what CoronaVirus precautions are your club taking?

Raisins

billy3sheets wrote: »

Firstly, thank you for your robust opinion of my post.
Secondly, the point I'm making is that golf would not in my view add a signifcant risk to me catching or spreading COVID, on top of the essential risks I am already taking.

Sorry if that was a bit strong...I’m sick of that logic which is increasingly prevalent on boards.

I agree with you on that if people obey the rules I.e travelling in separate cars etc

CalamariFritti

GreeBo wrote: »

I think opening the door a crack will cause a deluge of people ignoring the restrictions.
There is already an increase if people out and about over the last week, I think this weekend will be even worse, relaxing restrictions for some sports will cause others to give up altogether IMO.

Maybe you're right, maybe not giving the people anything could be worse.

In my opinion the government is already in danger of losing the people. Its down to their goal post shifting, lack of transparency and their deliberate fogging up of any kind of measurement for easing restrictions.

They are actively avoiding to give any kind of information that may be held 'against' them when in X weeks time they deem it still not 'good enough'. No dates and numbers in their plan at all.

For someone who sees their job or business slipping away that doesn't really cut it.

Back to the point I was going to make.

Giving the above which is already not sitting right with people any straight-up extension will definitely see the rise of non-compliance. The government did say it themselves. You can lock people down only for so long.

You need to give the people something to keep the lid on or else people will just do their own thing. And then you have a real problem. Do you just let it go? Do you send in the heavies?

prawnsambo

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Maybe you're right, maybe not giving the people anything could be worse.

In my opinion the government is already in danger of losing the people. Its down to their goal post shifting, lack of transparency and their deliberate fogging up of any kind of measurement for easing restrictions.

They are actively avoiding to give any kind of information that may be held 'against' them when in X weeks time they deem it still not 'good enough'. No dates and numbers in their plan at all.

For someone who sees their job or business slipping away that doesn't really cut it.

Back to the point I was going to make.

Giving the above which is already not sitting right with people any straight-up extension will definitely see the rise of non-compliance. The government did say it themselves. You can lock people down only for so long.

You need to give the people something to keep the lid on or else people will just do their own thing. And then you have a real problem. Do you just let it go? Do you send in the heavies?

It's very clear what the government is aiming for here. No idea why you can't understand it. But for the avoidance of doubt, it's to get the reproduction rate trending towards zero. Which it isn't right now. We're still getting new cases by the hundreds and that's more than it was when the lockdown was instituted back in March.

CalamariFritti

Thanks for your concern, I'm well able to understand.

There is what the government wants to achieve and then there is the need to bring the people along with it. Given the situation and the structures that we have they're probably doing as good a job as can be expected on the former but they're doing a poor job on the latter.

Coming out with a plan that has no dates is fine. Its a fluid situation, everyone understands that. But when you come out saying the numbers (ICU, new cases, etc) aren good enough yet then you need to be able to say what a good enough number is. Which the government deliberately avoids.

We are on 7 weeks of lockdown. People need know what the goal is. When asked why the numbers aren't good enough it was said such and such needs to be below (or above) X (the list grows all the time btw). When asked what is X, the answer was dodged. They're looking for a free pass to dodge decision and commitment.

I'm certainly able to understand that and I think its very poor and will not sit right with the public.

thecomedian

newport2 wrote: »

Well I guess in tennis just yourself and your opponent touch the same gear (nicer way? ). Touching flags and rakes in golf involves many more people having indirect contact with each other.

You do not touch the flags or rakes. Bunkers should be out of play. Shallow holes means no need to touch flags or the hole itself. Where is the risk?

prawnsambo

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Thanks for your concern, I'm well able to understand.

There is what the government wants to achieve and then there is the need to bring the people along with it. Given the situation and the structures that we have they're probably doing as good a job as can be expected on the former but they're doing a poor job on the latter.

Coming out with a plan that has no dates is fine. Its a fluid situation, everyone understands that. But when you come out saying the numbers (ICU, new cases, etc) aren good enough yet then you need to be able to say what a good enough number is. Which the government deliberately avoids.

We are on 7 weeks of lockdown. People need know what the goal is. When asked why the numbers aren't good enough it was said such and such needs to be below (or above) X (the list grows all the time btw). When asked what is X, the answer was dodged. They're looking for a free pass to dodge decision and commitment.

I'm certainly able to understand that and I think its very poor and will not sit right with the public.

You say you understand and then proceed to prove otherwise. I already pointed out that we have more new cases per day than we had when the lockdown was first instituted. So until we have a situation where the number of cases is reducing at an exponential rate consistently, we aren't in a position to reverse the lockdown. There is no magic number, there needs to be evidence of a trend in the right direction. We don't need the government to tell us this, the information on this virus is in the public domain and the situation in other countries likewise. NZ are just opening up now and they had zero deaths and no more than 1000 cases.

I note (for somebody who claims to understand this) that you can't even quote the data you are having problems with: "such and such" and "below or above X". And if I remember correctly, you were the guy who was scathing about the need for a full lockdown in the first place. Your argument then was just about as bedded in fact as it appears to be now.

fearruanua

hoax. got it myself this morning

jamesbondings

fearruanua wrote: »

hoax. got it myself this morning

Signed by Owen Lee & Joe King FFS haha it got me!

GreeBo

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Maybe you're right, maybe not giving the people anything could be worse.

In my opinion the government is already in danger of losing the people. Its down to their goal post shifting, lack of transparency and their deliberate fogging up of any kind of measurement for easing restrictions.

They are actively avoiding to give any kind of information that may be held 'against' them when in X weeks time they deem it still not 'good enough'. No dates and numbers in their plan at all.

For someone who sees their job or business slipping away that doesn't really cut it.

Back to the point I was going to make.

Giving the above which is already not sitting right with people any straight-up extension will definitely see the rise of non-compliance. The government did say it themselves. You can lock people down only for so long.

You need to give the people something to keep the lid on or else people will just do their own thing. And then you have a real problem. Do you just let it go? Do you send in the heavies?

Goalpost shifting?
Do you not think that maybe its more about dealing with a rapidly shifting situation?

Other than some tinfoil hat stuff, can you give any reason as to why the government would continue with restrictions longer than they deem necessary? Who is profiting from the current situation?

CalamariFritti

You have actually no idea what you're talking about. What am I even bothering with you?

So until we have a situation where the number of cases is reducing at an exponential rate consistently

Seriously? I am wasting my time with someone who comes out with this?

Look I will give it one more try.

The government has come out with a plan. There are no dates in it. There a variables in it. Like you said - "such and such needs to be at X etc".

Its the most basic question that anyone would expect at this point. The first question that comes to mind.
What is X? Where does the rate need to be? Where does new cases need to be? Where does ICU capacity need to be?

Its not that hard to understand. But I shouldn't be too harsh with you. Apparently an entire government fails to understand this.

CalamariFritti

GreeBo wrote: »

Goalpost shifting?
Do you not think that maybe its more about dealing with a rapidly shifting situation?

Other than some tinfoil hat stuff, can you give any reason as to why the government would continue with restrictions longer than they deem necessary? Who is profiting from the current situation?

If i had to hazard a guess I d say its probably 'decision by big committee syndrome'. Nobody wants to commit to anything that may or may not come back to bite them in three weeks time. Play it safe kick the can as long as possible and cover your back side.

Obviously I have no idea - talking out of my rear and I could be doing them a terrible injustice. But if I had to put my money on something that would be it.

As for me being against the lockdown in the first place. Yes I was and I stand by it.

Turns out I was kinda right too. Seems that reproduction rate doesn't actually care about lockdown and hasn't changed since its introduction. Of course the only number I have is from a different country. I wonder what ours is. Does anyone know? I wonder why the government gave up communicating it?

Greebo you're an engineer right? You shouldn't be a stranger to logical thinking in any case.
What could possibly the reason for not answering the question what the number of cases must be for an easing of restrictions?

prawnsambo

CalamariFritti wrote: »

The government has come out with a plan. There are no dates in it. There a variables in it. Like you said - "such and such needs to be at X etc".

Those were your words. You couldn't even articulate what 'such and such' is. And then you have the nerve to pontificate. From a position of complete ignorance. I suspect that "such and such" is R0, but I'll leave you to look that up. And the magic number (that you called X) it needs to be below is 1. But you've managed to pontificate on the subject without actually knowing what those represent. So for your sake, I'm glad this is the last time you're going to [:D] "give it one more try".

GreeBo

CalamariFritti wrote: »

You have actually no idea what you're talking about. What am I even bothering with you?



Seriously? I am wasting my time with someone who comes out with this?

Look I will give it one more try.

The government has come out with a plan. There are no dates in it. There a variables in it. Like you said - "such and such needs to be at X etc".

Its the most basic question that anyone would expect at this point. The first question that comes to mind.
What is X? Where does the rate need to be? Where does new cases need to be? Where does ICU capacity need to be?

Its not that hard to understand. But I shouldn't be too harsh with you. Apparently an entire government fails to understand this.

The simple question you *think* you are answering is the equivalent to asking someone how long it will take them to find something that they have lost.

Simple != Easy.

GreeBo

CalamariFritti wrote: »

If i had to hazard a guess I d say its probably 'decision by big committee syndrome'. Nobody wants to commit to anything that may or may not come back to bite them in three weeks time. Play it safe kick the can as long as possible and cover your back side.

Obviously I have no idea - talking out of my rear and I could be doing them a terrible injustice. But if I had to put my money on something that would be it.

As for me being against the lockdown in the first place. Yes I was and I stand by it.

Turns out I was kinda right too. Seems that reproduction rate doesn't actually care about lockdown and hasn't changed since its introduction. Of course the only number I have is from a different country. I wonder what ours is. Does anyone know? I wonder why the government gave up communicating it?

Greebo you're an engineer right? You shouldn't be a stranger to logical thinking in any case.
What could possibly the reason for not answering the question what the number of cases must be for an easing of restrictions?

Play it safe because getting it wrong means lots of people die who otherwise wouldnt?

Again, its not as simple as just a number. If it was then every country would have already done it, right?

CalamariFritti

prawnsambo wrote: »

Those were your words. You couldn't even articulate what 'such and such' is. And then you have the nerve to pontificate. From a position of complete ignorance. I suspect that "such and such" is R0, but I'll leave you to look that up. And the magic number (that you called X) it needs to be below is 1. But you've managed to pontificate on the subject without actually knowing what those represent. So for your sake, I'm glad this is the last time you're going to [:D] "give it one more try".

You still don't get it. And yes I have the nerve to pontificate because you put on this "I'm talking with great authority" tone and you actually don't know what you're talking about. How am I supposed to respect that?

Who cares what kind of number we are talking about? There were a few involved. They're just metrics. But when you bring metrics into play you need to be able to define them.

Why is that so hard to understand? I will dumb it down a bit for you.

You're waiting for a pay check from your boss. You ring him and ask him where it is. He says ah I need to wait a few days for the other payment to clear. Your first question is going to be 'how many days is 'a few days''.

prawnsambo

For those who want to know (and it's very easy to find this out), the reproduction rate at the time of the lockdown was > 3. Which is the full on unrestricted growth rate. As of a couple of days ago (the last time I checked) the average rate since the first case was just under 2. So we're reducing it, but it takes time to establish whether it's reducing enough to relax restrictions. Even small delays in getting test results in can skew the figures and a small (but significant) outbreak in a cluster can also skew figures. Hence the need to take it slowly and not get excited because one day's results are significantly better than a previous day's.

CalamariFritti

GreeBo wrote: »

Play it safe because getting it wrong means lots of people die who otherwise wouldnt?

Again, its not as simple as just a number. If it was then every country would have already done it, right?

I am not even talking about the actions of the government. I am in no position to judge those. The have all the information (I hope) I have just the sh1te that everyone else has. What I am talking about is the poor communication.

If you come out saying new cases are still too high you are going to be asked what number is not too high, right? Will we agree on that at least?

CalamariFritti

prawnsambo wrote: »

For those who want to know (and it's very easy to find this out), the reproduction rate at the time of the lockdown was > 3. Which is the full on unrestricted growth rate. As of a couple of days ago (the last time I checked) the average rate since the first case was just under 2. So we're reducing it, but it takes time to establish whether it's reducing enough to relax restrictions. Even small delays in getting test results in can skew the figures and a small (but significant) outbreak in a cluster can also skew figures. Hence the need to take it slowly and not get excited because one day's results are significantly better than a previous day's.

source please

prawnsambo

CalamariFritti wrote: »

You still don't get it. And yes I have the nerve to pontificate because you put on this "I'm talking with great authority" tone and you actually don't know what you're talking about. How am I supposed to respect that?

Who cares what kind of number we are talking about? There were a few involved. They're just metrics. But when you bring metrics into play you need to be able to define them.

Why is that so hard to understand? I will dumb it down a bit for you.

You're waiting for a pay check from your boss. You ring him and ask him where it is. He says ah I need to wait a few days for the other payment to clear. Your first question is going to be 'how many days is 'a few days''.

You're looking for a number that is meaningless. That's why you're failing to understand the situation. It's not a specific number, it's a trend. And the trend is hard to read because daily positive test results can be skewed by any number of factors. For example, some tests were being carried out in Germany. That adds a significant delay into the mix. There's also the inherent delay in people presenting with symptoms from time of infection. My son developed symptoms seven days after exposure. That means that there can be seven days worth of contact tracing and further testing to be carried out. Now do you understand?

prawnsambo

CalamariFritti wrote: »

source please

I worked it out. Mathematically. R0=3 can be expressed as cases multiplied by 1.3 per day. Every day.

CalamariFritti

prawnsambo wrote: »

I worked it out. Mathematically. R0=3 can be expressed as cases multiplied by 1.3 per day. Every day.

I should feel some solidarity with you - being a fellow seafood lover and all - but somehow that doesn't convince me.

Go back a few pages. I posted the R number development in Germany. It appeared totally unaffected by the lockdown. It is up and down by a decimal or two just under 1 for well over a month. Given that R is usually two weeks old we can say 6 weeks.

But in any case we can argue numbers all day long. There is so many of them out there nobody knows what they're looking at really.

I was only talking about how the government needs to communicate with the people better. They need to give them something tangible. Becasue the people get tired and if they get a whiff - justified or not - that the government is bullsh1tting them they will stop buying into it and do their own thing.

Thats what we were talking about. What will work better with the people? Say nothing and extend lockdown or give them something? I was saying give them something cos they're struggling already and government plan/communication isn't helping atm.

newport2

thecomedian wrote: »

You do not touch the flags or rakes. Bunkers should be out of play. Shallow holes means no need to touch flags or the hole itself. Where is the risk?

I was responding to this post

Seve OB wrote: »

How can tennis even be considered? If we aren’t allowed touch flags and rakes but the tennis dudes will be allowed to play with each other’s balls!

Sorry........ there was no nice way to say that really.

So yes, we don't touch rakes or flags. I was making the point that in tennis, while you do have to touch the same gear as the other player, unlike golf (without our restrictions on flags and rakes) it's only gear that one other player needs to touch. So with the measures currently in place, I think both games are low risk.

prawnsambo

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I should feel some solidarity with you - being a fellow seafood lover and all - but somehow that doesn't convince me.

Go back a few pages. I posted the R number development in Germany. It appeared totally unaffected by the lockdown. It is up and down by a decimal or two just under 1 for well over a month. Given that R is usually two weeks old we can say 6 weeks.

But in any case we can argue numbers all day long. There is so many of them out there nobody knows what they're looking at really.

I was only talking about how the government needs to communicate with the people better. They need to give them something tangible. Becasue the people get tired and if they get a whiff _ justified or not - that the government is bullsh1tting them they stop buying in.

Well speaking as one of "the people", I have no problem working out where we need to be.

I've been running that calculation from the start and knew we were in trouble before the lockdown was called. On the plus side, here's the really frightening number that an unchecked virus would have got to at various stages if we hadn't locked down. Bear in mind that the first reported case was on 29th February.

31st March we'd have reached 3,405 cases
10th April - 47,000
19th April - 498,000
Today - Pretty much the whole population. Actually 6.8 million people (if we had that many).

CalamariFritti

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well speaking as one of "the people", I have no problem working out where we need to be.

I've been running that calculation from the start and knew we were in trouble before the lockdown was called. On the plus side, here's the really frightening number that an unchecked virus would have got to at various stages if we hadn't locked down. Bear in mind that the first reported case was on 29th February.

31st March we'd have reached 3,405 cases
10th April - 47,000
19th April - 498,000
Today - Pretty much the whole population. Actually 6.8 million people (if we had that many).

Against better judgement I am continuing.

So yes that would have been the unfettered infection rate.

And then we started doing stuff. And more stuff. And some more. In a relatively short space of time.
So the numbers are coming down but because we tried a number of things in a short space of time we don't really know which of the things we did caused the decrease.

Was it the staying away from work, school, public transport, gatherings? The hygiene improvement, the distancing, the lockdown? All of the above or any kind of combination?

I posted a graph a few pages back that indicates that the R number in Germany hasn't changed since the lockdown. The distancing and the hygiene and avoid gatherings seems to have done the trick. Germany had gone into full lockdown when their number was just under 1 and it stayed stubbornly just under 1 for the entire lockdown. No sign of it trending anywhere.

Thats how I conclude that some small easing is not going to kill us. It appears the lockdown was an ineffective measure applied on top of no work, school, distancing etc. Be by all means careful but our emergency committee seems so paralysed for some reason they can't even tell us what numbers they would feel more comfortable with.

Combine that with the people getting a little tired I was saying give them a little easing. Keeps them on board and its not going to hurt.

mike12

Fake???

thecomedian

newport2 wrote: »

I was responding to this post



So yes, we don't touch rakes or flags. I was making the point that in tennis, while you do have to touch the same gear as the other player, unlike golf (without our restrictions on flags and rakes) it's only gear that one other player needs to touch. So with the measures currently in place, I think both games are low risk.

Apologies for that.

With tennis the balls would be well contaminated if someone playing had it. Having played both id have golf a step lower.

CalamariFritti

mike12 wrote: »

Fake???

I hope not but I fear it is. Then again why would anyone bother going to that length? For what?

How did you get it? Are you a golf club official? Did it come from official GUI email channels?

newport2

mike12 wrote: »

Fake???

Signed by: Owen Lee Joe King

CalamariFritti

newport2 wrote: »

Signed by: Owen Lee Joe King

Carton Demense

pity

People with too much time on their hands

mjsc1970

newport2 wrote: »

Signed by: Owen Lee Joe King

Took a sec for the penny to drop. That's very funny 😆