@PaulB how does it go?
rules are made for the guidance of...
During my walk I thought hard about why there appears to be such a divide on the forum. I concluded the two candidates for main influencers are:
One's age bracket and/or perceived vulnerability. Understandably I think the more vulnerable one feels the more the tendency to favour everyone staying home.
One's location. Those in urban areas where diagnosed rates and population density are high are again understandably going to be more concerned and in favour of folks staying home. As would I.
What I'm asking people to understand is that we are not all in that situation and branding everyone who decides to go out as an idiot is unwarranted.
The risk of me giving coronavirus to someone on my walk tends so close to zero as to be zero. I guess the risk of me getting it would be slightly higher, but tending so close to zero to be zero. Nevertheless I consider the benefits of getting out, both mentally and physically, is infinitely greater than the risk.
On the other hand the risk of me falling down the hill and doing some damage, although close to zero was significantly greater than the coronavirus risk. It occurred to me the greater risk of all was getting hit by a car on the single track roads.
We don't normally take anything the govt says so literally, that in itself is an anomaly.
As Steve Slater suggests, the risk of an accident as a consequence of lost currency is far greater (at the present time) than the theoretical risk from coronavirus.