Loading Notifications...

COVID: Scottish Route Map to Reduce Lockdown

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 StuPoo2 21 May 2020
L itsmarc 21 May 2020
In reply to StuPoo2:

I managed to get the PDF downloaded - key notes for the hills in Phase 1 are:

"Sport, culture and leisure activities: In this phase we are planning to allow unrestricted outdoors exercise adhering to distancing measures and non-contact outdoor activities in the local area – such as golf, hiking, canoeing, outdoor swimming, angling – consistent with the wider rules and guidance applicable to any activity in this phase."

and

"Getting around: Consistent with the reopening of workplaces set out in this phase, where home working is not possible, businesses and organisations are encouraged to manage travel demand through staggered start times and flexible working patterns. You will also be permitted to travel short distances for outdoor leisure and exercise but advice to stay within a short distance of your local community and travel by walk, wheel and cycle where possible."

 pasbury 21 May 2020
In reply to itsmarc:

Seems like a sensible and cautious approach unlike that here in England.

16
 StuPoo2 21 May 2020
In reply to itsmarc:

Aye ... intermittent now.  Still throwing 502's half the time.  Just keep hitting F5 (and participate in the mass denial of service attack ) until you get it.

First ~20 pages are waffle many will already know.  Actual plan is in the appendix at the end.

Cheers.

Post edited at 13:25
 PeterM 21 May 2020
In reply to itsmarc:

So it is restricted...by distance at least. I would see the inability to travel to walk up a mountain and then return home a restriction...

 toad 21 May 2020
In reply to StuPoo2:

Looks like travel outside of local area is going to be in phase 4. Quite a long way off, yet

 Myr 21 May 2020
In reply to toad:

> Looks like travel outside of local area is going to be in phase 4. Quite a long way off, yet

Phase 3, no? "In this phase you can drive beyond your local area for leisure and exercise purposes." (p26)

 DaveHK 21 May 2020
In reply to PeterM:

> So it is restricted...by distance at least. I would see the inability to travel to walk up a mountain and then return home a restriction...

With local area defined in the table as 'broadly within 5 miles' that's still pretty strict. In fact it's not really that different from what was allowed before, just making it official.

In reply to itsmarc:

"Permitted to travel short distances for outdoor leisure and exercise but advice to stay within a short distance of your local community (broadly within 5 miles) and travel by walk, wheel and cycle where possible."

 DaveHK 21 May 2020
In reply to AlH:

> "Permitted to travel short distances for outdoor leisure and exercise but advice to stay within a short distance of your local community (broadly within 5 miles) and travel by walk, wheel and cycle where possible."

From a purely selfish stand point I'm pretty scunnered with that.

2
In reply to DaveHK:

I expect some pretty liberal interpretations of that....

1
 Flinticus 21 May 2020
In reply to Myr:

I agree: phase 3 does say 'In this phase you can drive beyond your local area for leisure and exercise'

I don't see anything saying you cannot stay overnight so looks like wild camping would be allowed

Potentially climbing walls could operate too 'gyms can open subject to physical distancing and hygiene measures'

2
 Flinticus 21 May 2020
In reply to AlH:

I don't think there's anyway, as someone living in Glasgow, can interpret that as getting me to Arrochar or anywhere there's a decent hill.

 DaveHK 21 May 2020
In reply to AlH:

> I expect some pretty liberal interpretations of that....

I've pretty much stuck to the letter of this so far but there's only so long I'm willing to do that when the things I'd like to do (maybe drive to a hill 20 miles away and run up it alone) are so utterly unlikely to have an impact on transmission but the things I'm being asked to do like go back to work are far more risky. I'm quite happy to go back to work but I resent having to do that if my safe leisure activities are denied me.

1
 Tom V 21 May 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

I think you'll have to concede that a thrash down to Baggy is not on the cards just yet.

 DaveHK 21 May 2020
In reply to Tom V:

> I think you'll have to concede that a thrash down to Baggy is not on the cards just yet.

I'd really be pushing it from Inverness!  

Gorms on the other hand...

 toad 21 May 2020
In reply to Myr:

My mistake

In reply to DaveHK:

I'll be interested to see what Mountaineering Scotland release in the way of Guidelines later. They have been working with AMI, MTS, SMR and Glenmore Lodge to advise Sport Scotland so the most directly relevant advice on how our leisure sector should interpret this will come from them I suspect.

1
 Flinticus 21 May 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

Where's the definition of 'local area' in the pdf?

Thanks

 jack_44 21 May 2020
In reply to StuPoo2:

From what I've seen locally (more and more people driving for exercise, considerably busier roads, busier car parks) and from speaking to people the newly updated advice is more restrictive than people's current activities. 5 miles from home, I can imagine, won't allow many people to do any of the activities advised, be it going to the garden centre, golf or hiking. 

 DaveHK 21 May 2020
In reply to Flinticus:

> Where's the definition of 'local area' in the pdf?

> Thanks

In the tables at the end. P39

 ScraggyGoat 21 May 2020
In reply to AlH:

I think we have to accept that any representations that have been made by MCofS and cohorts will have been given scant consideration by the current Scottish Government incumbents, this is not to say I don't value those efforts, but the recent track record on hill-tracks, micro-hydro, windfarms, and LTNP camping restrictions (and others), all indicate that our representative organisations have very little influence.

The administrations focus is a) correctly the virus, and b) avoiding political fallout from its handling (and woefull decision to drop test and trace at the start)~ letting unfetted travel (irrespective of purpose or how little it may risk increasing transmission rates) risks a rural back lash and SNP vote loss; so we can see it is going to be done on a very slow gently, gently basis.............

Post edited at 15:13
In reply to DaveHK:

It doesn't though.
Lockdown: stay within your local area - undefined.
Phase 1: travel within (beyond) 5 miles of your local area.

 Flinticus 21 May 2020
In reply to Taylor's Landlord:

> Phase 1: travel within (beyond) 5 miles of your local area.

That's confusing...

It says 'stay within a short distance of your local community (broadly within 5 miles) and travel by walk, wheel and cycle where possible

 DaveHK 21 May 2020
In reply to Taylor's Landlord:

> It doesn't though.

> Lockdown: stay within your local area - undefined.

> Phase 1: travel within (beyond) 5 miles of your local area.

Not sure where you got that from, or what 'within (beyond) 5 miles' would mean? Here's the quote from phase 1 of the table:

"Permitted to travel short distances for outdoor leisure and exercise but advice to stay within a short distance of your local community (broadly within 5 miles) and travel by walk, wheel and cycle where possible."

Post edited at 15:39
 Flinticus 21 May 2020
In reply to jack_44:

Yes, phase 1: sit in the park

This is already common and I think has been for weeks. 

As well as meeting others while paying lip service to physical distancing

 ScraggyGoat 21 May 2020
In reply to Flinticus:

and Phase two for outdoor activities may be no better

Travelling; 'May be geographical differences depending on circumstances'.

which neatly allows further restrictions; the question is will they be warranted to prevent covid spread, or will they be politically driven....

 DaveHK 21 May 2020
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

> and Phase two for outdoor activities may be no better

Taking it at face value it's phase 3 before we get to something that looks like travel to a hill for most people and that's minimum 7 weeks away.

 gparn 21 May 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

Yes and at the same time as we can go to pub (inside!) apparently. So much for an approach based on scientific advice on transmission risk. 

 DaveHK 21 May 2020
In reply to gparn:

> Yes and at the same time as we can go to pub (inside!) apparently. So much for an approach based on scientific advice on transmission risk. 

I suspect that might be to do with avoiding fear/conflict in rural communities rather than the science of transmission.

1
 rogerwebb 21 May 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

As far as outdoor excersise is concerned there doesn't appear to be much difference between now and phase one. It will be interesting to see how it is set out in any amended regulations. 

 ScraggyGoat 21 May 2020
In reply to gparn:

Agreed. If whole scale travel and accommodation options are opened as is suggested (note there is no mention of campsites opening), in seven weeks time, with just two weeks of school holidays remaining, the central belt will flood north (assuming good weather) to blow away the cabin fever.......................at least the midgies will get fed.....................so I think the government is hoping rural communities will have come round to accept visitors by then without blaming the SNP for them.

Post edited at 15:57
 DaveHK 21 May 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

> As far as outdoor excersise is concerned there doesn't appear to be much difference between now and phase one. It will be interesting to see how it is set out in any amended regulations. 

Agree on both counts.

 gavmac 21 May 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

It's going to be interesting to see the advice/guidance that comes from the mountain safety group. 5 miles from my house presents an impressive array of climbing/hill adventures. Don't worry... I'll send pics   

Post edited at 15:58
2
 DaveHK 21 May 2020
In reply to gavmac:

> It's going to be interesting to see the advice/guidance that comes from the mountain safety group. 5 miles from my house presents an impressive array of climbing/hill adventures. Don't worry... I'll send pics   

F%*£ off.

2
 rogerwebb 21 May 2020
In reply to gavmac:

What Dave said  

1
 joem 21 May 2020
In reply to StuPoo2:

For the first time in a long long time I'm glad i live south of the border, while i think that in England things have gone too far too soon 5 miles seems ridiculously punitive. I'd have expected someting to the equivalent of the french 100km, obviously a different figure as both England and Scotland are diffrent from france. In terms of things like climbing and walking this is going to lead to absurd levels of honey potting with everyone fighting for space on the same bit of hill or crag while half of scotland is empty. 

2
 ScraggyGoat 21 May 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

can you translate....?

 Flinticus 21 May 2020
In reply to gavmac:

Have a dislike

1
 Flinticus 21 May 2020
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

Seven weeks...where'd that come from? It appears to be based on meeting a load of criteria rather than time passing

 kathrync 21 May 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

> As far as outdoor excersise is concerned there doesn't appear to be much difference between now and phase one. It will be interesting to see how it is set out in any amended regulations. 

As far as I can see, at the moment driving for exercise is not allowed - it should be from your front door. You are also supposed the restrict the length of time you are out for.  Under phase I, driving for exercise in your local (5 mile) area is discouraged but it is allowed, and you can go out for an unlimited period of time.

For me, at least, that means I can get to my local country park to run rather than doing the same 5km loop round my local area repeatedly and get out into the Campsies for some hiking.

In reply to all:

Here is what Nicola Sturgeon said about travel restrictions (and the '5 mile thing') during Phase 1 from the 28th May:  https://www.vimeo.com/421106922

 Flinticus 21 May 2020
In reply to StuPoo2:

There appears to be very little additional freedom between phase 1 and 2 for the outdoors / exercise. Noting that extends my range.

 ScraggyGoat 21 May 2020
In reply to Flinticus:

Correct, but the continuation of each phase is to be reviewed at a minimum of every three weeks.  So politically if cases continue to decline, NHS capacity increases, and contact and trace is effectively up and running it will be difficult politically to not move to the next phase at each of these date points.

Yes the FM said that things would move faster or slower depending on the 'data' ..................but my money is on it moving on the dates, assuming no resurgence of transmission & no major political events impact timing.

Post edited at 16:29
 DaveHK 21 May 2020
In reply to Flinticus:

> Seven weeks...where'd that come from? It appears to be based on meeting a load of criteria rather than time passing

7 weeks minimum as the situation is reassessed every 3 weeks and if the criteria are met we move to the next phase. Plus the one remaining week to go before phase 1 is implemented.

 Flinticus 21 May 2020
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

I may as well plan a trip for 8 weeks time then. Off now to book some days...can't put it off indefinitely and my work is making us use some of our allowances up.

 alastairmac 21 May 2020
In reply to StuPoo2:

The guidance seems clear to me. Stick to within five miles from your home. I think the Scottish Government are being sensible and cautious with the support of the Scottish public. We all need to show a bit of solidarity, responsibility and stick to the guidelines. Until things have stabilised our rural communities need to be protected.

13
In reply to StuPoo2:

Seems clearer and probably more sensible than the English approach - but it is clearly now a totally devolved matter.

But based on my reading of "stay local" until the very end - it sounds like we effectively have a permanent (potentially multi-year) hard border.  Didn't expect that!

I wonder will Wales do similar (i.e. a hard border remains for potentially months or even years) or just follow England 3 weeks later?

Post edited at 17:10
4
 ScraggyGoat 21 May 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

No de facto hard border. In Phase 3 people will be allowed to drive beyond their local area, and certain accommodation providers will be able to open...though regarding travel the 'potential geographic restrictions' clause pop's up again. 

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

Sorry, yes, I misread that.  But there is a hard border (effectively) until phase 3 which could still be many months off.

 gavmac 21 May 2020
In reply to Flinticus:

I can send you pics too?  

 Myr 21 May 2020
In reply to AlH:

That is an interesting statement about urban/rural areas, for a couple of reasons.

Firstly she mentions that she won't be wanting people to travel to rural areas. I think she means by that that people should not be travelling long distances to regions of Scotland that are largely rural. I don't think she means that you can only travel to urban areas; but I can see it being deliberately misinterpreted as that by e.g. farmers just outside of cities. To be honest, I feel sorry for people in rural areas just outside of cities who are going to bear much more outdoor recreation pressure than they'd see in a normal summer. But I do understand the intentions behind it.

Secondly, she mentions that the roughly 5 mile guideline might be different for people living in rural areas - hopefully that will be clarified.

In practice, as we come out of lockdown it is going to be tough for the police to spot people contravening the guidance. At the moment, there's not many reasons for people to be out and about in their cars, so it's easier for the police to identify potential wrongdoers. From Phase 1 onwards, it's going to be much trickier - I can't think of many beauty spots that are more than 5 miles from a settlement.

In reply to DaveHK:

> From a purely selfish stand point I'm pretty scunnered with that.

If you look at the relative Covid infection rates in different parts of Scotland you'd see the reason.  Glasgow is pretty bad, Lanarkshire isn't good, then Edinburgh but the Highlands are really low.  It is logical to get the infection rate in the cities down before letting the urban/rural population mix.

Post edited at 17:35
 ScraggyGoat 21 May 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

Things have stabilized, in fact they have improved considerably as the figures systematically show over the past three weeks, otherwise lockdown wouldn't be being eased, we are essentially at risk from each other, irrespective of whether you're a local or a visitor, its a community disease and it is present (fortunately currently in reducing prevalence), in nearly all Scottish communities.  Thinking its out there, not here, is missing the crucial point and undermines the infection control message. I do wish people wouldn't subscribe to the artificial 'them and us' division.

1
 DaveHK 21 May 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

> The guidance seems clear to me. Stick to within five miles from your home. I think the Scottish Government are being sensible and cautious with the support of the Scottish public. We all need to show a bit of solidarity, responsibility and stick to the guidelines. Until things have stabilised our rural communities need to be protected.

Sorry, my solidarity just ran out on the 5 mile thing. I will avoid rural communities and be sensible and discrete but I see no reason why I shouldn't drive 20 or 30 miles to run up a quiet hill on my own when I'm going to have to drive a similar distance to work every day and face much greater risks of transmission whilst there. 

4
In reply to DaveHK:

The 5 miles is a wee bit ludicrous because I can’t even get out of the city in that. Damn, I run further than that. 
 

I understand it’s to prevent the honeypots from being as busy as they were a week to the lockdown, but allowing to travel further means you spread out urban area a bit more. 
 

I’m biased as hell as I just want to run in the hills. My local area is becoming impassable whereas running 10 miles out makes a huge difference.

1
In reply to DaveHK:

I think from what she said (see video above) that you would be acting within guidelines provided you aren't spending time in a local community, maintain social distancing when near others and stay well within your capability. Her answers to questions were explicit that people were expected to: risk assess, limit travel, avoid crowded honeypots, maintain social distancing. 5 miles, sure, 20, fine if you live distant from the hills, 50... was there no where closer to get your fix?

In reply to PPP:

See my reply to DaveHK and the video of Nicola's answers to questions above. The 5 miles isn't a hard limit. 

 DaveHK 21 May 2020
In reply to AlH:

> I think from what she said (see video above) that you would be acting within guidelines provided you aren't spending time in a local community, maintain social distancing when near others and stay well within your capability. Her answers to questions were explicit that people were expected to: risk assess, limit travel, avoid crowded honeypots, maintain social distancing. 5 miles, sure, 20, fine if you live distant from the hills, 50... was there no where closer to get your fix?

I'm getting that laminated.

As you know I'd never have been going to honey pots anyway!

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Unfortunately they aren't scaling for population but it is pretty clear there's quite a big difference in severity between regions so good reason to limit travel.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-daily-data-for-scotland/

2
 RebeccaMM 21 May 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

There was a welsh roadmap released about a week ago here:

https://gov.wales/unlocking-our-society-and-economy-continuing-conversation

 rogerwebb 21 May 2020
In reply to AlH:

I think we need to wait for amendments to the regulations before we are able to work out what is and what isn't permissable.

It does seem a pity that there appears to be no allowance for regional variations until quite late in the process. 

In reply to AlH:

> See my reply to DaveHK and the video of Nicola's answers to questions above. The 5 miles isn't a hard limit. 

Yes, she said that the guidelines provided in further stages are going to be more nuanced.
There’s more room for interpretation and I’m getting the “staying alert” vibe.

I do want to do my best to contain the virus and not contribute to making it worse. I don’t want to feel bad if it spikes up again, knowing I might have been the one increasing the risk. At the same time, it’s outdoors that I miss the most and it’s a major factor in my wellbeing. I don’t have family in the UK, I don’t want to meet friends or go back to the office. Hills please! Exploring urban jungle is fun for so long. 

 Niceboy 21 May 2020
In reply to StuPoo2:

Nicola 's having a laugh at all our expense. Locked down for three weeks more than people in England, with no scientific evidence provided as to why.

It's interesting to see so many posters here supporting her obviously political decision to keep her Scottish 'subjects' under her control.

I would also be interested in knowing what political party many of the supporters of her Covid- 19 policy affiliate to. Are they posting on here for political reasons rather than practical ones ?

Let's be clear: it was always possible to drive a short distance to exercise and we know that that meant any number of times in the day, so all this guff about, " exercising more than once a day" or within 5 miles during phase 1 has been going on all through the lockdown period. If I am reading the route map correctly, it could be a difference of nine weeks with England before Scots can travel as freely as the English - why? ( speculation about a "second wave" disqualifies you from participating in rational discussion!).

With her dictatorial approach to this crisis, Nicola is in real danger of loosing the support of the majority of the people in Scotland. She has managed up until now, through her skills as an orator, allied to her stage management of her day briefings, to dupe people into thinking she is doing a , " good job" , but be in no doubt, all of this is highly political and designed to increase division and grievance with Westminster.

PS It's pretty obvious which political party I am NOT affiliated to!

PPS I am not a Tory either!

Post edited at 20:44
34
 rogerwebb 21 May 2020
In reply to Niceboy:

Or possibly she is a decent human being who is doing her best. You may not agree with her actions but they do seem to have a reasonable justification in the advice she has been given. 

4
 DaveHK 21 May 2020
In reply to Niceboy:

You actually make some valid points but they're diluted by you not living up to your screen name.

 pec 21 May 2020
In reply to StuPoo2:

I have to say I do genuinely feel sorry for those of you living in Scotland, effectively hiking and climbing is banned until hotels and pubs etc re-open. That's just madness and not informed by the science in any way. Perhaps a campaign of mass letter writing to MSPs is in order?

13
In reply to pec:

I think we all are making sacrifice and it’s not the time to be selfish. I want this to be over just as much as everyone else. 

Would you be able to share the science, which shows that hiking and climbing, which means travelling to remote areas where you might need to stop for fuel or food in remote villages, will not impact residents or NHS in the Highlands & Islands, MRT capacity and volunteers or the overall Covid-19 spread? Once you do, please share it with Scottish Government, so they can relax the rules. 
 

Sorry, just couldn’t ignore such ignorance. 

11
 Danbow73 21 May 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

Now I dont live in Scotland so have already been out climbing but I do think there needs to be a pretty high bar for restricting peoples freedoms In this way. We are a democracy after all. 

You can argue with the timing but I think the uk gov has got it largely right in terms of if we are asking people to return to work then it is unfair to restrict peoples movement to an arbitrary distance. Let's not forget if scottish phase 3 indeed happens in mid to early july then they'll essentially be a lock down for 4 months, which seems entirely disproportionate when you compare China's 59 day lockdown (4600 deaths) Italy's 70 day lock down (32000 deaths) to Scotland 2500 deaths.

I appreciate people north of the border may feel differently but I'd be pretty frustrated at these restrictions particularly as sturgeon is blatantly looking for ways she can diverge from the westminster plan for political gain. 

12
 pasbury 21 May 2020
In reply to Niceboy:

> PS It's pretty obvious which political party I am NOT affiliated to!

> PPS I am not a Tory either!

Monster Raving Loony?

5
 DaveHK 22 May 2020
In reply to StuPoo2:

Maybe we should all just bugger off to Greece for the summer? Sounds like it might be more accessible than the Scottish hills! 

In reply to AlH:

> I expect some pretty liberal interpretations of that....

With my pedant hat on I would say 'permitted' is intended to convey legal force but 'advice' is not.

So you can go as far as you like as long as you don't walk/cycle more than 5 miles from you starting point each day.   That would make a multi-day wild-camping trip within that rule if you start off from home and don't walk too far each day.

 daftdazza 22 May 2020

The current guidelines are largely ignored in Scotland now, and have been for several weeks,  I have never seen the parks in Glasgow so busy as last few days,  when thousands of people ignore the rules it becomes impossible to police, this does not just include sitting in a park, car use is increasing by the day, and a significant proportion of the population are already traveling further than 5 miles for excerise, visit family members and friends etc.

So from next week, aspects of the rules will largely be ignored, and it won't be possible to police.  People will travel crazy distances to hike, play golf, fish, canoe, play tennis etc, most people will be sensible and avoid rural towns etc, but many won't, which will create friction in places that will enhanced by the back ward nature of organisations like loch Lomond national park who i predicted wont reopen many car parks or toilets which will create problems in places such as Balloch, luss and drymen where people will travel to any way and try and park on the street and road verifies etc causing confrontation with local people.

Basically the Scottish government is easing restrictions to a level of what is already happening in Scotland by majority of the population, so I guess by the time the government moves to phase 3, most people will already be operating at that level anyway before we get there, with exception of buiensess that can't open until then.

But on the whole I think things will work out ok, and people will be happy and relieved to be able to get a little bit of life back to normal.

In reply to Danbow73:

> You can argue with the timing but I think the uk gov has got it largely right in terms of if we are asking people to return to work then it is unfair to restrict peoples movement to an arbitrary distance. Let's not forget if scottish phase 3 indeed happens in mid to early july then they'll essentially be a lock down for 4 months, which seems entirely disproportionate when you compare China's 59 day lockdown (4600 deaths) Italy's 70 day lock down (32000 deaths) to Scotland 2500 deaths.

As a percentage of population 2,500 deaths in 5 million population is a metric f*ckton worse than 4,600 deaths in 1.1 billion population.

> I appreciate people north of the border may feel differently but I'd be pretty frustrated at these restrictions particularly as sturgeon is blatantly looking for ways she can diverge from the westminster plan for political gain. 

There are four 'nations' (in quotes because Northern Ireland isn't a nation) in the so called four-nation policy.  One of them - England - diverged from the other three.   

The whole world with the exception of Trump is taking a different line from England.  The WHO have said Scotland's plan is sensible.   It is Westminster that is out on its own blatantly spinning bullsh*t to justify its actions e.g. comparisons with countries which have 5, 10 or 100 times smaller infection rates to imply that opening is reasonable because other countries are doing it.

The Scottish lockdown is already crumbling at the edges, you see far more people out and less discipline on social distancing and a lot of it is caused by the unionist and UK national press reporting continuously on the sh*t which comes out of Westminster and feeding people's natural desire to get out.  It is a disgrace and it will cost lives.  Two or three weeks from now the deaths which result from what is happening now will show through.

Post edited at 07:14
12
 Niceboy 22 May 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

You think that limiting the whole population of Scotland to exercising within a 5 mile limit until, possibly, August ( the start of Phase 3) is reasonable? I’m afraid I don’t.

PS Sorry, but a decent person would not have tried to create division by suggesting in a public briefing that the English Health Service was deliberately withholding PPE from Scotland ( later found to be false).

11
 Dr.S at work 22 May 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The plans are broadly similar.

 Niceboy 22 May 2020
In reply to PPP:

No one is suggesting that people in Scotland need to have exactly the same travel opportunities as England in Phase one. When France started its easing of the lockdown it decided to have a limit of 100 km on travel. The SG could have considered a similar approach in order to prevent the tensions caused in England.

What we want to know is the evidence that means Scots could be restricted in their travelling to 5 miles for exercise until, possibly, August. Perhaps you can provide that evidence?!

Post edited at 07:47
7
 Graeme G 22 May 2020
In reply to Niceboy:

> Nicola 's having a laugh

> With her dictatorial approach to this crisis, Nicola is in real danger of loosing the support of the majority of the people in Scotland.

to dupe people into thinking she is doing a , " good job" ,

but be in no doubt, all of this is highly political and designed to increase division

Do you have evidence to support any of these statements? Or are they, as I suspect, just your opinion?

3
 rogerwebb 22 May 2020
In reply to Niceboy:

> You think that limiting the whole population of Scotland to exercising within a 5 mile limit until, possibly, August ( the start of Phase 3) is reasonable? I’m afraid I don’t.

No I don't.

There is however a difference between disagreeing with someone and doubting their sincerity. 

> PS Sorry, but a decent person would not have tried to create division by suggesting in a public briefing that the English Health Service was deliberately withholding PPE from Scotland ( later found to be false).

She didn't. She responded to an allegation by seeking further information. Once the allegation was made she was bound to respond. If she had not then the story would have grown as fundamentalist nationalists repeated it as being true undermining her authority and creating greater division. That division might have led to the splintering of the whole effort to constrain coronavirus as we divided on political lines. 

Post edited at 08:24
2
 gavmac 22 May 2020
In reply to Danbow73:

Whilst I may not agree with everything Nicola does, I disagree with the narrative around her using everything as political point scoring. Sturgeon is cautious by nature, as has been proven by her approach to a 2nd independence referendum (which doesn't always make her popular with her own party). 

Sturgeon is consistent in her message and it's obvious she cares about people. She is in another league compared to the UK Govt. I know who I would rather have in charge. 

4
In reply to DaveHK:

> Maybe we should all just bugger off to Greece for the summer? Sounds like it might be more accessible than the Scottish hills! 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/coronavirus-greece-travel-warning-advice-uk-flights-infection-rate-tourism-a9525836.html%3famp

I'm not sure the Greeks are keen on that yet, we haven't got things under control as well as they have...

In reply to gavmac:

> Sturgeon is consistent in her message and it's obvious she cares about people. She is in another league compared to the UK Govt. I know who I would rather have in charge. 

I agree completely with this.

On the other hand I really feel pretty depressed this morning that it looks like almost nothing is going to change for me for the next two months unless I largely ignore the guidelines as many others will do. It does feel like a bit of a kick in the teeth.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The Scottish lockdown is already crumbling at the edges, you see far more people out and less discipline on social distancing and a lot of it is caused by the unionist and UK national press reporting continuously on the sh*t which comes out of Westminster and feeding people's natural desire to get out.  It is a disgrace and it will cost lives.  Two or three weeks from now the deaths which result from what is happening now will show through.

And your answer to this is?  Let me guess, censorship?

You do really seem to want to live in an authoritarian dictatorship - i.e. China.  You know they've lied about the number of cases there, no?

5
 Danbow73 22 May 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

If it's a 4 nation plan from which England is departing, why are wales and scotland doing different things? 

If it's crumbling around the edges why are the police being given the task of policing an arbitrary 5 mile rule when arguable it would be better to focus on people not social distancing or visiting peoples houses? 

I'm not familiar with the WHO's comments but I'd be interested to hear your justification for travelling 20miles to walk up a hill being in the same category as going to the gym.

Take your point about china but the Italian comparison still stands.

5
 joem 22 May 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

5 miles is an outrageous restriction if it was set somewhere in the 30-50 range i think this would retain. Large proportion of support but 5 miles is no distance a all. 
 

I live in Newcastle so south of the border, last night I drove 30 miles to go mountain biking. I tool note of how close 5 miles from home would have stopped me, barely out of town, and how close to my destination I’d have to be to travel there, it’s ridiculous locals couldn’t visit. 

1
In reply to StuPoo2:

Wonder if I can take a minimal detour (like<5 miles additional driving) on the way back from "essential sitework" to run up a hill, or go and do some shunting in a quarry, or have a wee solo boulder at wolfcrag....

 gavmac 22 May 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes, I completely understand that. I think the radius could have been increased somewhat (20-30 miles?) and then focus on dispersing people gathering at honeypot areas. Half of Glasgow will turn up at the Whangie or Dumgoyne Hill etc. Highland hills and crags will remain largely empty, other than those in the fortunate position of being very close at hand. Although, I think it will quickly reach tipping point as more people stretch the edges of the guidance.

It's worth saying that Sturgeon makes reference to the 5 mile guidance as that, guidance, not prescriptive. Then goes on to say that will be different in places like the Highlands, for example. 

1
In reply to Robert Durran:

> On the other hand I really feel pretty depressed this morning that it looks like almost nothing is going to change for me for the next two months unless I largely ignore the guidelines as many others will do. It does feel like a bit of a kick in the teeth.

Yeah, I'm feeling a bit down too.

However, the guidance is for it to be about five miles and NS specifically said that's a guide not a prescriptive rule - and that's 'from your local community', not from your house.

I think I'm probably going to stretch but not ignore it, taking it as driving a single figure number of miles from the edge of Stirling and avoiding busy places - that'd give me the Ochils, the Touch Hills, the Kilsyth Hills, the Fintry Hills and a couple of hills at the very edge of the Highlands (and also a few climbing venues and swimming spots) - as long as I can stay away from busy car parks. It isn't what I want, but it's a fair bit less restrictive than the last couple of months just walking from home and hopefully it'll be relaxed further in the coming weeks. Glasgow would have the Campsies, Kilpatrick Hills and Kilsyth Hills; Edinburgh looks stuck with the Pentlands and Holyrood Park (but Ratho Quarry could be OK.)

In reply to StuPoo2:

I note the word 'advice' is used... Hmmm. Climbing...

 Kevin Woods 22 May 2020
In reply to gavmac:

Places like Craigmore and Auchinstarry could become pretty rubbish for distancing quickly. I can't help but that a rule that's so restrictive, broadly similar to current circumstances, is more political. I guess though if I can disappear to the Kennedy Boulder, Balmaha will be a riot. 

 rogerwebb 22 May 2020
In reply to skog:

They are going to have to amend the regulations. After that things should be clearer. I would hope that they will be better written than the route map. 

Post edited at 09:24
 BruceM 22 May 2020

It is quite funny how the people accusing the Scottish FM in the comments sections of many media seem to be the ones who are doing the heavy politicizing.

In reply to rogerwebb:

Yep, it's a bit of a guddle, isn't it?

They have a week to make it clearer, before it happens - although they'd be better getting in quickly, before people get their minds set on things.

 ScraggyGoat 22 May 2020
In reply to PPP:

Would you be able to share the science, which shows that hiking and climbing,

Outdoor transmission risk is very, very low~

One impressive Chinese study, still in the preprint phase, examined 320 cities in China for every outbreak affecting three or more people. Not one was found to have occurred outdoors. Had the authors delved into two-person outbreaks, it still wouldn’t have changed much. Only one of out of the 7,324 cases fit the bill. In a village in Henan province, note the authors, a “27-year-old man had a conversation outdoors with an individual who had returned from Wuhan on 25 January and had the onset of symptoms on 1 February.” Even in that case, the people in question may have touched, shaken hands, or gotten very close for a long time.

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

See also WHO advice, and this is also backed up by our own governments hence the relaxation to allow tennis, fishing, golf, garden centres and outdoor markets (shortly) to open. To catch it outside you have to be in close proximity to an infectious individual to a protracted period, or touch a contaminated surface. 

which means travelling to remote areas where you might need to stop for fuel or food in remote villages, 

There is no need to stop for fuel or interact with local communities,  advice could clearly be given to that affect. Climber and hill walkers have been very responsible, as have the majority of the population.

will not impact residents or NHS in the Highlands & Islands,

NHS highland, and in fact the whole of Scotland has more capacity than normal at the moment to deal with the isolated case of trauma that would result from people being allowed to go to the hills. Thus no impact to the NHS, or locals accessing NHS services.

MRT capacity and volunteers 

This is the only argument that bears any weight, MRT are climbers and hill walkers for climbers and hill walkers. Thus we have a moral duty to consider the views of our own hill community, those that would potentially come to us. However also note that many MRT members are being pressurized by their local communities to say they do not want visitors....and are unhappy being placed in the position of arbitrators of whether people should go to the hills or not.

Once you do, please share it with Scottish Government, so they can relax the rules. 

as seen from above the governments current position has less to do with science or a logical stand-point and more to do with preserving the SNP's rural vote.

...and if the Scottish Government was so driven by Science and WHO guidelines why did they drop track and trace at the start................more politics

Post edited at 09:40
1
 Blunderbuss 22 May 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> As a percentage of population 2,500 deaths in 5 million population is a metric f*ckton worse than 4,600 deaths in 1.1 billion population.

> There are four 'nations' (in quotes because Northern Ireland isn't a nation) in the so called four-nation policy.  One of them - England - diverged from the other three.   

> The whole world with the exception of Trump is taking a different line from England.  The WHO have said Scotland's plan is sensible.   It is Westminster that is out on its own blatantly spinning bullsh*t to justify its actions e.g. comparisons with countries which have 5, 10 or 100 times smaller infection rates to imply that opening is reasonable because other countries are doing it.

> The Scottish lockdown is already crumbling at the edges, you see far more people out and less discipline on social distancing and a lot of it is caused by the unionist and UK national press reporting continuously on the sh*t which comes out of Westminster and feeding people's natural desire to get out.  It is a disgrace and it will cost lives.  Two or three weeks from now the deaths which result from what is happening now will show through.

So the Scottish people not abiding by the rules in their country is the fault of those outside of Scotland.....so predictable. 

10
 girlymonkey 22 May 2020
In reply to skog:

Yep, I am thinking Ochils are going to be my main stomping ground, but they are cracking local hills. I don't feel I can complain when we have them on our doorstep at the current time! I have been enjoying Gillies Hill and Lewis Hill during this time, and have felt lucky even with these as being runnable from my house. As lockdown goes, we are in not too bad a spot!

 DaveHK 22 May 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I agree completely with this.

> On the other hand I really feel pretty depressed this morning that it looks like almost nothing is going to change for me for the next two months unless I largely ignore the guidelines as many others will do. It does feel like a bit of a kick in the teeth.

As you might have gathered from my previous comments that's exactly how I feel. I know there's plenty of people in worse positions than me but I've been a very good boy for 2 months and I was very much hoping for a little relief. Instead, all phase one really means for me is that I get to return to a stressful workplace with a bunch of freaked out people. I've been supportive of the Scottish Govts actions so far but this is tough to take.

I hope that Roger is right and that the more detailed guidance offers some hope.

 gavmac 22 May 2020
In reply to Kevin Woods:

For sure, there will be some political element to it - given the Highlands have some pretty high profile politicians in Blackford, Forbes etc - and I think Sturgeon is hyper sensitive to the perception of people flooding rural areas. That's understandable given the footage we've seen from England over the last couple of weeks. Oh jeez, anywhere near Loch Lomond would be high on my avoid list!

 ScraggyGoat 22 May 2020
In reply to gavmac:

Oh jeez, anywhere near Loch Lomond would be high on my avoid list!

This can be all solved by Independence, Glasgow and Dundee voted for it, we should give it to them.  With appropriate border controls.....one in, one out......and we will start with them all in!

Ned problems and the rest of Scotlands concerns solved overnight, and Covid high transmission areas contained...whats not to like?

5
In reply to joem:

> 5 miles is an outrageous restriction if it was set somewhere in the 30-50 range i think this would retain. Large proportion of support but 5 miles is no distance a all. 

The five miles is obviously to stop places like Loch Lomond being mobbed by vast crowds from Glasgow (though it will be interesting to see the extent to which this happens anyway). For people who want to get to the hills or go climbing, 5 miles is, for most, going to make hardly any difference (I have been cycling that distance in half an hour to get to my nearest hill anyway). If it had been set at 30-50 miles almost everyone would have had their horizons greatly expanded and I think almost all hillgoers would have used the freedom responsibly - it is easy to drive somewhere for the day without any interaction with others. As it is we are all going to be paying for a blanket restriction not really aimed at us. Of course, many will ignore it..........

 gavmac 22 May 2020
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

Well, Glen Etive would be a hell of a lot cleaner for a start!

I had completely forgotten that these were the only regions to vote Yes. 

3
In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

> Wonder if I can take a minimal detour (like<5 miles additional driving) on the way back from "essential sitework" to run up a hill, or go and do some shunting in a quarry, or have a wee solo boulder at wolfcrag....

I've been taking that line. I've twice had to drive for work during lockdown and it has taken me to the foot of the Ochils where I have taken full advantage - had a wonderful evening yesterday on the hills. Just a shame the sense of wellbeing has been pretty much immediately snuffed out by disappointment at the almost non-existent easing of restrictions

 ScraggyGoat 22 May 2020
In reply to gavmac:

If the proposed border was moved to the Highland Boundary fault, Grampian, the Highlands and Islands, Western and Northern Isles would probably vote Yes tomorrow!

 Fat Bumbly2 22 May 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

No hills, no freshwater angling in my 128π square km (half of that is sea). I was so optimistic that things were going to be a little better but it appears that the restrictions are to get tighter. Cycling seriously curtailed as well as continued loss of hill access.  The linking with pubs opening is particularly sinister. An urban summer - still got the beach though.

Sold to us as some sweeties if we behave ourselves, but the jar is well out of reach

 Flinticus 22 May 2020
In reply to skog:

> Yeah, I'm feeling a bit down too.

> I think I'm probably going to stretch but not ignore it, taking it as driving a single figure number of miles from the edge of Stirling and avoiding busy places - that'd give me the Ochils, the Touch Hills, the Kilsyth Hills, the Fintry Hills and a couple of hills at the very edge of the Highlands (and also a few climbing venues and swimming spots) - as long as I can stay away from busy car parks. It isn't what I want, but it's a fair bit less restrictive than the last couple of months just walking from home and hopefully it'll be relaxed further in the coming weeks. Glasgow would have the Campsies, Kilpatrick Hills and Kilsyth Hills; Edinburgh looks stuck with the Pentlands and Holyrood Park (but Ratho Quarry could be OK.)

From my position not far into the south of Glasgow (Shawlands area), Strathblane is just over 16km (10 miles) and Earl's Seat in the Campsies a further 4.5km.

That's probably pushing it as acceptable! Not to mention I could only consider them at the weekend and I imagine they will be mobbed, and parking will be a nightmare, so have no appeal to me.

Thing don't significantly improve until guidance stretches to 40 miles, then I can get to Barassie Beach (the dog loves it) or Luss / The Trossachs & Queen Elizabeth Forest Park

 pec 22 May 2020
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

> Would you be able to share the science, which shows that hiking and climbing,

> Outdoor transmission risk is very, very low~

etc etc

Thanks for taking the trouble to reply to PPP at some length. Since his post was in response to mine I was going to reply myself but it was getting late and I thought what's the point? He (and quite a few others) have clearly got themselves into a bunker mentality and have become institutionalised into hiding themselves away and aren't going to come out until who knows when.

In the meantime I repeat, I do feel really sorry for those of you in Scotland living under virtual house arrest by a policy which has no basis in science. No walking in areas more than 5 miles from home until the same time as bars, pubs and hotels etc re-open is madness.

6
In reply to pec:

> In the meantime I repeat, I do feel really sorry for those of you in Scotland living under virtual house arrest by a policy which has no basis in science. No walking in areas more than 5 miles from home until the same time as bars, pubs and hotels etc re-open is madness.

I completely agree.  I do see benefit in the French policy of I think no more than 60km from home (I think it was that?) which would keep the honeypotting under control by stopping the whole of London decamping to the Lakes and Cornwall in one go[1], but fundamentally at this stage the risk posed by someone running a marathon or going for a 50 mile bike ride is incredibly low, and to prevent this is just unnecessary and bad on peoples' mental health.

In Scottish terms I can see why they don't want everyone in Fort William at once, but I equally can see no reason why Edinburghers (is that the word) shouldn't go to the Pentlands if they want, say.

[1] I wouldn't mind going to either, but 10 hours' driving for a day hike is just too much.

Post edited at 10:40
1
In reply to pec:

> No walking in areas more than 5 miles from home until the same time as bars, pubs and hotels etc re-open is madness.

That isn't really the policy, though, is it? It appears to be no driving to areas much more than 5 miles from your "local community", with some discretion allowed. And phase 2 doesn't yet have a recommended distance for travel, just "locally"; it's phase 3 before pubs and bars can open in a restricted manner.

I think it's too restrictive, but it certainly isn't 'virtual house arrest'. But it's still pretty depressing, I'm even looking forward to getting back to work (but not sure when that will be).

1
In reply to Flinticus:

I'd be applying a liberal definition of your "local community" if I was you.

5ish miles from the edge of Glasgow would give you a few more options - but yeah, a lot of them are probably going to get very busy.

 Niceboy 22 May 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

French policy was 100km, so 60 miles, which should have been the sort of thing that the SG considered - they have had enough time!. To suggest around 5 miles for leisure exercise is a (sick) joke; why people on here support it is beyond me (it doesn't really as it all about their political beliefs!).

Post edited at 11:14
11
 DaveHK 22 May 2020
In reply to Niceboy:

> French policy was 100km, so 60 miles, which should have been the sort of thing that the SG considered - they have had enough time!. To suggest around 5 miles for leisure exercise is a (sick) joke; why people on here support it is beyond me (it doesn't really as it all about their political beliefs!).

I don't think there's been much support for it at all on here. Without scanning the whole thread I can only remember one post supporting it. There might be people expressing and understanding of why it's been done but that's not the same as supporting.

 Niceboy 22 May 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

Expressing an understanding of why it is being done sounds very like supporting to me!

PS Within first five posts - 

"Seems like a sensible and cautious approach unlike that here in England."

Post edited at 11:45
5
 gavmac 22 May 2020
In reply to Niceboy:

Well it sounds like you live in a world of black and white, so that's understandable. 

1
 Jon Greengrass 22 May 2020
In reply to Niceboy:

> Let's be clear: it was always possible to drive a short distance to exercise and we know that that meant any number of times in the day, so all this guff about, " exercising more than once a day" or within 5 miles during phase 1 has been going on all through the lockdown period. 

It was possible but unlawful in Scotland. You are free to break the law if you are prepared to deal with the consequences.

 Niceboy 22 May 2020
In reply to gavmac:

And what colour is your world, tartan I presume?

14
 DaveHK 22 May 2020
In reply to Niceboy:

> Expressing an understanding of why it is being done sounds very like supporting to me!

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

1
 gavmac 22 May 2020
In reply to Niceboy:

What a bizarre response. 

 Niceboy 22 May 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

Sounds like BS to me!

Post edited at 12:09
7
 Niceboy 22 May 2020
In reply to gavmac:

No more than yours!

7
 Blunderbuss 22 May 2020
In reply to Niceboy:

> French policy was 100km, so 60 miles, which should have been the sort of thing that the SG considered - they have had enough time!. To suggest around 5 miles for leisure exercise is a (sick) joke; why people on here support it is beyond me (it doesn't really as it all about their political beliefs!).

Oh yes, you can guarantee some are only supporting it because Wee Jimmy Crankie has not given them the same freedom as Boris gave the English.... 

7
 Niceboy 22 May 2020
In reply to Jon Greengrass:

Please direct me to the official SG document that says that driving a short distance by car to exercise is, "illegal". Thanks.

3
 rogerwebb 22 May 2020
In reply to Niceboy:

> Expressing an understanding of why it is being done sounds very like supporting to me!

In what way? 

 gavmac 22 May 2020
In reply to Niceboy:

You seem very shouty and black and white in your comments - I'm simply responding to that. I'm always suspicious of people who overuse question marks and exclamation marks  

This thread has, largely, been marked by people expressing quite nuanced opinions on what is a complex issue for governments to deal with. 

Post edited at 12:13
In reply to Niceboy:

> Expressing an understanding of why it is being done sounds very like supporting to me!

Well, I suppose I can understand why you might think that...

 Niceboy 22 May 2020
In reply to gavmac:

I apologise if that is how I am coming across.

Eight weeks of lockdown and then discovering with the route map the possibility of another eight weeks ( or more) before getting out in any significant way when I really don't understand. the reasons why, has just got to me.

I will attempt to be more "coloured" in my approach!😀

Post edited at 12:17
2
 gavmac 22 May 2020
In reply to Niceboy:

You were doing so well until that final exclamation mark

In all serious though, I completely understand the frustration. Strange times for sure.

2
 Jon Greengrass 22 May 2020
In reply to Niceboy:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/103/regulation/8

Leaving your house without a reasonable excuse is unlawful, good luck with your defence.

 alastairmac 22 May 2020
In reply to StuPoo2:

I think the approval ratings for the Scottish Government's handing of the current crisis and those for the First Minister, demonstrate that most of us in Scotland recognise that they're doing a good job in difficult circumstances. In such a rapidly changing environment and with sometimes limited information clearly some of the decisions and guidance may be questionable. But I'm reassured by the more cautious approach in Scotland which recognises the regional variations at play in Scotland and the fragility of some communities. I hope most of us act responsibly and stay within the spirit of the current guidelines and work with our politicians, police services, MRT teams and local communities to protect ourselves and others....a second spike would be a tragedy at this stage....in human and economic terms.

2
 Graeme G 22 May 2020
In reply to Niceboy:

It’s nice to see someone on here show a little humility(?). I think it’s very easy for all of us to come across as opinionated and blinkered when we post on the internet.

But yes it is frustrating, there’s nothing in Phase 1 that I haven’t been doing for weeks, although I do live relatively rural so probably have an ‘edge’.

 Niceboy 22 May 2020
In reply to Jon Greengrass:

Surely leaving your house for the purpose of exercise is a reasonable excuse? 

You seem to be very sure of what you have written, are you a solicitor? If so, I would be grateful if you could point me to the specific section of the legislation that says driving a short distance to exercise is " illegal" as the linked document appears to be legal gobbledook to me.

PS Do you believe the people who are currently driving to supermarkets to buy food and who are visiting B and Q by car are also doing something, "unlawful" and will need good luck with their defence?

5
 joem 22 May 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

I'd be interested in seeing how this changes now. as before now I'd have, had I lived in scotland agreed but now I think this punitive.

2
 Niceboy 22 May 2020
In reply to StuPoo2:

"In an interview with BBC Scotland, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said there could be some "flexibility" in terms of travelling in phase one and urged people to use their own "judgement"."

Think Sturgeon, like Johnson, has made a mistake in not specifying a reasonable radius of travel in Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the easing of the lockdown. Johnson has been too cavalier in his free for all approach in England, whilst Sturgeon has been too restrictive.

Her comment to BBC Scotland will just mean that many people will put their own interpretation on the travel advice from the SG I think, especially as she is allowing people to travel further to visit parents. (So, lucky you if you live in Glasgow but your parents live on Skye - can you camp in their garden?! - or maybe not depending on how the locals react!).

Post edited at 14:08
2
In reply to Niceboy:

Could you stop it with this reasonable talk, please? It's confusing me, we're supposed to be polarised. ;-)

Actually, I think there's a fundamental problem with specifying a distance restriction. There's probably virtually no risk from me travelling 50 miles north for a day walk on Ben Lui, but if they said 50 miles travel was OK people would be travelling freely across the Central Belt, between Glasgow and Edinburgh and all surroundings. And most people are wanting to visit other people or places where lots of other people go - hillwalkers and climbers (and canoeists and others) are a minority exception.

Also, remember that for a lot of people, 'visiting the Highlands' means joining the throngs at Loch Lomond, the Trossachs or Callander, looking at some nice views, doing a bit of shopping, having a wee wander and a bite to eat or something to drink.

I think we're just being squashed by the sledgehammer-of-lowest-common-denominator. It's hard to communicate much nuance in headline guidance, and they're trying to go for a clear message (and failing quite badly, I fear).

The real message should probably be more like 'don't go where lots of other people are, unless you just can't avoid it; keep a distance from others; if you're far from home be sure to avoid visiting shops and other facilities where you could spread the disease, don't go anywhere you can't manage without refueling'.

1
 gavmac 22 May 2020
In reply to skog:

> The real message should probably be more like 'don't go where lots of other people are, unless you just can't avoid it; keep a distance from others; if you're far from home be sure to avoid visiting shops and other facilities where you could spread the disease, don't go anywhere you can't manage without refueling'.

This is pretty much the message Johnson gave down south!

 gparn 22 May 2020
In reply to StuPoo2:

Sturgeon's comments in today's briefing, when pressed on whether you can drive more than 5 miles to sit in your parents garden would suggest a similar common sense approach would also apply (or at least be in the offing) to driving to outdoor spaces (i.e. it's fine if you need to but don't use the loo or go to the shops). It also suggests the 5 mile limit will not be in the regs but only in guidance (and only then in a very vague sense).

I think it's probably a case of not having registered that people might want to drive to walk up a hill in the middle of nowhere, rather than having come to the conclusion that it should be explicitly prohibited. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

> This is pretty much the message Johnson gave down south!

Loosely, I suppose. So maybe it just doesn't work when you don't lay down some tighter rules.

We'll find out in a fortnight or so when we see whether there's a significant resurgence in cases in England.

In reply to gavmac:

That's a really good post from them, thanks.

 gavmac 22 May 2020
In reply to skog:

On a side note. After what feels like weeks of sunshine and dry weather in Fort William, the midges and rain have arrived in force. The wee bast**rds were listening to our esteemed First Minister and are preparing to devour the locals. Typical. 

Post edited at 14:51
In reply to Niceboy:

> Think Sturgeon, like Johnson, has made a mistake in not specifying a reasonable radius of travel in Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the easing of the lockdown. Johnson has been too cavalier in his free for all approach in England, whilst Sturgeon has been too restrictive.

Her problem is that Glasgow has a fairly bad infection rate, followed by Lanarkshire, then Edinburgh but some of the Highlands and Islands are already at zero or near zero.   The goal is to get everywhere near zero so it is safe to move about again.   If you let people from the cities go into the highlands/islands then you are reversing the status of the areas that are already clear or almost clear rather than gradually clearing more areas.

Obviously someone going to a remote munro in their own car and not using local shops or toilets isn't going to spread Covid but, equally, they aren't going to do anything at all for the local economy in the region they are visiting and if everybody uses cars rather than public transport and its actually the honeypot munros that get all the traffic the roads will get filled up.

The rush to open up, which is being forced by UK government is back to front.  The way to get this done faster is to lock down harder in places with the largest infection rate, get R << 1 so the infection rate falls faster and you get to the safe level which can be managed by test and trace quicker.

In reply to StuPoo2:

So, I didn't read it all, but I think no mention of law/legal changes, so is anyone aware of what's legally going to be permitted, rather than should be/is advised? I will take 'advice' under consideration, but I'd like to know if I'm going to get fined for not following advice and if so, how much. Any ideas where I can find this information?

In reply to Dr.S at work:

> The plans are broadly similar.

The plans are wildly different.

The English plans have pressure on getting people to return to work and reopening schools at the beginning of June and the sentiment which is being pushed through the media is that it's all under control and getting back to normal which encourages a breakdown in discipline about social distancing.  The washing hands and two metre thing aren't going to stop this, we've been controlling it slowly by limiting the amount we go out and meet other people at all.

I hope it doesn't but this could all go horrendously wrong.  Apart from London, where a significant fraction of the mobile population have already caught it and presumably have (potentially temporary) immunity much of England is, like Scotland, wide open to a second spike.   It will be an unpopular opinion but when you've already caught it the risk/reward balance looks different and far too many of the decision makers live in London and have already caught it.

Interestingly, the scenario the UK government chose for reopening schools was not even modeled by their SAGE scientists and is significantly more aggressive than the scientists preferred option.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/may/22/ministers-rejected-school-reopening-plan-recommended-by-sage-experts

The other variable I see is hay fever season.  Sneezes expel air and large amounts of virus explosively and it spreads far further than 2m if someone isn't wearing a mask.

It looks to me like these guys are either complete morons that are operating off 'common sense' and thinking we have 'got through it' and it won't just start going exponential again or they still have an underlying herd immunity strategy and now the hospitals are empty they want to get another batch of people infected. 

Post edited at 17:55
1
In reply to rogerwebb:

> She didn't. She responded to an allegation by seeking further information. Once the allegation was made she was bound to respond. If she had not then the story would have grown as fundamentalist nationalists repeated it as being true undermining her authority and creating greater division. 

One of the largest PPE distributors used by care homes in Scotland put a notice on its website saying that Public Health England had told it not to supply Scotland.   Obviously people are going to ask questions when there was supposed to be 'four nations' co-ordination on PPE procurement.

After that there were different stories from different agencies until it got smoothed over. 

A central problem is that some UK government agencies also have England-only areas of responsibility because England doesn't have a devolved government.

L Spurtle 22 May 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The Scottish lockdown is already crumbling at the edges, you see far more people out and less discipline on social distancing and a lot of it is caused by the unionist and UK national press reporting continuously on the sh*t which comes out of Westminster and feeding people's natural desire to get out.  It is a disgrace and it will cost lives.  Two or three weeks from now the deaths which result from what is happening now will show through.

Oh FFS. How toe curlingly embarassing.

Honestly mate, when you transfer from the Twitter and FB bubbles that you plainly spend a lot of time on to a transnational forum would you mind considering the changed audience?

You make us look like a bunch of parochial, paranoid halfwits.

Pas devant les enfants!

7
In reply to Spurtle:

> You make us look like a bunch of parochial, paranoid halfwits.

2,500 people have already died in Scotland.

We have not significantly advanced our options for treating this virus.

It is not paranoid to think if we end reduce the measures which are holding R < 1 without substituting something equally effective then infections will start growing exponentially.  It's a certainty.   Test and trace could potentially be equally effective provided the total number of infections is very small.  Right now the total number of infections is not small and the test and trace system is not ready.

What we have is a conflict between the maths of a physical process and what people's 'common sense' and socialisation leads them to expect or consider 'fair'.   Competent Government has to follow the maths and communicate to people why it is doing what it is doing, not follow public sentiment.

2
 Eric9Points 23 May 2020
In reply to gavmac:

> Sturgeon is consistent in her message and it's obvious she cares about people. She is in another league compared to the UK Govt. I know who I would rather have in charge. 

I'm baffled by these sorts of statements when Scotland hasn't diverged in any meaningful way from the strategy of the UK in general up until now. Basically it's been the same policy, more or less with different spin.

Anyway.

The five miles thing seems like bollocks to me. It will concentrate people in the central belt into locations near cities. I can imagine the Pentlands being absolutely packed out in a week's time while the Mamores will be deserted. Provided one does not interact with others I see no risk in driving any distance to an empty hill for some climbing or walking. The point is that the hill is empty and you don't interact with the locals.

7
In reply to Eric9Points:

> The five miles thing seems like bollocks to me. It will concentrate people in the central belt into locations near cities. I can imagine the Pentlands being absolutely packed out in a week's time while the Mamores will be deserted.

The Pentlands are a huge area compared with the city parks. 

> Provided one does not interact with others I see no risk in driving any distance to an empty hill for some climbing or walking. The point is that the hill is empty and you don't interact with the locals.

There is a compelling reason to keep the population of the city from mixing with the rural population when infection rates in the cities are still high.  If you allow exceptions it will become unenforceable - with hardly any cars on the roads except for locals the cops have a chance.   How do you stop people going into any business that is open?   They might start out with good intentions but if you need fuel or want to buy some food or water would you give up the trip or just take the risk.

3
L Spurtle 24 May 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> 2,500 people have already died in Scotland.

> We have not significantly advanced our options for treating this virus.

> It is not paranoid to think if we end reduce the measures which are holding R < 1 without substituting something equally effective then infections will start growing exponentially.  It's a certainty.   Test and trace could potentially be equally effective provided the total number of infections is very small.  Right now the total number of infections is not small and the test and trace system is not ready.

> What we have is a conflict between the maths of a physical process and what people's 'common sense' and socialisation leads them to expect or consider 'fair'.   Competent Government has to follow the maths and communicate to people why it is doing what it is doing, not follow public sentiment.

Well done. You just made a reasonably rational statement without targetting the UK or unionist conspiracies and without lauding your own side of our regional/national debate.

Perhaps very focussed on Covid health impact and light on lockdown and economic health impacts, but definitely less embarassing than the conspiracy theories.

...and repeat.

2

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.