The short answer is that you cannot just go out for a drive. However, assuming you are in England, there are a number of "reasonable excuses" you can use in order to go out. The most reliable way to read these is directly from the legislation. You can read the list of reasons why you can go out in Section 2, Page 4 of this document:

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers and Obligations of Undertakings) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (legislation.gov.uk)

You need to beware of official "guidance." The government has been shown to conflate the guidance with the law and individual police officers, whether off their own bat or under instructions, have been exceeding their powers by acting on the guidance and not the law. The most high profile of these was in Derbyshire last week when officers slapped Fixed Penalties on two ladies who had driven separately for five miles to meet for a walk:

COVID-19: Police cancel fines for women who met for walk with coffees five miles from home | UK News | Sky News

Despite being advised by the National Police Chiefs' Council that the officers' actions were unlawful, their Chief Constable, Rachel Swan said " I support the fact that the officers were trying to encourage people to stay local to prevent the spread of the virus." What she neglected to comment on, of course, was that the "encouragement" was made under the threat of criminal sanction. Later, Matt Hancock applauded the officers' action. So we have a government Minister praising unlawful action by police officers. I'm sure it was purely coincidental that during the time the Derbyshire police were considering their actions, the Prime Minister was seen cycling round the Olympic Park, some seven miles from Downing Street. It was not disclosed whether he had ridden there on his bike or had driven there and taken his bike from the boot.

To reinforce my warning, here's couple of examples of this (what I believe to be deliberate) conflation:

"Shop for basic necessities.. "

You are not restricted to shopping for "basic necessities" (whatever they might be). You are restricted to shopping from the shops that are allowed to remain open but you can buy whatever they sell.

"exercise with your household (or support bubble) or one other person, this should be limited to once per day, and you should not travel outside your local area."

Exercise is not limited to once a day (it is not time limited at all) nor is it restricted to your "local area" (again, whatever that might mean). [See above]. More than that, the definition provided in the guidance is ridiculous:

"Stay local means stay in the village, town, or part of the city where you live."

I know many villages that don't even have a shop.

I'm sure you can find a "reasonable excuse" to go out whilst remaining within the law (even if not the guidance).

Edited by Middleman on 13/01/2021 at 21:19

I’m not sure where just going for a drive fits into the following - ‘You must not leave, or be outside of your home except where necessary. You may leave the home to: shop for basic necessities, for you or a vulnerable person go to work, or provide voluntary or charitable services, if you cannot reasonably do so from home exercise with your household (or support bubble) or one other person, this should be limited to once per day, and you should not travel outside your local area. meet your support bubble or childcare bubble where necessary, but only if you are legally permitted to form one seek medical assistance or avoid injury, illness or risk of harm (including domestic abuse) attend education or childcare - for those eligible If you do leave home for a permitted reason, you should always stay local - unless it is necessary to go further, for example to go to work. Stay local means stay in the village, town, or part of the city where you live.’ What if you are, however unlikely as it seems, involved in an accident, or the car breaks down? The virus doesn’t move around, we move it around. The most effective barrier to this virus is your own front door, please stay behind it unless for a reason above.

My parents are in my support bubble, and occasionally I need to go there to fix problems at their home - mainly electronics that my dad somehow likes to do things with that means they don't work.

What I've done since is use the car more often to go shopping to a reasonably nearby town (20 mins drive away) to keep the new battery topped up as well as the rest of the car in good nick including the brakes, which do bind if not used).

I personally feel that's a minimal risk to take, given I'm driving outside the rush hour, in daylight on decent roads, at most once a week. The supermarket I visit is also much more empty than my local one, meaning the chances of me either catching or passing on COVID are likely a good deal less.

My previous battery failed when I was about to go to my parents home. The delay in getting it fixed meant I had to postpone the visit until another day. That might have been not the end of the world that time, but it could've been important, or for others in a similar position.

We just need to be sensible about this - measured risk (something I have a good deal of experience with in my career) is part of life, and, despite what the likes of Chris Whitty thinks, we cannot survive by taking none and locking ourselves away at home adinfinitum. Doing so will also send us potty.

Note also that fresh air and outdoor exercise (as well as getting vitamin D via sunlight, even at this time of year) is also VERY ebenficial to both mental and physical health and great for our immune systems, which is of PRIMARY importance during a pandemic.

With the likes of quite a few A list celebrities going abroad, some politicians and footballers and the rest doing much as they please it makes you wonder. Go out if you may you only have to apologise for your misdemeanour!!

My car is currently telling me the battery is low and I should charge it by driving. Would that be a legitimate excuse do a 60 mile drive up the M1/M6 to Rugby and back down the A5?

Maybe boredom sitting idle at home has a deleterious effect on your Mental Health. Is that a legitimate excuse?

Car battery - get a trickle charger.

Boredom - go for a walk - it's exercise.

why are people looking for loopholes?

They are not loopholes. Loopholes are accidental omissions or mistakes in legislation which are, perhaps unscrupulously, exploited. The issues I have highlighted are examples of deliberate obfuscation by the government to confuse the population into believing they have legislated for things they have not. That's bad enough in itself but the police are compounding that deceit by threatening people with criminal sanctions when they have not broken the law.

The principle of law in the UK is that everything is permitted unless it is specifically forbidden. If the government wants people to remain within 5 miles of home they must legislate for it. To enact a piece of vague legislation and then attempt to tighten it by issuing "guidance" which has no legal standing is dishonest. Some of the measures taken over the last ten months have profound implications for legislation and policing in this country and if we're not careful it will see the beginning of a very slippery slope from which it will be difficult to recover. Being in the middle of a pandemic is no reason to abandon the basic principles of law. If people want to take measures which go beyond the legislation they are quite free to do so but the police are not entitled to act unlawfully to "encourage" others to do the same.

Edited by Middleman on 13/01/2021 at 22:27

Stick to what you need to do, rather than what you think you can get away with, and we’re in with a better chance of regaining some form of control.

I never go out to 'see what I can get away with'. But the fact remains that Covid spreads by person-to-person meetings. If one gets into the car and drives a few miles without stopping or speaking to anyone before returning home, that cannot raise the probability of catching anything. Anyway I did that the other day just to give the car a bit of exercise.

I gave myself an hour's exercise on foot the day before, passing about 15 to 20 others en route. So tell me which presents more hazard, and which one is allowed to do.

I agree with much of the sentiment on here, but unfortunately many other members of the public do not.

I work part time in a Sainsbury's petrol station and am getting increasingly frustrated at the number of people still coming in for non essentials.

Examples over the last few days: A newspaper; a pouch of tobacco; a pack of cigarettes; a Costa coffee from the damn machine; some bags of sweets and an energy drink. These are all different people by the way and very few are actually buying any fuel.

I've asked management if we can switch the coffee machine off, it's being considered. We have one retired couple who come in every day for two large lattes. It's a nice trip out to have a chat with the lovely staff in the petrol station, who all swear under their breath when the Octavia Estate pulls up.

Sainsbury's are partially to blame here of course and hopefully over the next few days we may be going back to selling just fuel and taking payment through the night hatch. This was what we did last Spring, but now of course all that lost profit is calling, and my calls for limiting the number of customers at any one time and the closure of the station for an hour while we unpack the stock from the grocery delivery, are being ignored. Not because the Managers don't care, but because nobody is prepared to make a sensible decision without direct authorisation from HO in London. Profit again apparently.

Apologies for the rant, but it's close to my heart at the moment.

So to the OP, I'd much rather you went for a drive for pleasure's sake rather than find a loophole to go to a convenience store for non essentials.

People are dying of covid. By going out, you may be spreading it. You may break down, have an accident, need fuel. All will have interactions with other people.

I don't like illogical mantras. I could also meet an unexpected difficulty going to the shops or on any other 'essential' errand. I merely point out that while travelling inside my closed car (which I am advised against) I am less exposed than while walking (which I am permitted). The mantra implies that to minimise risk I should never go anywhere - which is where unforeseen events always happen, including at home of course.

At the risk of injecting(!) some sanity to the COVID hysteria, here are some official studies on masks done pre-COVID.

OK, so those are the negative results. Where are the positive ones - or your collection may look a bit biased ?

Simple face masks can't be totally useless, as they must reduce the effect of any coughs or spits - but I agree they may have largely a placebo effect. They also allow you to shop without being disciplined.

As a lifetime scientist I am sorry that you feel able to judge how or what I feel from an impersonal post. As I doubt that face masks can have absolutely zero effect, while your list of references seems to suggest the opposite, I was wondering whether your selection might not be completely objective.

I think the reason why "going for a drive" is banned at the moment is that very few people would actually do just that.

If driving for the sake of it was allowed, many more would be tempted to drop in at a friends house for a cup of tea (and potentially a dose of virus as well) as part of that outing.

Once "going for a drive" is allowed, anyone stopped by the police can give that as an excuse for being out and about when stopped miles from home.

Clearly people can still use "going for a walk" as the excuse, but they are unlikely to spread the virus over such large distances.

If the OP wants to get out and about more, why not get a second job doing something which involves driving such as supermarket deliveries, parcel delivery, Ubet Eats driver etc.?

Going for a short drive in your own car is of little risk to you or others as long as caution and plenty of hand sanitiser are used when refuelling. If they really were taking this lockdown seriously and it wasn’t just a political game of who seems the most concerned then they’d focus on public transport.

I work for a major bus transport firm and we are seeing the same faces daily on unnecessary journeys on buses, most of them are not going to places of work but just getting out for the sake of it, a big percentage of them are claiming to be exempt from wearing face masks. These people are super spreaders and not one police officer has to date appeared at the bus garage to quiz any of them, nor has a single bus been stopped when leaving one region to the next. The trains are likely just the same. We are passing by police checkpoints with bus loads of unnecessary travellers and not an eye is turned to them. Why?

One family, who’ve never worked a day spend their entire day almost every day running about on buses for free and still they’re at it despite lockdown and not a face mask between them. There’s plenty of others including careers with mentally disabled people who are still regularly just going for a run to entertain them. Drivers have no power to police any of this and any comment made regarding masks or unnecessary travel is met more often than not with hostility.

I believe the reaction to COVID has been overzealous and poorly targeted. The bulk of the population take it like a mild flu if even they have symptoms at all. My wife had it and spent a couple of days in bed moderately unwell, my son most likely had it and wasn’t ill at all and if I had it then it’s not really made my mystery back, neck and muscle pain any worse. Everyone I know that’s had it has weathered it mildly bar one who was hugely unhealthy to start with. We’re killing our economy, wracking up incredible debt and people are dying from delays in testing and treatment for other illnesses. I’ve been suffering from some mystery ailment since November last year that’s taken my PSV licence from me and that the NHS has been next to useless in diagnosing.

Last figure I read put the number of people who’ve died under the age of 60 with no underlying health issue at just over 300. This has to be less than a normal flu season. How many have died from being locked out of the NHS testing for cancer and other serious illnesses?

Now don’t misunderstand me, I’m not saying this is a conspiracy and that COVID isn’t lethal but the reaction to it needs to be targeted at those who are vulnerable to it. For the majority of the population it isn’t a big problem but the unemployment, wage cuts and tax rises that’ll come along with the illness from lack of healthcare access will.

Well said, SLO.

85,000 excess deaths in 2020 over a rolling five year average, the highest number of excess deaths since WW2. Many of those infections could have been passed on by asymptomatic younger people.

Anyone remember the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics? Now picture all the crowd in the stadium dead. That's what 85,000 looks like.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics

Case Study A

news.sky.com/story/covid-19-how-mortality-rates-in...5

1. There are no quotes in this article, only the journalists interpretation

2. Headline changes "was almost without parallel" to "unparalleled loss of life. 3rd degree Chinese whispers

3. First graph is cases - irrelevant, but sets the bias

4. First deaths graph which shows covid top is not normalised for population growth, so is meaningless.

5. Second graph a zoom in of the first, to hammer it in. Directly compares Covid to WWI. Because soldiers with 60 years ahead of them deliberately killed are the same as someone beyond average life expectancy dying of pneumonia whose weakened body also picked up Covid. Not normalised for population.

6. Editor taps him on the shoulder about the population problem. Shows excess deaths are up to 10.2 per thousand from 8.9 last year. Shut the economy and hide indoors, the plague!! We are now back to death levels last seen in 2003 (think there was a heatwave then, I guess we should have all been locked up then too.

7. Gives the reason for the gap from 2003 to now was medical improvements. That's just made up, metabolic health has gotten far worse in the interim.

8. So a proper population adjusted graph (but your biases are set, right? In work, all the managers just want to know "the number", i.e. how big I think a field is. So rather than make them wait to the end, I put it on the first slide. Once I've spend the next 50 slides justifying it, they are all nodding along like donkeys, as if they thought of it themselves). Problem here is, 'deaths' are not defined. Covid or lockdown deaths? Also, why the trend increase since 2010 or so, obesity?

9. The next trick on this graph is the scale (used to hide all manner of crimes, which is why I asked someone here for it yesterday). Its not an absolute number, but a rates. Its deaths as a % of the previous 5 year average. So if you have a good five years, and something happens like the March pandemic, you get a spike. This is why the graph is spiky, and not very useful. he relates this back to 1940 "My God this is terrible! We are in a once in an 80 year event". No, 1935-1940 were pretty good, until Hitler started bombing England. What an utterly ridiculous comparison to make. The 1951 flu epidemic also had a quiet 5 year period prior, causing the spike.

10. Same goes for the age adjusted graph up next, showing rates relative to the prior 5 years. Not useful. It doesn't look to be normalised by population either. Here he brings in 'without parallel', when even this graph shows spikes over 10% have happened 7 times during this time period, with the current one having by far the best 5 year prior period.

11. Just for the heck of it, he changes the rate calculation to change in mortality vs the previous year, rather than the 5 year average. Even more statistically stupid. Here, it puts Covid 3rd in the all time (selective) list:

He doesn't mention that 2019 was a year of low mortality (the dry tinder), which is responsible for this. His narrative implies that Covid is worse than Cholera, WWI or WWII.

Then comes a bunch of caveats to cover his backside legally I'm sure, and finished by implying they would have been worse without lockdowns.

If this amateur hour is the best they can come up with, they are running out of ammo.

By all means continue to believe the government, like when they saved us from Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction that never were.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics

There may well be all sorts, journalists & politicians to name just two categories playing fast/loose with numbers they may, or may not, understand.

The real question is are we prepared in the 21st century with 24hr media of all types, to deal with a situation where the health service and quite possibly the infrastructure for dealing with the dead are overwhelmed?

They had enough time to make Tiktok videos...

pasteboard.co/JJNNhWv.png

(A selection of headlines, nothing insalubrious)

pasteboard.co/JJNNhWv.png

(A selection of headlines, nothing insalubrious)

Yes, there was always a winter crisis.

And?

You're the one saying this year is different, not me.