Joggers, not keeping a asfe distance

[KidKruger]

Dulwich Park 0900.

Older couple, probably mid-70s to 80s, walking the outer 'natural' path obviously to try and keep out of the way.

Runner comes opposite way, he ain't giving signs of caring about distancing, plod plod plod, they clearly look to see if he'll give way.

Nope.

They step over the timber border on to the grass, walk onto grass a few metres, runner passes, followed by a 2nd runner who's seen this happen, afterwards the older couple return to their walk on path.

One minute later a young woman running approached on same path from behind them, runs BEWTEEN them and they have no clue until she's passed. They are visibly surprised and concerned. They weren't even 3ft apart.

Come on people, you can do better !!

This is happening now, after plenty guidance.

THIS is why a proper lockdown is required.

That older couple shouldn't be endangered unnecessarily like this, it's really unfair treatment.

[fishbiscuits]

Hmmm... but if you think a full lockdown is necessary, why were you in the park? Sorry not trying to be a dick, just want to understand your proposal.

[DuncanW]

Great question!

[StraferJack]

I imagine KK was in the park because he was trying to excecise resonsibly - but he can observe that not enough people are doing likewise and concludes that we all need to be controlled or this won't work - him staying at home won't change the behaviour of others

[fishbiscuits]

I guess that makes sense. Personally I do not think that a hard lockdown is justified (i.e. only going out for food, medicine/treatment, or to work if you're a key worker). But I do think some sort of further restriction is probably inevitable.

[Rockets]

Every time KK goes out they seem to have an episode with a runner - they must be very unlucky.

I think we have all seen stupid and selfish behaviour by people over the last two weeks: dumping of PPE equipment, speeding, congregating in groups, sunbathing, runners not giving way, pedestrians with dogs walking three abreast with a dog on a long lead, bad cycling and people even having picnics. But these are the exceptions - the majority seem to be following the guidelines and taking a commonsense, courteous and mindful to other people approach.

No point trying to demonise one group more than any other as there are fools everywhere and it will be the minority who ruin it for the majority. Weekends are the biggest issue right now, especially warm weather weekends when people would naturally want to be enjoying the first spring warmth. Perhaps we should all do a rain dance!

[KidKruger]

"Hmmm... but if you think a full lockdown is necessary, 1. why were you in the park? Sorry not trying to be a dick, 2. just want to understand your proposal."

Let's pretend you're not.. (funny, I read your post to my missus, who straight-off said,'they're just being a dick' !)

1. Walking dog. Though I'm not convinced doing so deletes validity of noticing/commenting on stupidity I see in parks.

2. Not sure of any proposal I made, I only mentioned lockdown required if we're make progress (I assume the meaning is obvious anyway, no ?)

You do get my point right ? Guidelines say being close to each other especially when breathing heavy is dangerous, and that older people are more susceptible to death. I see both in same place and time and post about it on a thread set-up for that purpose. You do get my point right ?

People won't behave = take away the privilege. You do get my point right ?

I was walking the dog.

I wasn't:

- approaching elderly (and by association one would assume, vulnerable) people unannounced from behind then pushing between them

- breathing heavily near anyone

- forcing vulnerable people off paths for my benefit

- going near anyone else

I hope this is clear, if not (or you see contradictions in my behaviour v observations), please shout !

[KidKruger]

"Every time KK goes out they seem to have an episode with a runner - they must be very unlucky."

Great time to be sarcastic (Assuming you weren't gathering empirical data for your daily sample, nor saying I'm exaggerating).

I think it makes those being put at risk unlucky, unlucky to the point where according to our own Govts guidelines, it could be fatal for them or their more vulnerable family members.

"No point trying to demonise one group more than any other as there are fools everywhere"

Obviously, which is why no-one I have seen on this thread is demonising anyone. You can only comment on the misdemeanours you see, right ?

If I'd seen walkers, dog walkers, or families doing same I would have noted that too. I'm interested in the safety of people over-all being compromised by a few people. The responses today really seem to reflect the blas? regard the minority seem to consider the current situation with.

[Sephiroth]

" Personally I do not think that a hard lockdown is justified (i.e. only going out for food, medicine/treatment, or to work if you're a key worker). But I do think some sort of further restriction is probably inevitable."

I'm curious about both sides of these statements. I think a harder lockdown is necessary and desirable - and therefore inevitable

Why do you think it's not justified? Not looking to argue - just curious. As deaths rise daily and we look at other countries, as well as forecasts how is it not justified?

But if you are correct and it isn't - why is it inevitable?

[Rockets]

KK - wasn't being sarcastic - you seem to be having a daily run-in with runners - no pun intended. From my experience that seems unlucky - as from my own observations I am not having the same experience as you: I have been out for my daily exercise since the lockdown began and had one incident with a runner - I chastised them for their foolishness in the hope they would not do it again to anyone else.

My point was quite clear - there are idiots (not just runners) who are risking their health and the health of others by ignoring the rules. The government is modelling this (I think they estimate it can be anything up to 30% of the population who will be non-conformist) and they will have a point when they will trigger a most stringent lockdown to help control the curve.

Timing is key - you have to phase the lockdown and the degrees of severity therein. You can clamour for a hard lockdown but you cant do that from the get-go because research and experience elsewhere shows (unless you are in China and the populous is more scared of the government than the virus) that after 10 - 14 days people start going back to normal.

[fishbiscuits]

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why do you think it's not justified? Not looking

> to argue - just curious. As deaths rise daily and

> we look at other countries, as well as forecasts

> how is it not justified?

To clarify - "further restrictions" is not necessarily the same as a "hard lockdown". There are further measures the govt could impose while still allowing outdoor exercise within reason. I believe the physical and mental health benefits of a bit of exercise (and seeing other people out and about, even at a distance) are really, really important. And I also believe (or hope?) the daily number of new hospital admissions can be flattened soon, without completely taking away that allowance. But maybe by restricting it to certain times of day, or to certain designated areas.

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> funny, I read your

> post to my missus, who straight-off said,'they're

> just being a dick' !)

Well she's probably right, but I still felt the need to semi-apologise in advance. Feel free to disregard. I interpreted your point as saying that you were in favour of a hard lockdown, which just seemed confusing coming from someone still using the park. Walking the dog puts it into context I suppose. I think there's going to be a lot of dogs round here going nuts if they're locked up at home all day, I wouldn't like to see that happening... (but am not dog person myself, as such).

[KidKruger]

Nothing mutually exclusive about believing a lockdown is overall best approach while using a park which is open.

Most people act according to the conditions they are in, rather than according to how they think conditions will develop in future.

[susan_]

I really don?t want to lose my daily exercise outing but every time I?ve been out since ?guidelines? came into effect I have encountered someone very blatantly ignoring them. I try to be the one to move out of the way and i try to be on the street or grass side so that i have the space to move myself out of the way. so many people seem to consider 1m or less to be 2m.

I have no issue stopping or going into the road so I can proactively manage the distancing with anyone coming towards me from in front. The difficulty is with people who come up behind me and overtake at <1m. I shouted ?Come on mate 2m? at a lady runner and two teen runners who did this to me this morning and one of the teens shouted F*** Off back at me. I?ll still try to remind people and to avoid/manage all the encounters proactively but I really don?t see the problem as a tiny minority currently.

[fishbiscuits]

Susan - yes, there have been plenty of times when I've stepped well into the road, for example, but the effort to make space simply isn't reciprocated. So frustrating. I think you did the right thing by calling them out - more people should do it.

[Applespider]

On a slightly different note, if you do see someone who stops and waits to one side until a narrow pavement section clears, do please acknowledge them with a smile or nod. And consider doing the same; we probably all know a few spots on a local route where there's barely room to pass and it just takes a little looking ahead to avoid it. I'm thinking particularly of the stretch by the old church near the Grove where a hedge is massively overgrown and stepping into the South Circular (even though it's relatively quiet) isn't always possible.

[micromacromonkey]

Keith?

https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/08/keith-norfolk-wants-sunbathers-shot-army-12525834/

Gingergossip Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I just had a jogger phlegm up outside my house. My

> neighbor down the road has CCTV- I'll post the

> offenders picture if I can get it. Disgusting pig!

> Clearly running (and cycling) shuts off the blood

> supply to moral organs of the brain. The only

> answer is to just ban them. UK Gov is leaning in

> that direction because so many people cant behave

> sensibly.

>

>

> For the groups hogging the entire pavement a taser

> is the only answer. Someone said to me that you

> cant expect children to understand. I don't, I

> expect parents to be parents and stop using their

> kids (and dogs) as an excuse.

[mako]

There still seems to be 'its only a minority' flouting the rules as if that means it isnt a major issue. Surely everyone has seen the impact one person can have on total numbers infected. It also isnt rare. The numbers of joggers on lordship lane continues to be ridiculously high and due to the pavements size even moving into the road doesnt usually maintain 2m (which most research now suggests is not nearly far enough for someone outdoors who isnt stationary).

[micromacromonkey]

mako Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> doesnt usually maintain 2m (which most research

> now suggests is not nearly far enough for someone

> outdoors who isnt stationary).

links?

[yeknomyeknom]

A study on exercising near others and how even 2m doesn?t suffice.

https://medium.com/@jurgenthoelen/belgian-dutch-study-why-in-times-of-covid-19-you-can-not-walk-run-bike-close-to-each-other-a5df19c77d08

[Rockets]

...if you're slip streaming....and even then the article says that if someone coughs, sneezes or breathes ahead of you (when you are slip streaming - and that part is important here) the largest droplets (which are the most at risk of contaminating you) will drop onto your clothing as they are heavier...so there is a lot of ifs, buts and maybes there and I very much doubt anyone is slip streaming when running right now (i.e. using the person in front of them to reduce your own drag which suggests you are very close to them).

The study, from which the journalist takes the information (the journalist is a self-described life-long athlete), is of the impact of slip streaming whilst exercising not exercising per se.

[AllisonAdler]

.

[FineWhine]

Nicely put AA...

[alice]

Agreed

[mako]

Your intentions sound positive Alison, however the kindness you ask for means taking every possible precaution to stop the spread of virus, rather than herd immunity by exposure, which we dont know if it works, how long immunity would last and obviously of no use to those who are dead. As for the 'so what' to some people not being polite in other ways, there is a difference in this 'lack of politeness' can literally kill someone,-not really the same as someone who interrupts or doesn't say thank you. There are plenty of opportunities to do vigorous exercise without jogging the streets of lordship lane. As for 'fretting' about the actions of others, they can have a direct impact on whether we/friends/ family stay alive or not. As for your presumption that a 'jogger' is healthy, it is widely accepted that many carriers of the virus can show no symptoms, so they may personally be healthy, but pass on the virus to someone who isnt.

[first mate]

Mako, agreed.