Boating During Lockdown?

[JumbleDuck]

BTW, I don't have one but why is it forbidden to stay at a second home, or chose your second home as your one appointed abode?

Because it cuts down the amount of travel people do.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Merely posting a link to a spurious Wiki article doesn't answer the question I posed.

It's perfactly good wiki link. In case you didn't read it, or couldn't understand it, a tragedy of the commons occurs when people behave in a self-centred way which is individually reasonable, but results in a serious loss to society as a whole when everyone does it.

So know, it doesn't matter in the least if one person drives a couple of hundred miles for a weekend in their boat. It matters a lot if everyone does it.

 

[pvb]

So know, it doesn't matter in the least if one person drives a couple of hundred miles for a weekend in their boat. It matters a lot if everyone does it.

I'm sorry, but you still haven't answered my question, which was "What possible danger could I present if I decide to drive to my boat and spend the day on it?" You won't answer it, because you know that the answer is "no danger".

 

[JumbleDuck]

I'm sorry, but you still haven't answered my question, which was "What possible danger could I present if I decide to drive to my boat and spend the day on it?" You won't answer it, because you know that the answer is "no danger".

If you can guarantee that you can go to your boat and back without at any point being within 100 feet or so of where anyone has been within the past six hours, and that nobody will pass within 100 feet of where you have been in the six hours after you have been there (taken from current state of knowledge concerning persistence of COVID-19 in aerosols) then the risk may well be minimal.

It really all depends on whether you are prepared to undergo a little personal inconvenience for the common good. If you are not, I certainly don't hope to convince you.

 

[pvb]

If you can guarantee that you can go to your boat and back without at any point being within 100 feet or so of where anyone has been within the past six hours, and that nobody will pass within 100 feet of where you have been in the six hours after you have been there (taken from current state of knowledge concerning persistence of COVID-19 in aerosols) then the risk may well be minimal.

It really all depends on whether you are prepared to undergo a little personal inconvenience for the common good. If you are not, I certainly don't hope to convince you.

What utter rubbish!

 

[Lucky Duck]

What utter rubbish!

If that is correct then merely stepping outside ones front door is a extremely risky business given the number of people who may have passed by in the last six hours

Indeed going sailing will be significantly less risky than going for a walk as there will be far less 'traffic' on pontoons than a public footpath

 

[pvb]

If that is correct then merely stepping outside ones front door is a extremely risky business given the number of people who may have passed by in the last six hours

Exactly! I imagine JumbleDuck must be holed up in his house with all the windows closed, existing on his remaining stock of Fray Bentos pies, as clearly getting any shopping is too risky.

 

[coveman]

Because it cuts down the amount of travel people do.

Not only that, but once someone has traveled to their second home, they then go shopping for food etc in local shops and use local amenities which is only a further risk of spreading the virus. I have a second home but am quite prepared not to use it for a month for the common good.

 

[stu9000]

Merely posting a link to a spurious Wiki article doesn't answer the question I posed.

It may be that you and Jumbleduck are arguing about the very essence of democracy.
The tragedy of the commons turns on how much control should be ceded to the state for the greater good of all.

As a teacher and parent, I regularly sit on both sides albeit on a small scale.
As a teacher I know consistency is vital. You just can't run a school interpreting the rules differently for each student. As a parent, I want a personalised approach that is the best fit for my child. It's the same with the pandemic. Do we allow golf and sailing etc? Is it better for kids to go to school? It is healthier that individuals should be able to go to the gym or is that too much of a risk for society? Is lockdown even an appropriate strategy or are there better ways to protect the NHS and most vulnerable? After all, the current response has never been done before. We cannot carry on like this forever. A smashed economy and poverty also kills people.

I personally believe in the freedom of the individual. Not absolutely. We are in a community that gives us that freedom from hunger etc. But I bristle at those that would casually restrict my liberties for no obvious benefit. We should not cede absolute power to governments. There is an (imperfect) social contract and if the rich and powerful don't keep the scales balanced don't be surprised if all hell breaks loose.

The "tragedy of the commons" highlights the difficulty any non-totalitarian system has with 'rogue' elements that make personal choices not necessarily in line with the common good. As annoying as those numpties in Sainsbury's who wear a mask under their chin are there are no easy answers. We are governed by consent. The debate is an important part of the process of reaching a common view.

This freedom to dissent is vital because history shows overly centralised systems have a habit of becoming overly protectionist. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. No one person has all the answers.

The covid crisis has been fast-moving. Governments have responded imperfectly. But I think most people, if not all, have been pretty sensible. Although there is a lot of grumpiness about people not engaging with the plan I personally think the vast majority are restricting their interactions. The media always play up the drama. Given the restrictions on civil liberties, I think the vast majority have chosen to play along, at least for now.

 

[pvb]

It may be that you and Jumbleduck are arguing about the very essence of democracy.
The tragedy of the commons turns on how much control should be ceded to the state for the greater good of all.

As a teacher and parent, I regularly sit on both sides albeit on a small scale.
As a teacher I know consistency is vital. You just can't run a school interpreting the rules differently for each student. As a parent, I want a personalised approach that is the best fit for my child. It's the same with the pandemic. Do we allow golf and sailing etc? Is it better for kids to go to school? It is healthier that individuals should be able to go to the gym or is that too much of a risk for society? Is lockdown even an appropriate strategy or are there better ways to protect the NHS and most vulnerable? After all, the current response has never been done before. We cannot carry on like this forever. A smashed economy and poverty also kills people.

I personally believe in the freedom of the individual. Not absolutely. We are in a community that gives us that freedom from hunger etc. But I bristle at those that would casually restrict my liberties for no obvious benefit. We should not cede absolute power to governments. There is an (imperfect) social contract and if the rich and powerful don't keep the scales balanced don't be surprised if all hell breaks loose.

The "tragedy of the commons" highlights the difficulty any non-totalitarian system has with 'rogue' elements that make personal choices not necessarily in line with the common good. As annoying as those numpties in Sainsbury's who wear a mask under their chin are there are no easy answers. We are governed by consent. The debate is an important part of the process of reaching a common view.

This freedom to dissent is vital because history shows overly centralised systems have a habit of becoming overly protectionist. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. No one person has all the answers.

The covid crisis has been fast-moving. Governments have responded imperfectly. But I think most people, if not all, have been pretty sensible. Although there is a lot of grumpiness about people not engaging with the plan I personally think the vast majority are restricting their interactions. The media always play up the drama. Given the restrictions on civil liberties, I think the vast majority have chosen to play along, at least for now.

You might have ended that last sentence by saying "...at least until now." The current lockdown was fraudulently introduced, justified by false statistics, and implemented by buffoons. The British public can see through this, and will be much less willing to obey the farcical "rules" which have been introduced. What sense is there in a rule which says it's OK for me to sleep with my wife, but not OK to play tennis with her?

 

[coveman]

You might have ended that last sentence by saying "...at least until now." The current lockdown was fraudulently introduced, justified by false statistics, and implemented by buffoons. The British public can see through this, and will be much less willing to obey the farcical "rules" which have been introduced. What sense is there in a rule which says it's OK for me to sleep with my wife, but not OK to play tennis with her?

Different balls?

 

[TernVI]

You might have ended that last sentence by saying "...at least until now." The current lockdown was fraudulently introduced, justified by false statistics, and implemented by buffoons. The British public can see through this, and will be much less willing to obey the farcical "rules" which have been introduced. What sense is there in a rule which says it's OK for me to sleep with my wife, but not OK to play tennis with her?

I think it's OK to play tennis with your mrs at home.
You can't rent a room to sleep with her, you can't use a club facility to play tennis.

Obviously you are a lockdown sceptic and accept none of. Nonetheless it is the law.

I think some people are on dodgy ground driving significant distances to go sailing, I think public opinion and the courts might judge them harshly.
Whether the risks are infinitessimal or almost exactly zero is not the point, the whole covid pandemic is about the aggregate of a very large number of very small risks.

 

[pvb]

Whether the risks are infinitessimal or almost exactly zero is not the point, the whole covid pandemic is about the aggregate of a very large number of very small risks.

The government's response to coronavirus is excessively punitive and will result in the loss of millions of jobs and a national debt which our children and grandchildren will be struggling to pay off for decades to come. The risks of coronavirus for the vast majority of people of working age are minimal - the median age of people dying from coronavirus is 82, and 95% of them already had serious underlying health issues. We should be getting the nation back to work, and switching our focus to helping to protect elderly people who are those at risk.

 

[Hallberg-Rassy]

Because it cuts down the amount of travel people do.

Not if they just stay in one.

Looking at the photos of all the privileged middle class turning Primrose Hill into Glastonbury, I'm thinking it would have been better if we'd diluted them across their second homes in the Cotswolds and Devon.

Grossly generalised stereotypes allowing ...

 

[TernVI]

The government's response to coronavirus is excessively punitive and will result in the loss of millions of jobs and a national debt which our children and grandchildren will be struggling to pay off for decades to come. The risks of coronavirus for the vast majority of people of working age are minimal - the median age of people dying from coronavirus is 82, and 95% of them already had serious underlying health issues. We should be getting the nation back to work, and switching our focus to helping to protect elderly people who are those at risk.

There's a separate forum for this kind of drivel.

 

[pvb]

There's a separate forum for this kind of drivel.

Sadly, what you consider to be "drivel" is actually factual. Don't you read any of the serious newspapers?

 

[alahol2]

Sadly, what you consider to be "drivel" is actually factual. Don't you read any of the serious newspapers?

Foot well and truly shot...

 

[JumbleDuck]

What utter rubbish!

If that is correct then merely stepping outside ones front door is a extremely risky business given the number of people who may have passed by in the last six hours

Exactly! I imagine JumbleDuck must be holed up in his house with all the windows closed, existing on his remaining stock of Fray Bentos pies, as clearly getting any shopping is too risky.

Driving to your boat and spending a day on it is not "no danger". It may be low danger, but low danger multiplied by an awful lot of of people can be significant. Hence the significance of the Tragedy of the Commons.

 

[JumbleDuck]

You might have ended that last sentence by saying "...at least until now." The current lockdown was fraudulently introduced, justified by false statistics, and implemented by buffoons.

You're right about the buffoon, though. Much more stringent measures should have been taken much earlier.

What sense is there in a rule which says it's OK for me to sleep with my wife, but not OK to play tennis with her?

You are welcome to play tennis with your wife or to have sex with her as long as you do it in private. Having people take strenuous exercise (tennis - I don't care to speculate about your sexual prowess) in public is realy not a good idea when there is an extremely contagious disease around.

 

[Lucky Duck]

Driving to your boat and spending a day on it is not "no danger". It may be low danger, but low danger multiplied by an awful lot of of people can be significant. Hence the significance of the Tragedy of the Commons.

Your assertion that anybody who has been with 100m of my front door within the last six hours can infect me means that the greater risk is attached to activities such as visiting local shops or going for a walk.