking outside my own normal. There are things on here I think are completely reasonable given the situation. However the government has not chosen to give a different set of guidance to those living in London; the same set of guidance is nationwide. The wording is 'Every citizen must comply with these new measures' and that there are only 4 reasons for leaving the home, including once a day for exercise.

I don't see that these measures are particularly draconian given restrictions in other countries. I could happily go for a walk twice a day; it would be my preference. But I'm being asked not to.

But these rules aren't arbitrary, they're designed as a best fit
solution to minimise human contact for most people. Thats the goal of the rules, to minimise or eliminate human contact. So if you live in the middle of nowhere and can go out 6 times a day without seeing a soul, why shouldn't you? The "only go out once a day" rule hasn't just been implemented for its own sake, it's to enforce social distancing. If you can drive to an isolated forest for a walk rather than walk along a crowded pavement, that obviously makes more sense. If you have a huge garden that you can exercise in but can't leave your house without bumping into a dozen people, staying in obviously makes more sense. If you're staying inside all day despite the fact that you could walk for miles without seeing another person, that clearly doesn't make sense. Only going out once a day when you could go out more because you feel sad that other people can't is noble, but it doesn't make any sense. The "once a day" rule exists to help people in built up areas, or those who can't use common sense. But we need to focus on the goal of the rules, not just turn them into a form of dogma we can't apply critical thought to. Surely the question people should be asking themselves is "does this outing advance or compromise the goal of maximum social distancing?" For me I live in a moderately built up area, so every trip I make compromises that goal, but I only have an AstroTurfed shoe box for a garden, therefore I go out once a day for a quick walk in line with "the rules". For the posters who live very rurally they could probably be out all day without compromising that goal, so why shouldn't they? Its all a bit "misery loves company, if I can't have it then neither can you". Personally I'm happy for the people who can get out more or go to nicer places and don't see a problem with them doing so, provided their choices advance the goal of maximum social distancing.

On the flip side it really doesn’t matter if someone living in a desolate cottage in the middle of a Highland moor with not a soul for miles walks her dogs twice a day even if it is against the rules. That’s not the kind of behaviour the rules were brought in for
But you can see that the risk is lower, it's no coincidence that london has the most cases and most deaths. I'm no expert but it's heavily populated with many live in flats , many use public transport etc . So for these people to go out will be risky because there is a good chance that they will meet someone passing their flat walk round the block etc going to work where someone in the highlands will see no one all day .

Its all a bit "misery loves company, if I can't have it then neither can you".

This^^

Of course people in London can see it’s different else where.

It doesn’t stop us considering people with no garden here that really do need it.

If people were always clear that their comments referred only to those in London/similarly densely populated areas, sure. The point is that some people are not qualifying. Which goes both ways: there's a post on this thread completely failing to consider that some people live in a way that means walking or cycling near their home isn't safe because there are so many people on the pavements.

Veg I agree that qualifying would be useful. Not often done on mn see the it’s snowing! threads. Where?
But yeh if people say where are you it can help.

But to finish that off not all Londoners are cowering at home wanting people to be miserable (and other silly posts) they just know that some places are packed and some don’t have much / any space.

London is also a big place. I live in a leafy western suburb. It's not crowded and it's perfectly possible for kids and adults to walk, cycle etc safely without encountering many people. So one size fits all doesn't even really work for Londoners.

Hence my comment about my neighbours loading bikes onto the car (and picnic) for a family visit to a beauty spot outside London. It's just not necessary. We have a large park about a mile from my house.

That too. It’s not even the same across the board here.