On Saturday, I once again ignored Scottish Government guidance and drove 50 miles south from Glasgow to go walking in the Lowther Hills. I was doing nothing illegal and, unlike on Durisdeer last week (see here) where we saw two people, this time we saw nobody at all. These hills could have had a thousand walkers, 10% of them carrying Covid-19 asymptomatically, and there would have still been very little risk of spreading the illness. There was no need to go into local communities and plenty of space to Stay Apart. A ban on people walking here or having a picnic by one of the rivers has never been justified
Despite all this, I was apprehensive driving south. I was concerned that the irrational attacks on social media of anyone driving to go for a walk in the countryside might prompt the police to stop cars and ask people where they are going. It’s not a nice feeling. It makes one appreciate how black people – who get stopped by the police when driving more than anyone else – are made to feel the whole time.
That feeling was increased by the signs on the motorway gantries – we must have passed under ten – saying “Stay at Home. Protect the NHS. Save Lives”. These messages are now a government sponsored lie. Staying at Home no longer does anything to protect the NHS, in fact it contributes to exactly the opposite. It is people staying in their homes that has caused the epidemic of ill-health, both physical and mental, and a failure of people to seek medical treatment when they need it, hence the hundreds of “excess deaths” in Scotland. Not going further than five miles from your home for a walk, as the Scottish Government advises, will do nothing to save lives.
It is now 9 weeks since I blogged about Covid-19 and Human Rights (see here). It is worth quoting from the briefing to the Chair of the UK Parliament’s Human Right Committee again:
“This lockdown is the most significant and blanket interference with individual liberty in modern times. Such extreme measures can only be considered lawful, justified, necessary and proportionate if (1) the threat from disease and death remains sufficiently significant to justify such extraordinary measures; (2) the measures only interfere with human rights and civil liberties to the extent necessary; (3) the measures are enforced in a clear, reasonable and balanced manner; (4) enforcement is authorised, and does not go beyond what is prohibited, by law.”
And
“Additionally, it may be necessary specifically to consider what measures are proportionate to facilitate reasonable exercise for those living in crowded cities without ready access to outdoor spaces, where the policing and health risk challenges are very different from those living in rural or less populated areas”
The continued attempts by the Scottish Government to restrict travel by car in Scotland are not proportionate. Traveling by car does nothing to spread Covid-19, unless like Dominic Cummings you are sharing a car with someone who had symptoms. It’s what happens when you get out that is important and going for a walk in the countryside poses almost no risks.
Strangely, the UK and Scottish Government have significantly different interpretations of the risks based on advice from the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. Boris Johnson, states that the scientific advice is that the risk of spreading Covid-19 outdoors is “much lower” than indoors. Nicola Sturgeon states it is “lower”. That is an important difference. In this case, I think Boris Johnson is right. Here is what SAGE said on lifting the restrictions over a month ago:
“Some potential policy changes, such as permitting more outdoor activities that maintain social distancing (such as sitting outside alone or as a household), will have a negligible impact on R”.
I try to avoid party politics but for anyone who believes Boris Johnston is soft on outdoor recreation compared to Nicola Sturgeon, in England they doubled the fines for breaching the Physical Distancing rules at the time they first relaxed the restrictions. England has also set smaller limits on gatherings, 6 people as opposed to 8. While being outdoors is generally safe, of the two activities, going for a walk or meeting up with another household for a few hours outside, it’s pretty obvious which has the higher risk of spreading Covid-19. Yet the Scottish Government’s guidance is you can travel to meet up with a relative but not travel further than five miles to go for a walk. This is not rational or proportionate and is unjustifiable.
Where are the advocates for human rights and civil liberties in Scotland?
The Scottish Parliament has an Equality and Human Right Committee which has been taking evidence of the handling of the Covid-19 crisis (see here). The Committee has looked at some very important issues, particularly the way the lockdown has affected parts of the population far more than others, but it has not looked at to what extent the curtailment of civil liberties as a whole that came with the lockdown, and continues, is proportionate.
This may be, in part, due to the evidence that has been submitted to the Committee. People and groups have submitted evidence about HOW particular groups have been affected, not on whether the restrictions of their rights was justifiable or not or how the population as a whole has been affected.
The Scottish Human Rights Commission, created in 2008, has also done good work during the crisis (see here). At the end of May it repeated (see here) its call that restrictions must be “lawful, necessary, proportionate and time-limited”. It has, however, made no assessment about whether the Scottish Government’s restrictions were or are actually “lawful”, “necessary” or “proportionate” or whether the time they have lasted can be justified. Initially, the public were told lockdown was for a few weeks. It has now been almost three months and it took nine weeks before the Scottish Government changed the Restriction Regulations to allow people to go out of their homes for their own mental well-being. That surely should be a serious human rights concern?
As in many other policy areas – like physical activity and mental well-being – extensive policy work has been undertaken in Scotland on Human Rights. For example, the First Minister set up a group on Human Rights Leadership that reported in 2018 (see here). It recommended further incorporation of human rights into law. All that police work appears to have been ignored since the outbreak of Covid-19, whether this has been confining Older People to their rooms in Care Homes or stopping people going outdoors.
The weakness of our human rights and civil liberties in Scotland is demonstrated by the lack of any significant body speaking out against or challenging the restrictions. Where are the lawyers challenging the curtailment of civil liberties? Where are the organisations prepared to question the Scottish Government’s approach? Part of the explanation for this silence is that many of the organisations who might have been expected to speak out receive some public funding and appear frightened of losing this. Hence the constant repetition of “follow the government advice”, even when many people know its not justified and having adverse affects. The problem, however, is deeper than that. Tourism businesses, which rely on people visiting the countryside, have felt unable to defend the rights on which they depend, despite experiencing the terrible impact of the Foot and Mouth lockdown on the countryside.
A week ago Nicola Sturgeon, in her daily briefing (see here), threatened those traveling further than five miles for Outdoor Recreation as follows:
“But it is worth being clear, in fact I have a duty to be clear with you, that if there is continued evidence of even a minority not abiding by those guidelines and traveling unnecessarily – if people meet up in larger groups or make journeys which risk spreading the virus – we will have to put those restrictions, on group size and travel distance, into law.”
The First Minister then went on to correct herself and say that group size is already restricted by law. Hence here warning was clearly aimed at people for traveling for outdoor recreation. Some of the grounds for her concerns were ridiculous:
“Overall, transport yesterday was 70% up from the previous Sunday. Transport on Saturday was 60% up on the week before.
In some places – like Loch Lomond and Glencoe for example – the increase was even more dramatic.
On Saturday, on the A82 by Loch Lomond, traffic was around 3 times higher than the previous Saturday. We saw a similar picture around Glencoe.”
Traffic, in itself, does not spread Covid-19, it’s what happens when people get out that matters. It is far better that people are going outside, camping even, than that they are meeting up in their houses. Moreover traffic levels in places like Glen Coe had been incredibly low a week before.
I didn’t hear a single organisation challenge the First Minister about these threats, that was left to individuals, in the press and on social media:
It is very positive that more people are now speaking out, but if the Scottish Government does decide to try and impose the lockdown on harmless outdoor recreation we will need people who are prepared to do more than that.
Police Scotland appears to have taken Human Rights far more seriously than the Scottish Government. It has engaged an independent review, chaired by John Scottish QC, of how it has enforced the “unprecedented” three main powers it was given under the Coronavirus Restrictions Regulations:
The Independent Advisory Group started taking evidence on 1st June and will do so until 1st September (see here). In my view, apart from the Crianlarich hillwalkers (see here) and the disproportionate enforcement activity around south Loch Lomond(see here), the police have been very sensible about the way they have enforced the law as it affects peoples’ rights to move around. I would encourage people, however, to respond even if it is only to say you did not drive to go for a walk in a safe place because you were concerned that you could be stopped by the police.
The Review won’t, however, address the wider problem which is that if the law is unjust, the police still have to enforce it. If therefore the Scottish Government does try and bring in legal restriction on traveling for outdoor recreation, then the police will have little choice but to apply those restrictions. What this illustrates is the need for a much wider inquiry into the Scottish Government’s respect for Human Rights during this corona crisis and the extent to which its restrictions have been proportionate.
The closure of visitor facilities
Whether the Scottish Government’s advice to Public Authorities to keep car parks closed, once they started to release the lockdown 10 days again, is a curtailment of civil liberties is a more complex argument. People’s right to go out and go for a walk anywhere, does not mean people should have a right to park anywhere. As long as the road network as a whole is kept open, the government could argue that it was being proportionate in keeping certain car parks closed.
Whether keeping car parks closed was sensible, however, is another matter.
Personally, I’m tolerating this intrusion into our rights and interests meantime because of the uniquely threatening nature of this new virus, particularly for older people and those with other health conditions. However, Nick is right at least for experienced and competent hill goers who will regard rescue as a genuine last resort.
But when you set this irrational rule alongside the established pattern of behaviour by NPA’s (who are all packed out with SNP nominees) you see a slightly sinister threat emerging towards our hard won access legislation; powerful interests working covertly to wind back on access.
The actions of the NPAs has nothing to do with this. It is the instructions that all public bodies have received from the Scottish Govvernment, to continue the restrictions on the use of the road network, car parks and toilets, that are wrong. There are loads of people in the local authorities and organisations like Forest and Land Scotland who think the First Minister has completely lost her way on this issue. They want to get these facilities opened right now, across the whole of Scotland. And they know that the risk of spreading the virus by people going for a day walk in the countryside is minimal. By comparison the risk of people suffering serious health problems as a result of these ridiculous restrictions is far higher than the risk of virus spread. These restrictions might have been justified many weeks ago when the UK Government went into panic mode, in a desperate attempt to cover up its monumental failures to act early enough, but they are now way past their sell-by date. The FM has done a brilliant leadership job until now, displaying clarity in all her advice and a remarkable resilience in delivering her message, day after day, week after week, And the Chief Constable has been equally effective in his explanations of the role of Police Scotland and his guidance on the use of the road network. But they need to get their heads together NOW and work out when the road network and all its associated facilities are going to be open, followed by a timetable for when the additional facilities required for overnight stays are also going to be available. A failure to sort this out and modify the route plan for exiting lockdown will lead to massive non Covid 19 health problems and the decimation of the Scottish tourism industry.
Keeping toilets closed, and advising visitors to ‘go before you go’ (CNPA) is discriminatory. Women suffer disproportionately from IBS (23%) compared to men (11%). Therefore, we have an apparent breach of Human Rights legislation, by an NDPB funded by Scottish Government.
I visited Arrochar today to walk up the Cobbler. Conscious of the fact the Cobbler car park at Loch Long was closed I parked at Arrochar train station (only one other car) and cycled along to the start of the path.
At 9am there was only one car there. As the car park is closed it was parked on the pavement. On the hill it got busier during the day. I must have seen around 40-50 other walkers. A good proportion, judging by their gear were not regular hillwalkers. Descending the steep path from the col between the north on centre peaks toward the Narnain boulders a lone woman asked me how difficult the path higher up was. She didn’t know what I meant when I mentioned a cairn. Another couple son the same path had been hanging about for a while and asked me to clarify the best route down. I think this is a good thing that more people are getting the benefit of our outdoors. Had anything happened to these walkers though I fear police Scotland might have been charging them for being improperly equipped and putting an MRT at risk.
Back at the road there were a good number of cars now blocking the pavement. It didn’t seem enough for the number of people I saw on the hill. Maybe others were parked in Succoth or Arrochar. Why on earth is the car park not just opened. The people are coming anyway.
Back ay my car loading the bike in the boot I was chastised by a local resident for parking at the station when I was not getting a train. Still plenty free spaces. Another consequence of public car paerks being closed.
A good day though. A red squirrel seen, red deer, a raven, and the sound of laughter at the top of the Cobber as people enjoyed themselves away from the city. Despite the best efforts of the govt and police to stop them.
100% Spot On…
Perhaps the Scottish Goverment are being rather harsh with the restrictions on walking, but I have been mulling over this foe the past few weeks.
Let’s say I decided to head for a day on the hills around Loch Laggan. I drive from my home on the Moray Coast down Speyside- nearing Aviemore I realize I could do with putting fuel in the car. So I stop in Aviemore to fill up. I touch the fuel pump nozel with my hands, not forgetting to mention the entrance door as I enter and exit the shop to pay for fuel. Now I could be unaware I have Covid 19 and be spreading it to the dozens of other people using the same pump and door within a few hours or one of those many people could be spreading it and I may have caught it there.
I carry on with my Journey past Kingussie and Newtonmore and have my day out on the hills.
On my return journey, I feel slightly dehydrated and stop off at the coop in Newtonmore for a drink and something to eat- sane situation again I need to touch doors, use the chip and pin for my card. I may have infected local residents or vice versa, thus infecting people from other villages and towns.
Then there are other people like me- driving from the central belt or from the east or up North having a day out on the hills fueling up at the same fuel station and stopping off at the same shop as our journeys cross.
Quite frightening when you think about it.
This is why I am obeying lockdown rules however harsh they seem- Yes I crave for the mountain tops and my wildcamps on the hills which is so good for my mental heath and wellbeing.
The hills are waiting for our return, but let’s make sure it’s a safe one.
Or you could just use the hand sanitiser that all such businesses are providing, or take your own and use it before and after you touch something.
However if this scenario was a significant vector for the virus, supermarket staff would have been severely affected, and there is no evidence that this is the case.
The effect of the lockdown has been to ensure that when people do go out they are in closer proximity to more people in a shorter space of time than normal, fortunately there is clearly something deeply wrong with the models as the rates continue to fall anyway.
“Then there are other people like me- driving from the central belt or from the east or up North having a day out on the hills fueling up at the same fuel station and stopping off at the same shop as our journeys cross.
Quite frightening when you think about it.”
Frightening? Not really. If the risk was high the govt would not have relaxed lockdown to allow people to travel to meet relatvies. Millions of us are out shopping every week. Millions of key workers are mixing in different places every day. Cases continue to go down. But if you are worried fill your car at home and take a snack. I did that today and given the unwelcoming attitude of rural communities I might carry on doing so after this swhole thing is done.
Nicely written opinion piece.
Fundamentally flawed though, as it ignores the Rescue & Emergency Services. More people travelling further distances by car, and more people doing outdoor activities inexorably leads to more call-outs. This is obvious and provable – just look up ‘normal’ levels of call-outs etc. Then factor in the higher risk of Covid-19 transmission, additional cost of PPE etc.
An enjoyable read however. Thanks.
Hi Dugald, Freedom of movement is a fundamental human right and civil liberty. There is no right to be rescued. Yet you are arguing that the availability of/demand on rescue services should be allowed to determine whether a fundamental right can be exercised. That is I believe is wrong in terms of human rights law and our access rights have never been contingent on the availability of rescue services. Nick
Absolutely right…..self righteously banging on….
Hi Colin, I was also described on twitter as self-indulgent! I don’t think we should be turning a debate about rights into claims about people’s personality or behaviour……………
The biggest problem now is continued fear, the Stay at home message should be ditched.
The ONS estimate only 1 in a 1000 people in England are currently infected, with Scotland’s longer lockdown and such low daily positive test despite anyone having symptoms being able to have test, would suggest the levels of virus In Scotland is way lower than 1 in a 1000, maybe only 5000 people in Scotland are currently infected, and community transmission seem to be so extremely small. There is obviously a seasonality effect taking place, with other factors preventing a second wave as seen across Europe. The excuse that people from cities could spread the virus to rural communities is no longer valid as the virus is no longer endemic in society. Now is the time to gradually try and re open up parts of the country, we should be working on a strategy to try and save the summer tourism industry, a plan for cafes and restaurants to open with outdoors seating, re open campsite, hotels and b and B. The main problem is fear, I would suggest with a cautious approach by the end of the month the evidence will be that it’s safe to re open the country side for recreation and tourism, but because of the Scottish government negativity it is going to be extremely difficult to do so. So while countries across Europe and England re open safely safe guarding rural economy, I fear Scotland will be left behind.
Another good post on this subject. Right from the start I have been puzzled by the travelling to exercise issue. I was surprised when Westminster Govt lifted the restriction on travelling some distance to exercise in England and so were the English NPAs. My assumption was that particularly with a Conservative administration (of which I am no fan) outdoor exercise would be a long way down the list of priorities, particularly with no real economic gain attached. Contrastingly, if I read the phasing right the Scottish Government (who I generally have more time for) seem to be saying we will welcome you back to the countryside when we can take some money off you. Hardly what the founders of our National Parks had in mind or in terms of the value we put on wild places for health and wellbeing. Still don’t get me wrong I’m a great fan of many of the businesses set up to cater for visitors and love nothing more than to be hunkered down in the Clachaig, having breakfast in the Mountain Cafe or sitting outside the Ceilidh Place with a meal and having bought a ludicrous number of books in their little bookshop. But, it’s not the primary reason I go to these areas.
As pointed out by Nick the policy has squashed people together in smaller areas. Many of the lanes and paths out of villages and towns are quite constrained. We have several examples locally. One is a path leading out to the hills that is about 2ft wide 100 metres long walled in by lovely mossy boulders on both sides but you can’t see to the other end. Locals jokingly call it the Corona death tunnel, but the point is that before the restrictions you would never meet anyone there, now you would, every time. The same is the case with the 5 mile limit you just squeeze people into smaller areas. On my normal cycle route I would have come across maybe 4 people cycling. The first time after lockdown I counted almost 70 people on cycle and foot walking along the road.
Being based in the Lakes we have it easy and can move around. There was a lot of concern about what would happen once the restrictions were lifted. Overall it has been OK. There have been a few incidents and the Bank Holiday was a problem, down to a combination of Mr Cummings trip to Barnard Castle, the great weather and the long weekend. The Park Authority carried out a quick survey of visitors that weekend and it rings true with what Ted said about the Cobbler. Around 68% said they would not normally visit the Lake District, only around 3% knew the countryside code and a very large percentage brought their own alcohol with them ! What this showed was a whole new set of visitors that would normally do something else. In principle I think it’s good that lots of people are getting out that wouldn’t have done before- as long as the outdoor fraternity don’t get tainted and punished for a few idiots setting fire to things- a scenario that will sound familiar at Loch Lomond.
There are concerns about outdoor transmission but the evidence is that it is very low risk. All evidence is around the risk being indoors. While I haven’t read the whole thing a Chinese study shows only 2 infections were traced to outdoor transmission out of a total of 1,245 studied cases. The study excluded data from the earliest place to lock down so people were out and about.
The MR post raises an important difficulty. I have a whole different view on how MR has developed over the years and wouldn’t raise that here. Overall, I think Nick’s asks are entirely reasonable but think this whole issue might revolve more around Highland MPs and MSPs serving their constituents fears more than it revolves around the evidence for the outdoor transmission of Covid.
A thought-provoking post and a reply that chimes pretty much 100% with me. I agree with Nick’s reasoning but am enraged by the poor behaviour of some idiots being used a justification for shackling everyone else. I live near the Devil’s Pulpit by Killearn and curse the day Outlander got their paws on it. Even with the informal parking area currently taped off there are cars parked in every available layby – nothing new, of course, and at least they no longer park dangerously on the verges – while the roadside is strewn with discarded take-away containers and wrappers. There are lots of people going out to the countryside at the moment who wouldn’t usually bother or who only ever go to places they have heard of through social media. They don’t know how to behave and that is, unfortunately, being used to tarnish the entire hill-going community. On the matter of travelling by car and stopping for petrol or a snack, a little bit of preparation goes a long way. Fuel up at home, wear disposable gloves, carry hand sanitiser, take food from home. I don’t really see an issue there and never have, except at the beginning when stockpiling by the selfish few left the majority unable to source appropriate supplies. I am one of those who has avoided travelling for exercise because being stopped by police or, worse, being harrassed by locals, verbally or otherwise, would have a detrimental impact on my mental wellbeing that currently outweighs the distress of being confined to barracks. Going to the hills should be a positive and uplifting experience, not a cause of stress and anguish. I understand why rural residents might continue to be fearful of contamination when they see in the media just how irresponsibly some people are behaving, but this “them and us” attitude leaves a very bad taste. I lived in France for years and hated how they fenced off the countryside for the benefit of a privileged minority. Scotland seemed like nirvana by comparison … but it doesn’t feel that way now.
I live in a rural community and am appalled by the selfish attitude of some residents, in regards to visitors to the area in which they are fortunate enough to live. Even at this time, we do not have exclusive rights to the surrounding countryside and I wonder what they would be doing currently, had they been stuck in a city centre flat for the past 2.5 months? Also, it is these said visitors and their friends who will hopefully be returning in the not too distant future to spend money in local businesses that have been crippled by the lockdown (if they haven’t been put off by the current unwelcoming attitude). I live in hope it is the vocal minority on social media, who have nothing better to do, but they are unfortunately influencing ‘the general opinion’ and making others wary about expressing an alternative valid opinion and even scaring them into not venturing out, both from the irrational fear of catching the virus and from being harassed by local vigilantes, either in person or on facebook. Its also giving the impression to the SG, police etc that this is what we all want to continue – as well, as Jane mentions, leaving a very bad taste. There are numerous people coming in and out of villages providing essential services, food and Amazon deliveries etc, as well as key worker residents leaving to go to ‘essential’ jobs, so its not like communities can be barricaded from the outside world.
The disgusting issue of litter (and worse), irresponsible parking and behaviour are completely separate issues and exist in ‘normal’ times. A lot of these problems would, however, be reduced significantly at this time by opening car parks and toilet facilities. This would even allow locals to drive a short distance and walk elsewhere!
That’s a plausible argument but misses the point that we are in a public health crisis, not a human rights crisis. As I see it:
1. Generally speaking, our society accepts that “lockdown” will temporarily restrict our human rights in a novel way.
2. Why do we accept that? Because, the evidence is that “lockdown” is extremely effective at suppressing the transmission of the virus.
3. With good reason, we generally accept that effective suppression of the virus saves very many lives and prevents potentially horrific overload of our public health infrastructure.
4. Few would argue that gradual easing of “lockdown” by review stages is not a prudent way forward once the virus is being suppressed.
5. Permitting unlimited travel by anyone, to and from any location, over any distance, for any purpose, is unlikely to be recommended for the early stages of “lockdown” easing. Travelling to hill walk out-with your local area is caught up in that generality.
6. Limited distance travel for exercise, or some wider travel for restricted social interactions, is of a different order of magnitude in terms of travel density and associated risk opportunities. Overall, the risks are much lower. Hence, this is likely to be advised as an early stage of “lockdown” easing.
7. Unfortunately for hill walkers, they do not carry a special passport that certifies their status as responsible travellers, relatively small in number, who will take appropriate precautions, who will present low risk of virus transmission opportunities, and low risk of requiring the assistance or intervention of others. So, they are inevitably caught up in the broad brush restriction of travel for the general population identified at point 6, above.
8. That’s tough, but no amount of self-justifying logic gets around it. It is frustrating, but as hill walkers we need to be patient and accept the sacrifices that we are making for a more important common good. Premature liberality risks lives and iterations of longer and more severe restrictions.
John
Your argument fails IMO at point 2.
“2. Why do we accept that? Because, the evidence is that “lockdown” is extremely effective at suppressing the transmission of the virus.”
It is social distancing and hygene that restricts the transmission. Not lockdown. Lockdown is just a method of enforcing social distancing. Hillwalking is about as safe an activity in terms of virus spread as you can get. There is no logical reason why exercising in your local area is more safe than exercising after driving somewhere in a car. In this case the English govt is right and the Scottish govt wrong. Restricting a right like freedom of movement needs a high justification. IMO that time has passed for low risk activities.
Ted – I am not making the argument that hill walking is, in itself, a risky activity in terms of virus transmission, although there are other attendant aspects of risk, e.g. possible accidents requiring intervention by others, that make it, to a degree, different from, say, golf or bowls. As we all know, hill walking is permitted under Phase 1. It is, of course, a healthy activity, and the risk levels for virus transmission are low. What elevates risk is allowing households (who may, remember, unwittingly, carry the virus, there or back) to travel without restriction, far and wide, all over the country. Realistically, not everyone in the general public will buy sufficient fuel in advance, in their locality, not everyone will avoid going into shops, not everyone is vigilant about social distancing, not everyone will take their litter home. Hill walkers may feel that, generally speaking, they will exhibit “good” behaviours in these respects. However, surely, there is no way that necessary (while they temporarily remain so) rules and regulations can distinguish between “good” travellers and “bad” travellers – which is a shame for responsible hill walkers, but unavoidable in the circumstances.
The evidence for the effectiveness of lockdown is in fact conflicting on a worldwide basis. The picture is confused by the fact that other measures have been implemented in parallel and the simple fact that the data used are very poor – there is a lack of reliable and verifiable actual numbers as opposed to estimates, samples and models.
On a practical level it is hard to see why lockdown would have a positive effect as the consequence of the way it has been implemented, certainly in the UK, has been to force people into closer proximity over shorter periods than would normally be the case which should have the opposite effect on infection rates.
2 metres is not a magic number (in some countries it’s 1.5 or 1m or 6′) which means no transmission; it is obvious that being in a queue of people 2m apart is a greater risk than not being in a queue at all. Despite this the infection rate continues to fall, possibly because the curve shape looks very like the classic one which virii naturally follow.
Even if you accept that lockdown itself as implemented in the UK is a mitigating factor, it is also itself a cause of deaths. There has been a huge drop in diagnoses of life threatening conditions which have not gone away, the backlog will long outlast the lockdown, and there are huge mental health problems threatening lives. The lower the infection rates fall the more significant this becomes, I believe we are well past the breakpoint.
I don’t accept any part of the so-called lockdown. Not now and not ever. And appeals for the common good places you alongside every genocidal dictator in history. Read 1984 and try to understand it.
Dugald Gloag’s post above makes some assertions. It appears that some involved with the ‘self selected and self appointed’ volunteer groups who help people stay safe on the Mountains consider themselves specially entitled. We might ask who is empowered to determine the “right to roam”?
The traditional freedoms for individuals to herd animals, wander across Scotland, linger overnight on the way to somewhere else, do no ‘pennyworth’ of damage harm, are enshrined in ancient trespass tradition. The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, codified much of this tradition.
No Scottish legislation has been proposed to elevate Mountain rescue team members to become guardians of access to the countryside. This means that Mountain rescue teams , vital as they have become, lack a formal duty of care under the law. Perhaps those who volunteer to offer this capability in their home regions might wish their status enshrined in law. But they should be very wary. Most Mountain rescue teams are funded by charitable donation. They are not sponsored by government agencies. Members, as volunteers, cannot be compelled by any duty of care to attempt to effect any rescue. Theirs is a moral positio , and all involved must be lauded for this. Their Social conscience and enthusiasm is beyond reproach
The Covid pandemic has resulted in a situation where some people within Holyrood, the media, and even in the Police have attempted to conflate local Mountain rescue teams with Policing. These Rescue charities should be wary of letting themselves become self appointed ‘vigilantes’. Their unregulated activities often in extreme conditions are remarkable. But charitable work should never be confused in the minds of the Public with the statutory duty of the constabulary. The Police are carefully chosen, trained and selected for the particular public duties they perform. A group of volunteers can also be well trained and even hugely well equipped..as with the RNLI. Yet however well organised, they have no “government function” so cannot be required to control anything. They should not imagine they do.
Great that you’ve provoked this debate Nick. Shame we don’t have Mountaineering Scotland hosting it. I think the lockdown serves to restrict the spread of the virus up to a point. As a policy however, I think it should have been used to give us time for the twin strategies of “safe behaviour” (physical distancing and hand washing) and “test, trace, isolate” to be organised. The argument that people will not behave safely if they’re allowed into the great outdoors seems daft – true, there are some people who don’t behave safely, but if they behave irresponsibly in the city we’ve got less chance to stay away from them there than in the hills.
On the other hand, I’m a university trade union health and safety rep so I’m really worried that we will be forced back to work in order to avoid the “stigma” of offering an online degree for the next year (and to justify charging full fees). We’re concerned that while some of us will behave safely, there are others who won’t – it’s not a myth that students who are still in university accommodation have been holding parties in their rooms and on the roofs. So I sympathise with people in rural communities who are unsure about seeing large numbers of visitors coming into their shops etc. (It’s worth listening to this discussion from Ullapool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDpQPOuvg6A&fbclid=IwAR2we652IyexsOc2oteu2M1skNnwjsiOl9QSTZ6vAk13UPKo_A1eynPx4U4)
In the end, I think the government has wasted weeks when we could have been focussing on learning safe behaviour, and chose instead to restrict our movements. This could become a serious problem as patience wears thin, and people start pushing against the restrictions.
I haven’t read all the above comments so hopefully not repeating something already said. But fundamentally the difference is between Boris Johnson, a libertarian, and Nicole Sturgeon, a socialist. Socialists always want to control, libertarians not. Obviously this is a gross over-simplification and both Scotland and England are ‘following the science’. But that’s it folks. If you want a socialist government (whether it has a nationalistic wrapper on the outside or not – don’t forget Hitler was a socialist), expect more control on your freedoms and way of life.
Jon, news to me that either Hitler or Sturgeon was/is a socialist – some would say a more accurate description might be fascist for the former and social democrat for the latter. But let’s try and keep the blog to the issues. Given, as you recognise, both Johnson and Sturgeon have done almost the same things you could say one has a slightly more libertarian and the other a slightly more “paternalistic” approach. Others would probably characterise this difference as one having an uncaring and the other a caring approach. I must admit I find it more helpful to look at whether the restrictions and lifting of them are justified or not. Nick
Yes, lets stick to polite. factual debate. This doesn’t mean we can’t criticise the actions of politicians but all too often particularly in Scotland this is seen as an attack on the underlying ideology.
Too many people attach themselves to a particular political party and blindly agree with anything they say or do and attack anyone who disagrees on the assumption that they are doing so to support “the other side”.
Was the lockdown effective?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.02090.pdf
Several other places have pointed out that infections declined after social distancing but before lockdown.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/04/coronavirus-infections-england-wales-hit-peak-days-lockdown/
https://www.bristol.ac.uk/maths/news/2020/peak-lockdown.html
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/new-study-shows-covid-infections-were-falling-before-lockdown
I think the lockdown was unjustified and the economic damage is being increased because restrictions are being lifted so slowly. There are currently thousands of zombie job being supported by the forlough. When it ends and the economy has been strangled there will be mass redundancies.
I have been thinking further about this post and was today interviewed for a piece that should appear in the Guardian in relation to Wales. Here in Wales the First Minister has recently added the concept of ‘Community Consent’ as being an essential element in any opening up of access to ‘holiday areas’.
This is interesting because at first hearing it sounds reasonable – except it bears no relationship to the science of Coronavirus transmission, nor does it have any relevance to the four tests that the Welsh government has set for easing its lockdown – it is patently a late political addition to the tests. And surely that can’t be right when we are impacting fundamental restrictions of our civil liberties? How can it be acceptable for the rights of 3.1m people be held hostage to the concerns of a fearful few in rural areas? Stay alert (oh the irony) to similar developments in Scotland.
The concept of a ‘fearful few’ in rural areas cannot be left unremarked. In Scotland These would be seen as the same areas of the highlands and islands that have had their voices ignored. Throughout this broad brush and essential lock down of urban areas, people living more remotely have been required to behave exactly the same as those who have hundreds of neighbours all moving around within a few hundred yards. Thanks to this one-rule-for-all approach, for many weeks the remote rural regions have been spared the catastrophic impacts of Covid-19. The single notable exception occurred when someone from a distant urban setting -without much imagination or forethought -considered it wise to discharge the infirm and elderly from urban hospital care. They did so without testing,shoving them back into local care homes including one remote island care home.) So now as consequence of that , the die of island public opinion is set. Remote rural communities needed visitors and could have opened up more, many weeks ago.The events on Skye have provided a perfect example of what can go very badly wrong when those far away make ill-judged choices for those in communities they do not understand.
While the overwhelming majority in these rural areas will have done exactly what was asked of them during lock down: not walking far, not using pleasure craft, not making long journeys and so on…none of this really needed to applied to their way of life at all. There is no virus in these places and in most locations there never has been. This week something else has changed. It now suits those in ” control” to allow the Glasgow fair and Edinburgh summer break to take place after all. Members of an electorate- all so vital for those who make up the present Holyrood structure -need somewhere to go. I fear, despite the desperate need for visitors all this summer, the Highlanders will respond as only they can. “We have been so totally ignored by politicians over rural parcel delivery costs , broadband provision to households and access to expert medical care locally. “Now a large number in remoter places might be excused for saying : ” Well, you city people never listened to us when we said we wished a regionally based easing of lock-down for school children some weeks ago. Now you really want us to obey you as soon as it finally suits those from urban area to be allowed to have holidays. This does not mean your need can suit us” . They might also say..”Exactly what in local transmission of Covid -19 near their remoter homes has changed”? There still is no vaccine…No reliable testing of those in remote places. The ratio of infection in rural places never has been high,( we said all this weeks ago ) yet the practicality of easing regional lock-down never appeared of interest. It did not appear to matter then .Only Now some urban people need holidays again, suddenly any increase in visitors and risk of importing infections to areas ignored for weeks /months/years no longer matters? A price worth paying ? For whom is this true. ?
Tom, this highlights some important issues though I think you underestimate another part of this. The issue is less pressure to open up countryside for the Glasgow Fair, rather the pressure has been coming from people in the Highlands who want to keep things closed, as represented by Ian Blackford MP whose response to the Home Farm Care Home disaster was to say we don’t want tourists here. Actually, the virus was almost certainly brought into the care home from hospital, as you suggest, or a member of Care staff. After a series of media attacks on visitors, Mr Blackford’s latest criticism was of people hiding in car wells/backs of vans etc trying to get over to the Western Isles on the ferry. What he didn’t explain was in whose cars those people were being smuggled and now this week tourist interests on the Western Isles are saying unless 2m distancing is lifted on ferries, the tourist economy there will collapse. There are therefore very different views in the Highlands. What I think the starting point for all of this should be is that if people can stay apart outdoors and don’t mix indoors, the risks of any viral transmission are tiny. There is no rational reason for residents in local communities to fear people who are out walking for the day or staying overnight and not mixing with people indoors (eg camping, campervans or househlds in self-catering). That could all open up now. If the risks of loosening the 2m rule on ferries are deemed too great, I agree the logical thing to do – and I argued that 2 months ago – would have been to allow Island communities to re-open as isolated communities ie all schools open etc. That wouldn’t have addressed the lack of tourist income but more people could have been enabled to work/live their lives normally.