marinias reopening

[bdh198]

Thank you that has been useful.

I'd still be interested in the question about collecting my library books and if Daydream believer is a solicitor or Barrister.

It depends. If your library is the other side of the county and the council are prepared to extend any borrowing or return period then it might not be considered reasonable. However, if you are facing a penalty, the council won’t extend the period or come and collect it from you or of your library is at the end of your street then that is likely to be reasonable. It is also likely to be considered reasonable to pop into the library (assuming it is open) in the course of your daily exercise if that takes you past the library.

Whether Daydream Believer is a barrister or solicitor, I couldn’t comment; however, there doesn’t seem to be anyone called “Daydream” or “Believer” in either the BSB Barristers Register (The Barristers' Register) or the Law Society, Find a Solicitor database (Find a Solicitor - The Law Society).

 

[Sandy]

It depends. If your library is the other side of the county and the council are prepared to extend any borrowing or return period then it might not be considered reasonable

The library is about five miles away in Exeter. After the detonation of a WW II bomb at the weekend sounds quite a risky place to go.

I was hoping the @Daydream believer was going to answer my question, but he has sadly elected not to.

 

[Daydream believer]

I was hoping the @Daydream believer was going to answer my question, but he has sadly elected not to.

??

 

[JumbleDuck]

An individusls personal property (boat) is not a common resource, neither is it being used up.

Every additional bit of unnecessary travel adds to the overall risk.

 

[JumbleDuck]

The library is about five miles away in Exeter.

I reckon that bomb was originally intended for the Morris Motors plant at Cowley, but went to Exeter University because it couldn't get into Oxford.

 

[Achosenman]

Every additional bit of unnecessary travel adds to the overall risk.

The point is your point was not applicable to the discussion.

The overall risk is a matter for every individual to asses within the law as it is written. If the government wanted to enforce a total lockdown, they could enact a law and enforce it.

 

[jimi]

Every additional bit of unnecessary travel adds to the overall risk.

It doesn't unless it also involves additional interpersonal contact. Its increased contact that increases risk not travel. ie the recent MArs mission involved many miles of travel but no interpersonal contact therefor no additional risk.

 

[RJJ]

There is a growing body of research that shows that the risk of infection by contact with surfaces is very low. I’d suggest that that the contact risk outdoors is even lower. The major risk is from airborne aerosols.
So I have very few worries about going to a marina to sail or work on my boat but rather more concerns about going to the pub.

Agree - we can all concoct any number of vanishingly improbable scenarios. To the "sneezed near your boat then you touched it"...my gosh...

Probability that person is infectious - is at most 0.04% (~0.1% of people are estimated as "live cases" nationally; of those, they are considered likely to be infectious for around 4 out of 10 days; actually much lower because of those 0.1% some are symptomatic and/or positively tested and/or self-isolating on advice)
* Probability the person sneezes without putting a mask, hand, sleeve or snotrag in the way (seriously?) - say 10%
* Probability this takes place not only near YOUR boat, but near the bit you are going to put your hand on - 10%
* Probability that you board your boat a rather short time after this sneeze took place, before the viruses have decayed due to sunlight or whatever they actually die of - 50%
* Probability you do actually put your hand exactly there's a cluster of virus particles - 20%
* Probability you don't then take recommended countermeasures like frequent handwashing especially when stepping "inside" from public space - 20%
* Probability you are susceptible (when somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of us have been vaccinated or previously infected - 66%

I think I'm being pretty generous when I give that 0.00000528 % . Meanwhile, of course, these are the sort of risks that tens/hundreds of thousands of people are taking throughout lockdown when they do things like open/close park gates. Only more so, because then you have every single person visiting the park operating the same gate; the potential transmissions number in the hundreds for every park gate in the country. (I assume the aggressive sneezer-without-mask probably isn't sneezing on/near every single boat on the pontoon). And despite the aggressive press coverage, nobody still thinks those sorts of slightly busy crowded, well ventilated areas, have ever caused significant transmission. Not last Spring, not on Saturday, and not in the coming weekends.

So yes, I think we can all accept these risks

 

[JumbleDuck]

The overall risk is a matter for every individual to asses within the law as it is written. If the government wanted to enforce a total lockdown, they could enact a law and enforce it.

Indeed. Instead they rely on public spririted people to do the right thing. Unfortunately, as these thread invariably show, though most of us do, a few whining and antisocial types insist on sticking to the letter of what they think the law is. Luckily there are probably enough people behaving responsibly to beat this, though we could have done it much faster if the ignorant, the selfish and the bloody minded had shown a bit more respect for other people.

It doesn't unless it also involves additional interpersonal contact. Its increased contact that increases risk not travel. ie the recent MArs mission involved many miles of travel but no interpersonal contact therefor no additional risk.

Even earthbound travel inevitably brings at the very least the risk of interpersonal contact - accident, breakdown - and adds to indirect personal contact at filling stations, for example.

 

[Aardee]

I decided to antifoul the boat this weekend. I know it's not strictly within the rules, but it's a 500 metre walk and I had the place to myself. Almost certainly safer than walking the dog, running, cycling or doing the weekly shop...It's all about risk management.

 

[dgadee]

Donaghadee has been packed every day the sun shines. Dog walkers in the town around the harbour, dog walkers on the commons. Sea swimmers at the slip way, sea swimmers at Sandy Bay just outside the town. Cars parked up the road at the NT Orlock walk, everyone with a dog. Groomsport (where I keep the boat) is like Crufts. It could be a stream of dog bank holidays.

 

[Achosenman]

a few whining and antisocial types

Those that get on with it aren't the one's whining, that would be the curtain twitchers.

I'm off down to the boat now, to prepare for sailing next week.

 

[Elessar]

Pandemic?

How does that make being on a boat alone unhealthy in any way?

 

[Elessar]

Every additional bit of unnecessary travel adds to the overall risk.

Ban cars then. Every journey pandemic or not increases over all risk.

 

[lustyd]

Pandemic?

All expert health advise suggests that fresh air is the best thing to avoid catching the virus. Fresh air on a privately owned vessel where you can guarantee that no other people have been is considerably safer and healthier than sitting in your house. None of us are suggesting that everyone rush out and go boating, but from a health standpoint it's far better to be boating than getting yourself all worked up over strangers on the Internet. Elessar clearly enjoys boating, and you clearly enjoy getting all hot and bothered about strangers. Live and let live I say, you stay indoors, he goes outdoors and you're both happy.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Those that get on with it aren't the one's whining, that would be the curtain twitchers.

We curtain twitchers are whining about people spreading a disease which has to date killed over 120,000 people in Britain. Those "that get on with it" are whining about not being able to polish their boats for a few weeks. I'll twitch, thank you very much.

 

[Daydream believer]

, and you clearly enjoy getting all hot and bothered about strangers. Live and let live I say, you stay indoors, he goes outdoors and you're both happy.

I just because I pointed out the selfish indescretions that others seem to think are acceptable does not mean that I am "hot & bothered"
Well- "Bothered" yes!!, because I feel for the businesses that have to suffer because of the prolonged lockdown, that is only likely to be extended by the failure of some to observe the govts request to stay at home. Whilst some feel that they are doing something that is "acceptable" i put it to them that it is NOT ,especially as it encourages the lemmings to follow suit & they may be doing the things that cause the issues. However, I am not convinced that those on here that consider themselves to be squeaky clean are in fact that at all. If one could follow them round I expect there are lots of minor indescretions that they care to ignore if truth be told
However, it is clear that there are 2 sides on this thread & to continue is just creating ill feeling. Something that I do not really wish on forumites. The forum has too many good points for that. BUT I do want to make my feeling clear on the matter. Whether you agree or not is another matter

 

[lustyd]

Technically over 120,000 people in Britain have died within 28 days of a positive test. We have no way of knowing how many have died from the virus itself.

 

[lustyd]

I feel for the businesses that have to suffer because of the prolonged lockdown

Businesses are suffering because the government has taken various easy options, not because of lockdown. Those businesses and their employees will continue to suffer for many years into the future too. If the government had not been so keen to protect banks and property owners then we might all be in a rather better position when lockdown ends.

This weekend we did not go boating in the glorious sunshine, completely isolated within our own property. Instead we followed the rules and went for a walk. We stayed local, so there were very few options and ended up on a path next to the river with approximately 1000 other people, also walking locally. On the way there and on the way back, we passed four coffee shops, each with a queue of at least 50 people, many within breathing distance of one another, let alone two metres, and most if not all without masks including the staff handing out the drinks. If your goal is to reduce the spread of Covid, then you're in the wrong place.

 

[RJJ]

We curtain twitchers are whining about people spreading a disease which has to date killed over 120,000 people in Britain. Those "that get on with it" are whining about not being able to polish their boats for a few weeks. I'll twitch, thank you very much.

Meanwhile, people have actually played board games, listened to music, painted their walls and tended their gardens. Such frivolity, at a time of national crisis - don't they know 120,000 people have died?

(Those activities being equally irrelevant to infection rates as polishing a boat or indeed going sailing)