willabur wrote: » https://twitter.com/Oregonian/status/1380259108134211592?s=20 if this is true can we put to bed the risk of picking up the disease from rakes, flags etc The risk is superlow so any action in place to mitigate the risk is simply stated an over reaction
11521323 wrote: » There has never been any sort of significant risk associated with golf, hence why it's not closed anywhere else on the planet. The absolute morons in charge currently don't use a drop of logic or reason when deciding measures so no amount of evidence supporting the opening of golf will affect their decision unfortunately.
ShivasIrons wrote: » However there was a significant amount of virus transmission associated with activities related to golf around Christmas, there were transmissions in clubhouses, shared car journeys and taxi journeys.
Pdoghue wrote: » Care to put figures, specific incidents on this claim?
RGS wrote: » Its amazing that golf only closed in Scotland for 60 or so days whereas golf in Ireland will be closed around 210 days. Do the Scottish NPHET not realise that golfers cant be trusted or is it only irish golfers cant be trusted. NPHET appear to look at ways to close activities whereas other countries looked at ways to open activities that are deemed safer. No activity is without risk. Construction is the same. In most countries construction stayed open we closed it and only allowed certain Public sites re open.
ShivasIrons wrote: » Can you imagine the shouting and roaring there would have been in the last few months if golf was open but the 5k had to be observed? Maybe all the golfers who ignored the 5k rule last May should look at themselves and see why the authorities might come to the conclusion that if it was allowed there would be too much movement of people? And widespread ignoring of restrictions would lead to others ignoring restrictions. After all we did have the highest incidence of the virus in the world at the end of December, even while there were some restrictions at the time. Drastic action was needed, some might say it wasn't harsh enough, it's taken us 4 months to get back to where we were just so we had a couple of weeks of a 'meaningful' Christmas.
ShivasIrons wrote: » It's completely true that there is no risk with one person getting in the car driving from home to golf, stopping nowhere and playing on their own. However there was a significant amount of virus transmission associated with activities related to golf around Christmas, there were transmissions in clubhouses, shared car journeys and taxi journeys. So golf is not the problem, it was what golfers were doing before and after golf that caused issues.The solutions are no clubhouses and limit the number of households that can play together. To say that there is no logic or reason behinds the decisions is false and it shows that many are not even willing to look at the decision to figure it out and would rather just shout about how decision makers are clueless. The other reaction is to say that the 2 household rule is unenforceable but when this is said what is really meant is 'I don't like it, so it shouldn't be enforced'. It's very easy to enforce it, which is have two balls and it doesn't have to be policed. The next reaction is we can't get enough people around the course in 2s, but an understanding of tee time management will show that there is a difference of 20-30 golfers in the day less but they will get around the course much quicker and have a nicer experience. A further reaction is we can't have competitions so clubs will lose out on much needed revenue, what is meant by this is 'I like the competitive side of golf and I want a scorecard in my hand all the time'. There is nothing wrong with liking the competitive side of golf but it is not necessary to have an organised competition every time some one goes out. It's also easy to have a match against your playing partner or have an informal competition with the group in front or behind etc. Not having competitions for a month will not effect the finances of any club significantly. Finally, golf has not been treated any differently to any other sport. No mass organised sport has been allowed. There is no organised sailing, kayaking, rock climbing, javelin throwing, archery or any other outdoor sport where distancing is easy. Why should golf be different? The approach I would have taken would have been to get the sports to show that they're safe, that distancing is easy and every measure that was there for the general population, such as no unnecessary travel outside 5k and no mixing of households, would have been adhered to and the sports themselves would have given the guarantee that the rules would have been followed and they would enforce them. Can you imagine the shouting and roaring there would have been in the last few months if golf was open but the 5k had to be observed? Maybe all the golfers who ignored the 5k rule last May should look at themselves and see why the authorities might come to the conclusion that if it was allowed there would be too much movement of people? And widespread ignoring of restrictions would lead to others ignoring restrictions. After all we did have the highest incidence of the virus in the world at the end of December, even while there were some restrictions at the time. Drastic action was needed, some might say it wasn't harsh enough, it's taken us 4 months to get back to where we were just so we had a couple of weeks of a 'meaningful' Christmas.
opinionated3 wrote: » I quizzed him on that already and he wouldn't give a definitive answer. He also wants the sport to basically "prove" itself to be safe. Even people who never swung a golf club in their life, know this sport to be safe as houses. He also seemingly has a problem with a quick return to fourballs, claiming a two ball scenario is better. I have no idea what club he's a member of, or if he is trolling, but I'm certain if our club was to persist with that sort of foolishness we would inevitably lose members. Bottom line, golf is safe, open it up FULLY.
Pdoghue wrote: » Agreed.. and it does look like tolling.
ShivasIrons wrote: » It's not trolling, there was a golf club in the south which had a function before Christmas, one of the members got the virus at the function and unfortunately passed away. I am not going to name specific clubs or incidents. I think that is inappropriate. There are more then a few.
ShivasIrons wrote: » I am trying to explain to you why the 2 household rule is there and also how it is possible to get golfers around a course efficiently in 2 balls but to be honest you don't seem to be interested in any explanations. No golf club will lose members, the experience worldwide and in Ireland too is that golf is going through it's biggest boom ever with players flocking to clubs. I also have never said that golf isn't safe. It is, but as NPHET have stated they are worried about activities around sport. Don't you think if clubs were willing to show that they would put in measures to mitigate against these that we might have been back to playing sooner? Why not take a little paired back version to get to play sooner? Is really no competitions and 2 balls only that harsh? Would golfers have accepted 2 balls only, no competitions and no travelling beyond 5ks back in January if it meant they could play?
thecomedian wrote: » I think people are questioning NPHET more now and are realising that a lot of the decisions don’t make sense. The science doesn’t support it either.