-
"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".
ffm-
You are saying "risk isn't being minimised elsewhere, so why should I minimise risk myself?"
That is not what I'm saying, in fact I specifically stated that "of course we want to mitigate risks". From a societal standpoint though, which is the one the government should take, it is about fighting the big sources of infection first.
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
Honestly, that's the problem of those 'other people'. Also, how exactly are people judging how much exercise I'm doing when I'm out and about on my usual run? I'm not carrying a placard telling them which kilometre I'm on.
Indeed, but the government does not have the resources to go through every activity and say [...]
But I'm not asking them to. At all. I mean, all I'm really doing here is being frustrated and annoyed anyway, to be honest. But inasmuch as I'm trying to bring across any point, I'm just annoyed at how quickly some people support measures to curb a basic human right like going out for a walk or run or whatever, and how stupid that looks next to seemingly no measures being taken for the much bigger risks that still exist.
And it's not me asking for special permission for that one special thing that only I want to do, it's really not. Getting out for some fresh air is a basic human requirement, that's why people are punished with imprisonment. And while I'm out, it really doesn't matter whether I'm walking, jogging, nordic walking, cycling, recumbent cycling, or walking backwards on my hands, as long as I keep away from others and don't do it in a group of people I don't live with.
SwissChap
... that's exactly what it works out to be though.
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.
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)