UKC

So whilst Trump's suggestion that inserting a 'tremendous light' probe to kill the virus may not be the best thing ever heard in a COVID-19 briefing (but also not the worst either), he was commenting on the finding that UV light from the sun kills 50% of virus particles in 1.5minutes. see: youtube.com/watch?v=E94pqy2rB7g&t=77

Its the same thing that means a fast flowing stream with tumbled water on a sunny day is reasonably safe to drink - providing there are no dead sheep 20m upstream and it isn't full of run off from a farmers field.

Does that mean the outside is safer than we thought? People are concerned about gate posts and park benches and patches of grass being methods of transmission, but on a sunny day, in an oxygenated atmosphere the virus is hanging around for minutes rather than days.

Maybe some socially distanced top-roping at a south facing crag, or a well spaced picnic in the park isn't too dangerous after all.

N.B. Anyone who thinks I'm about to go and do these things can be reassured I am writing this from the safety of my living room and only go outside of the home for my mandated socially distanced exercise, socially distanced work and socially distanced shopping.

IF this is accurate then it does make climbing in the sun significantly more viable, not sure its the time yet even if this is nailed down as correct. Makes going for walk involving gates more sensible and means that farmers can calm the f*ck down, many won’t but they could. 

I don't come across many farmers in real life or on social media so I'm not very aware of their opinions. What I have come across is a whole lot of non-farmers who are very angry on behalf of farmers. Strange times right enough.

Some more food for thought. 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.04.20053058v1

Some research from China that shows out of the 318 studied infection clusters, only one originated from an outdoor environment. The vast majority happened in peoples homes (where we're currently being told to stay), and on public transport. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4504358/

And then there's history. There were a few open air hospitals created to fight Spanish flu, and their results were generally better than normal hospitals. It's theorised that the increased levels of vitamin D, the lower risk of breathing in the virus via microdroplets, and the natural disinfectant properties of the suns UV light, all helped bring down the infection rate and increase survival rates. 

Seem to me the science is solid on open air activities, with adequate social distancing, being completely fine in regards to virus transmission. You're more likely to catch it from someone in your home, or in the supermarket, than you are at some crag.

There's so much outdoors working against the virus, it's just going to struggle to find someone to infect before it's either blown away by wind, washed away by rain, or destroyed by UV. 

The only arguments against climbing that makes any real sense right now are:

* Injuries put a strain on local hospitals.

* First responders such as mountain rescue are operating skeleton crews, if they're even operating at all.

* People are hysterical right now, and if they see us climbing then it will work against us and our access long term. 

The first point, I'm not that sure about. On an average day at a busy crag, in sunny weather.. How many people actually injure themselves requiring any kind of hospital visit? I'd imagine it averages near zero. If anyone's got the figures on outdoor injuries requiring hospitalisation, I'd be interested to see them. 

I imagine that statistically, cycling is similarly dangerous yet everyone is out doing that at the moment. 
Also lots of people being cheered on for their DIY skills making indoor bouldering walls for their homes. But bouldering is by far the most injury prone form of climbing, and woodworking? Well... How did Tommy Caldwell suffer his worst injury?

The second point for remaining indoors is very legitimate, and there's no real arguing against that one.

But, to an extent, you can put that down to personal responsibility. People wanting to go out should do their own risk:reward calculation. They should know that first responders will either not show up, or will take a lot longer. And in the event of a serious injury, this could be a big problem. 

The last point, is probably the best. But it's just so god damn annoying because it's not based on anything other than NIMBY's ignorance. 

And just so the virtue brigade don't jump down my neck, I will second this:

N.B. Anyone who thinks I'm about to go and do these things can be reassured I am writing this from the safety of my living room and only go outside of the home for my mandated socially distanced exercise, socially distanced work and socially distanced shopping. 

But I'm also looking out my window at neighbours operating power tools, jogging with shit form, and cycling their brand new bikes without helmets and wondering... Why am I not allowed to go to a crag right now and do the only exercise I actually enjoy? 

Theres alot of people at the mo enjoying being very angry. This is very true. I find it to exhausting.

I walk through a farmer's field and hes a very cheerful sole if u see him.

Part of the lockdown regs is you have to make your existence as shit and unbearable as possible no matter what.

Public transport is clearly a hotbed and would explain the big difference in cases between London (where basically everybody uses it) and other places (where most people don't use it).

I've seen plenty of people clamouring for stricter versions of lockdown. Like turkeys voting for Christmas.

London also seems to have (I don't have numbers, but just from personal experience) a lot more random people sharing houses than the rest of the country. And sharing a house with people is the number one way to catch the virus, according to that research. 

Combined the two, along with plenty of tourism and an international hub airport, and you have a perfect storm for infection. 

Cities get hit hardest. Countryside does okay in comparison. 

 

He clearly got the isolation message then.

I grew up in a rural area and have a few historical Facebook friends who are farmers, lots of them are posting things about people “from towns” spreading their virus around farms. There’s a lot of sharing of a meme saying I’m a farmer I can’t work from home, which gets on my tits as most of them work from home every bloody day and only ever come into contact with members of their household. 

How dare you suggest that some people should be allowed to have fun THERE ARE PEOPLE DYING

Good news for beer gardens - just add a servery hatch, outdoor urinals and she-wee dispensers and we’re back in business.

Add to that a high amount of flat dwelling.  I can go out of my house and return back to it without touching anything that anyone else is likely to have touched (unless some criminal is walking around trying doorhandles).  A flat dweller can't.  There are doors, lift buttons etc, and the walkways can be narrow too.

But you can negate some of those - I live in a flat. Use your foot to push the doors on the way out, and elbow to push any buttons and don’t touch any handrails. Hands to open doors on the way back in then just make sure washing your hands is the first task once you are back in your house. 

I don't think the outside is dangerous, it's the people outside that are dangerous. I have been lone working on sites all over the dales and don't worry about it. I sanitise my hands after unlocking and locking the gates and any kiosks on site. I'm in the habit of sanitising before getting out of the van and when getting back in. 

I am cautious if someone comes on the site whilst I'm there though. 

I hope so.  But I'm not about to bet my life on it.  

In the course of making, eating and washing up from lunch I've seen 6 different sets of people sit on a bench outside.  

I can assure you sheewees are not great when sober.  I really wouldn't like to try after a few drinks.

These on the other hand look great.  

https://www.lapee.dk

Worth saying that the level of sunlight and humidity in many parts of the US is a lot higher than in UK and particularly Scotland!   Las Vegas or New Orleans isn't the same as Edinburgh.

My guess is that people are too paranoid about folk running past in the park or touching things outside and exposed to sun/rain/wind.   But it isn't quantified and it will vary day to day according to conditions.

I think there's a danger we are obsessing about small risks and ignoring the very large ones: transmission from an infected person to their own family, transmission from health workers back into the community, transmission from infected people who are supposed to be self isolating but for whatever reason go out anyway.

We should be figuring out a way to use the unoccupied hotel rooms and unoccupied student residences as pleasant places for infected people to be isolated.  If we make the experience pleasant enough and put some medical support on site it might happen voluntarily.

You can reduce the risk but you can't remove it.  If nothing else you're still sharing airspace with others who may be infected.  Whereas for house dwellers the risk is essentially zero, and I'd say is zero if you are particularly careful to wash your hands after opening the door.

This does seem a very good (and very feasible) idea to me.

Oh yeah its far from perfect, more just saying that flats don't need to be an infection hotspot with appropriate precautions. One of the big problems with this whole situation is the lack of siumpople things like those I described to reduce transference. 

Agreed.  I think the reason flat-dwelling would lead to higher figures is that not everyone will take the precautions you outline.

Center Parcs has only construction work and security staff at the moment

For 2 days I've been guzzling bleach and swallowed a headtorch. Turns out I just need to sit in the garden on a sunny day!

I live out in The Peak and can report that in the last 3 days during my solo pedalling outings I have seen people at Rubicon, Horseshit (5 cars), Stoney west and Stanage far right and popular, as well as Burbage. Groups of cyclists on MTB,s and loads of walkers, some in groups. All main parking areas busy

Agreed entirely - lots of precautions which could be taken aren't, and lots of misuse of PPE are giving people false security.

its nice to come on here and see lots of rational view points of being outside. its by far the safer place to be.

facebook is full of people "outraged" "disgusted" at people doing what is best and keeping apart far from towns where people are very close.

I posted a pic of hen cloud on a facebook page, its a local walk to me. oh the outrage from a few was comical. you would think id released the virus myself. plenty of sensible replies though.

He totally misunderstood the science and lost the message.

But yes we should be outside, being outside is safe(r). We should have windows open and AC units off.

We are in this until late 2020, possibly even 2021, we're in real danger of compliance fatigue in the US already and we aren't even a month in. 

I hate AC anyway.  I'd outright ban it in the UK, it's an utter waste of energy in a temperate country, and buildings can and should be designed not to need it as they were years ago rather than building big greenhouses because they look nice.  The one exception is vehicles where it can be more power-efficient than the drag from open windows.

Yeah here everywhere has it. It creates very dry air which the virus likes. 

cirikey as I started your post I thought you wanted to go back to DC!

Me too! I was thinking Trumpian influence was spreading fast!

Only if you don't have to drive to do it, which is not the case for most of us.

Yes some heavy qualifications. I have a home wall so I’ll stick to that and other “approved” activities for the time being apart from the risks anything else isn’t worth the hassle.

Even travelling to climb is okay, imo. The only stipulation should be to not enter a building during your trip. So no visiting petrol stations, no going into the local co-op for a meal deal, etc. Stock up on everything you need before you leave your area, and remain outdoors the entire time you're in the new area. 

You're not realistically going to infect anyone outside unless you literally cough in their face. And some simple advice to avoid that scenario is to tell people to... Not literally cough in peoples faces. 

I'm interested when people are going to eventually decide to start climbing again. Seems there's going to be a few groups:

* People going when the BMC says it's okay

* People going when the government allow unnecessary travel

* People going because the police guidelines published recently seem to allow it

* People going because it becomes obvious others are going

All I know is there's going to be some hilarious arguments an gatekeeping between all those groups of people. 

One estate near us (I'm assuming it was them rather than an individual) has put up  a few signs on paths which very politely remind users of the govt recommendations and asks them to be courteous to each other. Fair enough I say.

Elsewhere, I came across a sign saying the path in question was for locals only, that if your car was parked there you were not local, had travelled illegally and would be reported to police Scotland and prosecuted. All with shouty capitalisation and excessive exclamation marks. I ripped it down and binned it. It wasn't even a popular path, not the kind of place people would drive to exercise and didn't go anywhere near buildings. Just goes to show how frightened some people are and how that fear leads them to act.

I suppose that actually "dedicated" climbers, hillwalkers and surfers aren't going to pose that much of a problem to the NHS and rescue services. Nor am I over worried about your earlier point that: "People are hysterical right now, and if they see us climbing then it will work against us and our access long term."

IMHO a  major problem with us breaking strict lockdown might be that many other people will would see us and rightly think there is just as much reason for them to stroll around in the hills, or go for a swim off the beach.....their numbers and relative lack of experience would probably put a far greater strain on NHS and rescue, and would inevitably lead to less spacial separation and more transmission of the virus. As the OP implies it is likely that risk is much reduced  by being outdoors, but lockdown has been successful in  reducing"R" to below 0 (I think) and society has to be very careful as very small changes, eg many people going to beaches, could well increase it again. In addition it wouldn't  just be local people doing so; dissuading masses of outsiders would become difficult.

Lockdown is certainly evolving to become less rigid in SW London. More shops are opening, eg local chippie, baker, now B and Q. There is definitely more traffic around and more people are visiting friend's houses and walking around in unseparated groups. Lockdown has been a blunt edged instrument and we don't really know the relative value of the different restrictions. Maybe the overall effect of, for example, an increase in outdoor pursuits would be cancelled by, for example, using masks in supermarkets and public transport. Trouble is nobody knows and it takes weeks before the effects of any changes can be seen (and weeks of further restrictions to cancel out any higher infection levels).

The reason homes were a common source of infection is that we are in close proximity in the home, and spend a long time there. But you're only going to catch it if an infected person comes into the home. This will only happen if we're not socially isolating (as would have been the case pre-lockdown).

It's the reason why a lot of front line NHS staff are staying away from home (or self-isolating within their home); to prevent taking infection home.

That infection occurred within the home, prior to social distancing, is not an argument for us all to be out of our homes all the time, whilst attempting to follow social distancing...

One thing they could do is come up with a list of about ten reasonable possible variations to the lockdown e.g. open schools,  masks in public, construction allowed, people allowed to sit down when out for exercise, segregating patients in hotels rather than allowing them to stay at home etc.

Then ask cities to adopt exactly one variation from the national standard while leaving restrictions on longer distance travel in place.  After two or three weeks we would have strong data on what restrictions are effective and which are not.

The Las Vegas mayor offered her city as the control for doing nothing.

The problem is sensible people will take the safer option anyway. I'm in a state which has not regulated masks yet, but we are all now wearing them because the data supports them.

Sorry. Just realized I should have said "reducing R to below 1" ( 0 means no transmission).

youtube.com/watch?v=wnd1jKcfBRE&

* People going and just not broadcasting it online

Head torch no good, it operates closer to the infrared end of the light spectrum, opposite end to uv. You need one of those uv filters you can get for a pond

LED headtorches (white ones) are basically UV laser diodes with a chip of fluorescent material on top; that's the yellowish thing you see.

Incandescent bulbs would be more IR, but who has used an incandescent headtorch in the last 20 years...?

If you let people make their own risk-reward calculation the selfish will do things that result in excessive risk for others. Case in point - missing diver in Dorset yesterday. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-52440033

Exercise under lockdown isn't about enjoyment, it's about keeping your body going.  Countries locked down because they simply could not risk losing control of the spread - overwhelming healthcare, overwhelming emergency services, either of which would result in bad outcomes for innocent people who didn't deserve them.  A sprained ankle could literally result in death now.  So, governments had to work backwards from complete lockdown to devise restrictions that were easy to understand and lowered the R value, yet allowed enough freedom for people to put up with them.  So, say cycling's probably as dangerous as climbing, but you don't need a whole MR team and helicopter to attend a cycle crash.  You have relatively empty roads, and the majority of 'new' cyclists are families and couples out for a relaxing low-risk ride from their home, not a MAMIL aiming for their best time down a hill an hour's drive away from home.  There is not a surplus of Lifeboat / Helicopter / MR crews/teams, and if one crewmember tests positive after a shout that's it, the whole team is out of action for 2 weeks because they have to self-isolate. Even if they don't, the lifeboat or chopper has to be thoroughly deep-cleaned for a couple of hours.  If you allowed the whole country to do 'dangerous' sports (climbing / yachting / fishing / scubadiving / motorbike spin) when many are off work in nice weather it would be like an August bank holiday - the lifeboats and choppers would be flat out all day long.  Then people would be dying because the chopper was out of action for a deep clean for half the day. Then we wouldn't have any rescue services for 2 weeks because the crews are self-isolating.

Is it right to knowingly potentially sentence your rescuers to death in the name of your fun because you're an asymptomatic carrier, or one of them is?

Going forward, countries know more about the risks and probabilities each day.  They have more healthcare system capacity.  They have better techniques for dealing with the virus. Things will change, but until now the simplest lockdown rules offering maximum acceptable restriction were the right thing to do.   Stay at home and wash your hands.

...  If you allowed the whole country to do 'dangerous' sports (climbing / yachting / fishing / scubadiving / motorbike spin) 

Since when were ANY of the above DANGEROUS sports ?

Today I got invited to join a private Facebook group for people who were continuing to go out walking, running and scrambling in the high mountains of Scotland during this time.

I declined.

Report it to Facebook...?

I think this touches on something that's rarely discussed and seems to be misunderstood by many. The rules implemented are less to do directly with safety than most people think. Of course if you're on your own you could lounge around all day outside with zero risk. If you want to go round touching stuff just use some hand sanitizer or gloves.

But the problem is if everyone were to do that it would make it extremely difficult, impossible really, to police everyone. Some people wouldn't keep a safe distance and there'd inevitably be loads of interactions taking place and the police would be pretty much powerless to cover any but a tiny percentage.

So at an individual level it's not a problem. But at a societal level it's disaster.

I suppose our Thatcherite culture (no such thing as society) means many people rarely think about anything but their own individual needs. Maybe scare tactics about the dangers of going outside are a useful form of social control for those who habitually think that way.

Our 'Thatcherite culture' should mean that people are taking responsibility personally rather than relying on 'society' to solve their problems.  I don't think this is what you meant, though.  I think you just mean greedy, a trait that's as old as the hills.

Have a like for the very good point about societal risk, as opposed to individual risk.

On what grounds? It's morally questionable but I'm not sure about any illegality and any harm it might cause is pretty indirect.

I thought it was interesting, not so much that some people would continue to go to the hills at this point but that they'd feel the need to set up a social media group. Maybe a case of looking for other people to approve of their actions?

I think of Thatcherite culture as thinking selfishly and the idea that if everyone thinks that way things work out better for everyone.

Thinking that way a lot of people could justify doing a lot more than they are doing, but then it becomes hard/impossible to police the idiots.

Sounds like the Swedes have a policy that's more reliant on personal responsibility perhaps.

There was quote somewhere that said the problem with the UK is that we have a dense population and we have a dense population. And, as if to prove the point, someone's reply had asked why they had written the same thing twice.

Someone made an interesting comment elsewhere that went something like:

Think about what you are doing (or planning to do). If everybody did it would it be ok? If yes carry on, if no think again.

on another thought, both my wife and I have ended up in A&E at some point as a result of cycling, I’m enjoying the odd, guilt free, ride out still though.

Other than that it’s life in a guided cage.

stay safe all and look forward to meeting up in the mountains someday

 “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law”

I think it's exactly that. If enough people do something collectively, each individual can remove themselves from the consequences of their actions because the others are doing it too - therefore it's okay. Its called something like "diffused responsibility", applies to other things like football hooliganism etc. 

I'm going out for local walks three or four times a week and cycling up to 35 miles every weekend, with shorter rides occasionally with my son who is isolating with us. I am not worried about catching CV and certainly not about giving it to anybody else as I havent touched or been within ten feet of anybody outside my family for five weeks now.

Sales of cold and flu remedies must have dropped to almost nothing.

I dunno, maybe you should ask the insurance industry??

The fact these people have formed  FB page suggests they might be doing things together and so breaking Soc Dis rules. So if police monitoring the site they can easily turn up at meeting point and enforce. Or perhaps they're forming the page so they can each say where they're going and thereby avoid each other.

it actually would count as conspiracy too, to compound their crime

I have never thought outside to be dangerous, so can't be safer than I thought! I spend large chunks of each day outside and even take my old, vulnerable residents at work out for walks around the gardens as it really helps them too.

I have been actively encouraging people to get outside for a long time, and even more so since the message was "stay home". I feel it wasn't the right message, as we don't actually want people never to leave the house! My mum is currently housebound to care for my dad, he can't be left alone at all and we can't help. She is now vitamin D deficient and is having skin problems, which is not a problem she has ever had in her life. GO OUTSIDE!

What she actually said "They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."

Yes and no. There are selfish folk in any culture or society. The Swedish policy is mainly based on the work of Johan Giesecke (30+ years of disease control experience with the WHO and others) and his junior side kick Tegnell who gets all the media time. 

Society wise, it's not that the Swedish state is profoundly socialist pandering to societies needs, it's more that collective responsibility is subtly instilled in folk from school age upwards. If folk want or need something they need to make it happen themselves, the state just makes sure everyone has the opportunity to make it happen, but individuals must take the initiative. Again there are folk who are just selfish, but as long as they are a minority then it works. 

Farmers do spend their days exposed to a whole number of deadly and unpleasent viruses and bacteria (campylobacta, salmonella, E.coli, toxoplasmosis, lime desease, Q fever, Weils disease..) in the normal course of their work. I think that for most farmers, the risk presented by possibly infected people (who are presumably presenting as healthy as they've gone for a  hearty country stroll) is pretty minimal and used by  some, I'm sure, to try and close footpaths just because they hate the public walking through their farm.

My suspicion is that it was more to do with a disgruntled individual looking for validation rather than an organised group. Either way it's misjudged at the very least.

Why? Why is it anything like turkeys voting for Christmas?

We're heading towards more deaths than any country in Europe, because we locked down late, so why do you seem to think people stay in is not the thing to do?

In fact if it's turkeys voting for Christmas, why is it worse?

Do you have any scientific evidence for this? You seem very sure of it. I suppose you might be OK if you inject disinfectant before you leave the house, but I've ran out of needles.

WHY and the government giving us MORE needles?

Turkey's voting for Christmas is a metaphor for people making a choice against their best interests. I see demanding a stricter lockdown like some have done as a choice against our best interests in the long term and perhaps not even of benefit in the short term.

If we went to a stricter lockdown* i.e. one that does not allow people out to exercise (and I'm not aware of much evidence that would be any more effective in suppression) then it is going to cause huge amounts of physical and mental harm.

The key point here is 'because we locked down late'. Do you think stopping people going out to exercise will fix that?

*can't see that happening now anyway.

Do you live anywhere near Dover?

I know what it means, I can't get my head around why staying safe away from the virus is a bad thing.

But you're talking about a sub set of people, some people can exercise at home perfectly well, others are quite happy being alone or at home with their families. It's a lot better than DEAD for most people too.

Of course, why not again people spread the virus, it doesn't come and get you.

You seem to be proposing, "if I can't go out, I'm going to die" I'd say that's almost the exact opposite of the truth.

Outside was possibly safer!

Until yesterday, when the sun disappeared  for another 6 months 

Pessimist!

There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of evidence of that making much difference, though.  If you look at the curves from various countries, all the different "European style lockdowns" seem to bring basically the same results.

We shouldn't do something restrictive that isn't likely to make any difference.  That's just classic "virtue signalling" - doing something to be seen to be doing it - and that makes no sense.

That's not what I said at all. There's not a lot of point in carrying on a discussion if you're going to construct hysterical straw men with shouty capitalisation. 

What I was actually referring to were the well documented, society wide mental and physical health issues that would potentially arise from a stricter lock down.

That is over restrictive e.g. I'd like to take my bivvy bag and sleep out on one of the bits of Holyrood Park that hardly anyone goes to.  Chances are if I went late and left early I'd not see another person. (Before I get flamed I'm actually not going to do this, it is just an example).

Is it safe - yes.

Could everyone do it - no.  But hardly anyone wants to sleep out in a bivvy bag on top of a hill so in practice it makes bugger all difference.

It's the Jack Sprat principle.   It works fine if he gets the lean meat and his wife gets the fat meat because different people want different things.  If you assume everyone wants the same as you then you get a situation where nobody gets what they want.

Of course this isn't true, and each country has it's own individual set of circumstances, how do you account for the different death rates in various EU countries, if they are "basically the same results"?

So what do you propose the UK should do, then?  It seems you basically just argue against literally everything that is proposed?

you're assuming people can't handle it, there's no real evidence we're all going to waste away or die, because of lockdown, but you seem as convinced of this as you are that there's little threat to going outside. Obviously some people will suffer badly, but I think people are stronger than you're making out.

We have prisons full of people who can't go outside very much.

Which doesn't actually do wonders for their mental health, does it?

There's a reason why prison is a very good deterrent not to commit serious crime.

ha ha, you do make me laugh, are you suggesting that most prisoners leave prison with their mental health damaged, and that this is why they are deterred from committing more crime?

There is a recidivism  rate  of 75% of ex-inmates reoffend within nine years of release, and 39.3% within the first twelve months. As a deterrent it doesn't seem to be working.

I know there are people who will wilt during lockdown and some for whom it will be unbearable, but there are plenty who will just get on with it, and will be unaffected.

I think you're being a bit over dramatic about how important it is for everyone to go outside.

There's a middle ground, for some people it's going to be very important, for others a nice thing to do, and others still who won't care either way.

I'd love to be outside every day, but it's not detrimental to me to say in for a few weeks.

We have known the transmission rate outside is very very low from the start. The issue the government now has, as a result of not giving the public credit for a bit more intelligence than they assume (in some cases justifiably),  is that everyone now has cabin fever from lockdown, especially those in big cities, lots of people have been furloughed, the weathers good and everyone just wants to get out.  

If the gov' said on you go little risk outside, its going to be like a May bank holiday on steroids as everyone heads to N.wales, SW, Lakes, Highlands, N. Yorks, the local seaside.  The locals will back-lash, in part because of a petty town vs country mindset, but in part because many people are worried, and there will be ensuing political fall-out, and given the metropolitan public's ability to descend on honey-pots (because they predominantly only know those spots) difficulty in maintaining physical distancing, and some degree of increased transmission.

The government(s) has a very difficult path to navigate, to ease lock-down without causing the dam to burst, and thats before you put the political slant on the decisions e.g. in Scotland lots of Highland & Island residents urging the SNP not to accept a UK wide (or even a single Scotland policy) easing, and to keep them isolated and Indy supporters wanting the Scottish Government to act 'differently' in some way as a statement. 

I don't know where you get the idea I'm "basically just arguing against literaly everything that is proposed", when what I seem to be arguing about mostly is people saying how safe it is to go outside, or how, "this thing I want to do" will be OK.

I don't see any other proposals to argue against, to be honest.

If everyone stayed in for 14 days, the virus would cease to exist, obviously this probably can't happen here in the UK, but it has in New Zealand.

My posts aren't about ME they're about helping others and preventing the spread of this as much as possible. Making shit up to suit your narrative (maybe not yours specifically here), ends up with hoards of people doing what they want and spreading the virus around more.

Clue:  accusations of virtue-signalling

As Cuomo said, "it's not about the ME, it's about the WE"

The problem is that *everyone* needs to stay in without any exceptions to do that.

People can't go and buy food, so if they run out they starve.

No repairs can be completed to infrastructure.

TV and radio would stop.

People can't seek medical care, so some would die.

People's bodies can't be collected if they do die.

Etc.

That could only be done in a very small number of countries, North Korea and China maybe.

Once we accept that that isn't possible and only the "European style" lockdowns are viable, the question of going for a run becomes rather moot, as it's not people running and walking on their own that are spreading it.

I realise that, which is why I wrote this "obviously this probably can't happen here in the UK", though  there are ways to do most of that stuff more safely.

But the less people who are out, the greater the chance we have of getting the magic R<1 this is all we need to do.

And obviously, if you can find out who has it in the first place you could keep them isolated and job done. Which is what's being suggested now, though the means to do this is still some way off I'm willing to bet.

You seem very confident about that, but we've been through this before, I don't know how you're so confident this doesn't happen. It depends on how alone they are. In an urban environment, no one is very alone, at least not to the extent they won't come into contact with the virus.

The OP was about UV light killing the virus, but there's no peer reviewed proof of this yet, we have someone on TRUMP's team saying it, and people are lapping it up, without questioning the facts. Look at countries around the world with high UV levels which are warm and dry.

Spelling? Yeah not my strong point.

That is possibly the stupidest thing I’ve heard yet!

I've got some dafter things I can say.

But why aren't people in prisons dying at a rate of knots? Some people seem to be suggesting if we don't get outside, "we're all going to die", there are plenty of examples of people not being able to get outside, and yet they somehow, mysteriously, survive.

I'd like to be outside myself a lot more, but I'm not in fear of either my mental health or my physical health because I can't.

I've a 15 year old son that is living proof that never leaving his room isn't fatal. His mental health it's hard to judge!

​​​​​​Still cracking on with the straw man I see.

I was a kid like that.  Physical activity (other than going to Scouts) is something I very much came to in later life.  I was probably a 2010s kid in the 80s/90s!

Ha ha, I've got a 32 year old

Yeah, if you like.