Anyone expecting marinas to open after Sundays announcement

[NotBirdseye]

Cases largely remain stable... fortunately deaths are going down.. This is probably due not to the severity of cases but that we can now treat them far more effectively, so either they don't get as serious, or preventing complications from a serious intervention. This means any easing is likely to result in a spike in cases and deaths going up.

Largely the government message has remained unchanged. It's been consistent and it's been repeated. Newspaper headlines however are there to sell papers whether true or not. They've been happily spinning rumours with little to no truth behind them and it's them that have confused the british public. Boris has always said that he'll look to ease the lock down if the science suggests doing so would be okay and he has even indulged the media by saying how and what things could be changed. What he hasn't done is say that the lockdown will be eased.

That very same message has been reflected from both Scotland and Wales who have for the most part avoided entertaining these hypotheticals and frequently prefacing their statements with, "If we were to ease lockdown and there are currently no plans to do so then...".

So... no I don't expect marinas to suddenly be opening back up and given the confined spaces most people would be in (I haven't seen a pontoon 2m wide yet...) I very much doubt it will be any time soon. I think we're looking at another two months off the ocean if not three.

@FlyingGoose you don't know whether you're infected or not... unless you have been tested. You don't know if you or a family member are suddenly going to become a carrier or infected. So we're a bit stuck. The only way out of this is to be tested to make sure we don't currently have it and then isolated with other people that are confirmed not to have it... but the UK does not (or rather cannot) do that level of testing! Welcome to catch 22 . Not about you, you could be the most sensible person in the world... sadly we live in a nation of fools... (I mean they've elected tories for 15 years straight...)

 

[doug748]

I expect we will be lumped in with caravans and holiday homes.

Golf and angling might come off better.

That's just about it.

If boats, caravans and holiday homes were opened up, maybe 200, 000 people would be heading out of our large cities next weekend. They could get creative with travel restrictions but my bet is they won't.

.

 

[graham]

Deleted

 

[JumbleDuck]

If boats, caravans and holiday homes were opened up, maybe 200, 000 people would be heading out of our large cities next weekend.

Thereby significantly reducing transmission opportunities within those cities ...

 

[greeny]

Thereby significantly reducing transmission opportunities within those cities ...

And maybe at the cost of increasing the risk at petrol stations, and the destinations of those travellers? Where does risk assessment end?
The advice is clear, as of now, 2325hrs Saturday evening, stay at home.
Tomorrow the advice may be different.

 

[Laser310]

I have yet to see anyone credible make the claim that outdoor transmission between people briefly passing, say, 3ft from each other each other is at all likely.

we need to accept that nothing is ever risk free..

 

[Seven Spades]

A friend of mine is in the building trade and cannot get contractors to start work despite his being willing to demonstrate adequate distancing. The companies would rather keep taking 80% of wages for doing nothing rather than starting work. I suspect a number of marinas ( or their directors) would rather take the Governments cash rather than grapple with liabilities associated with starting work. I think getting people back to work after 7+ weeks of staying in bed each morning will be hard !

There are no liabilities for employers. You are never going to convince court that you can prove that firstly you caught the virus at work rather than anywhere else and secondly that your employer is culpable.

 

[longjohnsilver]

I think that has been rather eloquently said before . I have already been corrected thank you. I have apologised for my mis information although I was only repeating what the government representatives said in its briefings (with a couple of errors). What else do you F******G WANT??????????

Blood

 

[NotBirdseye]

I have yet to see anyone credible make the claim that outdoor transmission between people briefly passing, say, 3ft from each other each other is at all likely.

we need to accept that nothing is ever risk free..

Unfortunately there have been a number of cases where transmission has occurred out doors. As for the risk... there is no evidence whatsoever one way or the other. 'Experts' suggest that it might be likely that there is a reduced risk out doors but when asked where the evidence was they became rather slippery. Most cases seem to occur in mass transport or buildings... however that's obvious as most people spend more time indoors than out and with lock down that effect has been exaggerated. But as to how likely it is to spread out doors? No evidence. Modelling form Oxford actually suggests that being out doors may encourage the virus to spread further and have the opportunity to infect more people... notably this was the same research that pointed out that outdoors people really need to be six meters apart not two. The reason the advise is 2 and not 6? Feasibility and risk management, the government have accepted some transmission to appease the public and well we just don't build like America.

It's not safe to say that risk of transmission is lower outside at the moment, though studies are on going and one in particular is going through the peer review process, but published under the caveat of 'not for clinical guidance'.

You're correct that nothing is ever risk free but most things do not have the risk of tens of thousands of people dying two weeks later because of your actions and the actions that your actions have inspired others to do. While lock down continues... stay home, stay alert, save lives.

 

[RJJ]

The marina where I keep my boat has never been closed to key holders .
However the government advice has deterred most people from visiting their boats .

Martyn, would you mind please letting us know where you are? PM if you prefer. Thanks.

 

[RJJ]

Unfortunately there have been a number of cases where transmission has occurred out doors. As for the risk... there is no evidence whatsoever one way or the other. 'Experts' suggest that it might be likely that there is a reduced risk out doors but when asked where the evidence was they became rather slippery. Most cases seem to occur in mass transport or buildings... however that's obvious as most people spend more time indoors than out and with lock down that effect has been exaggerated. But as to how likely it is to spread out doors? No evidence. Modelling form Oxford actually suggests that being out doors may encourage the virus to spread further and have the opportunity to infect more people... notably this was the same research that pointed out that outdoors people really need to be six meters apart not two. The reason the advise is 2 and not 6? Feasibility and risk management, the government have accepted some transmission to appease the public and well we just don't build like America.

It's not safe to say that risk of transmission is lower outside at the moment, though studies are on going and one in particular is going through the peer review process, but published under the caveat of 'not for clinical guidance'.

You're correct that nothing is ever risk free but most things do not have the risk of tens of thousands of people dying two weeks later because of your actions and the actions that your actions have inspired others to do. While lock down continues... stay home, stay alert, save lives.

You might want to read a bit more widely and also reconsider how proof works.

First, nobody knows exactly how any of the millions of transmissions globally have taken place. Infection to symptom lag is reckoned as typically 5 to 7 days, so to identify a specific transmission is bonkers. Unless the victim hasn't been indoors for days.

There is evidence of outdoor transmission in certain environments, where there is prolonged close proximity. The risk appears to be compounded where the pattern of exhalation is vigorous and prolonged, hence the example often given is a shouty football stadium

You are wrong to say there is no evidence against outdoor transmission, particularly regarding fleeting encounters such as when you pass somebody on the pavement (or pontoon). There are reams of papers exploring how exhaled moisture particles of various forms behave and disperse; how coronaviruses disperse within those particles and on their own; how long they survive under different conditions; how they are transferred to infect the next victim whether directly (through inhalation) or indirectly (through contact with contaminated surfaces, and how much viral load is related to probability of infection. I am no virologist, but I can read all this stuff and recommend you please do the same before declaring "no evidence" regarding outdoor transmission.

None of the evidence stacks up to certainty but it is remarkably consistent. Indoor risks are greater. Prolonged social contact risks are greater. Contact surfaces risks are greater (so take countermeasures). Walking past someone who is breathing normally is near-zero risk and that's IF they are infected.

So sneeze into your sleeve; step away from someone about to sneeze; isolate if symptomatic; disinfect gates and trolleys. It ain't rocket science.

 

[RJJ]

The RYA risk assessment goes far beyond that with a phased return. There's an age split in it too.

One thing mentioned was the government view of optics. If certain sports are given priority, it will be very hard to prevent other groups starting up. So even though sailing may be low risk, it may be lumped in with higher risk events.

That's exactly what we should fight against. We need risk-based policy that is generally applicable. We should find common cause with low-risk activities not indulge in whataboutery

 

[jimi]

That's exactly what we should fight against. We need risk-based policy that is generally applicable. We should find common cause with low-risk activities not indulge in whataboutery

I’d suggest that my wife and I going to the boat and going sailing are almost zero risk to ourselves or others. On the other hand, a crew of 10 winch gorillas racing or race training is high risk. How do you enable one and stop the other?

 

[RJJ]

Cases largely remain stable... fortunately deaths are going down.. This is probably due not to the severity of cases but that we can now treat them far more effectively, so either they don't get as serious, or preventing complications from a serious intervention. This means any easing is likely to result in a spike in cases and deaths going up.

This is not correct.

Deaths are down, well down below half, relative to peak around 10 April, and falling steadily. Deaths lag infections by around 3 weeks; it appears from this that infections peaked around 20th March (which is entirely consistent, as an aside, with the belief that social distancing was an effective measure, lockdown has been no more effective, and certainly not sufficiently effective to justify the human as well as financial cost).

You refer to "stable cases"; you actually refer to positive tests. Back in mid March when we first started seeing 3-5k positives/day, those came from around 10k of tests. Positives were about 30-40pc of tests. Given ALL tests were conducted to strongly symptomatic cases presented in hospital, it's a lagging indicator (incubation to symptoms around 7 days; then up to seven days for symptoms to worsen and be presented in hospital). So: we WERE seeing lagging indicators of a fast-growing infection.

Now: deaths are down, showing that infections are declining. # tests is up by 10-20x; positives per test are down from 30-40 pc to below 5 pc. And the number of positives is falling, a bit. And not only deaths, but hospital admissions and bed occupancy and ICU occupancy are all well down,.per COBR papers (again, those are lagging indicators for infection).

It's then a complete non-sequitur to say ANY easing will result in a spike in deaths. Lockdown is a package of measures, some more effective than others. It's increasingly clear that some measures have zero or negligible effect. Over on the "lockdown sceptics" thread, which I recommend, I am posting what I consider the best of daily evidence. Closing pubs and restaurants and football matches ; yes. Limiting exercise and stay-at-home; no.

Finally, I would ask you to consider the goal here. It is NOT to reduce infection to zero or near to zero. That would take a much more stringent lockdown and might still fail. When I say stringent I mean "you get sick, you die at home". The goal is to "flatten the curve" so we don't overwhelm the NHS. A steady stream of cases that the healthcare industry can handle is exactly what we want and should be preparing for; this virus will be with us for years and we need to find our way to a sustainable future.

 

[RJJ]

I’d suggest that my wife and I going to the boat and going sailing are almost zero risk to ourselves or others. On the other hand, a crew of 10 winch gorillas racing or race training is high risk. How do you enable one and stop the other?

I agree. You say that sporting activities involving close social contact outside your household are prohibited. Or you have some kind of defcon or traffic light setting. Red is no travel or sport. Amber is sport restricted to household members. Yellow is groups up to 4. Green is no holds-barred.

If the rules are sensible and justifiable, we will all observe them in spirit and letter. It's only when they, or their application, is daft and disproportionate, that everyone looks for ways to take the piss.

We have to stop saying "whatabout". We have to ban what needs banning, and only what needs banning.

 

[NotBirdseye]

You might want to read a bit more widely and also reconsider how proof works.

First, nobody knows exactly how any of the millions of transmissions globally have taken place. Infection to symptom lag is reckoned as typically 5 to 7 days, so to identify a specific transmission is bonkers. Unless the victim hasn't been indoors for days.

There is evidence of outdoor transmission in certain environments, where there is prolonged close proximity. The risk appears to be compounded where the pattern of exhalation is vigorous and prolonged, hence the example often given is a shouty football stadium

You are wrong to say there is no evidence against outdoor transmission, particularly regarding fleeting encounters such as when you pass somebody on the pavement (or pontoon). There are reams of papers exploring how exhaled moisture particles of various forms behave and disperse; how coronaviruses disperse within those particles and on their own; how long they survive under different conditions; how they are transferred to infect the next victim whether directly (through inhalation) or indirectly (through contact with contaminated surfaces, and how much viral load is related to probability of infection. I am no virologist, but I can read all this stuff and recommend you please do the same before declaring "no evidence" regarding outdoor transmission.

None of the evidence stacks up to certainty but it is remarkably consistent. Indoor risks are greater. Prolonged social contact risks are greater. Contact surfaces risks are greater (so take countermeasures). Walking past someone who is breathing normally is near-zero risk and that's IF they are infected.

So sneeze into your sleeve; step away from someone about to sneeze; isolate if symptomatic; disinfect gates and trolleys. It ain't rocket science.

I do understand how proof works... not sure about you. First of all things are 'observed', data collected, analyzed into information through standard and specific statistical analyses. Conclusions are then made leading to further research where sample sizes are controlled and factors such as experimenter bias are weeded out. It's at this point in the process we look at getting the statistical significance as high as we can by setting the bar to a rigorous level. This is all then peer reviewed before (unless there's a special exception) being published in a scientific journal specific to the field of study... and even that's no 'proof' but it's what most people accept. Proof is when that study is confirmed through other studies. Science take a very long time. So I'll repeat my assertion that there is currently no evidence that the risk of transmission is higher outdoors than indoors... because as you imply it is very hard to do and the ethics are somewhat... well not good. No one was talking about identifying specific transmissions but as we can see in South Korea it's possible.

One example of allowing out door activity to go ahead increasing the rate of Transmissions is... Sweden. Per Million pop they are currently in the top five death rate... and even when not accounting for population they have the worst death rate amongst their peers (See Norway, Denmark, Latvia). Is this 'evidence' no but it's probably as close as we come. Those countries that have allowed outdoor activity to continue all see and increased rate of death across all age groups (bar one). Again... evidence hmmm.

Please point me to the evidence where it states that the 'Risk of Transmission outdoors is less than the risk of transmission indoors and we have factored out the Lockdown bias.' I've been through the Lancet and the BMJ and have been unable to find anything that states one way or another. You may have much more luck. Lock down wasn't implemented due to 'risk' it was implemented as a severe social distancing measure to cut any spread of the Coronavirus and contain it hopefully within households. I will concede as I did before that yes there is evidence of transmission outdoors especially as you point out within the 2m advised social distancing, but no, no-one has compared the levels of risk factoring out the lockdown.

I've already pointed out that Coronavirus will spread more easily indoors because that's where people spend most of their time. I'd also like to see the research that states that the risk of walking past someone who is breathing normally (but a carrier) is a near-zero risk. The problem (due to lack of testing in the UK) is that we do NOT know who is infected and who is not.

... if it ain't rocket science why aren't you getting it? The brightest minds and leading epidemiologists in the UK have give their backing that lockdown will cut any risk of transmission and save lives. The risk is not minimal it's actually quite high and remains high (see new cases), the risk of dying however appears to be coming down (if we're assuming that the dropping daily deaths are an indication of risk).

Sneezing into you sleeve... (please take any level 1 hygiene course.... ew.) is a bad idea. It's only recommended if you are otherwise healthy, but if you're possibly infected sneeze into your hands and go wash them properly if preparing food you will also need to change your gloves... your apron too if you sneezed into your sleeve (food production peeps will know what I'm referring to here). You shouldn't be more than twenty metres from a bar of soap and water at any rate. As for stepping away from someone who is about to sneeze.... assuming you are maintaining 2m social distancing a full on sneeze or coughing fit may expel droplets up to 6m away. That's a damn large step you're going to have to take.

 

[NotBirdseye]

This is not correct.

Deaths are down, well down below half, relative to peak around 10 April, and falling steadily. Deaths lag infections by around 3 weeks; it appears from this that infections peaked around 20th March (which is entirely consistent, as an aside, with the belief that social distancing was an effective measure, lockdown has been no more effective, and certainly not sufficiently effective to justify the human as well as financial cost).

You refer to "stable cases"; you actually refer to positive tests. Back in mid March when we first started seeing 3-5k positives/day, those came from around 10k of tests. Positives were about 30-40pc of tests. Given ALL tests were conducted to strongly symptomatic cases presented in hospital, it's a lagging indicator (incubation to symptoms around 7 days; then up to seven days for symptoms to worsen and be presented in hospital). So: we WERE seeing lagging indicators of a fast-growing infection.

Now: deaths are down, showing that infections are declining. # tests is up by 10-20x; positives per test are down from 30-40 pc to below 5 pc. And the number of positives is falling, a bit. And not only deaths, but hospital admissions and bed occupancy and ICU occupancy are all well down,.per COBR papers (again, those are lagging indicators for infection).

It's then a complete non-sequitur to say ANY easing will result in a spike in deaths. Lockdown is a package of measures, some more effective than others. It's increasingly clear that some measures have zero or negligible effect. Over on the "lockdown sceptics" thread, which I recommend, I am posting what I consider the best of daily evidence. Closing pubs and restaurants and football matches ; yes. Limiting exercise and stay-at-home; no.

Finally, I would ask you to consider the goal here. It is NOT to reduce infection to zero or near to zero. That would take a much more stringent lockdown and might still fail. When I say stringent I mean "you get sick, you die at home". The goal is to "flatten the curve" so we don't overwhelm the NHS. A steady stream of cases that the healthcare industry can handle is exactly what we want and should be preparing for; this virus will be with us for years and we need to find our way to a sustainable future.

Deaths are down... I concede. Are they down below half relative to the peak? Free to read: Coronavirus tracked: has your country’s epidemic peaked? no. They are still above.

You're quite right I refer to positive tests because they are confirmed case load... Free to read: Coronavirus tracked: has your country’s epidemic peaked? whether anything outside of them is going up or down neither of us should be speculating because there is definitely no evidence... blame Westminster. I'll point out that we're STILL seeing a stable case load long after the death rate began to decline.

Fewer deaths does not mean infections are declining... the two are different things. Coronavirus does not and never did have a 100% mortality rate. As for per 100 million pop... they're stable too. Free to read: Coronavirus tracked: has your country’s epidemic peaked? that's not cumulative that's new cases as in 79 new case identified every day in the UK.

The ICU occupancy is primarily down because they've had much fewer cases from other things being admitted to hospital this is well documented and evidenced by the Excess Deaths that the UK is currently experiencing (source ONS) in the UK we've had over 42,000 excess deaths that's more or less a 60% increase above the average. I mean I know I cherry pick but yeesh. The NHS had planned on there being the same caseload plus coronavirus patients... didn't happen so yes they've had more capacity and time to get better at dealing with the epidemic leading imo to fewer people dying rather than the virus being any less dangerous without hospital care.

As evidenced by Sweden... compare and contrast to those that implemented a rigorous lockdown (new zealand perhaps?)... it effectively eliminated the virus to zero or very close to zero. Sweden on the otherhand looks set to overtake the UK in number of deaths per 100m pop and may also do so based on total numbers.

Staying home is the best way to reduce community transmission and save lives. While reducing exercise doesn't reducing outdoor exercise reduces the chance of interaction with others and therefore the rate of infection goes down.

Until we have much better testing and proper separation of the infected from the healthy we will continue to have a problem, the lockdown is just the only practical way we have of achieving that.

Edit
Another example of the effectiveness of lockdown is Iran which is seeing a spike after easing measures recently.

Edit
I can actually English, I've recently switched typing methods, as well as started learning another language and my spelling/word order can be atrocious sometimes. Apologies.

 

[Momac]

Martyn, would you mind please letting us know where you are? PM if you prefer. Thanks.

The exact location of the marina is not relevant... it is in England (but its not difficult to see my location)

The RYA advice is that marinas need not have locked their gates . If you want reference to that please read the content of the following link.
Coronavirus - advice and information for recreational boaters | News | News & Events | RYA - Royal Yachting Association

The RYA are not saying we should be going out on our boats , indeed they don't want boating to be specifically prohibited as lifting that would take time. However the RYA is saying we should have access to marinas for checks.

 

[nicho]

France is evidently opening it’s marinas from tomorrow, 11th, to allow owners to visit their boats, but it’s limited to owners that live within 50 km of their marina.

 

[RJJ]

I do understand how proof works... not sure about you. First of all things are 'observed', data collected, analyzed into information through standard and specific statistical analyses. Conclusions are then made leading to further research where sample sizes are controlled and factors such as experimenter bias are weeded out. It's at this point in the process we look at getting the statistical significance as high as we can by setting the bar to a rigorous level. This is all then peer reviewed before (unless there's a special exception) being published in a scientific journal specific to the field of study... and even that's no 'proof' but it's what most people accept. Proof is when that study is confirmed through other studies. Science take a very long time. So I'll repeat my assertion that there is currently no evidence that the risk of transmission is higher outdoors than indoors... because as you imply it is very hard to do and the ethics are somewhat... well not good. No one was talking about identifying specific transmissions but as we can see in South Korea it's possible.

One example of allowing out door activity to go ahead increasing the rate of Transmissions is... Sweden. Per Million pop they are currently in the top five death rate... and even when not accounting for population they have the worst death rate amongst their peers (See Norway, Denmark, Latvia). Is this 'evidence' no but it's probably as close as we come. Those countries that have allowed outdoor activity to continue all see and increased rate of death across all age groups (bar one). Again... evidence hmmm.

Please point me to the evidence where it states that the 'Risk of Transmission outdoors is less than the risk of transmission indoors and we have factored out the Lockdown bias.' I've been through the Lancet and the BMJ and have been unable to find anything that states one way or another. You may have much more luck. Lock down wasn't implemented due to 'risk' it was implemented as a severe social distancing measure to cut any spread of the Coronavirus and contain it hopefully within households. I will concede as I did before that yes there is evidence of transmission outdoors especially as you point out within the 2m advised social distancing, but no, no-one has compared the levels of risk factoring out the lockdown.

I've already pointed out that Coronavirus will spread more easily indoors because that's where people spend most of their time. I'd also like to see the research that states that the risk of walking past someone who is breathing normally (but a carrier) is a near-zero risk. The problem (due to lack of testing in the UK) is that we do NOT know who is infected and who is not.

... if it ain't rocket science why aren't you getting it? The brightest minds and leading epidemiologists in the UK have give their backing that lockdown will cut any risk of transmission and save lives. The risk is not minimal it's actually quite high and remains high (see new cases), the risk of dying however appears to be coming down (if we're assuming that the dropping daily deaths are an indication of risk).

Sneezing into you sleeve... (please take any level 1 hygiene course.... ew.) is a bad idea. It's only recommended if you are otherwise healthy, but if you're possibly infected sneeze into your hands and go wash them properly if preparing food you will also need to change your gloves... your apron too if you sneezed into your sleeve (food production peeps will know what I'm referring to here). You shouldn't be more than twenty metres from a bar of soap and water at any rate. As for stepping away from someone who is about to sneeze.... assuming you are maintaining 2m social distancing a full on sneeze or coughing fit may expel droplets up to 6m away. That's a damn large step you're going to have to take.

https://forums.ybw.com/index.php?threads/an-interesting-read-re-covid-19-transmission.540474/

Should help. Posted by another forumite and I think addresses all your questions.