Does Closing Beaches Make Any Sense?

Status
Not open for further replies.

stm1sydney

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Posts
418

What I asked earlier about evidence is answered:

There is no evidence that I am aware of in Australia, or elsewhere, that if you are outside in the sunshine or open air and keep more than two metres away from other people, that you can acquire or give this virus to anyone else.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: DC3

andye

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Posts
5,310
Virgin
Platinum

What I asked earlier about evidence is answered:

There is no evidence that I am aware of in Australia, or elsewhere, that if you are outside in the sunshine or open air and keep more than two metres away from other people, that you can acquire or give this virus to anyone else.
The risk is small (but it is real) as you would probably need to have someone cough in your direction. That small risk goes up if there are more people around you.

However, I would bet a significant amount that very few people wash their hands after every surface they touch when outside in the open air. Again the more people there are in an area the higher the risk

The fewer people you congregate with, the fewer to contact trace

The restrictions are a population measure and not an individual one. The human brain is very poor at rationally understanding small risks and big numbers-"common sense" isn't always sensible
 
  • Like
Reactions: tgh

MEL_Traveller

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Posts
24,502

What I asked earlier about evidence is answered:

There is no evidence that I am aware of in Australia, or elsewhere, that if you are outside in the sunshine or open air and keep more than two metres away from other people, that you can acquire or give this virus to anyone else.

That's great, but this guy is only focusing on a single piece of the jigsaw. Policy makes have to consider the whole jigsaw. A person eating a kebab on a park bench, or a person lingering on the beach is taking away police resources from checking those that are supposed to be at home under isolation or quarantine. Over 100 people who were supposed to be at home yesterday were not.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DC3

burmans

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Posts
7,834
That's great, but this guy is only focusing on a single piece of the jigsaw. Policy makes have to consider the whole jigsaw. A person eating a kebab on a park bench, or a person lingering on the beach is taking away police resources from checking those that are supposed to be at home under isolation or quarantine. Over 100 people who were supposed to be at home yesterday were not.
Countries have all put in a range of measures in a hurry so strictly a scientist would say there is no evidential support for causation of any of them, i.e. one or some of them are working but we don't know which. Equally though there is no evidence individual measures aren't working.

What I think will happen is that if/when the numbers keep coming down to a 'reasonable' level we will see gradual relaxation of measures one by one and then we might get evidence but frankly, I think the idea that we should only move when we have evidence is what has caused most pain to those countries that took this approach (UK, Italy, Spain and the US most obviously).
 
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Posts
386
What I think will happen is that if/when the numbers keep coming down to a 'reasonable' level we will see gradual relaxation of measures one by one and then we might get evidence but frankly, I think the idea that we should only move when we have evidence is what has caused most pain to those countries that took this approach (UK, Italy, Spain and the US most obviously).
One could argue that the USA was well aware of the evidence but wilfully blind to it. The next couple of weeks won't be pretty.
 

get me outta here

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Posts
8,774
Qantas
LT Silver
Talking of faecal matter as some are, it is a good idea to take off your outdoor shoes and leave them very close to the front door, inside if there is a chance of centipedes.
This may be a bit OT but then it will always was a silly thread.
 

MEL_Traveller

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Posts
24,502
I read taking shoes off is important if you have kids likely to jump on furniture or beds etc. I guess there are some adults too with shoes on furniture!
 

get me outta here

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Posts
8,774
Qantas
LT Silver
Everything you walk into the house and distribute around the house on the floor will end up in the bed and everywhere else.

I read taking shoes off is important if you have kids likely to jump on furniture or beds etc. I guess there are some adults too with shoes on furniture!
 

Renato1

Established Member
Joined
May 1, 2015
Posts
1,930
Because you lied about my position on social distancing with respect to beaches and this is the beaches thread.
A. Far from being a lie, I thought I presented your position quite moderately.
B. Replying to something in the wrong thread ......isn't a reply. It is nonsense.
Regards,
Renato

Renato1,

I would happily continue the discussion if you would actually look the big picture and not get bogged down by your entrenched views at the expense of the facts. You are continually grasping at bits and pieces and ignoring much of what is put to you at the expense of the big picture and the discussion in general.

You obviously have, or choose to have no understanding of teamwork and/risk management in the context of this discussion.

What needs to be done with COVID-19 is a moving target and non of us are perfect so the rules have to keep changing in an effort to get them right. By doing what we are doing we are saving lives.

We are all in this together, so don’t be one of those who goes outside the rules as it will at the very least create tears but more likely cost lives.

p.s. thanks for the non grammar lesson.
My entrenched view is that banning something for the sake of banning something - where there is no possiblity of that action harming anyone else - is nonsense, and government over reach.

Funnily enough, the exact same thing is going on in Britain and, it is interesting to see another libertarian just as annoyed as me. This clip echoes much of what has been discussed here.

Regards,
Renato

Discipline is not doing what is easy or suits you
Discipline is following the rules
By all means ask if the rule-maker will change things if they seem illogical, but obey the rules until any change and be prepared for them to say "tough luck"
You are side stepping what I wrote.

When the rules are obviously illogical e.g. it is okay and safer(???) for a large number of people to run on the Tan track around the lake in Melbourne, than for a single person to throw out a fishing line on a pier, or shoot a rabbit on his own property, then that collective discipline starts to break down.
Regards,
Renato

Pretty sure eh? Yet another example of you being 100% wrong.
You are wrong about faecal matter entering into the water of swimming beaches and you are wrong about the period of time it takes to do so.

There is actually a mechanism to monitor faecal matter entering Port Phillip Bay as it is a known health risk after heavy rain (ie as in the heavy rain in Melbourne this week).

ie See Beach Report | Yarra and Bay

EPA Victoria monitors recreational water quality at 36 Port Phillip Bay beaches with water samples collected at Beach Report sites every week during summer.

These samples are tested for enterococci, a group of bacteria found inside warm-blooded animals. Enterococci is recognised as the best indicator in measuring faecal contamination of marine recreational waters.




and Melbourne's beaches do get closed for swimming from faecal matter contamination.

ALL Of Melbourne’s Beaches Declared Unsafe For Swimming
Don't go in the water.





I am unsure what to make of your response here.

Did you not read what I was replying to? Or are you into some kind of wilfull ignorance?

You quote my statement,
"(about 9 days) and other water, and I'm pretty sure it will take longer than that for any such matter to somehow makes its way into Port Phillip Bay."
leaving out the earlier part where I am referring to to the highly improbable notion that faecal matter makes its way from Merrimbula and Warnambool to Port Phillip Bay.

As a result of which all your links are utterly irrelevant.

Furthermore, do any of your links say that the fecal matter in Port Phillip Bay after rainstorms comes from human feces?
Who are these people defecating in the gutters?
And what percentage of the fecal matter do these ghastly humans contribute to the bay, relative to that of dogs, birds and any other "warm-blooded animals"?
And just how many of those dogs, birds and any other "warm-blooded animals" are currently suffering from COvid-19?

Thus, your links are doubly irrelevant - if that's possible.
Regards,
Renato

UPDATE:
Mornington Peninsula Shire has decided to keep all beaches CLOSED.
Except that, one can use them for just about anything except for gathering in groups.

Good to see some common sense.

Regards,
Renato
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MEL_Traveller

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Posts
24,502
My entrenched view is that banning something for the sake of banning something - where there is no possiblity of that action harming anyone else - is nonsense, and government over reach.

You're only looking at a single piece of the jigsaw! Beaches being closed, or fishing being prohibited is not banning something for the sake of banning it. The law is no non-essential travel or activity. That's the bigger picture.

Non-essential outside activity, as a whole, will reduce transmission. Just because one example doesn't make sense to an individual doesn't mean the policy as a whole is totally flawed.

People have to police the laws. If you have 100 exceptions it becomes very difficult to police.

Where do you draw the line? Those that think speeding 'just a little bit' is ok. So we don't enforce that? Those that think recreational drugs are ok? So we don't enforce that? Those that use a disable car park when they are not entitled because... well... there aren't many people around.
 

Happy Trails

Established Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Posts
2,609
The original story is interesting too:

The picture actually dates from 1958, during the Algerian War (i.e., a war for independence waged against French forces in Colonial Algeria). And it depicts a starving donkey that was rescued by a member of the French Foreign Legion who carried it back to his base, where the animal was nursed back to health, given the name “Bambi,” and adopted as a unit mascot — as described by author Douglas Porch in his 1991 history of the Legion.
 

Renato1

Established Member
Joined
May 1, 2015
Posts
1,930
You're only looking at a single piece of the jigsaw! Beaches being closed, or fishing being prohibited is not banning something for the sake of banning it. The law is no non-essential travel or activity. That's the bigger picture.

Non-essential outside activity, as a whole, will reduce transmission. Just because one example doesn't make sense to an individual doesn't mean the policy as a whole is totally flawed.

People have to police the laws. If you have 100 exceptions it becomes very difficult to police.

Where do you draw the line? Those that think speeding 'just a little bit' is ok. So we don't enforce that? Those that think recreational drugs are ok? So we don't enforce that? Those that use a disable car park when they are not entitled because... well... there aren't many people around.
Good attempt at trying to defend the indefensible, while not adressing my point - that banning something just for the sake of banning it - is nonsense and government overreach.

I have a shooters licence and own a gun.
I own a property that I am entitled to shoot on.
But I am banned from shooting a rabbit hopping along my property........because.......?????

Regards,
Renato
 

MEL_Traveller

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Posts
24,502
Good attempt at trying to defend the indefensible, while not adressing my point - that banning something just for the sake of banning it - is nonsense and government overreach.

I have a shooters licence and own a gun.
I own a property that I am entitled to shoot on.
But I am banned from shooting a rabbit hopping along my property........because.......?????

Regards,
Renato

But it's not banning it for the sake of banning it.

Everyone is supposed to be at home.
 

nutwood

Established Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2015
Posts
1,400
Qantas
Platinum 1
Virgin
Platinum
I would think the simplest response is to accept that current restrictions are way over the top. It's a typical bell curve situation. You introduce restrictions, most will comply, some will over comply and some will ignore. Either extreme tapers off exponentially.
This particular virus, whilst not as savage as it could be, has a very long incubation period. From a mathematical point of view, this lifts the risk factor enormously. Over the top policing goes some way to nudging the peak of the bell curve into safer territory, simply because this means that the corresponding "ignore" extreme is also pushed into safer territory.
 
Sponsored Post

This is an example of a Sponsored Post, one of the many ways you can advertise on the Australian Frequent Flyer.

Other options include banner advertisements on our content and forum pages or our newsletter. You can also purchase an audio message on our podcast - or if you just want to try it out, you can sponsor a thread.

If you'd prefer not to see any advertisements (including these sponsored posts), you can become an AFF Supporter from just $6 and instantly remove all advertisements from our website!

lovetravellingoz

Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Posts
12,773
I would think the simplest response is to accept that current restrictions are way over the top. It's a typical bell curve situation. You introduce restrictions, most will comply, some will over comply and some will ignore. Either extreme tapers off exponentially.
This particular virus, whilst not as savage as it could be, has a very long incubation period. From a mathematical point of view, this lifts the risk factor enormously. Over the top policing goes some way to nudging the peak of the bell curve into safer territory, simply because this means that the corresponding "ignore" extreme is also pushed into safer territory.

Or simply put, as minority are lax the majority have to be strict to make up for it to achieve the desired outcome.

If it were not for the lax and the loophole seekers, the rules would less strict for all of us.


The good thing is that the vast majority have been exceptionally good at following the intent of the guidelines and so we as a community, as a nation have over-achieved on what was expected and are now well ahead of where even the most optimistic of our planners would have hoped.

However it would have only taking situations like not closing beaches at Bondi when it was, later shown to have been a CV19 hotspot, large weddings etc, to have continued for us all to have been a in a much poorer position.
 
Last edited:

dajop

Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 1, 2002
Posts
13,542
I own a property that I am entitled to shoot on.
But I am banned from shooting a rabbit hopping along my property........because.......?????

If that property is where you ordinarily reside, it is OK to do so. If not, it is not a valid reason to leave the premises where you ordinarily reside.

FWIW this is the link to the Stay at Home Direction:

Also premises are defined in the "Public Health and Wellbeing Act", which includes land, building, pontoons, vehicles, caravans. So with this definition premises, it does not just mean inside (exact wording in Stay at Home Direction is "... must not leave the premises where the person ordinarily resides, other than for one or more of the reasons specified in ..."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top