what CoronaVirus precautions are your club taking?

CalamariFritti

The weather is rubbing it in right now. So I agree, chances are the moment we're ok it'll turn horrible.

Euphoriasean

RoadRunner wrote: »

Joking aside I don't think there's an actual single point that people disagree on.

GUI calls the shots under advice from the government. We're not long away from getting back on the course again.

Conditions may be different though, hearing that in countries where golf is opening back up courses are allowing two balls only. Our course wouldn't get everyone out. It may start to get very tricky getting a tee time!

Yeah tee time could be tricky but with the additional daylight now it's should ease thing somewhat. People will just need to get used to teeing off at different time. Maybe it's a late Saturday afternoon rather than the normal Sunday morning slot. Might also need to limit people to one weekend slot only.

2balls become tricky when you have a no show given you will have much less chance of jumping in with another group. On a positive you should be able to get around much quicker.

FixdePitchmark

Golf should be back early enough (IMO) - as we exit lock-down.

But my opinion doesn't count - all sports , or non essential activities will be that 4th tier of stuff after.

Manufacturing , work, construction , public transport fully opening, etc.

To hazard a guess - restaurants / sports will be 4 to 6 weeks after restriction lift.

So starting May 5th for construction? Golf Mid June ?

FixdePitchmark

By the way , our growth rate is still at 4/5 % .

This would need to be below 2 and nearer 1 % before things start moving.

May happen over nest 2 weeks.

morrga

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

By the way , our growth rate is still at 4/5 % .

This would need to be below 2 and nearer 1 % before things start moving.

May happen over nest 2 weeks.

Our transmission rate per person is now down to between 0.7 and 1.0 which is very good and the key number Simon Harris mentioned in relation to any lifting of restrictions.

fred funk }{

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Golf should be back early enough (IMO) - as we exit lock-down.

But my opinion doesn't count - all sports , or non essential activities will be that 4th tier of stuff after.

Manufacturing , work, construction , public transport fully opening, etc.

To hazard a guess - restaurants / sports will be 4 to 6 weeks after restriction lift.

So starting May 5th for construction? Golf Mid June ?

I'd be optimistic that golf might be back earlier than you think. Golf has been mentioned several times by different experts as a safe to-do activity and listening to expert, in charge of the modeling, today, they definitely are very conscious of people's mental health and want to increase people's activities if safe to do so.

FixdePitchmark

morrga wrote: »

Our transmission rate per person is now down to between 0.7 and 1.0 which is very good and the key number Simon Harris mentioned in relation to any lifting of restrictions.

And I know that they are putting a positive spin on it.

But 500 to 600 people a day are still getting it.

Until that hits below 150 we are going nowhere.

Hopefully growth reduces more to about 1 % - good bit off that yet.

FixdePitchmark

fred funk }{ wrote: »

I'd be optimistic that golf might be back earlier than you think. Golf has been mentioned several times by different experts as a safe to-do activity and listening to expert, in charge of the modeling, today, they definitely are very conscious of people's mental health and want to increase people's activities if safe to do so.

would be great , But can't see "clubs" being part of the first phase.

Might mean - lifting 2km etc.

But by definition clubs are a gathering.

I genuinely can't see it.

CalamariFritti

I'd be thinking the other way (surprise). Not just because I want to, but purely from a logical point of view. I mean what's the point of opening up public transport and work places but keeping golf courses closed? That wouldn't make any sense. Surely playing golf vs sitting in a fullish dart is less than a rounding error in terms of spread potential, if that even. Thats the playing of golf I'm referring to. Bar and restaurant may take longer.

prawnsambo

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

And I know that they are putting a positive spin on it.

But 500 to 600 people a day are still getting it.

Until that hits below 150 we are going nowhere.

Hopefully growth reduces more to about 1 % - good bit off that yet.

500-600 is very low. As an example, last Friday, the total was at 8,089. If we were following the standard growth curve, the previous day's total would have been 6,000 ish. It was more like 7,500. Or to put it another way, we would now be at 44k.

Also, golf courses have been one of the first things opened in countries that have started to relax their lockdowns. Albeit in a restricted mode (2 balls, clubhouses closed etc.).

newport2

Glebee wrote: »

What the bets the weather will break as soon as we get the green light:D:D

I hope it does somewhat, better chance of getting tee-times! The courses will be flooded with players if the weather stays like this and if it's only 2 balls allowed at first or something to that effect, that will make it worse. Golf in the wind and rain sounds like a dream now!

PARlance

https://www.facebook.com/1073548012/posts/10156851132562032/?substory_index=8

That solves retrieving the ball from the hole issue

FixdePitchmark

prawnsambo wrote: »

500-600 is very low. As an example, last Friday, the total was at 8,089. If we were following the standard growth curve, the previous day's total would have been 6,000 ish. It was more like 7,500. Or to put it another way, we would now be at 44k.

Also, golf courses have been one of the first things opened in countries that have started to relax their lockdowns. Albeit in a restricted mode (2 balls, clubhouses closed etc.).

Golf courses closed on the 23rd / March - we had 219 cases per day then. We now have 3 times that amount per day.

I know golf is low risk - but higher risk stuff will come back early as deemed necessary for the reestablishment of the economy etc.

I don't think golf will be in that first batch - but if it is, it will not be like the golf we had just prior to golf closing. There will be far more control measures , up to face masks, 2 balls and more responsible social distancing and - no talking as walking down fairway shoulder to shoulder or in car park together. Is it worth all the hassle of that ?

Do people genuinely think a guy in 20s / early 30s will work on a building site using full ppe and social distancing and then rock up and play in a 4 ball at the weekend with a lad in late 60s / 70s in next week or two. Should kids be near course - should people with pre existing conditions play ?

When we see cases in the order of 100 or even 50 or less per day , then we will enter into more ambitious openings (IMO) - we will learn from other counties opening up in next few weeks.

I'd be surprised if we have anything in the order of golf, by mid may.

PARlance

A great listen/read on the behind the scenes impact from the Golfers Journal with Carne.

https://www.golfersjournal.com/podcast/episode-53-pandemic-diary/

FixdePitchmark

PARlance wrote: »

A great listen/read on the behind the scenes impact from the Golfers Journal with Carne.

https://www.golfersjournal.com/podcast/episode-53-pandemic-diary/

Hey - how are thing PARlance.

Do you even play golf ?

xgronkjabv6pcl

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Golf courses closed on the 23rd / March - we had 219 cases per day then. We now have 3 times that amount per day.

I know golf is low risk - but higher risk stuff will come back early as deemed necessary for the reestablishment of the economy etc.

I don't think golf will be in that first batch - but if it is, it will not be like the golf we had just prior to golf closing. There will be far more control measures , up to face masks, 2 balls and more responsible social distancing and - no talking as walking down fairway shoulder to shoulder or in car park together. Is it worth all the hassle of that ?

Do people genuinely think a guy in 20s / early 30s will work on a building site using full ppe and social distancing and then rock up and play in a 4 ball at the weekend with a lad in late 60s / 70s in next week or two. Should kids be near course - should people with pre existing conditions play ?

When we see cases in the order of 100 or even 50 or less per day , then we will enter into more ambitious openings (IMO) - we will learn from other counties opening up in next few weeks.

I'd be surprised if we have anything in the order of golf, by mid may.

Extracting anything indicative of where we currently stand based upon confirmed cases over the past number of weeks is complete folly.

I know numerous people waiting over 3 weeks for positive test results and others who got results within 24 hours.

x cases on March 23rd means little because there has been such a disparity in time to conclude tests.

Additionally 100 or even 50 cases per day as an indicator is meaningless. That's proportionally the same as saying Italy should open up when they have between 600-1200 cases per day.

Would suggest the same for them? There are a myriad of things to consider, relative confirmed cases when compared to x date is a meaningless measure.

If we are following the South Korean measures which we apparently are then 50-100 cases per day won't cut it. South Korea are down below 30 cases a day, proportionally that's in Ireland and kids still aren't back in classrooms, many aren't back to work and plenty of measures still exist.

I'm not saying those numbers scale in a linear manner but what you're saying is in no way relevant to how the decision will be made for golf courses reopening.

Down9194

Came across this on youtube last night. In the short term this may be the way to go.

https://youtu.be/sjJS-Jz1cEU

PARlance

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Hey - how are thing PARlance.

Do you even play golf ?

Does anyone play golf anymore Fix?

CalamariFritti

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Golf courses closed on the 23rd / March - we had 219 cases per day then. We now have 3 times that amount per day.

With respect FP, you're getting worried by the wrong numbers. The absolute numbers don't matter here. Its relative numbers that matter. Increase and that "spread factor", not sure what the correct term is, the number that says how many new people will get infected by one infected person on average.

They say that number is now below 1 and thats the biggy. It used to be 3 or 4 at the start of this.

HighLine

PARlance wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/1073548012/posts/10156851132562032/?substory_index=8

That solves retrieving the ball from the hole issue

Very clever.

PARlance wrote: »

A great listen/read on the behind the scenes impact from the Golfers Journal with Carne.

https://www.golfersjournal.com/podcast/episode-53-pandemic-diary/

Listened to this earlier today. A great insight to the stresses and strains going on behind closed doors in every golf club in Ireland right now.
Committee members/management who have their own family/work stresses and then they have to go and worry about how they will keep their courses open.

FixdePitchmark

Iker Short Thumbnail wrote: »

Extracting anything indicative of where we currently stand based upon confirmed cases over the past number of weeks is complete folly.

I know numerous people waiting over 3 weeks for positive test results and others who got results within 24 hours.

x cases on March 23rd means little because there has been such a disparity in time to conclude tests.

Additionally 100 or even 50 cases per day as an indicator is meaningless. That's proportionally the same as saying Italy should open up when they have between 600-1200 cases per day.

Would suggest the same for them? There are a myriad of things to consider, relative confirmed cases when compared to x date is a meaningless measure.

If we are following the South Korean measures which we apparently are then 50-100 cases per day won't cut it. South Korea are down below 30 cases a day, proportionally that's in Ireland and kids still aren't back in classrooms, many aren't back to work and plenty of measures still exist.

I'm not saying those numbers scale in a linear manner but what you're saying is in no way relevant to how the decision will be made for golf courses reopening.

Look you can get wrapped up a bit heavy in the maths.

But the growth rate is critical to where we are - testing was an issue, but back log is somewhat resolved now and we know our true growth rate. It is about
4 %.

Why has growth any relevance - we have a much bigger problem now versus when courses closed (cases per day) - it is only under control because we have no activity.

Some activities will restart - and growth will grow again. I'm not sure why people think golf will be let off - we are in a far more serious stage now for growth than we were when courses closed. (if control measures removed).

Anything that opens will be critical to the greater economy - great if golf is considered part of that - but I can't see it (IMO) - will be national hospital , national infrastructure , manufacturing. Will be great if they bring lifestyle components in - but increased variables and gatherings not good for controlling Ro and will result in too many things opening and closing when a potential and likely regrowth takes place.

Unless I'm missing something - but the maths of growth is maths.

Anyway it is all somewhat academic , because we are in lock down till 5th of May.

But we should watch growth rate when near about 0.5 % (long way from here) - we will have a more reasoned analysis then.

Our growth is worse than Italy at present , I just want people to understand where we are at present - long way off the positive spin in the general public.
I'd wait a week or two anyway.

Ro values near or just below 1 - is still a big problem for golf.

RoadRunner

I think we are close to returning to situations where we will able to remove the 2km limit and courses can reopen under Soc.Dis conditions.

Will be a savage summer for nackerdrinking

xgronkjabv6pcl

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Look you can get wrapped up a bit heavy in the maths.

But the growth rate is critical to where we are - testing was an issue, but back log is somewhat resolved now and we know our true growth rate. It is about
4 %.

Why has growth any relevance - we have a much bigger problem now versus when courses closed (cases per day) - it is only under control because we have no activity.

Some activities will restart - and growth will grow again. I'm not sure why people think golf will be let off - we are in a far more serious stage now for growth than we were when courses closed. (if control measures removed).

Anything that opens will be critical to the greater economy - great if golf is considered part of that - but I can't see it (IMO) - will be national hospital , national infrastructure , manufacturing. Will be great if they bring lifestyle components in - but increased variables and gatherings not good for controlling Ro and will result in too many things opening and closing when a potential and likely regrowth takes place.

Unless I'm missing something - but the maths of growth is maths.

Anyway it is all somewhat academic , because we are in lock down till 5th of May.

But we should watch growth rate when near about 0.5 % (long way from here) - we will have a more reasoned analysis then.

Our growth is worse than Italy at present , I just want people to understand where we are at present - long way off the positive spin in the general public.
I'd wait a week or two anyway.

Ro values near or just below 1 - is still a big problem for golf.

I did respond and considered responding further but on reflection, I have little interest in getting bogged down in amateur epidemiology.

To put it succinctly, you've made some very speculative assumptions and I don't believe the numbers you have stated represent any indicator of what people need to see for golfing restrictions to be augmented.

FixdePitchmark

Iker Short Thumbnail wrote: »

I did respond and considered responding further but on reflection, I have little interest in getting bogged down in amateur epidemiology.

To put it succinctly, you've made some very speculative assumptions and I don't believe the numbers you have stated represent any indicator of what people need to see for golfing restrictions to be augmented.

Any ideas yourself when golf can restart ? - as opposed to being so arsey about it.

It isn't epidemiology - it is basic maths. You can see what growth rate any country was at before they lifted restrictions. A long way from where we are at present.

xgronkjabv6pcl

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Any ideas yourself when golf can restart ? - as opposed to being so arsey about it.

It isn't epidemiology - it is basic maths. You can see what growth rate any country was at before they lifted restrictions. A long way from where we are at present.

Outside of a general nationwide review of measures on the date currently set, then no, I have no idea.

You are making epidemiological assumptions. You're referring to R0 ratios, the numbers required in order for golf to reopen etc. That's effectively amateur epidemiology.

You should read this: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-comic-strip-tour-of-the-wild-world-of-pandemic-modeling/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

It encapsulates the reason why "basic maths" is worthless in determining anything at this stage. That publication are known for their modelling/predictions and they aren't even bothering making assumptions on the topic.

That is enough for me to dismiss wild simplistic assumptions and not bother trying to make any of my own.

FixdePitchmark

Iker Short Thumbnail wrote: »

Outside of a general nationwide review of measures on the date currently set, then no, I have no idea.

You are making epidemiological assumptions. You're referring to R0 ratios, the numbers required in order for golf to reopen etc. That's effectively amateur epidemiology.

You should read this: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-comic-strip-tour-of-the-wild-world-of-pandemic-modeling/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

It encapsulates the reason why "basic maths" is worthless in determining anything at this stage. That publication are known for their modelling/predictions and they aren't even bothering making assumptions on the topic.

That is enough for me to dismiss wild simplistic assumptions and not bother trying to make any of my own.

The number of confirmed cases per day (as testing has improved) is not an assumption.

It is nice when someone can simplify things for people.

Confirmed cases per day High = no golf.
Confirmed cases per day low = chance of golf.

It is a golf forum - anyone can hold me to what I posted above.
We are now high at 4%
We will be low at .5 %

twounderpar

https://www.golfersjournal.com/podca...andemic-diary/

Listened to this and found it hard to listen to at times. This man needs to take a step back and look after his own health and well being.
Yes it's a disaster with a small d in comparison to the nightly death figures that are coming through each evening.
I'm sure Carne will recover unlike maybe many other clubs in the same province who may never open their gates again.

xgronkjabv6pcl

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

The number of confirmed cases per day (as testing has improved) is not an assumption.

It is nice when someone can simplify things for people.

Confirmed cases per day High = no golf.
Confirmed cases per day low = chance of golf.

It is a golf forum - anyone can hold me to what I posted above.
We are now high at 4%
We will be low at .5 %

I think the above is obvious but you stated a variety of specifics such as:

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

When we see cases in the order of 100 or even 50 or less per day , then we will enter into more ambitious openings (IMO)

Our growth is worse than Italy at present , I just want people to understand where we are at present - long way off the positive spin in the general public.
I'd wait a week or two anyway.

Ro values near or just below 1 - is still a big problem for golf.

Again calling 0.5% as low and 4% as high is an assumption.

Movement in those numbers is a simplistic assessment of a complex topic and imo holds little value in determining anything, IMO.

GreeBo

/me checks ignored posts out of boredom.

/me happy with decision to keep on ignoring.

xgronkjabv6pcl

GreeBo wrote: »

/me checks ignored posts out of boredom.

/me happy with decision to keep on ignoring.

I must have read that line from you half a dozen times now.

You must have quite the list. :rolleyes: