I have a couple of quibbles with tips in the New York Times'
Coronavirus FAQ. It's still worthy reading, however.
From the FAQ:
When will this end?
Some experts have guessed, optimistically, that the virus could abate in about two months, although that does not mean that public life would go back to normal. The more we take early precautions to protect our communities, like practicing social distancing, the better the results will be.
If people stay at home to flatten the curve, that extends the timeline to avoid overwhelming our medical capacity. But their "better the results will be" phrasing, under the heading
When will this end?, makes it sound like taking precautions will
shorten the timeline. At best it's ambiguous, and they should have been more clear. They presumably meant that there will be fewer illnesses or deaths.
From the FAQ:
Can I go to the park?
Yes! Getting exercise outside is a great alternative to going to the gym, where touching high-contact equipment can pose a risk (if your gym is even still open). A study last year found infectious germs on about a third of the surfaces at 16 different fitness facilities. Exercise boosts our immune systems, and even a single workout can improve our ability to fight off germs, according to the latest research. Even if you just hang out in a park, rather than go for a jog or a walk, getting some fresh air, and hopefully sunshine, is a good idea.
Many of us have been told to avoid parks because of likely encounters with other people. I think the Times' advice about exercise at home, and the section that says "You can still go for walks and exercise, but do it in a way that keeps you several feet away from other people." offer better advice than this section about parks.
And children are especially hard to keep safe where there is playground equipment. They don't mention that here, although if you read other sections of the FAQ you'll find the advice that kids should "probably avoid parks." The word "probably" is probably unnecessary there.