Significant minority find lockdown 'extremely difficult', poll suggests

[whole diary]

[TonyK]

A neighbour visited me yesterday, briefly, outdoors only and maintaining two meters social distancing.
Reason was to collect groceries that I had ordered from Tesco for them, to collect toilet rolls from my strategic reserve, and some hand sanitiser made from supplies stockpiled in advance.

Does this count as "buying essentials" which is allowed but does this have to be buying have to be from a shop ? Or does it count as a prohibited social visit.

It depends. The regulations say:

(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—

(a)to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the household of a vulnerable person, or to obtain money, including from any business listed in Part 3 of Schedule

So if they are vulnerable, you can leave the house to buy their groceries, but they might not be allowed to come to yours to collect them. This seems to be a case of no-one having considered that a person might buy shopping for a neighbour for them to collect from their home, rather than dropping them off.

[JontyMort]

A neighbour visited me yesterday, briefly, outdoors only and maintaining two meters social distancing.
Reason was to collect groceries that I had ordered from Tesco for them, to collect toilet rolls from my strategic reserve, and some hand sanitiser made from supplies stockpiled in advance.

Does this count as "buying essentials" which is allowed but does this have to be buying have to be from a shop ? Or does it count as a prohibited social visit.

It depends. The regulations say:

(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—

(a)to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the household of a vulnerable person, or to obtain money, including from any business listed in Part 3 of Schedule

So if they are vulnerable, you can leave the house to buy their groceries, but they might not be allowed to come to yours to collect them. This seems to be a case of no-one having considered that a person might buy shopping for a neighbour for them to collect from their home, rather than dropping them off.

It’s fine, Tony. You - as you say - are “obtain[ing] basic necessities... for vulnerable persons”. The vulnerable person - in collecting those supplies from you - is “obtain[ing] basic necessities”. The use of the word “obtain” makes it clear that no purchase is necessary.

Besides which, the overriding wording in Regulation 6(1) is “without reasonable excuse”. Reg 6(2) outlines a number of things that are definitely reasonable excuses, but the fact that something is not mentioned in 6(2) doesn’t preclude it from being a reasonable excuse. This last point is the one that has more than anything else got the police into difficulties.

[TonyK]

It’s fine, Tony. You - as you say - are “obtain[ing] basic necessities... for vulnerable persons”. The vulnerable person - in collecting those supplies from you - is “obtain[ing] basic necessities”. The use of the word “obtain” makes it clear that no purchase is necessary.

Besides which, the overriding wording in Regulation 6(1) is “without reasonable excuse”. Reg 6(2) outlines a number of things that are definitely reasonable excuses, but the fact that something is not mentioned in 6(2) doesn’t preclude it from being a reasonable excuse. This last point is the one that has more than anything else got the police into difficulties.

Which leads us to the essential question: Is everything forbidden unless it is expressly allowed, or is everything allowed unless it is expressly forbidden?

In the end, it will all be down to the British public rather than these regulations. People are dying, and most would prefer not to join them. The extremes of idiotic behaviour by sections of a bored populace and over-enthusiastic application of the rules by some police and others aside, I reckon it will not be a big issue come the aftermath.

[JontyMort]

It’s fine, Tony. You - as you say - are “obtain[ing] basic necessities... for vulnerable persons”. The vulnerable person - in collecting those supplies from you - is “obtain[ing] basic necessities”. The use of the word “obtain” makes it clear that no purchase is necessary.

Besides which, the overriding wording in Regulation 6(1) is “without reasonable excuse”. Reg 6(2) outlines a number of things that are definitely reasonable excuses, but the fact that something is not mentioned in 6(2) doesn’t preclude it from being a reasonable excuse. This last point is the one that has more than anything else got the police into difficulties.

Which leads us to the essential question: Is everything forbidden unless it is expressly allowed, or is everything allowed unless it is expressly forbidden?

In the end, it will all be down to the British public rather than these regulations. People are dying, and most would prefer not to join them. The extremes of idiotic behaviour by sections of a bored populace and over-enthusiastic application of the rules by some police and others aside, I reckon it will not be a big issue come the aftermath.

Exactly that. We hear that about 1,000 fines have been issued - an incredibly small number really - and both the public and the police should take that fact as a compliment.

English law - I must declare an interest here! - loves words like “reasonably” because you don’t have to say where the line is, as long as you can say which side of the line a given situation lies. Hence the rare extremes have been obvious cock-ups rather than conspiracies.

[stuving]

Exactly that. We hear that about 1,000 fines have been issued - an incredibly small number really - and both the public and the police should take that fact as a compliment.

English law - I must declare an interest here! - loves words like “reasonably” because you don’t have to say where the line is, as long as you can say which side of the line a given situation lies. Hence the rare extremes have been obvious cock-ups rather than conspiracies.

Certainly, enforcement styles vary a lot, more I suspect than the degree of compliance. Looking for some recent figures, I can find a couple: In Italy, by 4th April, 176,767 people had had some action taken against them, presumably fixed fines. And in France, from 18th March to 8th April, 530,000 fines had been issued!

[Bmblbzzz]

Different people react differently to the current strange situation. A friend told me yesterday (face to face, but it's all legit: we were several metres apart and he lives on a street near me on which I was taking my daily mandated exercise – run) that his mum, very gregarious, is finding it tough, whereas his stepfather, solitary by nature, would like it to go on for ever... Both in self-isolation together due to age and poor underlying health.

[JayMac]

A view not based on any actual regulation, that outdoor exercise is limited to an hour. How long until parking wardens are re deployed to ticket people who have been out for 64 minutes ?

I believe we can blame Michael Gove for that. Responding to a question on the Andrew Marr Show on 5th April. To be fair to Mr Gove he did make it clear it was a suggestion only, and that it depended on one's level of fitness. Sadly the 'suggestion' has been repeated in the media as a 'rule' and has been used as stick to beat others by social media busybodies.

I have fallen victim to this. Yesterday, bored with laps of the local recreation ground, I decided to take Finn on a 3 mile circular walk around Templecombe and the neighbouring countryside, using lanes and public footpaths. I'm not that fit so I took a few rests en route. I took photographs of things that caught my eye on the walk. I got home 90 minutes later.

I posted pictures on the Templecombe Village Facebook page, which generally received a positive response. There were some minor concerns that there may have been livestock in fields that the public footpath crossed, but that's a perennial issue, and not an issue specific to Coronavirus. I followed the Countryside Code with regard to walking with dogs, and, as it happens, there were no farm animals in the fields I crossed.

Someone asked me in the comments how long my walk took. I replied honestly that it took 90 minutes and that I was taking it easy.

Later that evening I got a personal message from the Facebook page's administrator. Saying:

Hi Justin.. I love your pictures and am keen to encourage such walks... As you say people must stay responsible.... Please do me a big favour and edit out the 90 min.
The gov guidelines are an hour. I am having a hard balancing act keeping controversy out of the group which I want to remain happy and informative..

I could've let that slide, but I felt that if the administrator wanted to be informative he should know the actual guidelines. I declined to edit my post explaining why I was refusing.

I understand where you're coming from.

However, I can find no time limit guideline in official government advice on daily exercise. I believe 'one hour' was a suggestion from Michael Gove in response to a question on The Andrew Marr Show. As is so often the case, this answer has been repeated in the media and has been mistakenly attributed as an official guideline. You've made the same mistake. Its not official government advice. Michael Gove was careful to clarify his suggestion with the caveat that it depends on fitness levels. The official advice is to go out only once a day for exercise and to minimise time outside. My walk could have been done quicker by a fitter person. Am I not allowed to do the same route because I'm out of condition?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do#when-am-i-allowed-to-leave-the-house

I don't like to censor my posts where not justified. My '90 minutes' was an honest response to a question. With the caveat that I was taking it easy.

The actual legislation (Section 6 The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020) makes no mention of a time limit for the once a day exercise.

I hope you appreciate where I'm coming from. I fully complied with actual government guidelines. I went out alone for exercise and to walk my dog. I stayed 2 metre away from anyone else. I minimised my time outside. In addition to official guidelines I sanitised all metal stiles I touched, avoided touching wooden stiles with my hands wherever possible, and I fully complied with the Countryside Code.

My answer to the question of how long my walk took remains in place on the Facebook page. No one else has batted an eyelid.

[Marlburian]

As can be inferred from my previous posts, I do longer walks than that, having been used to them for many years. Now I plan them very carefully to avoid sensitive spots and set off very early in the morning and taking care with stiles and gates. In six hours the other day I met just five or six joggers and dog-walkers (before I encountered the two police I mentioned the other day).

Far safer than doing the same old walks of an hour or so, mostly on urban paths, dodging other people, not least cyclists who still opt for pavements even though there's hardly any traffic on the roads.

It looks as if people of my age may be expected to more or less safe-isolate for another 18 months - not an appealing prospect for an outdoor type such as myself, who finds 16 hours inside the house makes for a very long day.

[grahame]

... Now I plan them very carefully to avoid sensitive spots and set off very early in the morning and taking care with stiles and gates ... before I encountered the two police I mentioned the other day.

I suspect they did not challenge you based not so much on your age, but on the time of day.  From The Metro

It usually occurs in outdoor parking areas, woodland spots, quiet lanes and public parks after dark, when it’s unlikely that others will be around.

Back to quoting Marlburian

Far safer than doing the same old walks of an hour or so, mostly on urban paths, dodging other people, not least cyclists who still opt for pavements even though there's hardly any traffic on the roads.

I am ... relieved that is "dodging" - 2 x d and 1 x g, and not 1 x d and 2 x g ... something I wouldn't have thought of in Berkshire.

It looks as if people of my age may be expected to more or less safe-isolate for another 18 months - not an appealing prospect for an outdoor type such as myself, who finds 16 hours inside the house makes for a very long day.

Yeah - it ain't going to open up quickly, is it - and as Lee was commenting about France earlier this morning (I think that was on a public board) it looks like it will be by age and vulnerability bands.  Probably tomorrow, I'll looking to write a "and so for the rest of 2020" planning thread.    May slip a day or two; while time is no longer so much of the essence, I'm not short of things to do.  But, dear reader, I appreciate the interaction in places like this far more than I can say - THANK YOU for being here and posting.

[bobm]

The one thing that is starting to grate with me is being implored to “Stay home”.  To my mind it should be “Stay at home”.

[Robin Summerhill]

The one thing that is starting to grate with me is being implored to “Stay home”.  To my mind it should be “Stay at home”.

Interesting that you should say that, as only this afternoon I was listening to Stephen Fry on R4 having a discussion about language in general and English in particular. One item that sunk in longer term was his ssertion that, rather than being simpified by shoddy grammar etc, the language actually gets more complicated down the generations, as words hitherto thought uneccesary become estabished grammar.

So I'm just curious - what in your view does the phrase "stay at home" convey that the phrase "stay home" doesn't?

(With a spot of luck we could get a whole new sub-thread out of this  )

[Bmblbzzz]

Perhaps "stay (at) home" is undergoing a process similar to that previously seen in "go (to) home".

[Bob_Blakey]

I don't ever recall seeing the phrase 'go to home' used as an instruction except perhaps on a game board - or should that be 'board game board'? Common usage would I think be either 'go home' or 'go to your home'.

[Marlburian]

Just returned from an exemplary one-hour of exercise, that took in pavements and a couple of parks. I met far more people in that hour than I did in my seven hours out on Good Friday, and several had obvious infirmities. After wandering around one park and heading for an exit, I realised it had a gate that needed unlatching and re-latching; as I approached, someone opened and closed it with bare hands, so I used another, ungated, exit.

I resisted the temptation to buy milk and a newspaper, and my eyebrows flickered when I passed a couple of people who looked as if they were returning from the newsagents with just a paper, the purchase of which presumably required an exchange of coins. (I gather that shop staff do not appreciate people who go in just for a lottery ticket.)

Then I popped into a deserted Tilehurst Station and pulled out a Metro from halfway down a small untidy heap. (So presumably untouched by human hand.) Self-consciously I carried it home, fearful that people might think that I too had been to a newsagent.

[Bmblbzzz]

I don't ever recall seeing the phrase 'go to home' used as an instruction except perhaps on a game board - or should that be 'board game board'? Common usage would I think be either 'go home' or 'go to your home'.

Home is the only noun used directly following go without a preposition. Why? Presumably because 'go home' (or 'I'm going home' etc) is such a common phrase. So I'm surmising, without having actually researched (   :facepalm:) that originally – probably very early in the development of English – there was an intervening 'to', which it has become normal and correct to omit.