New Coronavrus Tiers and Hillwalking/Campervanning

[camy]

Hi everyone am posting this to see what your views are??? .I stay in a Tier 3 area at this time and i wonder what your views are in going away and walking /staying in a campervan wild camping??
Am led to believe i should stay in my own area just now but i am pretty frustraited as for my work i travel up north as far as inverness and south down to liverpool. But being told when i get time off i cannot go anywhere.I use hillwalking as a good form of excercise and to destress.
Am like alot of people who have worked all through this and in my opinion we seem to have to pay the price for people who don't put any thoughts into their actions.
When out on hills am extremely thoughtful of my actions as when passing people etc got to say been extremely hard at times as the hills have been so busy .
Am interested in your thoughts on this subject

[al78]

Some people seem to think it is not about transmission, it is about the risk of having an accident and burdening the NHS.

I would like to know what the risk is of a careful experienced hillwalker going for a hike up a hill within a couple of hours drive from home, compared to if that person stayed at home or engaged in local activities (accidents do happen in the home), and what the average burden on the NHS at any one time is from people having accidents on hills or from driving to those hills. I suspect it is three fifths of bugger all, but I would suggest that whilst we are in lockdown, we follow the official guidelines and rules, then we cannot get fingers pointed at us. History shows that pandemics aren't infinitely long, so we will sooner or later be out of it.

[Scottk]

You have my sympathy. I would struggle to accept the guidelines if rural Aberdeenshire was placed back in lockdown. Great if you could get a Covid test and then leave the area! To be honest, if you were self sufficient and not going into towns and symptom free, I personally would not have an issue. The article in ukc about the spread of the virus in outdoor situations gives much more confidence in this situation.
Hopefully you will be out of tier 3 soon.

[Essan]

It's simple really.

Do you think it's acceptable for anyone to break the law if the law prevents them doing something they want?

[Essan]

Actually, I can't see anything in the latest legislation that prohibits travel for leisure between tiers (although I may have missed it). Notwithstanding which, we are asked not to do so.

So I'll put it another way. Campfires. We're asked not to have them, even though it may be legal to do so. Because, however careful and responsible we may be, ensuring no trace is left, others, seeing us with a campfire, may choose to follow our lead. And they might not be so careful or responsible. And leave a smouldering fire than later burns down the forest.

We have a moral and social responsibility therefore not to have a campfire, even if we want to and, legally, we could.

The same, IMO, with Covid-19 guidance.

The more people observe restrictions, all restrictions, the sooner the transmission rate comes down, and the sooner the restrictions are lifted. But if we all decide to ignore those restrictions we disagree with, we cannot complain when more punative measures are put in place.

[WalkWithWallace]

The framework would suggest outdoor exercise is one of the exemptions for travelling out with your area, however Mountaineering Scotland is seeking clarification from the Scottish Government as to where we stand if we want to travel out our local area for hill walking. So watch this space...

[al78]

The more people observe restrictions, all restrictions, the sooner the transmission rate comes down, and the sooner the restrictions are lifted. But if we all decide to ignore those restrictions we disagree with, we cannot complain when more punative measures are put in place.

obey restrictions
Transmission rate drops
Restrictions ease
Transmission rates skyrocket
PANIC - LOCKDOWN
obey restrictions
Transmission rate drops
Restrictions ease
Transmission rates skyrocket
PANIC - LOCKDOWN

ERROR - infinite loop.

This periodic lockdown is like putting meat in the freezer to try and eliminate food poisoning. The freezer doesn't kill the bacteria, it makes them dormant. When you defrost the meat, the bacteria start multiplying again. Put it back in the freezer, they go dormant, at a higher population than before. Defrost it, bacteria continue multiplying. This is what is happening with the virus, lockdown slows the transmission, but it isn't killing, it, it just lies in wait for restrictions to ease, then away it goes again. Are the destructive side effects to the hospitality industry, the economy, children's education and mental health really worth it?

[NickyRannoch]

We are essentially back in 5 mile territory for those in Tier 3/4.

So, no it wouldn't be in line with the guidance.

[Backpacker]

We are essentially back in 5 mile territory for those in Tier 3/4.

So, no it wouldn't be in line with the guidance.

Where's the 5 mile limit been published? All I've seen so far is that outdoor exercise is on the exempt list for travel reasons or was it another off the cuff remark made like the 1 hours exercise being allowed when in fact you could go out for as long as you liked as long as it was within your local area?

[malky_c]

Seems to have been updated, as someone noted in another thread:
https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-guidance-on-travel-and-transport/

The key bits:

>Local outdoor informal exercise such as walking, cycling, golf, or running (in groups of up to 6 people from no more than 2 households) that starts and finishes at the same place

>Travel locally (within around 5 miles of your local authority area) to reach a place to take exercise outdoors

As someone else noted, 'If you keep asking, you might end up with an answer you don't want'.

[Alteknacker]

All the evidence is that the risk of transmission outdoors is infinitesimal, even for high risk people like myself, most particularly if one keeps a reasonable distance from others.

Two problems for me are:-
1. As a general rule I believe in obeying the law (as an alternative to an utterly chaotic anarchic society).
2. It seems to me that all governments have made a complete hash of dealing with covid. I have as yet read or heard no coherent reason why the Gupta/Henegan approach shouldn't be adopted: that is, focus our attention on those at high risk. The majority of high risk people (like me) can take the precautions recommended - we don't need to be ordered what to do: we're generally quite motivated not to go to a premature grave. The others - folk in care homes, those in multi-generation households, or those needing support of one kind or another - we look after them and support their carers and/or family members. Both the risk and the hazard for younger folk is very very small indeed. If you take hospital admissions as a proxy for serious covid, then the stats on this are unambiguous. To me it's really hard to see why "locking down" a fraction of our population isn't better than locking down the entire population, with truly incalculable impacts on people's lives - there are something like 6 million self-employed or very small business folk, so many of whom are suffering dreadfully.

I note in passing that the folk recommending full lockdown do not suffer any economic consequences, irrespective of their political persuasion (and if in politics generally don't seem to think they have to follow the rules anyway).

So it really grates going along with a strategy and approach I think is wholly wrong.

And then what to do? Reluctantly, with a very heavy heart, I will go along with the rules.

But I hope everyone will remember this shambles when we come to electing the next lot of politicians.

[rgf101]

I'm reluctantly coming to accept that I won't be able to do an annual mid-November walk of some sentimental importance to me, but so be it. I've ignored the rules in some cases where I've judged it safe and reasonable (a socially distanced chat with a family member who lives alone, in a park, during early lockdown, for example) but I'm not going to do it for days on end while inevitably coming into contact with strangers in shops and cafes.

[PeteR]

All the evidence is that the risk of transmission outdoors is infinitesimal, even for high risk people like myself, most particularly if one keeps a reasonable distance from others.

Two problems for me are:-
1. As a general rule I believe in obeying the law (as an alternative to an utterly chaotic anarchic society).
2. It seems to me that all governments have made a complete hash of dealing with covid. I have as yet read or heard no coherent reason why the Gupta/Henegan approach shouldn't be adopted: that is, focus our attention on those at high risk. The majority of high risk people (like me) can take the precautions recommended - we don't need to be ordered what to do: we're generally quite motivated not to go to a premature grave. The others - folk in care homes, those in multi-generation households, or those needing support of one kind or another - we look after them and support their carers and/or family members. Both the risk and the hazard for younger folk is very very small indeed. If you take hospital admissions as a proxy for serious covid, then the stats on this are unambiguous. To me it's really hard to see why "locking down" a fraction of our population isn't better than locking down the entire population, with truly incalculable impacts on people's lives - there are something like 6 million self-employed or very small business folk, so many of whom are suffering dreadfully.

I note in passing that the folk recommending full lockdown do not suffer any economic consequences, irrespective of their political persuasion (and if in politics generally don't seem to think they have to follow the rules anyway).

So it really grates going along with a strategy and approach I think is wholly wrong.

And then what to do? Reluctantly, with a very heavy heart, I will go along with the rules.

But I hope everyone will remember this shambles when we come to electing the next lot of politicians.

Alternacker for PM....or FM.

Articulated my sentiments entirely. I'm reluctantly thinking I will have to comply with the guidance as well, even though I don't support the policy myself......

[PeteR]

Seems to have been updated, as someone noted in another thread:
https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-guidance-on-travel-and-transport/

The key bits:

>Local outdoor informal exercise such as walking, cycling, golf, or running (in groups of up to 6 people from no more than 2 households) that starts and finishes at the same place

>Travel locally (within around 5 miles of your local authority area) to reach a place to take exercise outdoors

As someone else noted, 'If you keep asking, you might end up with an answer you don't want'.

I appreciate you don't make the rules malky, but prior to today I was encouraged to remain within my health authority area for exercise,. Now it's within 5 miles of my local authority area, which is smaller.

So pubs and restaurants can now open again sell food until 6 p.m., but my travel to walk a hill away from crowds is further restricted...... don't make sense to me.

[Moriarty]

But I hope everyone will remember this shambles when we come to electing the next lot of politicians.

Fat chance.

2 party democracy (or 2+ party hybrids) is all about getting you to hold your nose and order off a Table d'Hôte menu, terrified that the set menu you hate will be delivered rather than the one you hate marginally less, all the while looking longingly at folks ordering from the À la carte menu.

...but other than that a first class post. It's all very depressing.