These two measures are not going to be of much use to most of us. In much of Europe, alas, we are currently banned from going out on our bikes, unless we can prove it is to go to work, in which case a packed tube or bus will do just as well. Likewise, in Spain you are not allowed to walk in the park, or stroll to the shops admiring the spring flowers, unless you can prove you are doing some serious shopping or that you are dashing to the tobacconists (yes, really).
Many people have no garden nor patio, no balcony even. We have over the last 40 years or so totally abolished the idea of a world to be shared in common or of a common goal for humanity. Some 300 years ago, capitalism enclosed what remained of common land and established the human goal as competitive, the accumulation of private wealth - some of which could be shared for a profit -, and public misery. The basic notion of being able to wander around, enjoy the spring flowers and nature in general, chat to other people - all of this is currently fanciful, subversive even.
In most societies poor people are known for having larger families, for a variety of reasons but one is that the children may well continue in the same vein of work, manual or otherwise, as their parents, and will not move far away from home in the future. It thus makes economic and affective sense to have children. Not so well known is the fact that the wealthy also have large families. Wealthy children will carry on the dynasty and have similar business interests. The middle classes on the other hand have low fertility as the cost in general of bringing up and educating children, and that of the childcare associated with working mothers, is prohibitively expensive.
At this moment, during the coronavirus lock-down, there are children from wealthy families playing in their gardens, many allowed the company of other children behind the gardens' high walls, and who will not be unduly affected by the stringent measures in force. School studies will be done in the morning, helped along by well-educated parents and the household's staff. In poor households, there will be no garden and no opportunity to leave the flat for weeks. Little studying will be done in the end. The middle class's children will study but not have much opportunity to play with other children or get outside bar a dreary wander around the patio or small garden.
Even if it were shown that the coronavirus was a significant risk to the old, beyond the risk that is posed by old age itself and accompanying illnesses, we could have put the elderly into quarantine, delivered their food, made sure that they had sufficient care and company, and done all of this at a minuscule fraction of the cost that crashing our economies has meant. The data shows conclusively that there is statistically no serious health risk to anyone who is not old or sick. The years and years of new austerity on the horizon should have been taken into account. Austerity that once again will negatively affect all but the very wealthy.
The 10 years of austerity in the UK after the 2008 crash caused 130,000 unnecessary deaths. Many of those who lose jobs, houses and their health, and all of the many who lose their lives, will never recover. Why was a small risk to very elderly or sick turned into a massive decline in living standards and, foreseeably, in life expectancy for everybody else?