From an Outdoor Recreation and tourism standpoint, the one good thing about the Scottish Government’s latest announcements about how to manage the on-going risks from Covid-19 is that:
“Evidence now shows the risk of outdoor infection is very low if people stay two metres apart”.
The “now” is misleading. SAGE, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, advised this some weeks ago. While it is welcome that the Scottish Government has now acknowledged an important aspect of the science, unfortunately it has still not acted on it. This post takes a look at the latest contradictions in the Scottish Government’s position, how the mixed messages relate to the law and the way that scientific advice on Covid-19 and the outdoors is being ignored.
The contradictions in the Scottish Government’s position
The heart of the problems remains the Scottish Government’s advice to stay local for outdoor leisure and recreation:
“Unless visiting friends or family, people should continue to stay in their local area as much as possible and should not travel more than around five miles for leisure or recreation”.
This has never been justified. But the contradictions have grown in the 2nd phase of the Scottish Government’s route out of lockdown (see here) as it has relaxed its advisory restrictions on travel for other purposes, on people going indoors and on other activities in outdoor places.
Travel for other purposes
Advice: you can now “travel outside your local area to meet members of another household in an outdoor space such as a private garden, but you should use your judgement about how far to travel”.
Comment: This is similar to the Phase 1 Guidance except that the advice to “stay local” because you shouldn’t go to the toilet when away from home has been removed. The new wording implies that travel by car for any distance, with visits to petrol stations, toilets etc, is safe, so why not for outdoor recreation?
Advice: “From 29 June, you will be allowed to leave home in order to undertake certain activities in connection with the purchase, sale, letting or rental of a residential property which include visiting estate or letting agents, developer sales offices or show homes; viewing residential properties to look for a property to buy or rent; preparing a residential property to move in; moving home; or visiting a residential property to undertake any activities required for the rental or sale of that property.”
Comment: Someone from Gretna Green can travel to Skye to view a house, where they will almost certainly mix with strangers indoors, but not travel 15 miles to the Lockerbie area to go for a walk.
Going indoors outside your own home
Advice: you can now “form an extended household. This would mean the people in the extended household can spend time together inside each other’s homes and not need to stay two metres apart.”
Comment: this creates more risk of spreading the virus than driving over 5 miles to go for a walk
Advice: you can now go inside to use the toilet “If members of another household are going to visit you and need to use your toilet, you should ensure appropriate cleaning materials are available. You should also provide either a hand towel for each visiting household or paper towels and a safe disposal option.”
Comment: It is judged safe to go inside to use the toilet as long as “Anyone using your toilet should avoid touching surfaces with their hands as much as possible, wipe any surfaces that they do touch with antibacterial wipes, wash their hands thoroughly with soap and water for at least 20 seconds afterwards, dry their hands with a freshly laundered towel or a paper towel which they should dispose of in a closed bin.” There would appear to be no justification for keeping public toilets, so important to outdoor recreation and tourism, closed.
Other activities outdoors
Advice “From 29 June, street-access retail and outdoor markets can reopen with physical distancing, hygiene measures and controls on numbers of people.”
Comment: If outdoor markets can be safely managed why not beauty spots? But “To help reduce the risk of places such as beaches and national parks becoming crowded, we would advise against re-opening car parks that are currently closed, other than a phased re-opening in instances of indiscriminate parking and to provide opportunities for local residents to enjoy their area.”
Advice “Up to three households can meet in a garden with up to a recommended maximum of eight people at once. Physical distancing should be followed between households at all times. We know that some people will only have access to their back garden through their house, so in this case, if friends or family are coming round to spend time in your garden, they can go through your house but must not touch anything and should go straight to the garden.”
Comment: Meeting up with others, even outdoors, clearly involves a higher risk of spreading Covid-19 than undertaking outdoor recreation alone with your household 20 miles from home
Advice “We now consider that the chance of catching the virus outdoors is low enough for individuals in the shielding [i.e very vulnerable] group to meet with one other household in a group of up to 8 people outside from 19 June. Those shielding should still only work from home and should avoid shops, pharmacies and other situations where it would be difficult to stay 2 metres apart from other people.”
Comment If it safe for people shielding to meet others outdoors, it should be perfectly safe for visitors to travel by car through and to rural settlements as long as they keep 2m apart from people when they when they get out their cars. The latest guidance on shielding also contradicts the guidance on visiting people in care homes (which I have been campaigning on quite separately to parkswatch see here):
“We understand the importance of visiting loved ones and we have huge sympathy with those dealing with the restrictions in place. Care homes are first and foremost people’s homes, and it is important that we find safe ways for people to reconnect with their families and friends. We already allow families to visit loved ones in their final days and in other exceptional circumstances.
Current advice is that now is not the right time to reintroduce visiting but we have developed a plan for a phased return to visiting. This will begin with outdoor visiting where it is clinically safe to do so.”
So why can people who are shielding safely meet others outdoors except when they stay in a Care Home? It is not just the rights of outdoor enthusiasts which are being infringed.
The Scottish Government’s latest advice and the law
On Thursday reams of new advice about Phase 2 out of lockdown appeared on the Scottish Government website. The volume of this advice, the fact its spread across multiple documents, as well as the fundamental inconsistencies, are making it increasingly hard to follow.
While the Scottish Government has talked about the importance of clear, simple messages, it is increasingly difficult to understand what the message is. In Phase 1 it was “Stay at Home”. The message now appears to be moving towards, “Stay Safe”. This is about as meaningful as the message in England, “Stay Alert”:
Immediately following this the new guidance says:
“In Phase 2 – the three main measures are still in place:
- requiring people to stay at home, except for limited purposes
- closing certain business and venues
- stopping most gatherings of more than three households”
The “purposes” haven’t been limited for some time, they grow longer and longer and more and more complex. The”Stay at Home” message has become increasingly ridiculous.
Today, Friday, the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions) (Scotland) Amendment (No 4) Regulations 2020 (see here) came into force, yet again without any scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament. The Regulations define what is an criminal offence under the Coronavirus Act, as opposed to what is merely guidance. They too are becoming increasingly complex. For example, from Monday it will be a criminal offence not to wear a face mask on public transport except for eight circumstances/types of people (e.g cruise ships/children aged under 5). The regulations then specify a further eight situations where the Scottish Government says you have a “reasonable excuse” for taking off your facemask (e.g to eat, take medication). The law is increasingly difficult for the police to understand, let alone the public.
At least the guidance and the law for transport and face masks is fairly similar and consistent. For outdoor recreation they are not. The law allows people to leave your home for outdoor recreation without limit, the guidance advises people to stay within five miles of home.
The government muddle and inconsistency when it comes to advice and the law was nicely encapsulated by Scottish Police Federation chairperson, David Hamilton, on the front page of the Herald today:
“there was more condemnation of people going to Loch Lomond than there was of people attending any of the mass protests” (in George Square).
Gatherings of more than 8 persons are illegal, under the Restrictions Regulations, going to Loch Lomond isn’t. We have the law, the advice and “the politics”.
Further scientific advice to the Scottish Government on being outdoors
On 10th June the Scottish Government published links to the papers its scientific advisory group had considered in April (see here). It contains three interesting papers that are relevant to outdoor recreation and tourism in the countryside.
1) The first, on 15th April, was from psychologists on “Facilitating adherence to social distancing” (see here). It considered the likely success of two different approaches, a directive one, where people are told what to do, and a facilitative one, where they are involved in working out solutions. The report, which makes fascinating reading, recommended a facilitative approach:
“In short, contemporary evidence suggests that the public are not a problem that needs to be managed and controlled by the government. Rather, in coming together and helping each other, the public constitute the best resource available in a crisis and that the role of authorities should be to scaffold and not substitute for their self-organisation”
The Scottish Government, however, appears to haves chosen the directive approach and continues with this despite the advice the psychologists gave on managing distancing outdoors:
“Congregating in parks: Concerns about the numbers of people going to parks, sunbathing, failing to keep the statutory two metres apart has led to cautions by the police and threats from the government to ban people from going out to exercise and to close parks36. So how can we help people to go out while maintaining distance? An obvious response is to make more green space available so that densities reduce. A report from 2017, for instance, points to the growing amount of green space in Central London that has been privatised, run by corporations and barred to the general public37. Additionally, there are 48,000 acres of golf courses in London38 and a further large tranche of green open space in school playing fields These could all be opened to the public. In these, and other ways, it would be possible to facilitate being out and yet staying separate.”
That was written in April. With the school holidays about to start next week a facilitative approach would be to open up the countryside and allow people to disperse. The Scottish Government has made a deliberate political choice to be directive and not allow that. It will end in tears.
2) The second paper on “Options for re-starting outdoor work” is dated 20th April (see here). It was based on the “greater risk of transmission in indoor than outdoor spaces”. It set out options to “promote discussion” and while it avoided recommendations, two of the three options involved return to work. The authors clearly thought a return to work outdoors could be managed safely and in support of this pointed out that:
“The majority of non-essential outdoor workers (e.g. construction workers, gardeners and garden centre employees) are unable to work from home”
and,
“Some such workers are likely to be amongst the most socioeconomically marginalised and may therefore be disproportionally affected by the lockdown”.
At the top of the list of people to be consulted about the paper was the “FM”. It took six weeks for the Scottish Government then to agree that people could return to work outdoors, at considerable cost to the rural economy. It appears the Scottish Government have had a serious mental block about the risks of people being outdoors, whether this is for work or for outdoor recreation.
3) The final document, dated 30th April, is on the “Health Benefits of the Great Outdoors” (see here). It’s a review of all the literature about the health benefits of greenspace. Much of this is technical, e.g research on specific health conditions, but relevant to the lockdown. That was illustrated this week by the discussion about prescribing people Vitamin D to people as a protection against Covid-19. It was only four weeks ago that the law made it potentially a criminal outside to go into a park to sit in the sun (and there are still signs up in Glasgow saying no sunbathing)!
A section is very relevant to the Scottish Government advice to people not to travel more then file miles:
“As with Bowler’s systematic review and our findings, the evidence suggests that walking in a greenspace or natural area may offer health benefits above walking in an urban environment or on a
treadmill (Bowler et al., 2010). Putting aside the health benefits of physical activity, which have been widely documented (Bize et al., 2007; Janssen and LeBlanc, 2010; Lawlor and Hopker, 2001; Penedo
and Dahn, 2005; Warburton et al., 2006), the associations between greenspace and health found in this study suggests that “green exercise” may have additional health benefits. In combination with the findings of our systematic review, it can be seen that there is a convincing body of evidence to suggest that greenspace is beneficial for health, and also that greenspace may be currently undervalued as a resource for health.”
It is difficult not to conclude from all of this that the Scottish Government has chosen, for whatever reason, to ignore the advice it has had from scientists for weeks that going out into the countryside during this crisis would be good for people.
The way forward
There are now no longer any justifications for the Scottish Government’s travel advice and the impact this has on people to enjoy outdoor recreation in the countryside. It is increasingly clear that the Scottish Government has been ignoring advice from scientists and that its decision to try and continue to restrict travel for outdoor recreation is “political”. The explanation for this is unclear, though in my view it could be linked to negative views about visitors being expressed by a vocal minority of people who live in rural areas.
It is time therefore for more people, in both urban and rural areas to speak out against the continued attempts to restrict people from traveling and enjoying the outdoors. I hope that more outdoor recreational organisations will now speak against the restrictions and that more people – many are already doing so – will start lobbying their elected representatives at all levels.
Would anyone have believed before this started that the Scottish Government would be telling us when we can use a toilet?
They appear to be losing all connection with reality.
The point about Vitamin D bears repetition and emphasis.
Evidence is emerging that suggests a strong negative correlation between blood Vitamin D levels and chances of dying amongst those infected with Corvid 19. Those hospitalised Corvid 19 patients with high Vitamin D levels had dramatically lower chances of dying according to the following study:
“Lorenz Borsche / Dr. Bernd Glauner Covid-19: More deaths? More lockdown? More suffering?”
https://borsche.de/res/Vitamn_D_Essentials_EN.pdf
As far as I am aware this is not a peer-reviewed study and its results must be regarded as preliminary, but they certainly suggest that Vitamin D affords significant protection against Covid 19.
The body can manufacture Vitamin D on exposure to sunlight, which has an obvious relevance to outdoor recreation.
This post contrasts with the advice from Mountaineering Scotland issued yesterday! John Swinney has managed to show with his plans for reopening schools that being excessively cautious leads to a very bad outcome. In his case, his boss, Nicola, had to step in to state that “blended learning” and going back to school for four days every three weeks was not a good solution. When is Stuart Younie’s boss going to step in to get him to represent the people that pay their subscriptions? Mountaineering Scotland needs to start actively campaigning for people to be allowed to return to the hills when we all know that it is safe to do so. Acting as a tame Government mouthpiece isn’t good enough.
There seems also to be an absurdity in opening self-catering accommodation but continuing to insist on a 5-mile rule. Here in Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government has just announced a lifting of the equivalent rule on 6 July and then a further move to allow self-catering accommodation to open from the 13th (irritatingly, but no doubt deliberately, on a Monday). While I am unhappy with the delay to 6 July it is a compromise I can live with – I think there is some merit in the suggestion that both ‘places and people’ need to prepare for the return of visitors. It should have happened much earlier, but if waiting two weeks means it now happens with better facilities and less rancour then it’s arguably worth waiting for.
Throughout this whole episode, the National Parks in Wales have been appalling in their approach – a seminal eye-opener to me. Not once, have they lobbied publically for even minor changes or said anything other than the repetition of vacuous slogans – their thrall to their paymasters is deeply telling. It would be going too far to suggest that they have directly fueled fear and negative attitudes among local residents, but they have done nothing to assuage these concerns by offering reassurance and a more balanced perspective – in so doing, they have failed in their wider duty.
A feeling that “now they have our attention” the Scottish ‘government’ may dictate to the people of Scotland, in ways few of us could have foreseen, does not go away. A quick scan view through the Scottish government current business lists will find pdf after pdf of new ‘regulation’ . This surge of obfuscation is clearly designed to provide a fall-back position to defer and defy any attempt at penetrating analysis. Should anyone dare issue a challenge -question any detail – during a news briefing they have first to wade through reams and reams of semi legal speak “terms and conditions”. These “quasi regs” have been permitted to become more and more extensive. (Today they rival the biggest players in our western way of life – global social media platforms and phone contracts!) All of this new regulation is couched in terms of ‘recommendations’, riddled with ‘exceptions’, and references to other specific regulations – not set out.. A student nightmare of a manifesto: poorly conceived, rushed , “bad law”. As poor substitute for true debate, ( Due process- stage 1 and stage 2 drafts and real discussion between elected representatives) we have egocentric waffle. When this emergency began, the population of Scotland were resigned to the concede the need for a period of very changed circumstances. We are entreated to ” run away and hide” . As the weeks have passed we now wake up to discover a de-facto power grab has occurred, through lock down. The outcome is set to change the way we think about ourselves, our country and our ways of life. It is clear that those ‘holding the strings’ are now too far remote from those affected by the incessant monotone of daily briefings. They do not listen, they do not meet anyone casually beyond their closed “bubble” . When any government stops listening to the people, even to science and fact , it lacks consent. This Covid -19 period has become a full test of the maturity of the Holyrood system. Now somehow we find a system manipulated by a few to have us branded as ” unwitting criminals” in our own land. Those tasked with keeping “law and order” have themselves no hope of keeping up with the subtleties and nuances of the plethora of actual offences that are being tampered with every single day. Faint hope that anything good will come out of this present wave of obfuscation. Scotland has now drifted too far from the simple essential: ” Trust the people…take precautions…keep social distance”.
I drove for a walk yesterday thinking I would be very much alone. When I arrived 3 cars were parked together further up and away from where I was walking, people standing about with walking gear. As I left on another track a 4th car appeared to join them. On my lengthy walk I only saw 2 other people both far away.
When I returned to the parking area there were so many cars I counted them, 33. Thankfully they had all gone the more popular route. I suspect the 5 mile guidance has well and truly gone.
It is clear that most people are now ignoring the five miles guideline, keeping it going make no sense, would be better to re open car parks and public toilets rather than continuing with current farce. Same applies for cafes/restaurants and pubs with outdoor seating, evidence from Glasgow shows alot of cafes allowing costumers to sit outside on the grounds of the cafe which causes no harm and also have crazy situation of pubs such a brew dog at Kelvin grove serving beer with all there costumer then drinking in across the road on grass in front of art galleries which becomes a beer garden in all but name but without toilet or hygiene facilities. All of current evidence and practices across the county would suggest it’s safe and is necessary time to get rid of travel restrictions and allow cafe etc to serve food outside and let costumers use toilets, can’t believe the current farce is going to continue for several more week.
And sad thing is there is still a sizable minority of people who are too scared to brake the current guidelines out of fear of getting caught and potentially fined and prosecuted I have two separate extremely experienced fell running mates who feel they can’t go beyond the kilpatrick/campsie hills etc to go running in Munro’s north of loch Lomond as they are in total fear of being prosecuted if they were unlucky enough to twist an ankle etc when out
I fear that Tom might be right (above). The Scottish Government does seem to have made a political as well as a social choice to outwit Whitehall, and to do things differently, and that means less liberally. After some unruly Bank Holiday behaviour a while back in England there seems to have been little adverse effect, and as reported in earlier posts, hillwalking south of the border has largely returned to normal, and in a civilised way. So how much of this is Sturgeon vs Johnson in the guise of science, with a hoped-for outcome of “Look! In Scotland the virus is suppressed, so unlike the anarchy and ongoing infection of England. Now you’ll understand why it’s a good idea to vote for independence.” It has been a joy to return to the hills in northern England, where in the towns and cities all is anxiety still, but where in the wide open spaces (even though you might need to plan your car parking and route with a little more care), there is something approaching the freedom of the hills as we once knew it. As a lover of the Highlands, I can’t wait for the Scottish nod, and as every day goes by, Holyrood’s grip seems to look more absurd and to loosen, and people will without doubt take matters into their own hands to an increasingly greater extent. So Ms. S needs to act pretty quickly, or else she’ll begin to find herself infected with Johnsonavirus, which as a politician might be very unpleasant indeed.
Does the 5 mile limit refer to the total distance travelled during your outdoor recreation? Say if you cycled for 30 miles to go up a mountain with a 5 mile walk and got back before bedtime would that be acceptable? You are not ‘staying local’ but have not travelled more than 5 miles to start your outdoor recreation.
Pete, the important thing to appreciate is there is no legal five mile limit, the Scottish Government is just advising people to stay local. The list of reasonable excuses for leaving your home under the the Restriction Regulations at first included just Physical Exercise, not Outdoor Recreation. The SG’s advice then was to exercise for an hour maximum but that advisory limit was then lifted. There was no advice against going out for long bike rides, followed as a walk, such as you suggest as long as you kept exercising. It was once Outdoor Recreation was added to the list of reasonable excuses and various other premises were opened up that the SG realised people would travel so added its five mile advice. That has muddled the picture but legally there is no problem either biking or driving 30 miles and then going for a walk. You are far more likely, however, to be able to get to some places by bike rather than car because car parks have been closed. Nick
Thanks Nick for your analysis.
Some things to think about:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2020/06/21/covid-19-red-states-blue-states/
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2020/06/22/message-to-ron-destantis-and-greg-abbott-do-not-remove-the-control-rods-from-a-nuclear-reactor/
We are hearing everyday how accommodation providers across Scotland are supposed now to be preparing to accept bookings again. We hear much idealised speculation about measures owners of overnight places might attempt, to ensure the safety from residual infection of those who come to occupy their premises. What we do not hear is much practical advice on the processes and machinery necessary to decontaminate fabric surfaces,deep clean items in general household use, or what intervals should be allowed between fresh tenants.
Along with much else lost in wholesale Scottish Government obfuscation , the “duty of care” aspect for accommodation providers has been submerged in verbosity: the issue of liability for small self catering providers gently side stepped.
This summer insurance companies appear intent on excluding all claims related to Covid -19. Any provider of self catering premises will need some official support measures to deliver certainty over liability under the law. It will not be possible to reopen into a vacuum of guarantee. Without liability cover, owners of overnight premises could offer themselves up to personal litigation should a subsequent infection be traced -however incidental- back to a previous occupant of their premises.
( It is hard to keep weekly letting accommodation up to high standard through a normal long season. Holiday homes are intended for comfort..they are not built to be deep cleaned between each occupant to some exemplary ‘hospital’ standard. ( even these seem like petrie dishes !) Every tenant has their own ideas on hygene too. It is doubtful any casual idealist would see the problem. Only those who have completed more than 500 changeovers through past decades should be consulted ? A general duty of care liability might be underwritten by central support funding? Who would assess this? At present self employed accommodation owners, with marginal profitability year-on-year have received nothing.
Pre Covid-19 Booking fees returned, ongoing maintenance costs accruing. Yet now they are supposed to risk their reputation and perhaps all they own , due to some sudden urgency? Just because “holidays for all in summer 2020” is now somehow a political expedient , we may ask has this really been thought through ? )
Hi Tom, I had not thought of the liability issue. You are absolutely right that guidance is needed for all accommodation providers about what cleaning is appropriate, though I think this would be better done by the sector in conjunction with the Scientific Advisory Group than by government. The problems, however, should not be insuperable. As I have commented here before as the virus lasts for at most 3 days on hard surfaces, if places were left for three days between bookings there would be no risk. I had previously argued that self-catering could have stayed open throughout the crisis if people were self-contained and there was a week between bookings. Cleaner in after three days and then another three after the place has been cleaned. I think that is over the top and if a cleaner wore a mask and gloves they would not risk infecting the place on cleaning and the place could be let again immediately after cleaning. That leaves the question of appropriate cleaning standards after people had left. Since the virus lasts much less on soft surfaces, I am not sure a deep clean is necessary, just a proper wash of all hard surfaces. Nick
Cleaning guidelines now issued: https://www.assc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ASSC-Cleaning-Protocols-for-Self-Catering-Properties-and-Short-Term-Lets-v2.pdf
Note that they are so detailed, and exhaustive, including double cleaning and the use of steam cleaning of soft furnishing, that they are completely impractical to be achieved in a normally change-over time window. In their rush to convince the Gov. to allow reopening the industry body has essentially placed all the risk and liability on the owner, as few will achieve this ‘cleaning standard’. Suspect many owners will now be faced with the choice of cancelling the remainder of the season, cancelling every other week, or doing their best while crossing their fingers.
Thanks very much for this – the implications for hotels, B and Bs etc are even worse! The cost and time implications huge. The risks of catching Covid-19 in self-catering must be tiny. First, only something like 1:2000 has the virus so the chance of anyone in your accommodation having it is low. Second, for week lets, if no-one at the end of a week has developed symptoms, the chances are even lower. Then, if hard surfaces are cleaned – and soap and water gets rid of the virus on hands – the chances of any virus that has been deposited must be lower still. Perhaps those who want more than a thorough clean should be charged for extra days hire or say only be allowed to stay 6 nights instead of 7 to allow for a deep clean and pay extra for this?
Agree, however its too late to argue for a ‘buyer beware’ and if not come to a ‘mutual agreement’. These are the standard that are owners are expected to operate to and the document above is linked to from the Scot Gov website. Its a classic case of Industry Representatives shooting themselves in the foot in order to be seen to do something/make a difference/issue guidance. I bet If they hadn’t drafted anything the industry would still be opening on the 15th July, and cleaning commensurate with a standard holiday let and a couple of alcohol hand sanitizers would have sufficed.
Considering this is an official document, its a pity they can’t even get their facts correct, aside from anything else “Coronaviruses are part of a family of enveloped cells”. Viruses and cells are two completely different things! As a general rule viruses infect cells in order to replicate.