• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

Kaz said:
Plus the big guy will keep you safe, eh?

Madness
Click to expand...
A commonly held but somewhat mistaken generalisation :) For some denominations such as mine it doesn't work in such a way...

And specifically please don't consider whatever you might hear from Evangelicals in the US as being in any way representative of the beliefs of most having a Christian belief in the UK :)

That's why my church is closed. Being open is considered to be too risky.
 
Last edited:
Lets start by calling an apple an apple. We talk about lockdown this, lockdown that. But it's not a lockdown if there are any "except for..." ANY, even one "Except for". And we have many.

We are living under severe restrictions but we are not "locked down". That in itself could be seen as a positive.

As you may note, the very word "Lockdown" has caused a random irritation for me (wrong thread I know).
 
Liverpoolphil said:
They aren’t going to be “full” though are they - the people we are trying to protect will be shielding , and the numbers going into both area just like shops etc will be controlled

There always has to be a line to draw and people always say this and that should be open or closed. But at the end of the day it comes down to the actions of us

If we want this to be the last lockdown we have then we just suck it up and battle through 6 weeks of no golf or pubs.
Click to expand...

Churches might not be full. But the garden centres probably will be if the last lockdown was anything to go by.

I'm not fussed about the pubs being shut. I vary rarely went to one anyway. I'd like golf to remain open, but I can see why it's not and accept it.
 
GreiginFife said:
Lets start by calling an apple an apple. We talk about lockdown this, lockdown that. But it's not a lockdown if there are any "except for..." ANY, even one "Except for". And we have many.

We are living under severe restrictions but we are not "locked down". That in itself could be seen as a positive.

As you may note, the very word "Lockdown" has caused a random irritation for me (wrong thread I know).
Click to expand...
Tier 4 with school holiday and no sports. That’s all
 
I've got a filling that broke apart and a sharp edge keeps digging into my cheek.
I phoned the dentist as was told only pain/emergencies were being seen. :cry:
 
Liverpoolphil said:
They aren’t going to be “full” though are they - the people we are trying to protect will be shielding , and the numbers going into both area just like shops etc will be controlled

There always has to be a line to draw and people always say this and that should be open or closed. But at the end of the day it comes down to the actions of us

If we want this to be the last lockdown we have then we just suck it up and battle through 6 weeks of no golf or pubs.
Click to expand...

I can only assume that you went nowhere near any garden centres during the previous lockdown.

Certainly the two that I pass on the way to the local supermarket were extremely busy and I know that one of them would find it pretty near impossible to maintain Social Distancing.

Just why are they classified as essential?
 
Interesting thoughts last night (after the PM briefing) given by Channel 4's resident behavioural psychologist from St Andrews Uni. One of the things that he sees essential to be different this time is that it is incumbent upon media (MSM, Social or whatever) to focus much less on where there are breaches of restrictions and much more on how widely restrictions are being adhered to.

His guidance was that those less inclined or reluctant to adhere to the rules are more likely to not bother with them if they think that many others are not bothering - especially where they are seen to be 'getting away with it'. Where 'not bothering' can be seen to be the very clear exception from the norm, many so susceptible may decide to stick with it. He was very keen that we see in the media a lot less about occasional and isolated breaches - and a lot more about wider compliance.
 
MetalMickie said:
I can only assume that you went nowhere near any garden centres during the previous lockdown.

Certainly the two that I pass on the way to the local supermarket were extremely busy and I know that one of them would find it pretty near impossible to maintain Social Distancing.

Just why are they classified as essential?
Click to expand...
No idea why they are classed as essential and garden centres were closed during the first lockdown and open during the break in November- but I don’t see that many people going through a garden centre in Jan , Feb - certainly not the vunerable and you would hope measures will be in place just like with supermarkets

But they have decided to keep them open just like Nurseries open whilst schools closed

We could spend days and days asking why is this open whilst this is closed - will always be hard to find the balance
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Interesting thoughts last night (after the PM briefing) given by Channel 4's resident behavioural psychologist from St Andrews Uni. One of the things that he sees essential to be different this time is that it is incumbent upon media (MSM, Social or whatever) to focus much less on where there are breaches of restrictions and much more on how widely restrictions are being adhered to.

His guidance was that those less inclined or reluctant to adhere to the rules are more likely to not bother with them if they think that many others are not bothering - especially where they are seen to be 'getting away with it'. Where 'not bothering' can be seen to be the very clear exception from the norm, many so susceptible may decide to stick with it. He was very keen that we see in the media a lot less about occasional and isolated breaches - and a lot more about wider compliance.
Click to expand...

I think that is a valid point. Widespread reporting on breaches almost gives the person contemplating the breach the excuse that they are looking for (if they are doing it, why shouldn't I do it) whereas an emphasis on compliance shows that the potential breach is wrong and against what most are doing and so encourages people to stick to the rules.
 
bobmac said:
I've got a filling that broke apart and a sharp edge keeps digging into my cheek.
I phoned the dentist as was told only pain/emergencies were being seen. :cry:
Click to expand...

I had to get private treatment at my dentist to have a broken filling repaired, not sure if that's an option for you.
 
MetalMickie said:
I can only assume that you went nowhere near any garden centres during the previous lockdown.

Certainly the two that I pass on the way to the local supermarket were extremely busy and I know that one of them would find it pretty near impossible to maintain Social Distancing.

Just why are they classified as essential?
Click to expand...

There has to be somewhere to go on the way home from church...
 
GB72 said:
I think that is a valid point. Widespread reporting on breaches almost gives the person contemplating the breach the excuse that they are looking for (if they are doing it, why shouldn't I do it) whereas an emphasis on compliance shows that the potential breach is wrong and against what most are doing and so encourages people to stick to the rules.
Click to expand...

It is a strong valid point.
But don't hold your breath expecting journalism to help the situation by declining to report the breaches they find. ?
 
Liverpoolphil said:
No idea why they are classed as essential and garden centres were closed during the first lockdown and open during the break in November- but I don’t see that many people going through a garden centre in Jan , Feb - certainly not the vunerable and you would hope measures will be in place just like with supermarkets

But they have decided to keep them open just like Nurseries open whilst schools closed

We could spend days and days asking why is this open whilst this is closed - will always be hard to find the balance
Click to expand...
As before I'm thinking that the analysis has considered risk associated with individual scenarios and the economic/social/health benefit of keeping each open. And then simply play a bit of a numbers game aggregating risk associated with scenarios to the level deemed acceptable whilst maximising the economic/social/health benefit they provide. As a result we end up with apparent inconsistencies - inevitable when risk and benefit sums are done in this way. A and B are essentially identical - in the bigger picture we can have A or B but we can't have both. One is dropped. Apparent inconsistency.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Interesting thoughts last night (after the PM briefing) given by Channel 4's resident behavioural psychologist from St Andrews Uni. One of the things that he sees essential to be different this time is that it is incumbent upon media (MSM, Social or whatever) to focus much less on where there are breaches of restrictions and much more on how widely restrictions are being adhered to.

His guidance was that those less inclined or reluctant to adhere to the rules are more likely to not bother with them if they think that many others are not bothering - especially where they are seen to be 'getting away with it'. Where 'not bothering' can be seen to be the very clear exception from the norm, many so susceptible may decide to stick with it. He was very keen that we see in the media a lot less about occasional and isolated breaches - and a lot more about wider compliance.
Click to expand...


there is absolutely no chance of that happening.

the press know that "footballer X / pop star Y breaks the rules" sells papers, unfortunately a good number of those who buy the paper then use that as a justification for them also breaking the rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top