The “I just had a sit down in the park with crisps” brigade

[Candodad]

You are the problem. The rules are simple. Go out and exercise and then go home. Just that, nothing more than that.

To be fair then problem is actually bigger than that and has been brewing for years as we increasingly become a country with rules but almost everyone has an excuse for why that rule shouldn’t apply to them/their child/family.

I'm confused. I sat on a bench when I exercised last. I sat on it with my arse, not my face. I didn't touch it and I sanitised after getting up just in case. Unless CV entered through one's arse, cunt or skin I fail to see how I could catch it. Also, I didn't eat any crisps. That was because I didn't have any. I did change camera lenses though because my exercise in a local beauty spot includes taking photos. I suspect that there who will get their titties all tangled about that too.

The Lockdown's only purpose was to give the NHS a chance. If it has spare capacity, it has worked, in fact it has been too effective, the measures didn't need to be so strict

Or maybe, the NHS has capacity because people aren't being admitted to hospital and are dying in the community? Community death rates published today are shocking. Why aren't residents of care homes being admitted to hospital but are dying in care homes, at a shocking rate? That doesn't suggest spare capacity to me. Why are people being made to stay at home until cyanotic rather than admitted to hospital at an earlier stage? That doesn't suggest spare capacity either.

But who on earth stops to eat a packet of crisps whilst exercising?

I keep seeing this kind of comment on threads. I'm assuming that people who say it are people who have never actually been on a long walk (or a long run). We pretty regularly go on very hilly walks of between 3-5 hours. A snack (or indeed lunch) is pretty much essential tbh.

We don't sit on a bench, because there usually aren't any because we walk in rural areas, not parks. I could have sat on the grass or on a rock on my short 1 hour walk yesterday and eaten a 3 course picnic without endangering anyone including myself tbh. Saw one person about half a mile away from me. Touched one gate (with my elbow to open it). Had hand gel just in case.

But who on earth stops to eat a packet of crisps whilst exercising?

People who like crisps.

If you think this crisis has been caused or exacerbated by people sitting in a park with a packet of crisps or going out for 2 walks/runs a day, you’re deluded and the government have got you exactly where they want you, deflecting blame from them.

Thanks for this thread. I’ve just learnt I can go for a long walk and stop for lunch with DC in middle of a field. And then I can also go for a run later. I’d not seen the updated guidelines. It’s made my day

Sorry, I will ask Mumsnet to change it to hummus and naice ham

Maybe just be neutral and say 'snack' or 'food'? Or is that too hard?

I sat on a bench when I exercised last. I sat on it with my arse, not my face. I didn't touch it and I sanitised after getting up just in case

Good for you. Many people though do use their hands to help them sit down or stand up, particularly the elderly or those with mobility problems. Not everyone has hand sanitizer or uses it and lots of people on here saying they will be eating food whilst out. So, there are people who will be touching the bench and then eating food. They are risking catching the virus. Maybe they aren't bothered if they catch it but arguing that it's " allowed" isn't the same as saying it is safe to do so. So, yes, you are allowed to do.it but in doing so you risk catching the virus, and it is foolish for anyone to suggest otherwise.

The deaths in care homes is a complicated issue. Admitting to hospital for invasive respiration is by no means a guarantee of survival and not something any of us would chose if the changes of survival are slim. In many cases, care home residents have expressed their DNR preference in advance.

No one is being "made" to stay at home. People are being told to seek help as soon as they need it. Again, over zealous interpretation of "the rules" means that sadly some people are seeking help too late.

How have they caught it then? If it isn't airborne and it's not being spread via contaminated surfaces then how is it spread?

Droplets.

Having a rest during interval training etc is obviously fine. But who on earth stops to eat a packet of crisps whilst exercising? What a strange thing to do and it does suggest the motivation is more around having a pleasant time than exercising.

Call the police. Someone is having a pleasant time.

Why does someone need a snack of crisps in the park? Could they really not survive until they are home without a snack?
Why should they, seeing as there is no reason why they shouldn't?
It's already been established, by actual scientists, that eating a packet of crisps on a park bench doesn't pose any significant risk.

The whole idea that it's only exercise if you're miserable could explain a awful lot of the problems we had as a population before all this, as well as why we have so many in the vulnerable groups where lifestyle plays a part.

Hearhooves the reason people are not being admitted from care homes is because the recovery rates for the elderly with underlying pre-conditions once they get to the ventilation stage are very poor. This is one of the lessons learnt from Italy.

It's heartbreakingly sad and I'm also worried about the poorly paid care workers as prolonged exposure to covid-19 also appears to be a risk factor in the level of seriousness of the infection. However I don't know what a better solution is ? Give the elderly a very slim chance of recovery in hospital and run the risk of not having beds available for those with a much better probability of recovery?

You see, you say it's fucked up to see crisps as baddies undoing exercise, I think it's very odd that they are seen as normal part of meals and normal part of the day. And that people can't last hour or two without snacking (again unless they have medical conditions)

It's far more fucked up to be so stringently hung up on food, what you can have and when and what's "acceptable" at certain times.

If people were catching it from sitting on park benches long vacated by an infected person, contact tracing wouldn't work. How would you be able to trace the "contact"?

Why is the bench "long vacated"? Might have been vacated five minutes earlier and how do you know they aren't contact tracing that person?

Where have you got your info about contact tracing from? Not the UK because we aren't. Countries that I know who are doing contact tracing are doing it via mobile phone data so they absolutely could contact trace people who had sat on the bench. They can track and trace all people that crossed paths with an infected person. The countries that are doing this successfully, is South Korea, accept and use this technology which is why it's been so successful.

So, a bench could well be a fomite ( a source of contamination and infection). The fact that the UK aren't contact tracing doesn't prove that s bench isn't a fomite. It proves that this government was too lax earlier in the process, hence why we are where we are.

People really need to learn to mind their own business

the reason people are not being admitted from care homes is because the recovery rates for the elderly with underlying pre-conditions once they get to the ventilation stage are very poor.

Maybe back up a little. I didn't suggest people from care homes are admitted for ventilation. Majority of people admitted to hospital don't require ventilation. Boris Johnson being a prime example.

They are admitted for oxygen, possibly antibiotics for a secondary infection and other supportive treatments.

Are you saying that no one should be admitted to hospital unless they require a ventilator? If so, then ok. But if not then you are saying that the elderly don't deserve any chance at all and should just be left to die (which is what is happening). That is disgraceful. How many of those people would have survived given oxygen and other supportive measures? Why aren't they even given a chance?

Get a life and mind your own business.

The whole idea that it's only exercise if you're miserable could explain a awful lot of the problems we had as a population before all this

Absolutely. There is nothing wrong with going for a walk because you want to.

What a strange thing to do and it does suggest the motivation is more around having a pleasant time than exercising.

What on earth is wrong with that?! Going for a walk is supposed to be pleasant. If it's not, you're doing it wrong.

As everybody knows, fresh air and exercise are good for your mental health. Some people seem to think this just means that suicidal or depressed people must take a gloomy trudge around the block in order to stay alive. No, it also means that even totally mentally healthy people can and should go out for a walk to make them even happier! It's a preventative mh measure, not just a curative one. Exercising for pleasure is a good thing, coronavirus or no coronavirus.

What problem? There isn't a 'problem'. People are sticking to the spirit of social distancing more than the government anticipated and modelled for

Give the elderly a very slim chance of recovery in hospital and run the risk of not having beds available for those with a much better probability of recovery?

If that's the case, then the NHS isn't coping is it? It's an illusion created only by allowing certain people to be left to die. Not proof of a health service coping well and an argument for lifting lockdown.

The possibility of infection that way is incredibly unlikely. Think about it logically, and the chain of events and occurrence that needs to happen;

1. An infected person sits on the bench. WHO current info is that only 3% of people are asymptomatic carriers. The chance a person is infected but not not symptomatic and still running around exercising is very unlikely.

1. The infected person needs to coughs or sneeze into their hand at the same moment or shortly before sitting on the bench, which again is not hugely likely.

1. The infected person needs to not have hand sanitiser.

1. The infected person touches the bench with the same hand that is now carrying the virus.

1. You sit on the exact same bench, shortly after the infected person.

1. By sheer coincidence you touch the bench in the exact same spot person 1 just infected. Most people don’t touch benches, especially now, so the chance that two people will touch it in the exact same spot is statistically unlikely.

1. By sheer coincidence, you also do not have hand sanitiser.

1. Despite knowing that you do not have hand sanitiser, you touch your face without washing your hands.

1. The viral load on that one spot of wood that both of you touched is enough to infect you.

Yes, it’s hypothetically possible. Is it at all likely? No. You’re far more likely to get infected from going inside a supermarket, touching mail, or a thousand other things. Inventing wild hypotheticals depending on a chain of coincidences to explain how it might conceivably be passed is not helpful.

I have now stopped going out at all. I can’t walk far without sitting down for a few minutes. I don’t want to walk up the high street. I can’t walk to the park and we can’t take the car. If we go into the country we have to be walking longer than we drive. I just physically can’t do it. Our garden is tiny too.

It's not giving the elderly a slim chance of recovery though, it would be subjecting them to a thoroughly unpleasant invasive procedure which is unlikely to help them, often when they have previously expressed a choice not to have that kind of treatment. Doctors don't to that to patients under any circumstances, not just these.