Covid-19

[Grumps]

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but its definitely busier out and about this last few days than in recent weeks. I think people are easing their own lockdown restrictions.

The restrictions have been eased. You can travel for exercise, you can exercise more than once a day and cemeteries have reopened, more excuses for people to be out and about.

[dushanbe]

The restrictions haven’t been eased at all, they were clarified last week. People have struggled to get their heads round it for some reason. Nothing has changed officially since the restrictions were introduced.

[Elizabeth]

Anyone capable can go out to exercise at the moment if they choose to do so. If they are able and they don't choose to do so I hardly think they could complain about the golfers , tennis players etc being given the opportunity to do something they enjoy.
Maybe these people who don't like to walk, run, cycle could try taking up a physical pastime that involves being out in the open and could be safely practiced.
When I'm at the Prairie cafe I see adults with learning disabilities go on the golfing range , wouldn't it be nice to give them this opportunity again.
I do though have a lot of empathy with those who enjoy their indoor exercise but would not get any respite from the current situation due to the difficulty in adhering to the 2m social distancing .

[RingoMcCartney]

One of the ICU nurses responsible for caring for Boris has today dismissed ridiculous claims that the PM was moved to intensive care despite not needing it. Which clown made the disgraceful claim? Robert Peston!


" Ms McGee refused to comment on details of the treatment she provided to the PM, but rejected any notion he was moved into the intensive care unit when his symptoms did not warrant it.

"We take it very seriously who comes into intensive care, these patients who come into us it's a very scary thing for them so we don't take it lightly and he absolutely needed to be there," she said."


Unbelievable that there are some attempting to make political points from a man being touch and go whether he could die.

[Lowbankclaret]

These figures are very informative, these figures need to be half the peak before they start removing restrictions.

Scotland’s numbers today continue at the peak amounts.

89C0F629-4890-4B40-9CBE-C2A56032B29C.png (326.89 KiB) Viewed 2767 times

[TVC15]

The restrictions have been eased. You can travel for exercise, you can exercise more than once a day and cemeteries have reopened, more excuses for people to be out and about.

The only one you mention that has changed is around funerals and attendance and even then they are still saying you should try and stick to the maximum 10 attendees guideline which was already in place.

I haven’t seen anything which said you can go out to exercise more than once a day - have you got a link ?

[NottsClaret]

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but its definitely busier out and about this last few days than in recent weeks. I think people are easing their own lockdown restrictions.

Yes, a few more people out and about, bound to happen eventually especially as we move into summer. And B&Q reopens today.

[CombatClaret]

Anyone capable can go out to exercise at the moment if they choose to do so. If they are able and they don't choose to do so I hardly think they could complain about the golfers , tennis players etc being given the opportunity to do something they enjoy.

The broader you make the allowances the more you blur the line between exercise and leisure, essential and non-essential.

And again it's the physiological impact, the more things you restrict the more people will restrict themselves. See how much grief we've had from parks, now add the golf courses, tennis courts etc. I think there would also be a large backlash as these pass times are usual the reserve of certain socio-economic groups.

Not saying it shouldn't happen in time but not now.

[Rileybobs]

How do you mean. I mistakenly used my wife’s account after she had logged in first thing in the morning.

You mean you logged off for a week hoping that nobody would remember. It’s usually best to hold your hands up and admit to your mistakes, especially ones as obvious as this. Although I think everyone knows that honesty isn’t one of your strong points.

[Grumps]

The only one you mention that has changed is around funerals and attendance and even then they are still saying you should try and stick to the maximum 10 attendees guideline which was already in place.

I haven’t seen anything which said you can go out to exercise more than once a day - have you got a link ?

It was on the news two days ago
I wouldn't put it on here just for fun

[TVC15]

It was on the news two days ago
I wouldn't put it on here just for fun

Cheers for the arsey reply.

As far as I can see on the updated rules you can only go out to exercise more than once a day if you “have a specific health condition that requires you to leave the home to maintain your health” (taken from the gov website)

That sounds a bit different to a general “you can go out and exercise more than once a day”

[paulatky]

You mean you logged off for a week hoping that nobody would remember. It’s usually best to hold your hands up and admit to your mistakes, especially ones as obvious as this. Although I think everyone knows that honesty isn’t one of your strong points.

I didnt post much last week as this covid-19 became a political thread but I looked into a few other thread. Honesty and opinions are 2 different things as someone has pointed out to you before.

[FactualFrank]

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but its definitely busier out and about this last few days than in recent weeks. I think people are easing their own lockdown restrictions.

Yep. A lot busier on the roads now where I live.

All this will do is create a second lockdown or an extended one. Some (when I say some, I mean a lot) people are just a bit dim.

[Grumps]

Cheers for the arsey reply.

As far as I can see on the updated rules you can only go out to exercise more than once a day if you “have a specific health condition that requires you to leave the home to maintain your health” (taken from the gov website)

That sounds a bit different to a general “you can go out and exercise more than once a day”

Arsey?
The item actually quoted elderly people who wanted to do two small periods of exercise instead of one large one
Driving for exercise was aimed at those in city's to drive a reasonable distance
Like I said, it gives people more excuses

[TVC15]

Arsey?
The item actually quoted elderly people who wanted to do two small periods of exercise instead of one large one
Driving for exercise was aimed at those in city's to drive a reasonable distance
Like I said, it gives people more excuses

Aye - saying you did not say it for fun...which is pretty obvious.

As I said the rules that changed are around having health conditions which mean you need to exercise outside more than once a day. The new rules do not mention anything about elderly people or 2 small exercises instead of one so I’m guessing it was misreported or interpreted incorrectly.

In terms of travelling to exercise - they didn’t change the rules but provided more clarity as it was a bit of a grey area and open to abuse. The clarity is basically around staying local and the travel time should not be longer than the exercise.

[keith1879]

Aye - saying you did not say it for fun...which is pretty obvious.

As I said the rules that changed are around having health conditions which mean you need to exercise outside more than once a day. The new rules do not mention anything about elderly people or 2 small exercises instead of one so I’m guessing it was misreported or interpreted incorrectly.

In terms of travelling to exercise - they didn’t change the rules but provided more clarity as it was a bit of a grey area and open to abuse. The clarity is basically around staying local and the travel time should not be longer than the exercise.

Here are the guidelines that were made public a week ago. Before you jump into your car to drive off for a walk in the country you should note that the guideline says that that the exercise should be much longer than the drive!! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-52312560

[Grumps]

Aye - saying you did not say it for fun...which is pretty obvious.

As I said the rules that changed are around having health conditions which mean you need to exercise outside more than once a day. The new rules do not mention anything about elderly people or 2 small exercises instead of one so I’m guessing it was misreported or interpreted incorrectly.

In terms of travelling to exercise - they didn’t change the rules but provided more clarity as it was a bit of a grey area and open to abuse. The clarity is basically around staying local and the travel time should not be longer than the exercise.

The linked posted above says what I tried to sum up in a few lines.
Being questioned for a link is sort of saying... I don't believe you... I just confirmed it wasn't made up. If you class that arsey, so be it.

[NottsClaret]

Deaths down again today. Sturgeon announcing ideas around a phased easing of lockdown. Car plants restarting production in Germany. B&Q open, Taylor Wimpey building houses again.

Before you know it, this golden age of curtain twitching and phoning the police about a family having fun in the park will be over. So make the most of it guys, even the stasi didn't last forever.

[FactualFrank]

The only way I see lockdown being eased is to do a bit - wait a while - check the numbers - ease it a bit more - wait a while - check the numbers.

But it'll take 3-4 weeks after each easing phase to check that it's not been eased too much.

[TVC15]

The linked posted above says what I tried to sum up in a few lines.
Being questioned for a link is sort of saying... I don't believe you... I just confirmed it wasn't made up. If you class that arsey, so be it.

As far as I can see the link doesn’t say anything about being able to go out to exercise more than once a day - which is what you said originally ...or about the elderly going out more than once (what you said subsequently)

I’m not trying to just pick holes in what you are saying for the sake of it....it was because being able to go out to exercise more than once a day would be a big change / relaxation and as a family I know we would do this if we could. A change like that I would have probably heard from my daughter who is in the police.
Not saying you have made it up either - but you or wherever you heard it may have got it wrong because I have not seen anything that confirms this or changes the original guidelines (other then the medical condition exception)

[Grumps]

As far as I can see the link doesn’t say anything about being able to go out to exercise more than once a day - which is what you said originally ...or about the elderly going out more than once (what you said subsequently)

I’m not trying to just pick holes in what you are saying for the sake of it....it was because being able to go out to exercise more than once a day would be a big change / relaxation and as a family I know we would do this if we could. A change like that I would have probably heard from my daughter who is in the police.
Not saying you have made it up either - but you or wherever you heard it may have got it wrong because I have not seen anything that confirms this or changes the original guidelines (other then the medical condition exception)

I suggest you read the document the article refers to

[TVC15]

I suggest you read the document the article refers to

I did - or I thought I did as there are a few articles referenced. The one I read said :

“People should only exercise once a day, although in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland there is no legal ban on exercising more than that. In Wales, which sets its own health regulations, exercising more than once a day is now illegal - and potentially a criminal offence”

Apologies if I missing something here but it might be easier if you just post the link where it says people or the elderly can go out to exercise more than once a day. Or just cut and paste the quote / guideline

[Grumps]

I did - or I thought I did as there are a few articles referenced. The one I read said :

“People should only exercise once a day, although in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland there is no legal ban on exercising more than that. In Wales, which sets its own health regulations, exercising more than once a day is now illegal - and potentially a criminal offence”

Apologies if I missing something here but it might be easier if you just post the link where it says people or the elderly can go out to exercise more than once a day. Or just cut and paste the quote / guideline

Wouldn't know how to link, but I found the document quite easy on google
To sum up, the twice a day exercise is allowed if deemed reasonable, which is why the news item referred to the elderly doing two short periods would be deemed reasonable.

[Grumps]

https://www.runnersworld.com/uk/news/a3 ... ise-rules/
There's a link in this article to the police document

[TVC15]

https://www.runnersworld.com/uk/news/a3 ... ise-rules/
There's a link in this article to the police document

The only reference to going out to exercise more than once a day in the police document is as follows :

Exercising more than once per day - the only relevant consideration is whether repeated exercise on the same day can be considered a ‘reasonable excuse’ for leaving home.

I don’t think that is the best wording I have ever seen and the government updated guidelines are much clearer
Not sure how you would interpret the police guidelines but I’d say that the exercise in itself is not a reasonable excuse for going out more than once and you need another reason for this - this then links into the government guidelines of needing a health condition and they reference autism as one of the examples.

[Grumps]

The only reference to going out to exercise more than once a day in the police document is as follows :

Exercising more than once per day - the only relevant consideration is whether repeated exercise on the same day can be considered a ‘reasonable excuse’ for leaving home.

I don’t think that is the best wording I have ever seen and the government updated guidelines are much clearer
Not sure how you would interpret the police guidelines but I’d say that the exercise in itself is not a reasonable excuse for going out more than once and you need another reason for this - this then links into the government guidelines of needing a health condition and they reference autism as one of the examples.

It's typical police wording, and is quite clear what it means. If you read it differently so be it, I've done my best.

[tiger76]

I know footballers aren't hired for their brains,but is there something in the North London air,first Spurs,now Arsenal.

Arsenal have spoken to all their players after Alexandre Lacazette, David Luiz, Nicolas Pepe and Granit Xhaka were pictured breaking social distancing guidelines.

Lacazette was too close to someone valeting his car, while Luiz and Xhaka were having a kickabout in a park.

Pepe was seen playing football with some friends.

The quartet, along with the rest of the Gunners squad, have been reminded of their responsibilities.

UK government guidelines say you can only exercise on your own or with people you live with. Also, if you have to go outside, you should stay more than 2m (6ft) apart from anyone other than members of your own household.

Earlier this week, Tottenham's Serge Aurier and Moussa Sissoko apologised for training together despite the coronavirus restrictions.

Spurs also did not adhere to guidelines when manager Jose Mourinho was pictured holding a one-on-one training session in a park with midfielder Tanguy Ndombele, while defenders Ryan Sessegnon and Davinson Sanchez were filmed running side-by-side.

[TVC15]

It's typical police wording, and is quite clear what it means. If you read it differently so be it, I've done my best.

If it’s “quite clear” as you patronisingly put it why would the police be saying that it does not mean you can go out for exercise more than once a day ?
I’ve just asked one and she checked with her colleagues what those guidelines mean to them. And it is that unless you have a health condition - mental or physical - which means you need to go out more than once then you cannot go out to exercise more than once a day. Being elderly in itself does not classify as that either - unless you have the health condition and can prove it.
They have stopped people and warned them about this in the last week.

They also said that the recent wording and reporting on this has not been great and led to some confusion (or as they just put it people pretending they are confused so they can go out exercising twice !) They said they would prefer the Welsh approach to this is which is much clearer as they have said it is illegal to go out and exercise more than once a day.

[TVC15]

I know footballers aren't hired for their brains,but is there something in the North London air,first Spurs,now Arsenal.

Arsenal have spoken to all their players after Alexandre Lacazette, David Luiz, Nicolas Pepe and Granit Xhaka were pictured breaking social distancing guidelines.

Lacazette was too close to someone valeting his car, while Luiz and Xhaka were having a kickabout in a park.

Pepe was seen playing football with some friends.

The quartet, along with the rest of the Gunners squad, have been reminded of their responsibilities.

UK government guidelines say you can only exercise on your own or with people you live with. Also, if you have to go outside, you should stay more than 2m (6ft) apart from anyone other than members of your own household.

Earlier this week, Tottenham's Serge Aurier and Moussa Sissoko apologised for training together despite the coronavirus restrictions.

Spurs also did not adhere to guidelines when manager Jose Mourinho was pictured holding a one-on-one training session in a park with midfielder Tanguy Ndombele, while defenders Ryan Sessegnon and Davinson Sanchez were filmed running side-by-side.

You are right that they are not the brightest but in all these cases they know the rules and are deliberately breaking them.

[tiger76]

Analysis: UK death figures suggest gradual decline from peak

Robert Cuffe

BBC head of statistics

Tuesday’s jump to 823 deaths reported in a day didn’t mean that the epidemic was growing again.

Today’s fall to 616 doesn’t mean that it’s disappearing rapidly.

The pattern in these data is still a gradual, bumpy decline from a peak of 980 on 10 April.

The peaks and troughs are exacerbated by reporting lags, especially at weekends.

The picture of decline is further supported by NHS England’s analysis of deaths on the day they actually occur – this shows a smooth rise to a peak in the week before Easter and a smoother, gradual decline since then

More details below.

Coronavirus deaths in England rise to 16,786
NHS England has announced 514 new coronavirus-related hospital deaths, bringing the total number of reported deaths in hospitals in England to 16,786.

Patients were aged between 31 and 100 years old. Sixteen of the 514 patients (aged between 37 and 92 years old) had no known underlying health condition.

BREAKING
Coronavirus deaths in Wales reach 641
A further 17 people have died after testing positive for coronavirus in Wales, bringing the total number of deaths there to 641, Public Health Wales says.

A further 234 people have tested positive for Covid-19, bringing the total number of confirmed cases to 8,358.

Dr Robin Howe, from Public Health Wales, says: “Based on the new case numbers there is emerging evidence suggesting a levelling-off in the number of new cases of Covid-19 in Wales, which may be an indication of the effectiveness of lockdown measures.

“However, it is still too early to tell for sure, and it is too soon to end the current social distancing rules."

BREAKING
58 more coronavirus deaths in Scotland
Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon confirms that a further 58 people who have tested positive for coronavirus have died, taking the total number of deaths in Scotland to 1,120.

So the fatality figures are well down today,and the curve appears to be flattening,but it'll need sustained falls over a number of days at least before any lockdown changes are even considered,and they'll be very gradual initially,if and when they do happen.

A major caveat of course these are all hospital deaths to my knowledge,certainly in England anyway,so the true numbers may well be much higher,but touch wood it does seem the peak has passed,in this wave anyhow.

[tiger76]

You are right that they are not the brightest but in all these cases they know the rules and are deliberately breaking them.

Exactly! if they need and want to keep fit surely a run would suffice,like most other people partake.Don't most of them have home gyms anyway,so they could easily keep in trim there,or in their no doubt large gardens.

[Grumps]

If it’s “quite clear” as you patronisingly put it why would the police be saying that it does not mean you can go out for exercise more than once a day ?
I’ve just asked one and she checked with her colleagues what those guidelines mean to them. And it is that unless you have a health condition - mental or physical - which means you need to go out more than once then you cannot go out to exercise more than once a day. Being elderly in itself does not classify as that either - unless you have the health condition and can prove it.
They have stopped people and warned them about this in the last week.

They also said that the recent wording and reporting on this has not been great and led to some confusion (or as they just put it people pretending they are confused so they can go out exercising twice !) They said they would prefer the Welsh approach to this is which is much clearer as they have said it is illegal to go out and exercise more than once a day.

Perhaps the police you speak to are not used to reading this type of document?
They way it's set out takes some getting used to
What it's saying in plain speak, is if you stop someone on their second exercise, the only consideration is, is it reasonable. So an elderly person, splitting an hours exercise in to two half hour periods is reasonable.
I can see that ( granted with many years experience of reading such documents)
The news programmes that ran the story saw it that way
The various Internet articles I've read see it that way
You see it different, so be it, but my original point that this is what was reported stands.

[TVC15]

Perhaps the police you speak to are not used to reading this type of document?
They way it's set out takes some getting used to
What it's saying in plain speak, is if you stop someone on their second exercise, the only consideration is, is it reasonable. So an elderly person, splitting an hours exercise in to two half hour periods is reasonable.
I can see that ( granted with many years experience of reading such documents)
The news programmes that ran the story saw it that way
The various Internet articles I've read see it that way
You see it different, so be it, but my original point that this is what was reported stands.

Yet you have not posted a link which says that.
Neither do the updated official government guidelines say that - infact they are quite specific about what constitutes being able to go out to exercise more than once a day. Why would they be that specific about the exemption if your interpretation was correct ?
And thirdly the police force who I asked and who have themselves had to check guidance rules to clarify that also have not said that.

It’s not a matter of me seeing it differently - I’ve not seen or heard anything to suggest it’s any different to what I am saying.

[Grumps]

Yet you have not posted a link which says that.
Neither do the updated official government guidelines say that - infact they are quite specific about what constitutes being able to go out to exercise more than once a day. Why would they be that specific about the exemption if your interpretation was correct ?
And thirdly the police force who I asked and who have themselves had to check guidance rules to clarify that also have not said that.

It’s not a matter of me seeing it differently - I’ve not seen or heard anything to suggest it’s any different to what I am saying.

This is getting hard work
It's an official police document issued by the national police chiefs council
Under the column titled.... what would be classed as reasonable.... is the following

Exercising more than once
per day - the only relevant
consideration is whether
repeated exercise on the
same day can be considered
a ‘reasonable excuse’for
leaving home.

Like I've said before, the elderly doing two short periods of exercise instead of one large one is a reasonable excuse.
Iam not going any further with this, you either disagree, or just don't want to see it.

[TVC15]

This is getting hard work
It's an official police document issued by the national police chiefs council
Under the column titled.... what would be classed as reasonable.... is the following

Exercising more than once
per day - the only relevant
consideration is whether
repeated exercise on the
same day can be considered
a ‘reasonable excuse’for
leaving home.

Like I've said before, the elderly doing two short periods of exercise instead of one large one is a reasonable excuse.
Iam not going any further with this, you either disagree, or just don't want to see it.

“I don’t want to see it” ? Grow up

Of course I am disagreeing with you.
Just because you have quoted what I already have does not mean you are correct.
The government guidelines suggest you are wrong and so do the police I have checked with.

The example of the elderly - which is something you only introduced subsequently to what you originally said may well be correct on the basis of they could be classified as being exempt because of health conditions but that’s a long way from saying you can go out more than once a day to exercise.
The police I am assuming from what I have been told are defining reasonable as if you have the health conditions as stipulated in the governments updated guidelines.

And just as a reminder because it was a while ago ! You said that restrictions had been relaxed and that people could travel to exercise (they already could) and you can exercise more than once a day. Restrictions were not relaxed in either of these areas - they were simply updated to provide more clarity..and in the case of the latter it was that exceptions will be allowed for health conditions (in practice they were already allowed)
These are just factual statements if you read the updated official and government issued guidelines compared to the previous ones.

[keith1879]

The only reference to going out to exercise more than once a day in the police document is as follows :

Exercising more than once per day - the only relevant consideration is whether repeated exercise on the same day can be considered a ‘reasonable excuse’ for leaving home.

I don’t think that is the best wording I have ever seen and the government updated guidelines are much clearer
Not sure how you would interpret the police guidelines but I’d say that the exercise in itself is not a reasonable excuse for going out more than once and you need another reason for this - this then links into the government guidelines of needing a health condition and they reference autism as one of the examples.

In the actual document the phrase "Exercising more than once per day - the only relevant consideration is whether repeated exercise on the same day can be considered a ‘reasonable excuse’ for leaving home." is under a column headed "Likely to be reasonable". The absence of this essential piece of context may have contributed to some of the misunderstanding here. Apologies Grumps...you have already pointed this out. It does rather reinforce your interpretation of the document in my view.

[keith1879]

I googled the matter and came up with several interpretations....most of which boiled down to "You have to decide if it's reasonable....because if challenged you might have to convince a policeman that it's reasonable". I couldn't see any support for TVC15's fairly hard-line approach.

[Paul Waine]

A story in Washington Post about one group's contribution to PPE:

They lived in a factory for 28 days to make millions of pounds of raw PPE materials to help fight coronavirus

The Washington Post, 23 April 2020

At his factory just off the Delaware River, in the far southeastern corner of Pennsylvania, Joe Boyce clocked in on March 23 for the longest shift of his life.

In his office, an air mattress replaced his desk chair. He brought a toothbrush and shaving kit, moving into the Braskem petrochemical plant in Marcus Hook, Pa., as if it were a makeshift college dormitory. The casual office kitchen became a mess hall for him and his 42 co-workers turned roommates. The factory’s emergency operations center became their new lounge room.

For 28 days, they did not leave — sleeping and working all in one place.

In what they called a “live-in” at the factory, the undertaking was just one example of the endless ways that Americans in every industry have uniquely contributed to fighting coronavirus. The 43 men went home Sunday after each working 12-hour shifts all day and night for a month straight, producing tens of millions of pounds of the raw materials that will end up in face masks and surgical gowns worn on the front lines of the pandemic.

No one told them they had to do it, Braskem America CEO Mark Nikolich said. All of the workers volunteered, hunkering down at the plant to ensure no one caught the virus outside as they sought to meet the rocketing demand for their key product, polypropylene, which is needed to make various medical and hygienic items. Braskem’s plant in Neal, W.Va., is doing a second live-in now. The story was earlier reported in Philadelphia’s WPVI.

“We were just happy to be able to help,” Boyce, an operations shift supervisor and a 27-year veteran at Braskem America, told The Washington Post. “We’ve been getting messages on social media from nurses, doctors, EMS workers, saying thank you for what we’re doing. But we want to thank them for what they did and are continuing to do. That’s what made the time we were in there go by quickly, just being able to support them.”

For countless face masks in America, their journey from a blob of chemicals into the hands of first responders and grocery-store clerks likely began at a plant just like Braskem’s. The company, which touts itself as the largest petrochemical producer in the Americas, is one of the earliest links in the supply chain, providing a key ingredient for the personal protective equipment that millions of people worldwide now need each day.

Nikolich said the company has shifted its production lines to focus on making that key ingredient, polypropylene, given the high demand due to covid-19. The company then sells the product to clients that turn it into a nonwoven fabric, which medical manufacturers ultimately use to make face masks, medical gowns and even disinfectant wipes, among other items.

Nikolich estimated that the Braskem plants in Pennsylvania and West Virginia have produced 40 million pounds of polypropylene over the past month — enough to hypothetically make either 500 million N95 masks or 1.5 billion surgical masks, if the material were used only for that purpose. (It will also be used for other PPE such as the gowns, Nikolich stressed.)

“It just makes you immensely proud to be associated with a team like that,” Nikolich said. “They’re operating in a strange environment 24/7, 365.”

Nikolich said the plants decided to launch the live-ins so employees could avoid having to worry about catching the virus while constantly traveling to and from work, and so the staff at the factory could be closed off to nonessential personnel.

“We tried to make them as comfortable as possible,” Nikolich said.

Boyce said some guys brought their Xbox consoles and TVs, and even a cornhole set, to stay entertained. They stayed active at the on-site gym, which “has never been used so much before,” Boyce said, and stayed extra busy in the kitchen. A skilled cook, Boyce and others asked corporate for more pots and pans and a stove, whipping up creamed corn, barbecue and even filet mignon dinners for more than 40 people a night.

Before long, they fell into a routine like they were all in one enormous household, he said.

“We had to kind of adapt. We came up with a chart for housekeeping chores so we could all clean the bathrooms and clean up after meals,” Boyce said. “It wasn’t long before we’re all sitting in the same spots at dinner.”

But being separated from family got harder as time went on, said Boyce, a father of two teenagers. Some guys counted down the days. One missed the birth of his first grandchild. Visitors weren’t allowed.

So on Day 14, the families organized a “drive-by visit,” Boyce said. It was their hump day, celebrating not only being halfway done but also free of any signs of the virus, as no one during that 14-day period developed even a sniffle. With a police escort, more than two dozen families paraded past the plant bearing signs and cheering from the windows — too far away for a conversation but just close enough “to give a boost to all the guys,” Boyce said.

“It was something to see,” he said. “Just a shout and wave was pretty much what we got, but it was enough.”

They went back to work. The days blended between factory floor and conference-room bedrooms, until finally, on Sunday, it was time to clock out.

“We wanted to walk out as a team,” Boyce said. “Everybody felt that way. It really hit me when my car got a little ways down from the plant — I’m finally going to see my family.”

[TVC15]

I googled the matter and came up with several interpretations....most of which boiled down to "You have to decide if it's reasonable....because if challenged you might have to convince a policeman that it's reasonable". I couldn't see any support for TVC15's fairly hard-line approach.

Thanks Keith - it’s not really “my”hardline approach as such.
I am quoting from the updated guidelines on the government website around exercise which are pretty specific in that they say that to exercise more than once per day would be allowed only if you have health conditions and a reason to go out more than once because of these - whether these be physical or mental conditions.
And that’s also the way the police force I referenced have also interpreted the government guidelines. I think the government guidelines are far more specific than using the word “reasonable”.
I’m not sure why the police would look to effectively relax the government guidelines by widening the scope beyond health conditions. If anything it makes there job harder if people contest this or start arguing what is reasonable. Would they even have the authority to do this given the purpose of this is about restricting contact which is government / political strategy ?

[Elizabeth]

Certainly been a good day for discussing exercising during lockdown and I think we would be wise to always use common sense when coming to decisions about what is and isn't fitting in with the guidance and law. A good idea also maybe not to get entrenched in our thinking.
Here's an example and I'm sure there are many more.

2 unrelated life long friends from different households meet up at the local park. They set off and walk around their neighbourhood for 30 mins before each return to their homes separately.
At the same time 2 family members get in the family car and drive 45 mins to Foulridge where they park up and spend the next hour walking along the canal keeping their distance and not stopping
On the way they walk past a group of 4 local people 10 mins from home walking their dogs on the canal but stood talking. The 2 family members look back 10 mins later and the same group of dog walkers are still stood there with their dogs chatting away.

All. these scenarios happen, who's right and who's wrong? Each of the 3 groups think they are following the guidelines.

[Grumps]

I lost track after a bit, but surely the two friends meeting up aren't following any of the guidelines?

[Elizabeth]

The two friends are exercising locally and it is clearly exercise. They are not getting in a car so can't be criticised for driving about outside their local area. Correct me if I'm wrong but there are more than one of them and they live in separate households. So even if they keep 2m from each other and people they pass aren't they 'disobeying' the guidelines.
I think if anybody saw these two doing this nobody would ask any questions.

[Grumps]

I thought one of the main rules of lockdown was Not to meet people from different households, even family.

[Elizabeth]

Yes they aren't doing what they should be doing. My point is they don't think they are doing anything wrong because they are keeping to the 2m rule and moving all the time. No passers by or the authorities would ever challenge them.
What about the couple driving 45 mins to Foulridge and the local dog walkers? Let's say the 2 family members live in the same household

[TVC15]

Yes they aren't doing what they should be doing. My point is they don't think they are doing anything wrong because they are keeping to the 2m rule and moving all the time. No passers by or the authorities would ever challenge them.
What about the couple driving 45 mins to Foulridge and the local dog walkers? Let's say the 2 family members live in the same household

The 2 people from different households are not supposed to meet up - that’s been pretty clear in the guidelines. They have never said you can arrange to meet up and then it’s ok if you stay 2m apart.

As for the couple driving 45 minutes to guidelines - that sounds like it would be between 20 and 30 miles away. Under any definition that does not follow the guidelines of “staying local”.
The guidelines around this have been recently updated to say that in addition to staying local your drive time to get to the destination should not be longer than your exercise time. That does not mean that it you drive an hour it’s ok if you exercise for more than hour because the other criteria is it should be local.

I know there will be grey areas and what is the definition of local etc but most reasonable people know that local is not 20 or 30 miles and it’s nearer to between 5 and 10 miles as a maximum.

[Elizabeth]

It used to take me 45 mins to Foulridge and I'd guess its 20miles.
I think this is a tough one because Foulridge either in or just outside Pendle, which is next to Burnley. Has anyone seen what guidance there is on 'local'
When recent clarification came out I could swear I heard a Govt minister (Gove, I think) say on TV that as long as your exercise period was longer than your travelling period, it would be acceptable. 60 mins is just longer but in the example it could have been 120 mins but according to some thinking that wouldn't matter. What is reasonable to some would be unreasonable to others.
I would say that the family couple are OK within the guidance but that is my opinion.
Again it goes back to my original point that it is not worth getting too entrenched in thought and there is a much stronger case to using common sense.
And the dog walkers?

[TVC15]

I don’t think 45 minutes / 20 or 30 miles is local in the context of “unnecessary” travel and what the government are trying to achieve with lockdown.
They want people to keep on exercising as they know it’s important physically and mentally but they know that in the vast majority of cases (if not all) travelling 45 minutes is not required to undertake that exercise. The longer you are on the road and the more people who are travelling etc increases the risks of accidents - potentially putting pressure on the emergency services and the NHS too.
It is completely reasonable to expect people to not travel these kind of distances - especially bearing in mind what other countries like Italy and Spain were doing in banning exercise and going out altogether other than food and chemists. Our government have not gone this far so it is would be unreasonable for someone to take this to another level and travel to somewhere a bit nicer than they might have locally to do this exercise.

As for the dog walkers I’m not sure - if they met accidentally rather than prearranged and kept 2m apart and then chatted I can’t see a lot wrong with this and doubt whether the police would do anything other than possibly warn them that it is a “gathering”...but as said not exactly sure.

[Elizabeth]

I would be interested in what others thought of the dog walkers but in my opinion they would be the most irresponsible group of the three.

[TVC15]

I would be interested in what others thought of the dog walkers but in my opinion they would be the most irresponsible group of the three.

Why ? What are they doing wrong if they are socially distancing from each other ? Maybe chatting for 10 minutes is a bit long but it wasn’t a premeditated meeting whereas if you set off to go out on a 45 minute drive to undertake exercise that is premeditated and people who do it know they are doing this against guidelines and that it is not an essential trip.

[Paul Waine]

I would be interested in what others thought of the dog walkers but in my opinion they would be the most irresponsible group of the three.

So long as the dog walkers pick up after themselves - and take their little presents home for safe disposal - I have no problem with them chatting for 10-15 minutes.

The 2 friends meeting up - and keeping their respective 2 m apart - while they exercise in the park - no problem.

If the guidance is exercise for longer than you drive, then 60 mins drive, each way, will require, at least 2 hours exercise, maybe more. If again, this respects everyone else's 2 m rules - no problem.

I walk in the local, and very large, park every morning. This morning we meet neighbours from down our street. One of them is vulnerable, and we both kept a good 2 metre distance. They said they'd driven there - it takes us just over 10 mins to walk there - no problem, either way (though I prefer to walk).

What has surprised me in these days of exercise is how many mamils apparently all live in a single household! But, so long as the keep their distance as they practice their sprints, no problem.