Do we need full lock down ?

[clarinetbcn]

This post is based on observation only.
I went out earlier for the first time in about 8 days. Joined the queue to enter the supermarket. A lady aged mid fifties joined behind me, a few minutes later an elderly man joined the back of the queue, at which point the lady behind me said “Dad, what the hell are you doing here...” The average age in the supermarket was approx 80, typical content of shopping trolley was gin, tonic water lemons/limes, newspapers, some gardening paraphernalia and a small quantity of food. Observed quite a lot of close quarter conversations happening and people generally ignoring the guidelines including one elderly lady coughing her way around the place.

I get that self-isolation is challenging for all kinds of reasons but as the evidence has shown from all the countries that imposed strict controls (in many cases stricter than ours) the number of infections reduce and so does the number of daily deaths, which in the case of both Italy and Spain did not reach the daily highs we have now seen.

The way I see it, the rules of a lockdown are much like the rules of the road, if we all follow them, things generally work out pretty well but it only takes 1 person to ignore them for several other people to suffer the consequences.

Nothing like a purely coincidental cross post to put things in perspective!

 

[Maxx]

Nothing like a purely coincidental cross post to put things in perspective!

There is nothing coincidental about my post, quite the contrary, it was exactly as I intended and based on fact.

And if I am cross, it’s because my friends and colleagues working on the absolute frontline of this are exposing themselves and their families to the risk of serious harm and are doing so out of a deep rooted desire to help others in their time of need. It’s a great shame that a minority of selfish muppets thinks it’s acceptable to flout the rules at at a time like this.
Perhaps those wishing to not partake in the lockdown could get exemption by signing a disclaimer forgoing any medical assistance in the event they subsequently get infected. That might solve a couple of problems simultaneously.

 

[mikebravo]

...when we have it in our power to stop this virus cold...

No, It’s not within our power to stop this virus. We can only slow it’s progress and minimise it’s effect.

 

[mikebravo]

As a society, how much sacrifice are we willing to make to protect our parents' generation, those who would, and did, sacrifice so much for us?

Personally I would be willing to do whatever it takes. I would stay home for a year if it helped someone in need - by the sounds of it you would too - but that doesn’t change my opinion: over time, society, as a whole, would not comply with such a strict ruling and the order would breakdown. History has shown this. It’s a sociological and psychological phenomenon. Society’s rules are broken and defaced on a daily basis. This is why people commit crime, run red lights and put recyclables in the general waste! I admire your idealistic thinking but I think you are chasing fantasy.

 

[clarinetbcn]

There is nothing coincidental about my post, quite the contrary, it was exactly as I intended and based on fact.

I was referring to the fact that your and my post were posted simultaneously, and that your post helped put mine in perspective.

 

[Amarillo]

Although it’s become a national sport to deal with some of the Coronavirus situation by grumbling about the behaviour of others... I have a slightly different view. I think, by and large, the lockdown has been a massive success. Of course there are transgressions but numerically, these are of little consequence to the big picture... the point of which is to generally reduce human contact.
I think we should all lower our blood pressure, do our bit by social distancing and maybe recognise that something of this nature will never get 100% compliance. The bigger danger is probably a reaction against over-zealous telling off from both sanctimonious members of the public and some (some) police forces not quite understanding the point of the guidelines. We need to keep everything in proportion even when we are under pressure.

I cycled through Southwark today, London's epicentre of the virus.
Russia Dock was full of people sitting on the grass quietly enjoying the sunshine, keeping a respectful distance from one another.


Stave Hill, a local viewpoint with the City and Shard one side and Canary Wharf the other side was empty.





From what I saw, people were being sensible, even if ignoring advice not to lounge about in parks.

I don't think we need a tighter lockdown, perhaps just a sensible review of the advice: if you are using local parks and open spaces, please leave a respectful distance between people from a different household.

 

[clarinetbcn]

I was referring to the fact that your and my post were posted simultaneously, and that your post helped put mine in perspective.

I began by talking about the "irony" of the conceit that we have dominated nature, which is clearly not true. If our conceit were in fact true, by logic we would be able to dominate nature by cutting off all social contact in order to stop the virus, which is clearly neither possible nor desirable. My point is that as we try to find our way out of this tragedy, we need to be much more conscious that we are part of an ecosystem, not it's master.

 

[Maxx]

I was referring to the fact that your and my post were posted simultaneously, and that your post helped put mine in perspective.

Thanks for clarifying. I have just read your original post and agree. There is an opportunity for the whole planet to recognise that as a species, we are being served a lesson, one which if we choose to ignore will come back to haunt us. The conditions that allow zoonotic virus’ to spread rapidly through a densely populated local region and subsequently spread rapidly to the global population have never been more favourable. If the lesson are not learnt, it’s possible we will face this kind of threat more often.

 

[mikebravo]

...Russia Dock was full of people sitting on the grass quietly enjoying the sunshine, keeping a respectful distance from one another....

...From what I saw, people were being sensible, even if ignoring advice not to lounge about in parks.

While I am against the idea of an absolute lockdown, where people are not allowed to be on the streets at all, I do think we need stricter rules and policing. Your post is a good example, illustrating how some people are just making up their own rules. The advice is clear that you should only go out once a day for exercise. Sitting on grass is not exercise. Here in Glasgow, the parks and tow paths have never been so mobbed. On my walk today I lost count of the number of people lying about on park benches; they don’t seem to appreciate that these are high-contact surfaces and that the virus can survive on clothing and benches for up to 72 hours. I’d like to see:

1. Much clearer government guidelines issued
2. Family groups split down to twos
3. More police in the parks
4. Stricter policing with more fines
5. Maybe some kind of hall-pass system, like they have in Paris I.e. a certified document showing your reason to be out.

 

[clarinetbcn]

I think the individual should ask her/himself: Would it be ok for every person within 100 square miles to do what I am thinking of doing today at the same time that I wish to do it? The answer should be obvious. It is only the discipline of the many that stops the selfishness of the few from having even worse consequences.

 

[clarinetbcn]

politicising the pandemic won’t help anyone

"Politicising" seems to be the new buzzword for stopping a conversation and not answering an argument on it's merits. Like "antisemite" stops all discussion of the political policies of the Israeli government, or "traitor" stops all discussion of why the 9/11 terrorist attacks occured.

 

[Wongo]

politicising the pandemic won’t help anyone

Is a shortage if PPE a political matter?

 

[Amarillo]

While I am against the idea of an absolute lockdown, where people are not allowed to be on the streets at all, I do think we need stricter rules and policing. Your post is a good example, illustrating how some people are just making up their own rules. The advice is clear that you should only go out once a day for exercise. Sitting on grass is not exercise. Here in Glasgow, the parks and tow paths have never been so mobbed. On my walk today I lost count of the number of people lying about on park benches; they don’t seem to appreciate that these are high-contact surfaces and that the virus can survive on clothing and benches for up to 72 hours. I’d like to see:

1. Much clearer government guidelines issued
2. Family groups split down to twos
3. More police in the parks
4. Stricter policing with more fines
5. Maybe some kind of hall-pass system, like they have in Paris I.e. a certified document showing your reason to be out.

There are thirteen reasons given in the legislation which are an automatic "reasonable excuse" for leaving the home, but the list is not exhaustive. Sunbathing is not listed as a "reasonable excuse", but as the list is not exhaustive, and it has not been tested in court, we cannot be certain that getting Vitamin D is not a reasonable excuse. After all, the NHS website clearly states:

Good sources of vitamin D​

From about late March/early April to the end of September, most people should be able to get all the vitamin D they need from sunlight.​

The body creates vitamin D from direct sunlight on the skin when outdoors.​

But between October and early March we don't get enough vitamin D from sunlight. Read more about vitamin D and sunlight.​

If you live in a flat with no garden, I think that you could at least build a defense for sunbathing along those lines. Of course, I have no idea how a magistrate or judge would rule on that defense.

So long as you keep a safe and respectful distance from other households, I really cannot see the harm in a few minutes spent basking in this glorious spring sunshine.

 

[willwander]

Is a shortage if PPE a political matter?

It shouldn’t be

 

[pjm-84]

Amarillo, the ability to think seems to have gone out of the window.

The Forest is closed. So I walk my dogs and pass 150 people or I walk my dogs and pass no one. Which one carries less risk? In the last two weeks, I could have passed over 2000 people. However, the reality is less than 30 and no one any closer than 10metres. Is the journey essential or non-essential?

 

[Amarillo]

Amarillo, the ability to think seems to have gone out of the window.

The Forest is closed. So I walk my dogs and pass 150 people or I walk my dogs and pass no one. Which one carries less risk? In the last two weeks, I could have passed over 2000 people. However, the reality is less than 30 and no one any closer than 10metres. Is the journey essential or non-essential?

It seems absolutely mad to me. Some of the best places in our country to exercise in solitude are our national parks.

 

[mikebravo]

It seems absolutely mad to me. Some of the best places in our country to exercise in solitude are our national parks.

You obviously haven’t been to Rowardennan (Loch Lomond) on a weekend: Hundreds or thousands in a relatively small area, using the same pay and display machine and other facilities like toilets, cafes and pubs throughout the day. All passing through and touching the same access gates.

Moreover, I don’t think it’s fair or responsible to travel to remote communities and put the local shop keepers, their families and communities at risk and thereby increasing the pressure on the NHS in the process. I say stay local and try to go to places that are quiet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GrannyJen]

It seems absolutely mad to me. Some of the best places in our country to exercise in solitude are our national parks.

As well as Loch Lomond you obviously haven't been to where I live. Mothers day and I could not step out of my house because the world and his wife was on the beach and greensward 200 yards away. Gates, stiles, fences all being touched by a few hundred people.

Yes it's tough and there are always going to be anomalies but we are all supposed to be in this together, not seeking ways in which we can adapt it just for ourselves.

 

[Amarillo]

You obviously haven’t been to Rowardennan (Loch Lomond) on a weekend: Hundreds or thousands in a relatively small area, using the same pay and display machine and other facilities like toilets, cafes and pubs throughout the day. All passing through and touching the same access gates.

Moreover, I don’t think it’s fair or responsible to travel to remote communities and put the local shop keepers, their families and communities at risk and thereby increasing the pressure on the NHS in the process. I say stay local and try to go to places that are quiet.

I wasn't suggesting for one minute that it would be advisable to travel to the national parks for shopping!

I can well imagine that many places in our national parks would be busy. But the total land area of the national parks of England and Wales alone is 6,300 square miles. Compare that the the 7.66 square miles of the Royal Parks in London.

 

[Amarillo]

As well as Loch Lomond you obviously haven't been to where I live. Mothers day and I could not step out of my house because the world and his wife was on the beach and greensward 200 yards away. Gates, stiles, fences all being touched by a few hundred people.

Yes it's tough and there are always going to be anomalies but we are all supposed to be in this together, not seeking ways in which we can adapt it just for ourselves.

Would you consider it unreasonable for people local to where you live to drive a few miles to the South Downs' National Park for a walk in solitude?

 

[Mickyb123]

Just interested in thoughts of folk on here. Should people be out sat in the park obviously just to sunbathe not to exercise? The guidance suggests not, so are most folk happy with that or do we think those folk out and about even though socially distant should not be doing it?

 

[WelshGas]

There are thirteen reasons given in the legislation which are an automatic "reasonable excuse" for leaving the home, but the list is not exhaustive. Sunbathing is not listed as a "reasonable excuse", but as the list is not exhaustive, and it has not been tested in court, we cannot be certain that getting Vitamin D is not a reasonable excuse. After all, the NHS website clearly states:

Good sources of vitamin D​

From about late March/early April to the end of September, most people should be able to get all the vitamin D they need from sunlight.​

The body creates vitamin D from direct sunlight on the skin when outdoors.​

But between October and early March we don't get enough vitamin D from sunlight. Read more about vitamin D and sunlight.​

If you live in a flat with no garden, I think that you could at least build a defense for sunbathing along those lines. Of course, I have no idea how a magistrate or judge would rule on that defense.

So long as you keep a safe and respectful distance from other households, I really cannot see the harm in a few minutes spent basking in this glorious spring sunshine.

As far as I am aware you don't have to be static to get your Vitamin D.
I find I get more than enough of a tan just walking around in shorts, or do the sun rays down your way not follow you around?

 

[Amarillo]

As far as I am aware you don't have to be static to get your Vitamin D.
I find I get more than enough of a tan just walking around in shorts, or do the sun rays down your way not follow you around?

Ignoring the strawman, I don't disagree with that. But the question for the courts would be, "Is going out to sunbathe a reasonable excuse"? You could try breaking it down into two questions, "Is going out for Vitamin D a reasonable excuse"? If it is, "Must the person be moving for it to be reasonable"?

 

[John Slater]

Certainly feeling even more lucky than usual living in the Lakes at present, and easily able to exercise and maintain social distancing.
It's a difficult balancing act to police the urban areas. The public's consent is key and if policing is too heavy handed it risks losing that and some aspect of breakdown occurs.

 

[Amarillo]

One question I have been unable to answer is this. If in a park, is there a greater risk in catching or transmitting coronavirus if moving about or if static.

The obvious answer seems to be there is a greater risk moving about, as you are more likely to be in closer contact with a greater number of people. But ministers are repeatedly giving non-mandatory advice to "walk, jog or cycle" in parks which necessarily involve moving about. On my cycle ride yesterday I saw many men in parks skipping - skipping very well too. Is this a particularly dangerous form of exercise?