My post last week on the Scottish Government’s guidance on travel for Outdoor Recreation .(see here) was re-posted, with my permission, on the UK Climbing and Hillwalking Forums and shared elsewhere. It received lots of comments and a fair amount of abuse. The abuse appears to have been founded on the view that anyone deciding not to follow the Scottish Government’s advice and travel over five miles is selfish, irresponsible and risks spreading the virus. A week later, any lingering justification for those views is disappearing fast. This post argues that the Scottish Government needs to amend its route map out of lock-down to enable the road network to be opened up again as Dave Morris argued yesterday (see here).
The advice to “stay local” is political, not based on science
As others have noted, Nicola Sturgeon traveled to visit her parents in Ayrshire at the weekend (see here). It was an anomaly that under Phase 1 people were advised they could travel as far as they wanted to see family – taking account of the fact that most public toilets are closed and the advice was that people should not go into their family’s house to go to the toilet – but not to go out for a walk in the countryside.
Far more important than what the politicians do or don’t do, however, is the research. One of the comments on my post on the UK Hillwalking Forum was from Henning Wackerhage (not an acquaintance), an active climber, who also works in the school of medical science in Aberdeen. Henning has undertaken with others research on the health implications of Covid-19 for (formal) sport (see here). He cited (theoretical) research (see here) on 2m Physical Distancing which showed that potentially a longer distance might be required if you were running or cycling in someone’s wake. As he commented, however, that research appears overbaked and:
“The reality is that there are no published reports of transmissions during cycling, walking or running and all my google skills failed to identify suspected transmissions during walking, running or cycling elsewhere on the internet. So the reality seems to be that SARS-CoV-2 mainly spreads indoors.”
As evidence for this Henning cited research from China (see here) which showed that only one of 318 outbreaks (3 or more cases) of Covid-19 studied originated outdoors. Its conclusion was that:
“All identified outbreaks of three or more cases occurred in an indoor environment, which confirms that sharing indoor space is a major SARS-CoV-2 infection risk.”
Now, as with any research, there are ifs and buts. Large events, like football matches and the Cheltenham races, where thousands crowded together outdoors and which were important for spreading the virus in Europe, don’t happen in the same way in China. But the conclusion should be very clear, that in terms of trying to prevent the spread of Covid-19 there is no justification for trying to limit where people go informally outdoors. As a precautionary measure, some popular places might need a bit of management, but there is no justification for trying to limit where people might travel on the road network as long as, when they get to their destination, they don’t go indoors and mix with people from different households.
Phase 2 of the Scottish Government’s route map out of lockdown
Unfortunately, as currently proposed, the Scottish Government’s second phase out of lockdown (see here) fails to take account of the very different risks of transmitting Covid-19 indoors and outdoors. As a result the plans contain even more contradictions than Phase 1:
The anomalies are created by the retention of the advice that people should only drive locally “for leisure purposes” (i.e 5 miles under the current guidance) while:
- Businesses where home working is not possible can re-open (“non-essential” “factories & warehouses, lab & research facilities factories etc”) i.e indoor businesses
- People can meet one other household indoors.
Under Phase 2, as proposed, people will advised they can move house – think workers crammed in removal lorry – go into small retail units, go into places of worship, attend indoor ceremonies in small groups (all with physical distancing) BUT NOT drive over five miles for a walk in the countryside.
In terms of outdoor activities, under Phase 2 as proposed, people will be advised they can attend outdoor markets, sit outside a pub or restaurant and talk to their mates for hours, take their children to playgrounds or use “sports courts” BUT NOT drive over five miles for a walk in the countryside.
As a package of proposals, Phase 2 is incoherent and unjustifiable and it is no wonder more and more people are deciding not to follow the Scottish Government’s advice. In terms of civil liberties and human rights, the Scottish Government’s continued attempt to restrict outdoor recreation is completely disproportionate and any continued legal restrictions (such as shutting of public roads) should be open to legal challenge.
What needs to happen
The Scottish Government needs to adjust Phase 2 of its route map out of lockdown to make it clear that as long as people can travel safely (i.e while observing the Physical Distancing rules) they can travel as far as they like for the purposes of Outdoor Recreation and leisure.
Given the main risks of spreading Covid-19 are when people mix indoors, the Scottish Government could also allow people to leave their homes overnight so long as they are not mixing inside with others. That would enable self-catering accommodation, including caravan sites, to re-open helping the rural economy. It would also enable people to go camping and campervanning once again. As long as people are self-sufficient, none of those activities should pose any risk of spreading the virus.
These changes would remove the anomalies and inconsistencies from what is otherwise, in my view, a not unreasonable plan.
England: a shambles, anarchic, no sign of a plan, people everywhere…? But; as far as the outdoors is concerned (hill walking, climbing, cycling), it seemed to me from my experiences in the Yorkshire Dales and the Lakes last weekend an unspoken negotiation is beginning to take place which facilitates, without any government advice or interference or plan (thankfully), a respectful way of getting about, which in truth, is little different to the way it’s always been in the hills, north or south of the border. The inference being, therefore, leave it to us to sort it out; we’re adult and largely sensible. All you need to do (as they have in the Yorkshire Dales) is open the toilets and car parks, and leave the rest to us.
As my (other, northern) neighbour in Lochinver said, “Nicola Sturgeon? A power-mad control freak. I should know, I worked for her in public health when she was Secretary for Health & Wellbeing.” Well, she may or may not be doing a better job than Johnson, but I’m sure she wants to look like it, and her recent references to New Zealand suggest just that. The problem is that NZ did it well, hard and early, and from the very first instance. Neither Scotland nor England did, so to look like you have a plan is one thing, but to actually have had an honest and open one from the outset is something else. I never thought I’d hear myself say it, but down south, letting people off the leash and trusting them to get it right in the hills, is, by and large, working.
What we have is Nicola Sturgon playing Prime Minister and politics with the people of Scotland .Nicola Sturgon is keeping the Scottish Public in lockdown, but is now telling the UK Government to hand over more money. England throu business people are trying to move the country forward. Given that Nicola Sturgon is holding back and is keeping the Scottish Tourism industry in lockdown, and she wants to break up our country, why is she expecting England to give Scotland money Nicola Sturgon has not sacked Ian Blackford Nicola ,Sturgon right hand man for breaking lock down or the Scottish Transport Police Chief officer he also drove to England and back throu lockdown and only stop when he got caught .Scotland is under populated and so big for people to go out doors Time to care about the people of Scotland or is she scarred of more coming out about care homes.
Ian Blackford drove home from his place of work. Your smear is becoming more pathetic by the day.
Also Scotland is not under-populated. IN common with every other country on the planet we are over-populated with the environmental destruction which that entails.
The FM is asking for some of our own money. England borrowed £30,000,000,000 on our behalf but is only spending £6,000,000,000 of that in Scotland while charging us for the interest on the whole sum. Now that’s something you could be complaining about.
Another good article Nick and good to see you flying the flag when other voices are strangely quiet. It sounds like its a very dogmatic exit but is there anything we as Outdoor enthusiasts can do to try and progress things faster?
Malcy, yes there is. Write to your MSP expressing your views. And write to Mountaineering Scotland which is leading the Mountain Safety Group in its discussions with the government. The government needs to understand that outdoor activities can be carried out safely and responsibly.
I’ll be honest Nick, I’ve been apprehensive about pushing the travel limit for outdoor leisure (hillwalking). But with each improvement in the control of the virus and every piece of science that supports your view about transmission in the outdoors, my apprehension has lessened. So much so that today I drove 40 miles for a 12km walk in the Galloway hills. I didn’t stop in either direction, I was able to park in a safe spot, away from any houses or other buildings and the only people I saw were a farmer and some contractors working on part of the farm track I walked up. I gave and received polite waves and smiles and had a brief conversation about the purpose of their work which is to provide access for future forestry works.
It was a joy to walk on the open hillsides with breaks in the cloud revealing surprise views, real food for the soul after so many weeks of being tethered up.
Unfortunately I doubt there will be a fundamental change in the travel restrictions this week but folk have had enough of being kept in check for no justifiable reason and will vote with their walking boots.
Another good post from a not quite alone voice in the wilderness. I was confused from the beginning when the phasing was published. In the next phase there is potential for people to meet indoors but still limitations on travel for recreation. It just makes no sense. SG are focusing on preventing a second wave, which we all of course support. I just have the feeling (Mr Cummings might call it instinct !) that there could well be a second wave, but it will be much later in the year due to INDOOR transmission when we spend much more time huddled inside. I don’t see how letting people get out a bit more now would alter the possibility of this. There is also the danger that opening some elements of the visitor economy too late will give too small a window for any recovery before a potential second wave and reintroduction in winter of lockdown measures. As Adrian mentions it would be great to be in the position of NZ, but we are not and cannot manage the pandemic wishing we were.
As for outdoor access in England things appear to be settling down a bit. The press jumped on the hysteria bandwagon (again) last week when the ‘r’ rate had climbed marginally above one in the north west of England prompting a cry for a regional lockdown. This was in just one model out of half a dozen and it seems to be back down again anyway with cases reducing and no sign of a rise in infections from unfairly derided visitors to National Parks. I saw an image of one sign outside a village in Wales describing tourists as rats. We really need to get out of this division and I think the opening up in England is starting to soften such divisions.
Politicians are fond of saying they are following the science, but in the case of outdoor exercise there seems to be little scientific evidence that there is an issue on outdoor transmission to follow.
Nicke. Are you Nicke Kempe self employed Director of Paths for All Partnership Scottish Charity Number SC168554? Leader of 20 charitable walking groups across the UK??? And not just a regular hillwalker? I really enjoyed the gentle way that so many intelligent kindly walkers contributed comments to your article on UKhillwalking.com. The author may have taken this as criticism I saw reasonable comment. If you are that director in a position of power I am disappointed in your leadership. If you are not that Nicke Kempe and a genuine frustrated hillwalker I am just disappointed in you. Our hills will be there forever. Stay Home x Protect the NHS x Save Lives x
Nick is providing informed discussion, not trite slogans.
For many the hills will not be “there forever”. There are many reasons why someone’s opportunities to experience the outdoors are finite and such casual sloganeering is a kick in the teeth to them.
The “stay home” message is considered by the Scottish Government to be the most complex message their electorate can understand and have openly said as much, hence the totally pointless restrictions imposed on us which have more to do with appearances and feelings than actual impact or science. It is very revealing to see how they regard us.
Hi Donna, yes I am a Director of Paths for All, that is clearly explained on the parkswatch “about” page under notes on contributors and my parkswatch blogs are completely separate to that role. It’s great you enjoyed the debate in the comments, I did too (and perhaps I should have made that clear when picking up that some were abusive). I am delighted the article prompted that. Nick
Donna,
I have no interest in hillwalking, I’m just a rough neck angler, not particularly intelligent but can spot a carry on when I see one. Like the hillwalkers, I also enjoy the outdoors, the time which I spend there is an antidote to life’s challenges, of which there are many. Our FM needs to go and find another cognitive neuroscientist and come up with a rebranded message which is applicable for mid-June 2020. I’ve found a lot of sense spoken on these pages, that has been refreshing. Having returned to work on Monday from furlough, I have spoken to circa 25 business owners. Not one agrees with where we are now at as a country. It is not just the friendly hillwalkers on here, it is kayakers, it is anglers and it is businesses. Maybe I’m just moving in the wrong circles?
Donna. Why are you asking the question about who Nick is, when there is a profile of his honourable voluntary service over the last twenty years, which you might have just cut and pasted from the UKC profile? Someone taking on this stuff, and holding .down a job, can still be, and is, a regular hill walker (and climber and naturalist). I suspect he would deny any “leadership” role. He also accepts criticism, and seems to delight in taking on, always respectfully, those who disagree with him. I somehow doubt that incurring your disappointment troubles him greatly. While chanting Cummings’ 7 (or9) word mantras may satisfy those who sit round the cabinet table, Nick debates at a much higher level than that. Perhaps you should put your exact criticism of his expressed views in the comments.
FM has said that the 5 mile restriction stays – except for visiting friends and family.
So you can go as far as you like to visit someone but not to walk on your own. Reasons not given.
Still allowing as little as she can get away with as slowly as possible.
Iain Cameron (of the snow patches- not a new clan title just my referencing) just pointed out on twitter that you can travel outside of your area to meet with someone outdoors, in their garden for instance. If within range the someone you are visiting can then proceed to climb a hill but you have to stay in the garden ! It’s hard to know what to say to that.
Andy,
I broadly agree with the cautious approach which the Scottish government is taking but I cannot support the ridiculous situation that it has created regarding access to the outdoors. As you say, I can travel as far as I like to meet with family or friends and meet them outdoors, so here’s the question: If my uncle Bob lives in a flat without a garden but within five miles of a remote, seldom-used hill, can I meet him there?
I have not seen anyone ask the FM why this travel limit is being maintained but I would love to hear the answer. My view is that the rural communities and landowners wield more power and influence than the responsible outdoor folk who just want to enjoy a walk in the countryside.
It would be the same answer every question gets: “Err…umm…err… careful consideration… tragic deaths… suppress the virus… understand the hardship… stay at home… etc. etc.”
I think that’s right Ayrshire Lad, the MSPs and MPs from rural areas having a lot of influence having presumably being lobbied. It seems to me that you could meet uncle Bob as long as its an outdoor space. I guess at the end of the day the 5 mile limit is guidance only. I did notice that because SG want to avoid overcrowding they are still advising against opening car parks at National Parks and beaches. However if there was a problem with indiscriminate parking the they could be opened on a phased basis. Doesn’t make much sense but I think it’s all just becoming an example of what happens when Government’s try to legislate and provide guidance over the finer detail of people’s individual lives.- it just gets messy and confusing.
A tourist may climb a hill. A person climbing a hill is not by definition a tourist. While I understand the anxieties expressed by rural residents, I must say I am fed up with being classed as a tourist and accused of bringing dire risk to the countryside when the reality is that I don’t want any services, facilities, concessions … I just want to enjoy a day on the hill. On my own. Self-contained. In the country of which I am a citizen.
Thanks Nick for your work for access to the Great Outdoors.
I am a 76 year old and put down my good health to my lifelong love of walking and climbing the Scottish hills.
Exercise is very important for health and the best exercise is one that you enjoy doing
I have always counted my self lucky to live in Scotland – until recently.
The present Scottish Administration have a policy of restricting unreasonably my access to the hills based on a 5 mile permitted zone.
I count this policy is a direct threat to my health and to the health of fellow walkers.
The fact that it flies in the face of medical science and logic makes it doubly irritating.
Should we blindly accept a clearly daft and ill considered regulation?
Our continued access to the hills is not a given.
If our access depends on ‘permission’ rather than our natural rights as citizens we will have given away a precious freedom.
Someone asked Professor Jason Leitch the question on Radio Scotland this morning. His answer to the question of why we can’t drive 15 miles to go for a walk but visiting others is:
” It’s all about risk to the population. The individual risk to such a journey is pretty much zero. If we let everybody do it, people get the infection and people die. Population choices are harsh but these activities will all come back.”
Did anyone hear the programme and was there any followup to this to explain why multiplying zero by anything makes anything other than zero and by what mechanism this would happen?
Link here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-53051977 scroll down to 10:17
Didn’t hear the programme Niall but Jason Leitch’s last sentence is patronising and discriminatory
“We decided that visiting family is more important [than travelling for outdoor recreation] and therefore the travel distance for doing that is a little more loose”
So the government is now deciding what’s more important for ME ?
Jason Leitch largely discredited himself at start of the out brake stating large indoor gatherings such as rock concerts which his wife attended were safe, advocating a herd immunity strategy with talk of allowing the infection levels to grow to a certain high amount before the government intervenes in order to build immunity and prevent a second wave, stating draconian measures such as closing borders, restricting travel or closing schools didn’t work. He has been proved wrong with most of what he said pre lockdown highlighting that he has been totally out his depth from the very beginnig, what chance does the government have in making informed decisions if he is advising, he must take some responsibility for the country now having one of the worse per capita death rates in the world.
If anything the Welsh Government were probably harder on the 5 mile limit than Scotland. However, they have decided to place it under review today with view to ditching it in a fortnight or so for all purposes. Interestingly, the pressure for this seems to have come in part from residents in rural areas who could not access services and meet family and friends within the travel limit. They also mentioned it with regard to getting the visitor economy moving again.