4 ms·

Traveling is literally one of the worst things you can do in trying to reduce transmission, especially with what we know about people being asymptomatic. These

Traveling is literally one of the worst things you can do in trying to reduce transmission, especially with what we know about people being asymptomatic. These small towns would be otherwise shielded from the virus if it wasn't for people from large cities trying to escape there. They also don't have the infrastructure to support the influx of people.

seemslegit 7y ago
If you travel by train or other form of public transport then yeah but not if you take your own car, given that half the airbnb checkins I did before the pandemic involved zero human interaction arranging this shouldn't be too difficult. I'm assuming that people moving in to shelter from covid19 are doing just that - rent for a month and longer and keep the same precautions as they would in a city , wear a mask and gloves to the stores and keep 2m+ distance. Obviously if somebody takes it as a good time to do Hadrian's wall trail with a different Airbnb every night it's a bad idea. > These small towns would be otherwise shielded from the virus if it wasn't for people from large cities trying to escape there. This is a terrible assumption to make in the first place and I hope nobody in decision-making capacity in those towns is in fact making it, the added risk to town people should be minimal because no additional interaction should be taking place. And if the town wanted to otherwise avoid lockdown or keep its pub open but won't because of airbnb-ers then it's probably a net win for the town. And how many vacant houses does an average country town have anyway so that airbnbs are a risk of stressing the infrastructure ?
- cameronfraser 7y ago
  > but not if you take your own car Do you not stop to get gas? What if you yourself are asymptomatic and spreading it every time you stop. > the added risk to town people should be minimal because no additional interaction should be taking place except people need to go to grocery stores still, the amount of food going into local stores is meant to sustain the current population
  - seemslegit 7y ago
    > Do you not stop to get gas? What if you yourself are asymptomatic and spreading it every time you stop. You wear a mask and disposable gloves which you replace after pumping gas, exchanging cash etc - just like you're supposed to be doing in the city or a suburb. > except people need to go to grocery stores still, the amount of food going into local stores is meant to sustain the current population Mask, gloves, 2m+ distance, again just like in the city. The amount of food going into local stores adjusts itself with demand, this is a crisis but still not ww2.
    - jfk13 7y ago
      You seem desperate to justify an attitude of disregarding the rules. The rules are there to help protect society as a whole, even though they may be inconvenient or less-than-optimal for an individual. But if each individual gets to decide whether or not to follow the rules, everything breaks down. One family fleeing to "self-isolate" in a remote village, if they plan and provision themselves adequately and take all proper precautions, might not be a problem. What if a thousand families decide they're above the rules? A hundred thousand? You're not some special individual who gets to make your own rules. You're part of a society (whether you like it or not); and it's up to all of us to respect the restrictions that are being imposed for the sake of us all.
      - seemslegit 7y ago
        Dear god, you're a useful one aren't you. Here's what the rules actually are, in the UK. Under Regulation 6 it is an offence (during the emergency period – see further below) for any person to leave the place where they are living "without reasonable excuse". Regulation 6(2) then sets out a non-exhaustive list of exceptions to the prohibition. These include, leaving the place where a person is living: • to obtain basic necessities; • to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household; • to seek or give medical assistance; • to travel for the purposes of work where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work from the place where they are living; and • to avoid injury or illness or to escape harm. Noticing that last one ? It's there for a reason. And if you don't think it applies to the situation of self-isolating from a pandemic in a remote village just remind yourself that you're not some special individual who gets to decide what rules mean. Re. the scalability of such a solution - it is naturally limited by the amount of units rentable as well as the amount of people for whom such a retreat would actually make sense given their situation, risk group and current living accommodation.

seemslegit 7y ago

If you travel by train or other form of public transport then yeah but not if you take your own car, given that half the airbnb checkins I did before the pandemic involved zero human interaction arranging this shouldn't be too difficult. I'm assuming that people moving in to shelter from covid19 are doing just that - rent for a month and longer and keep the same precautions as they would in a city , wear a mask and gloves to the stores and keep 2m+ distance. Obviously if somebody takes it as a good time to do Hadrian's wall trail with a different Airbnb every night it's a bad idea. > These small towns would be otherwise shielded from the virus if it wasn't for people from large cities trying to escape there. This is a terrible assumption to make in the first place and I hope nobody in decision-making capacity in those towns is in fact making it, the added risk to town people should be minimal because no additional interaction should be taking place. And if the town wanted to otherwise avoid lockdown or keep its pub open but won't because of airbnb-ers then it's probably a net win for the town. And how many vacant houses does an average country town have anyway so that airbnbs are a risk of stressing the infrastructure ?

cameronfraser 7y ago
> but not if you take your own car Do you not stop to get gas? What if you yourself are asymptomatic and spreading it every time you stop. > the added risk to town people should be minimal because no additional interaction should be taking place except people need to go to grocery stores still, the amount of food going into local stores is meant to sustain the current population
- seemslegit 7y ago
  > Do you not stop to get gas? What if you yourself are asymptomatic and spreading it every time you stop. You wear a mask and disposable gloves which you replace after pumping gas, exchanging cash etc - just like you're supposed to be doing in the city or a suburb. > except people need to go to grocery stores still, the amount of food going into local stores is meant to sustain the current population Mask, gloves, 2m+ distance, again just like in the city. The amount of food going into local stores adjusts itself with demand, this is a crisis but still not ww2.
  - jfk13 7y ago
    You seem desperate to justify an attitude of disregarding the rules. The rules are there to help protect society as a whole, even though they may be inconvenient or less-than-optimal for an individual. But if each individual gets to decide whether or not to follow the rules, everything breaks down. One family fleeing to "self-isolate" in a remote village, if they plan and provision themselves adequately and take all proper precautions, might not be a problem. What if a thousand families decide they're above the rules? A hundred thousand? You're not some special individual who gets to make your own rules. You're part of a society (whether you like it or not); and it's up to all of us to respect the restrictions that are being imposed for the sake of us all.
    - seemslegit 7y ago
      Dear god, you're a useful one aren't you. Here's what the rules actually are, in the UK. Under Regulation 6 it is an offence (during the emergency period – see further below) for any person to leave the place where they are living "without reasonable excuse". Regulation 6(2) then sets out a non-exhaustive list of exceptions to the prohibition. These include, leaving the place where a person is living: • to obtain basic necessities; • to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household; • to seek or give medical assistance; • to travel for the purposes of work where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work from the place where they are living; and • to avoid injury or illness or to escape harm. Noticing that last one ? It's there for a reason. And if you don't think it applies to the situation of self-isolating from a pandemic in a remote village just remind yourself that you're not some special individual who gets to decide what rules mean. Re. the scalability of such a solution - it is naturally limited by the amount of units rentable as well as the amount of people for whom such a retreat would actually make sense given their situation, risk group and current living accommodation.