6 ms·

Why do you think its BS? You know that the hospitals are saturated and that they have to choose who they give respirators and who they 'let die'..

by renox 7y ago

alkonaut 7y ago
I assume he thinks it’s BS because there is no way someone driving away to a forest to take a walk is a higher risk of spread than someone walking within 1km from their home. So banning walks in nature can’t have much effect in itself. If there is a positive effect it’s due to something secondary, such as people that are allowed further than 1km might get on a bus, or might go to a different shop with too many people. But still: it’s a ban of going out in nature, at a time when basically everything else is banned but going out in nature is safe and healthy. It should be encouraged! ICUs being overfilled isn’t an argument for why millions of people can’t walk in the forest.
- nitrogen 7y ago
  In other words, it's not "outside" that is risky right now, it's "others".
- jmalicki 7y ago
  "I assume he thinks it’s BS because there is no way someone driving away to a forest to take a walk is a higher risk of spread than someone walking within 1km from their home. So banning walks in nature can’t have much effect in itself." Californian here. The problem with driving to a forest to take a walk is that everyone is doing it, and thus the forests get pretty crowded, so they've clamped down on that too. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-california-arizona-social-distancing-a9423056.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronaviru...
  - yencabulator 7y ago
    That's highly dependent on the area, though. Near a 10+ million population city? Sure, it would get crowded. I have something like a 100 square miles of public lands right next to my house, and see another person there perhaps once a week. Such restrictions might make perfect sense near you, but not near the person you are responding to.
Barrin92 7y ago
covid-19 is not airborne, going out for a run or just enjoying nature is perfectly fine and should probably be encouraged given that people are going stir-crazy in their apartments.
yodsanklai 7y ago
I'm not saying that confinement is BS. Social distancing will make a difference. Forbidding people to walk more than 1km from their home won't. I understand that this situation has to be taken very seriously, but my point is that we shouldn't accept all lockdown measures blindly. Some make sense, but others are more debatable. All other countries face the same issue, and most didn't go as far as us (France). (BTW, french hospitals aren't saturated, except in a few places in the country. For instance, there are very few cases in my area, and this is after two weeks of lockdown, so we don't expect a significant rise at that stage. hopefully)
- me_me_me 7y ago
  Social distancing reduce spread among local community, movement restrictions reduce spread between communities.
Legogris 7y ago
While I am quite concerned with people who take unnecessary risk and ignore restrictions, there're quite a few people who take this to mind-boggling extremes. The biggest "Expats in Paris" FB group had the admin do a long rant-sticky about being sick of people flaunting restrictions, resulting in overloading hospitals, specifically naming "solitary bicycle rides" as unacceptable, which I think is just across the line of hysteria. (Yes, it's forbidden, which does not mean it increases the risk of spread)

Why do you think its BS? You know that the hospitals are saturated and that they have to choose who they give respirators and who they 'let die'..

by renox 7y ago

Why do you think its BS? You know that the hospitals are saturated and that they have to choose who they give respirators and who they 'let die'..

alkonaut 7y ago

I assume he thinks it’s BS because there is no way someone driving away to a forest to take a walk is a higher risk of spread than someone walking within 1km from their home. So banning walks in nature can’t have much effect in itself. If there is a positive effect it’s due to something secondary, such as people that are allowed further than 1km might get on a bus, or might go to a different shop with too many people. But still: it’s a ban of going out in nature, at a time when basically everything else is banned but going out in nature is safe and healthy. It should be encouraged! ICUs being overfilled isn’t an argument for why millions of people can’t walk in the forest.

nitrogen 7y ago
In other words, it's not "outside" that is risky right now, it's "others".
jmalicki 7y ago
"I assume he thinks it’s BS because there is no way someone driving away to a forest to take a walk is a higher risk of spread than someone walking within 1km from their home. So banning walks in nature can’t have much effect in itself." Californian here. The problem with driving to a forest to take a walk is that everyone is doing it, and thus the forests get pretty crowded, so they've clamped down on that too. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-california-arizona-social-distancing-a9423056.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronaviru...
- yencabulator 7y ago
  That's highly dependent on the area, though. Near a 10+ million population city? Sure, it would get crowded. I have something like a 100 square miles of public lands right next to my house, and see another person there perhaps once a week. Such restrictions might make perfect sense near you, but not near the person you are responding to.

Barrin92 7y ago

covid-19 is not airborne, going out for a run or just enjoying nature is perfectly fine and should probably be encouraged given that people are going stir-crazy in their apartments.

yodsanklai 7y ago

I'm not saying that confinement is BS. Social distancing will make a difference. Forbidding people to walk more than 1km from their home won't. I understand that this situation has to be taken very seriously, but my point is that we shouldn't accept all lockdown measures blindly. Some make sense, but others are more debatable. All other countries face the same issue, and most didn't go as far as us (France). (BTW, french hospitals aren't saturated, except in a few places in the country. For instance, there are very few cases in my area, and this is after two weeks of lockdown, so we don't expect a significant rise at that stage. hopefully)

me_me_me 7y ago
Social distancing reduce spread among local community, movement restrictions reduce spread between communities.

Legogris 7y ago

While I am quite concerned with people who take unnecessary risk and ignore restrictions, there're quite a few people who take this to mind-boggling extremes. The biggest "Expats in Paris" FB group had the admin do a long rant-sticky about being sick of people flaunting restrictions, resulting in overloading hospitals, specifically naming "solitary bicycle rides" as unacceptable, which I think is just across the line of hysteria. (Yes, it's forbidden, which does not mean it increases the risk of spread)