New national lockdown from this Wed?

[Deleted member 21784]

I'm all for putting a case forward for golf

If they decide it's safe happy days

If not respect the decision

That's my position

 

[Backache]

I'm all for putting a case forward for golf

If they decide it's safe happy days

If not respect the decision

That's my position

Agree completely I don't think personally that golf represents a risk and would prefer it allowed as indeed it is where I live in Scoltand.
However people are highly immitative and if some are seen to be breaking the rules it encourages others.
I think as few a number of rules as possible whilst encouraging strict adherence is the way to go but I will be adhering to whatever is in place.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Because it needs to be passed by the HoC who are debating it on Weds.

I think he knows that, as most of us do. That doesn't stop the stirrers though.
It was put as an example of how people do/say anything to stir against measures we all don't like but see as necessary.

The data is frightening the beejesus out of the modellers of what is to come.
That is why it is a sharp, hard shock for a month to , frankly, try to keep people apart for that time .
You are right about indoors being the big problem, but I don't buy your optimism about outdoors mixing.
Inasmuch that I have seen quite a lot of outdoor mixing at my club , mostly societies of which there are many, (the club being based on outside business, ),that I wouldn't want to be a part of.- several all up close in animated conversations where there is breath exchange -in corridors, on verandas etc, technically outdoors but enclosed on most sides. Buggy sharing supposedly same household? -a joke.
So called nominal compliance with rules, but you do wonder if the guys realise there is a virus.
I agree you are right about very low risk if outdoors SD is practiced as you describe it should be, but I think it isn't. As someone earlier said, " give an inch and they take a mile"

 

[Ethan]

I think he knows that, as most of us do. That doesn't stop the stirrers though.
It was put as an example of how people do/say anything to stir against measures we all don't like but see as necessary.

The data is frightening the beejesus out of the modellers of what is to come.
That is why it is a sharp, hard shock for a month to , frankly, try to keep people apart for that time .
You are right about indoors being the big problem, but I don't buy your optimism about outdoors mixing.
Inasmuch that I have seen quite a lot of outdoor mixing at my club , mostly societies of which there are many, (the club being based on outside business, ),that I wouldn't want to be a part of.- several all up close in animated conversations where there is breath exchange -in corridors, on verandas etc, technically outdoors but enclosed on most sides. Buggy sharing supposedly same household? -a joke.
So called nominal compliance with rules, but you do wonder if the guys realise there is a virus.
I agree you are right about very low risk if outdoors SD is practiced as you describe it should be, but I think it isn't. As someone earlier said, " give an inch and they take a mile"

It is the opinion of Chris Whitty, Patrick Vallance and SAGE that the risk is considerably higher indoors, so whether true or not (and it is obviously true) and should be a basis for Govt policy. They just need to enact that policy. Making the rule of 6 apply outside and well as inside was absurd and ended only for the sort of utter idiots who ignore it anyway.

Precisely the same outdoors mixing you describe can occur at Tesco, outside the local chip shop or anywhere else.

Edit: Indoor spread

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Got the wife a Porsche boxter we just usually share a car cause i do any work from home and wife only works a few hours in the morning but cause she’s moaning about constantly dropping me off at golf at 7am had to get a second car. This golf is costly ?

...sorry for my earlier comment. Not appropriate...I was in a bad place at the time

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Now nearly 104k, so should be debated.

As others have said, if the ban stands I'll abide by it, but I cannot see any justification for it. Clubhouse closure I get, but with an almost negligible risk of transmission, I'd like someone in Government to explain WHY we can't.

The justification surely is that each and every situation that involves any form of social mingling and interaction has an associated transmission risk. And so for four weeks if we only do those things that we must do then the cumulative risk in the community is minimised as much as possible. It does not matter that the risk of transmission in the context of golf is considered small - it exists - and it does not take that many individuals to catch the virus in a golf context for that to result in a community transmission.

Every little counts so i think that the least that we golfers can do to help cut transmission in our communities is to put down our clubs for a month. It’s not actually a lot to ask of us compared with the sacrifices made and being made by very many others.

 

[fundy]

The justification surely is that each and every situation that involves any form of social mingling and interaction has an associated transmission risk. And so for four weeks if we only do those things that we must do then the cumulative risk in the community is minimised as much as possible. It does not matter that the risk of transmission in the context of golf is considered small - it exists - and it does not take that many individuals to catch the virus in a golf context for that to result in a community transmission.

Every little counts so i think that the least that we golfers can do to help cut transmission in our communities is to put down our clubs for a month. It’s not actually a lot to ask of us compared with the sacrifices made and being made by very many others.

if the only things on the able to do list were musts then this would make sense, but clearly thats not the case

 

[Papas1982]

The justification surely is that each and every situation that involves any form of social mingling and interaction has an associated transmission risk. And so for four weeks if we only do those things that we must do then the cumulative risk in the community is minimised as much as possible. It does not matter that the risk of transmission in the context of golf is considered small - it exists - and it does not take that many individuals to catch the virus in a golf context for that to result in a community transmission.

Every little counts so i think that the least that we golfers can do to help cut transmission in our communities is to put down our clubs for a month. It’s not actually a lot to ask of us compared with the sacrifices made and being made by very many others.

True, but they have said you can meet one other person for exercise.

Should have left that open for Al sports jmo but closed indoor facilities.

So you Could kick a footy to a mate, play tennis outside etc

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

if the only things on the able to do list were musts then this would make sense, but clearly thats not the case

...and so if there is deemed to be an acceptable level of cumulative risk in any community or sector of the economy - a level that is deemed acceptable in the context of keeping the economy moving - then when that level cannot accommodate the total risk associated with ALL activities continuing, then some activities will ‘win’ out whilst others will lose out. They might look similar or seem to have similar associated risk - but the cumulativevrisk of them all continuing is just too high.

That aside I fully agree with those many on here who ask us to consider the perception of golf held in the wider community and how an ‘entitled‘ and ‘wealthy’ group seeking special consideration and exemptions will look.

 

[Blue in Munich]

The justification surely is that each and every situation that involves any form of social mingling and interaction has an associated transmission risk. And so for four weeks if we only do those things that we must do then the cumulative risk in the community is minimised as much as possible. It does not matter that the risk of transmission in the context of golf is considered small - it exists - and it does not take that many individuals to catch the virus in a golf context for that to result in a community transmission.

Every little counts so i think that the least that we golfers can do to help cut transmission in our communities is to put down our clubs for a month. It’s not actually a lot to ask of us compared with the sacrifices made and being made by very many others.

So ban all outdoor mingling for exercise then. Sorted.

 

[Tashyboy]

been up to the tits in it and just got In and just checked me emails and had this from our club secretary. Now Ave not been through the last 6 pages.
But are they deffo shut or what ??

Dear Tash

We are still awaiting a definitive answer as to whether Golf Courses can remain open, as soon as we have this answer we will be in touch

 

[Old Skier]

been up to the tits in it and just got In and just checked me emails and had this from our club secretary. Now Ave not been through the last 6 pages.
But are they deffo shut or what ??

Dear Tash

We are still awaiting a definitive answer as to whether Golf Courses can remain open, as soon as we have this answer we will be in touch

The definitive answer until or if it changes is Golf courses are shut

 

[Old Skier]

I’m not sure why everyone is getting all hot and bothered about courses being closed. EG is on the case, all sports body’s are making representations tomorrow and by the end of the week we will all know one way or other.

If it’s yes your open, go out and get wet.
if it’s no your closed, give your waterproofs a rest.

If your that desperate to take exercise in the rain, go for a walk.

 

[KenL]

Actually, an effective and brutal lockdown would go some way to eradicate the virus. If it can't propagate, it dies. If it can't transmit, it can't propagate.

Treatments are only part of the answer. Dexa is only useful if you are on oxygenation, and even then the cure rate is modest. Remdesivir is turning out not to be the magic bullet some thought it was, the regeneron antibody cocktail is likewise showing some issues and is very expensive and not scalable. There is no early intervention treatment known to meaningfully reduce the risk of reaching ICU.

Vaccination is the biggest weapon, but current JCVI proposals are to not vaccinate everyone, only those over 50 or care home/NHS workers, and vulnerable people. That leaves a lot of people capable of experiencing serious morbidity uncovered. The policy is clearly still a herd immunity lite (that dare not speak its name) approach.

This thing has a long way to run yet, and Lockdown III is likely in early 2021 after a Christmas shopping/party/kids coming back from Uni surge kicks in.

Yes, a FULL lockdown would do as required. But, everyone is still in education (millions of people) and millions of essential workers will still be out there.
Even more significant is the millions of people who clearly cannot AKA are not willing to follow the rules.

 

[Ethan]

Yes, a FULL lockdown would do as required. But, everyone is still in education (millions of people) and millions of essential workers will still be out there.
Even more significant is the millions of people who clearly cannot AKA are not willing to follow the rules.

Sure, but degrees of lockdown would achieve proportional effects. The basic premise that it is impossible to control the virus is wrong. The question is what balance do you want to achieve between control and so-called normal life. I think the proposed lockdown is in broad terms reasonable enough, but it should have happened a few weeks ago.

 

[KenL]

The different hospitality businesses in Scotland do themselves no favours by each blaming the 'other' for not being strict enough during the last measures.
I think most of us know that they were all at it.

In my experience (as someone who goes out and supports local business) they were not ALL at it. I felt far more at risk in Asda or my work than I ever did in a pub or restaurant.
That may well be a locality thing. Perhaps areas like Glasgow and Lanarkshire took liberties as that is where the main problems lie. House to house was always said to be the main issue too, not hospitality.

 

[KenL]

Sure, but degrees of lockdown would achieve proportional effects. The basic premise that it is impossible to control the virus is wrong. The question is what balance do you want to achieve between control and so-called normal life. I think the proposed lockdown is in broad terms reasonable enough, but it should have happened a few weeks ago.

But is it right to control those of us who are willing to comply and allow those who aren't to do whatever they like?

 

[Ethan]

But is it right to control those of us who are willing to comply and allow those who aren't to do whatever they like?

That is a false dichotomy, though. The rules are designed (whether well or not) to protect individuals from others as well as from themselves. Personal responsibility is all fine and dandy but who gives people the right to do something that will lead to the consumption of tens of thousands of pounds of healthcare and interfere with other people who need treatment?. The right balance is achieved by timely application of undertandable rules which address the issues that matter.

 

[Old Skier]

That is a false dichotomy, though. The rules are designed (whether well or not) to protect individuals from others as well as from themselves. Personal responsibility is all fine and dandy but who gives people the right to do something that will lead to the consumption of tens of thousands of pounds of healthcare and interfere with other people who need treatment?. The right balance is achieved by timely application of undertandable rules which address the issues that matter.

Reading some posts on here, rules are there to see if some people can come up with a good reason to ignore/change them

 

[Ethan]

Reading some posts on here, rules are there to see if some people can come up with a good reason to ignore/change them

It is fine to seek exemptions for whatever it may be, so long as you live by the verdict. People should follow the rules. Egregious violations, such as large social gatherings in Covid hot spots should be dealt with severely. More minor breaches should be dealt with proportionately, but politicians of all parties should act as role models and be religiously compliant.