-
The government isn't there to triage every application of "common sense" in this situation. As I noted before there are loads of people who would use their "common sense" to do stupid shit that clearly leads to the increased spread of this virus. The government's role is giving general advice about going out as little as you can and exercising social distancing when you do. The very clear message is that this is not a time for business as usual. As such they are not trying to limit cycling while ignoring the situation in supermarkets, they are giving general guidance which is not always easy to enact.
The fact that the advice is difficult to follow and has not yet been enforced in supermarkets or on public transport is not an excuse to contravene the clear spirit of the guidance and risk making things worse. "They're not doing it, so I don't have to!" is not a good argument. It's a bit like speed limits: they are the absolute upper bound for speed, you don't get to exceed them just because your common sense says that you can do so safely (people doing this is what leads to all manner of wankerish driving); however, you can drive at a lower speed than the speed limit if you feel that the conditions require it. At this point the aim is to stick to the suggested actions or be even more stringent if you can, not to look for ways to get round the clear spirit of the guidance.
ffm-
As such they are not trying to limit cycling while ignoring the situation in supermarkets
... that's exactly what it works out to be though.
"They're not doing it, so I don't have to!" is not a good argument.
That is absolutely not my argument at all.
My argument is that it is absolutely fucking ridiculous how people are arguing whether they should go for a cycle that is longer or shorter than one hour or whatever, when any change in that by nature low-risk behaviour is rendered entirely, completely ineffective by the actually large risks of infections that still exist out there, unchanged.
The government isn't there to triage every application of "common sense" in this situation.
I'm not sure I understand what this means. Triaging ideas of how to contain the spread is exactly what they should be doing. Any limitation of people's freedoms in general is something that needs to be done as a result of a balance of things. I very much expect a non-authoritarian government to start with measures that have the largest mitigating impact on the spread, but the smallest impact on people's lives. Such as telling people to work from home wherever possible: it has a certain impact, but sure, it makes a lot of sense and takes a good number of people out of high-risk zones like tubes and buses.
Ffs I sound like a fucking libertarian saying this, and I usually despise them: but no, I'm not prepared to willingly throw all of my 'civil liberties' out of the window immediately, and I think people in general should be a bit more wary about calling for the army to impose a total curfew, as I have read multiple people do in the last few days (not so much on this forum luckily, to be fair).
And from that standpoint, I would very much expect police to be used to enforce rules in heavily frequented places like supermarkets and public transport and parks where people are having a picnic in a large group, before they start telling people they can't go for a bloody cycle.
Of course this is not the time to go for that audax you've always wanted to do. Of course this is not the time to try a new mtb trail that might see you go to hospital. Of course this is not the time to descend like Cancellara to go break some personal record. Very possibly it's not even the time to get back into cycling if you haven't done it in a while and don't feel very confident on a bike. Nowhere have I said people should just go do whatever, of course we want to mitigate risks. But this discussion about whether you can continue to do the same low-risk activities you've been doing forever, be it a walk, or a cycle, or a run, is still just ridiculous. And not only is it just something people like to do in general, it has proven benefits for both your physical and mental health, which will only be all the more important as one spends the rest of the time cooped up in the on average not exactly generous UK flat or house. (And no, we don't all have a balcony or a garden, or even a tiny front patio)
SwissChap
You don't have to completely 'rebuild' things though.
1) Limit the number of people who can go into a supermarket at the same time, based on the square footage of the publicly accessible areas. Once you're at the limit, it's one in, one out.
2) Make people more aware of, and try to enforce the distance rules inside the supermarket - way easier when there's not tons of people piling up anyway.
3) Disinfect stuff like trolley handles etc. regularly, ideally every single time it's returned to the queue at the front.
Instead, if you're in a supermarket, apart from emptier shelves and the occasional person with a mask, most of the time you might as well think things were completely normal. Do they really want to tell me that people going on a walk or run in the sunshine is 'taking the piss' and a big risk for the spread of the infection in the general population, but piling into a supermarket as normal is just what we do?
Similarly, with public transport, for heaven's sake don't reduce the service. Leave it exactly as it is unless it is actually completely empty. Don't force the people still taking public transport into a tighter space.
Also, one could think about staggering opening hours of all those 'essential businesses' out there, so that the people who still have to get to work don't have to take the same rush hour train / tube / bus. Flattening the curve, anyone?
All of that are measures one could think about, which limit people in specific, but comparatively small ways, but could definitely have a noticeable impact vs just continuing as before. But no, let's jump straight to putting everyone under house arrest instead...