CowboyTed wrote: » Simple solution... Members Only... Contact tracing in effect. The Club make it very clear to the members that if the Garda call they will give the names and addresses of all people on the premise at the time.. That is 5km sorted... Garda called to our course during last lockdown...
Jordy Fancy Relaxation wrote: » Sounds simple if you have infinite resources but in a world of finite resources what's an even more simple solution is to shut courses. As much as we all dislike the result it's obviously a far more simple solution.
DeanAustin wrote: » I'd imagine it's not about golf as an activity so much. It's to restrict people's movements because we all know that golfers would travel more than 5k to play. That won't really happen for a walk in the park. The plan is to restrict movements. This helps achieve that aim. Let's see at the end of November if that helps reduce cases.
CowboyTed wrote: » Garda only need to call once... Many Garda are golfers and would find this too much of a chore... There is only about 400 clubs and once a week drop in visit is way more than is needed... The threat alone will keep it all in line... We should have utilised the Civil Defence to help with a lot of jobs... Garda should be just needed for escalation...
bustercherry wrote: » Played this morning (one last round for the year ). The amount of people standing around the car park bitching and claiming they didn't intend sticking to the 5km was unbelievable. All the same whataboutary was trotted out. Am I disappointed with the decision? yes. Am I surprised they closed courses? No Will I get over it? TBC Ultimately IMO they had to close as, like everyone else, collectively golfers could not be trusted to do the right thing and follow the guidelines (whether you agree with them or not). I will also add, it was disappointing to hear such a large number of individuals actively going to flout the guidelines/rules on limiting non-essential journeys, to play a sport which the individual is expected to self enforce the rules. Bit of a joke IMO. At least I finished off the season with 40 points.
A Shaved Duck? wrote: » You keep repeating this line but golf is a separate issue to people taking the piss with the 5k thing. The 2 are not related in any way. Whats the difference between walking around a park within 5k of the house than walking round a much larger area of a golf course within 5k?.
John Divney wrote: » They are destroying the safest industry in the country for absolutely no good reason. People have more than a right to bitch they should be demanding the GUI take injunctive relief pending a High Court case. That is what unions are supposed to do when their members are unfairly stripped of their rights.
wardides wrote: » GUI have had 2 days to prepare a statement on this and we find out through a headline on the Irish Mirror. Laughable. And whilst I agree, normally wouldn't pay much attention to that nonsense it does look like it has been confirmed by other sources within the industry.
DeanAustin wrote: » There is a good reason. You may disagree with it but that doesn't invalidate the logic behind the decision. I'd be embarrassed if the GUI took some sort of injunction. There's a pandemic that's causing some vulnerable people to die, has others suffering in hospitals while others are losing their jobs and means to support their families. If the GUI took an injunction, they'd forever be vilified by the public and would suffer big time when funding decisions were taken by government. The PR would be disastrous. Being asked to stop playing golf for 6 weeks at a time of year when the weather is a bit **** anyway isn't a massive sacrifice. The world is suffering because of this pandemic, we're being asked to do something small to help. Suck it up.
A Shaved Duck? wrote: Whats the difference between walking around a park within 5k of the house than walking round a much larger area of a golf course within 5k?.
First Up wrote: » Because as others have said and we have all seen, the 5k rule is widely ignored and its unfair to ask clubs to police it.
John Divney wrote: » Why would you be embarrassed? Its a closed door meeting and the GUI have the expectation that safety and exercise being easily shown to be for the greater good of both golfers and the golfing industry. This is not just no golf for selfish golfers for six weeks, its the fact the clubs proved there was no danger previously and took a massive hit in order to show good faith. The GUI has no right to not take this to the next level, they are destroying the game in the country. The 5k rule is not an excuse. There is no valid reason to single golf clubs out for that when other industries get away with drawing people from outside 5k. Its also punishing them for what people 'might' do and not based on the 'science' as these people pretend to be beholden to
John Divney wrote: » They don't have to police it. Its not something that needs policing, have you lost your mind? The percentage of golfers who abuse the 5k rule compared to the general public, is the same. Its just golfing causes zero risk
DeanAustin wrote: » They are related. Allowing golf to open will mean thousands breaking the 5k rule. The government's clear strategy is to limit the populations' movements. Therefore, stopping golf helps them achieve that aim.
DeanAustin wrote: » I'd be embarrassed because you'd have our sport bringing the government to court during a pandemic when people are dying and lots more people are losing their jobs. The 5k rule is a reason not an excuse. I'm not a doctor, epidemiologist or anything but I'm trusting that if masses of people travel over 5k from their homes, for any reason, that increases the chances of this disease spreading. It would be ridiculous to suggest that if golf courses remained open, people wouldn't chance it. That's based on my experience, on anecdotal evidence from other people who play and from posts on here. Therefore, it makes sense for the government to close golf courses if their aim is to limit the populations' movements.
Jordy Fancy Relaxation wrote: » It doesn't cause zero risk. That's a silly statement. Of course it causes additional risk. The question before the government was "Does the additional risk caused by/to golfers and the additional resources required to accommodate golfers-some level is required-outweigh the benefits? The government decided that the social, economic and physical benefits of golf do not outweigh the additional risk/use of resources. You may disagree with that but the risk is not zero and there are resources needed to allow it to continue.
John Divney wrote: » People are dying 3 a day, they are not dying at the level they were when this started. The rights and livelihoods of people are being destroyed without reason, this is not simply about a few games of golf. The level of damage inflicted by the Government, has every right to be brought to the High Court, just like the Vintners have every right to do it as their members lose their lives at the stroke of the Ministers pen. Its disrespectful for anyone to bring up the dead while ignoring the destruction being caused by the actions of the Government, families destroyed and broken. And all for the fact they might reduce the virus by a third in six weeks. That is not a strategy, they never had a strategy
Jordy Fancy Relaxation wrote: » That's just numerous assumptions that clearly a decision of this magnitude cannot be remotely based upon. They can't decide "we'll leave golf open because we'll only have to give the clubs a reminder once a week". The most simple solution was take irrespective of how much we disagree with it. Nobody that plays golf likes it but I get it no matter how much I believe the risk of infection is somewhat negligible.
Golfhead65 wrote: » Just stop and think for a moment, They keep telling us that the virus knows no boundaries, so by keeping that thought for a moment, travelling to work, going to the park for a walk going to the shop, walk your dog all involves interaction with people, so whether you do any of the above or play golf, cricket, tennis, Rugby etc it doesn't know if you are essential worker or not or that you are less at risk because some idiot in government says so.. so tell me what's safer to do, work in enclosed spaces (with or without social distance) Or walk around a golf course with your golf clubs.. Hold that thought and substitute golf clubs for a dog.. Do not want to hear essential or not essential I'm talking about risk.
DeanAustin wrote: » The government can't put a plan in place that will base this just on the risk of each and every activity. They're dealing with a pandemic. They've clearly identified that people moving around is causing the spread. They've decided that they want to reduce case numbers and reducing people's movements will help do that. Does that mean they can stop everyone from moving 5k? Of course not. There are still essential services and essential shops that will have to remain open for society to function. That brings with it a degree of risk but keeping Tesco open is a bit more important than me playing my Sunday competition. The aim of the exercise here is not to eliminate Covid. That is an impossible hope. It's to reduce the numbers significantly. Stopping people moving around, other than for essential services, will help them achieve that aim.
Local Area Man wrote: » That's a different debate. The question is should golf be given allowances to operate under level 5 restrictions. In that context I don't think they should.
John Divney wrote: » But it's already been tinkered with, winners and losers have been picked by the State. And schools are open, the risk reward factor was weighed there, golf has every right to argue for being a chosen one. Literally everything else has a higher risk
