-
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-
"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.
Then that is pretty much your argument. You are saying "risk isn't being minimised elsewhere, so why should I minimise risk myself?" The problem is that there is a positive feedback loop here. If people see us all lycra-ed up they will think, "well that blokes carrying on as usual, why shouldn't I do my usual thing of heading round to my mate's for a beer and chat." I think appearances are important now, as all the small additional risks add up over a country of 60 million people.
I agree that people should still be able to go out and exercise. I'm just drawing attention to the fact that what a lot of people here consider to be a normal amount of exercise does not appear normal to others right now, and is probably far more than the minimum required to just keep things ticking over for a couple of months.
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.
Indeed, but the government does not have the resources to go through every activity and say "person X your common-sense idea of what you can do while minimising impact on others is fine but [person Y] your idea is not." The best they can do is offer guidance and ask us to do what we can.
TBH, I'm not that bothered about people cycling right now, it's a shitload better than other forms of exercise. I'm just irritated that people think "my risk assessment is fine, but we can't trust other people's".
-
Agree with your overall point. Perhaps another way to look at the
large risks of infections that still exist out there, unchanged.
Is that we have changed a huge amount of behaviours in society in this recent short period and they should surely have an impact on the data when it catches up. To focus on the existing points of spread is also to ignore the good we have done by and large in this short time... I know that wasn't the main intention of your comment.
-
I sound like a fucking libertarian saying this
Yes.
ffm
Squaredisk
Philbythesea
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.