Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

All country comparisons are apples to oranges. Hence using methods to create more valid comparisons like per capita calculations. Otherwise you couldn't even compare states within the US.

Prestor Jon wrote:


No because a country like Hungary has 10 million people spread across 36,000 square miles and the USA has 330 million people spread out over 3,800,000 square miles. Hungary is the size of the state of Indiana and has the population of the state of Michigan. It's an apples to oranges comparison. It's like saying France and Luxembourg are equivalent countries.

Well, that's why we do per capita comparisons.

Speaking of population density;

Hungary 106 people per km2.
United States 35 people per km2.

I would normally assume, that countries with a higher population density, would be harder hit by a disease like the Corona virus.

....Guess not.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Numbers wise the US has been average so far, not terrible, not great. Of course the US is still slightly behind curve wise, which means a lot for deaths if you see how slowly that slopes down in Italy/Spain.

The US has also been far behind on testing, and there are legitimate concerns that some areas plain aren't reporting because of political factors.

Yes, but this can be said for certain European countries too, the lack of testing that is. The real statistics will come months from now, when countries can start comparing average deaths with previous years. Its harder to hide those numbers.

It really isn't that hard to hide the numbers when there isn't testing happening.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Numbers wise the US has been average so far, not terrible, not great. Of course the US is still slightly behind curve wise, which means a lot for deaths if you see how slowly that slopes down in Italy/Spain.

The US has also been far behind on testing, and there are legitimate concerns that some areas plain aren't reporting because of political factors.

Yes, but this can be said for certain European countries too, the lack of testing that is. The real statistics will come months from now, when countries can start comparing average deaths with previous years. Its harder to hide those numbers.

It really isn't that hard to hide the numbers when there isn't testing happening.

But that is what I mean by the average deaths in comparison. If you report 0 deaths from Coronavirus, but you're magically a 1000 deaths above the yearly average without a reason, that immediately shows dishonesty. But those population statistics take time to come out.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


No because a country like Hungary has 10 million people spread across 36,000 square miles and the USA has 330 million people spread out over 3,800,000 square miles. Hungary is the size of the state of Indiana and has the population of the state of Michigan. It's an apples to oranges comparison. It's like saying France and Luxembourg are equivalent countries.

Well, that's why we do per capita comparisons.

Speaking of population density;

Hungary 106 people per km2.
United States 35 people per km2.

I would normally assume, that countries with a higher population density, would be harder hit by a disease like the Corona virus.

....Guess not.

You'd be guessing wrong. New York City and New York State are the municipal and state areas that have been the hardest hit by coronavirus. NYC has a population density of 22,000/km2 with a total population over 8 million. New York state has a population density of 421/mile2 with a total population 20 million spread over an area of 47,000 square miles. New York state is larger and more densely populated than Hungary and has worse covid19 statistics. That information isn't readily apparent when you compare Hungary and the USA as nations. Hence why it's not a useful comparison.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
not all countryside is farmland, and without any disrespect, the countryside isnt yours to instruct people on.

Actually there's precious little land in the UK that isn't owned by someone who can tell you what you can and cannot do with it. Even the wildlife parks and reserves have pathways you are allowed on and whole areas that they block the public from.

Also you have to respect the scale of the current situation - when the lockdown started some rural walks got more people in a single day than they might see over many years. The people SWARMED to those locations and the very act of that alone can cause huge damage to the countryside. Again one person alone isn't a problem its hundreds of thousands to millions that causes the issue.


I do lament the fact that the UK is so "fenced in" at times and would love a more open and "wild" nation; but with the population and the size of the country its just never going to be possible until we lose a huge portion of the population.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Numbers wise the US has been average so far, not terrible, not great. Of course the US is still slightly behind curve wise, which means a lot for deaths if you see how slowly that slopes down in Italy/Spain.

The US has also been far behind on testing, and there are legitimate concerns that some areas plain aren't reporting because of political factors.

Yes, but this can be said for certain European countries too, the lack of testing that is. The real statistics will come months from now, when countries can start comparing average deaths with previous years. Its harder to hide those numbers.

It really isn't that hard to hide the numbers when there isn't testing happening.

But that is what I mean by the average deaths in comparison. If you report 0 deaths from Coronavirus, but you're magically a 1000 deaths above the yearly average without a reason, that immediately shows dishonesty. But those population statistics take time to come out.

I think Kanluwen's point is more about the lack of testing in the US altogether. We are pretty much only using tests to confirm that patients that are exhibiting obvious symptoms are indeed infected with covid19. We're only testing a very small percentage of our population. It is very likely that there are millions of American infected with the virus but showing very minor or nonexistent symptoms but we'll never know for sure because it's unlikely that we'll ever get all those people tested. Without widespread testing we won't have the ability to accurately state the death rate or other statistics.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


No because a country like Hungary has 10 million people spread across 36,000 square miles and the USA has 330 million people spread out over 3,800,000 square miles. Hungary is the size of the state of Indiana and has the population of the state of Michigan. It's an apples to oranges comparison. It's like saying France and Luxembourg are equivalent countries.

Well, that's why we do per capita comparisons.

Speaking of population density;

Hungary 106 people per km2.
United States 35 people per km2.

I would normally assume, that countries with a higher population density, would be harder hit by a disease like the Corona virus.

....Guess not.

You'd be guessing wrong. New York City and New York State are the municipal and state areas that have been the hardest hit by coronavirus. NYC has a population density of 22,000/km2 with a total population over 8 million. New York state has a population density of 421/mile2 with a total population 20 million spread over an area of 47,000 square miles. New York state is larger and more densely populated than Hungary and has worse covid19 statistics. That information isn't readily apparent when you compare Hungary and the USA as nations. Hence why it's not a useful comparison.

So how do we do useful comparisons?

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
not all countryside is farmland, and without any disrespect, the countryside isnt yours to instruct people on.

personally I avoid farmland as much as possible anyway, I prefer woodland and water courses as areas to walk, but if people are walking around, minding their own business, leave them to it. live and let live.

The countryside is owned by farmers at least it is in my area. Unless there is parks or public ground I’m afraid it is owned. As I told a walker yesterday. “Look left and right as far as your eyes can see I own it all. This is my office. So kindly go home.”

Prestor Jon wrote:

I think Kanluwen's point is more about the lack of testing in the US altogether. We are pretty much only using tests to confirm that patients that are exhibiting obvious symptoms are indeed infected with covid19. We're only testing a very small percentage of our population. It is very likely that there are millions of American infected with the virus but showing very minor or nonexistent symptoms but we'll never know for sure because it's unlikely that we'll ever get all those people tested. Without widespread testing we won't have the ability to accurately state the death rate or other statistics.

I don't think that is the implication, given that as I said, the US isn't the only country that can't sufficiently test at the moment. And no, we cannot accurately state the death rate atm, but we can collect information from other sources and make a decent approximation of how it is going. It might not be 100% accurate, but decent enough for policy and such.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


No because a country like Hungary has 10 million people spread across 36,000 square miles and the USA has 330 million people spread out over 3,800,000 square miles. Hungary is the size of the state of Indiana and has the population of the state of Michigan. It's an apples to oranges comparison. It's like saying France and Luxembourg are equivalent countries.

Well, that's why we do per capita comparisons.

Speaking of population density;

Hungary 106 people per km2.
United States 35 people per km2.

I would normally assume, that countries with a higher population density, would be harder hit by a disease like the Corona virus.

....Guess not.

You'd be guessing wrong. New York City and New York State are the municipal and state areas that have been the hardest hit by coronavirus. NYC has a population density of 22,000/km2 with a total population over 8 million. New York state has a population density of 421/mile2 with a total population 20 million spread over an area of 47,000 square miles. New York state is larger and more densely populated than Hungary and has worse covid19 statistics. That information isn't readily apparent when you compare Hungary and the USA as nations. Hence why it's not a useful comparison.

So how do we do useful comparisons?

We draw comparison between things that are comparable. Just like when a real estate agent finds comps for a house or property they are listing. They find other properties that are similar in terms of size, age, amentities, location, etc. and use that data to calculate a value for the property they are listing.
Comparing the US and the EU would make more sense than comparing the US to individual European countries that are many times smaller and far more homogeneous than the US. Likewise comparing states withing the US with countries inside the EU that have similar populations, area, rural and urban ratio etc. would be more useful than comparing Portugal to most of a continent.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


No because a country like Hungary has 10 million people spread across 36,000 square miles and the USA has 330 million people spread out over 3,800,000 square miles. Hungary is the size of the state of Indiana and has the population of the state of Michigan. It's an apples to oranges comparison. It's like saying France and Luxembourg are equivalent countries.

Well, that's why we do per capita comparisons.

Speaking of population density;

Hungary 106 people per km2.
United States 35 people per km2.

I would normally assume, that countries with a higher population density, would be harder hit by a disease like the Corona virus.

....Guess not.

Population density by country isn't a useful predictor, because you get large variations. Population density by region (or locality, in the case of major cities) is more relevant. I wouldn't expect all that many cases in eastern Hungary or Montana. But it could be useful to compare Budapest and Miami, as metropolitan areas that have around 2-3 million people. [When assessed properly. Officially 'Miami' has less than 500,000 people, but the Miami-Dade County has 2.7 million. Some states do city accounting in weird ways for other reasons (like voting districts), so South Miami, Miami Springs, Miami Shores and Miami Beach are all their own entities distinct from 'Miami,' despite being adjacent]. I don't remember if Buda and Pest are still technically the separate cities that they were at one time, but it'd be silly to treat them separately for virus statistics... unless there was a real divergence in virus cases between the two.

For the Coronavirus, its much more useful to take the US as regions. The NYC experience (despite the media time on it) isn't the experience of Denver or Dallas, or wherever. Heck, it isn't even the experience of most of NY state. An old issue New Yorkers have been complaining about for decades.

[rul=https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/nc-coronavirus-live-updates-april-27/19073293/]Sauce[/url]

One of three mothers who said they started the ReOpenNC protest has tested positive for COVID-19. She said she was in a two week quarantine that ended Sunday and was asymptomatic.

It's unclear if she attended the protest last week, which drew hundreds downtown, since was was under quarantine.

"As an asymptomatic COVID19 positive patient (quarantine ends 4/26) another concern I have is the treatment of COVID patients as it relates to other communicable diseases. I have been forced to quarantine in my home for 2 weeks," she wrote on her social media page.

"I have been told not to participate in public or private accommodations as requested by the government, and therefore denied my 1st amendment right of freedom of religion," she wrote.

"It has been insinuated by others that if I go out, I could be arrested for denying a quarantine order," she wrote.

Some people really are too stupid to live.

Tracing that one will be "Fun" atleast people know whom they have to thank for that one......


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


No because a country like Hungary has 10 million people spread across 36,000 square miles and the USA has 330 million people spread out over 3,800,000 square miles. Hungary is the size of the state of Indiana and has the population of the state of Michigan. It's an apples to oranges comparison. It's like saying France and Luxembourg are equivalent countries.

Well, that's why we do per capita comparisons.

Speaking of population density;

Hungary 106 people per km2.
United States 35 people per km2.

I would normally assume, that countries with a higher population density, would be harder hit by a disease like the Corona virus.

....Guess not.

Population density by country isn't a useful predictor, because you get large variations. Population density by region (or locality, in the case of major cities) is more relevant. I wouldn't expect all that many cases in eastern Hungary or Montana. But it could be useful to compare Budapest and Miami, as metropolitan areas that have around 2-3 million people. [When assessed properly. Officially 'Miami' has less than 500,000 people, but the Miami-Dade County has 2.7 million. Some states do city accounting in weird ways for other reasons (like voting districts), so South Miami, Miami Springs, Miami Shores and Miami Beach are all their own entities distinct from 'Miami,' despite being adjacent]. I don't remember if Buda and Pest are still technically the separate cities that they were at one time, but it'd be silly to treat them separately for virus statistics... unless there was a real divergence in virus cases between the two.

For the Coronavirus, its much more useful to take the US as regions. The NYC experience (despite the media time on it) isn't the experience of Denver or Dallas, or wherever. Heck, it isn't even the experience of most of NY state. An old issue New Yorkers have been complaining about for decades.

At most you could generally eliminate "dead Space " aka national parks and uninhabitable area, or compare metropolitan regions.

Statistics a powerfull tool but only if the brain behind it actually works.

 Knockagh wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
not all countryside is farmland, and without any disrespect, the countryside isnt yours to instruct people on.

personally I avoid farmland as much as possible anyway, I prefer woodland and water courses as areas to walk, but if people are walking around, minding their own business, leave them to it. live and let live.

The countryside is owned by farmers at least it is in my area. Unless there is parks or public ground I’m afraid it is owned. As I told a walker yesterday. “Look left and right as far as your eyes can see I own it all. This is my office. So kindly go home.”

Then fair enough, unless they're on a byway of course.

 Knockagh wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
not all countryside is farmland, and without any disrespect, the countryside isnt yours to instruct people on.

personally I avoid farmland as much as possible anyway, I prefer woodland and water courses as areas to walk, but if people are walking around, minding their own business, leave them to it. live and let live.

The countryside is owned by farmers at least it is in my area. Unless there is parks or public ground I’m afraid it is owned. As I told a walker yesterday. “Look left and right as far as your eyes can see I own it all. This is my office. So kindly go home.”

You could tell people you might have it, and to keep away.... It might take a lot of signs, but still.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

I think Kanluwen's point is more about the lack of testing in the US altogether. We are pretty much only using tests to confirm that patients that are exhibiting obvious symptoms are indeed infected with covid19. We're only testing a very small percentage of our population. It is very likely that there are millions of American infected with the virus but showing very minor or nonexistent symptoms but we'll never know for sure because it's unlikely that we'll ever get all those people tested. Without widespread testing we won't have the ability to accurately state the death rate or other statistics.

I don't think that is the implication, given that as I said, the US isn't the only country that can't sufficiently test at the moment. And no, we cannot accurately state the death rate atm, but we can collect information from other sources and make a decent approximation of how it is going. It might not be 100% accurate, but decent enough for policy and such.

That was exactly the "implication"(I thought it was pretty well spelled out, to be honest).

This isn't a question of "can't sufficiently test". It is literally that in some states? Testing is not being done unless someone exhibiting obvious symptoms and had come into an individual confirmed to have been infected or someone has sufficient connections/wealth to acquire private testing. There is also a huge scandal unfolding right now with Tyson and a few other meatpacking facilities in that they were either underreporting or downright concealing cases of infected individuals and are now playing the "well, we needed these people at work or there will be no meat!" card despite there being something along the lines of 9 billion tons of chicken in cold storage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Laughing Man wrote:
Sauce

One of three mothers who said they started the ReOpenNC protest has tested positive for COVID-19. She said she was in a two week quarantine that ended Sunday and was asymptomatic.

It's unclear if she attended the protest last week, which drew hundreds downtown, since was was under quarantine.
"As an asymptomatic COVID19 positive patient (quarantine ends 4/26) another concern I have is the treatment of COVID patients as it relates to other communicable diseases. I have been forced to quarantine in my home for 2 weeks," she wrote on her social media page.

"I have been told not to participate in public or private accommodations as requested by the government, and therefore denied my 1st amendment right of freedom of religion," she wrote.

"It has been insinuated by others that if I go out, I could be arrested for denying a quarantine order," she wrote.

Some people really are too stupid to live.

It's more than that. I guarantee you that she was present at the event last week, or the one prior. It's important to note that she was voluntarily self-quarantining and that what she posted on Facebook was wildly different to what she was telling our local affiliate stations. She continually responded with "No comment" when asked about if she was present there or not.

Also, we have zero churches that are supposed to be open.

That smells fishy.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

I think Kanluwen's point is more about the lack of testing in the US altogether. We are pretty much only using tests to confirm that patients that are exhibiting obvious symptoms are indeed infected with covid19. We're only testing a very small percentage of our population. It is very likely that there are millions of American infected with the virus but showing very minor or nonexistent symptoms but we'll never know for sure because it's unlikely that we'll ever get all those people tested. Without widespread testing we won't have the ability to accurately state the death rate or other statistics.

I don't think that is the implication, given that as I said, the US isn't the only country that can't sufficiently test at the moment. And no, we cannot accurately state the death rate atm, but we can collect information from other sources and make a decent approximation of how it is going. It might not be 100% accurate, but decent enough for policy and such.

That was exactly the "implication"(I thought it was pretty well spelled out, to be honest).

This isn't a question of "can't sufficiently test". It is literally that in some states? Testing is not being done unless someone exhibiting obvious symptoms and had come into an individual confirmed to have been infected or someone has sufficient connections/wealth to acquire private testing. There is also a huge scandal unfolding right now with Tyson and a few other meatpacking facilities in that they were either underreporting or downright concealing cases of infected individuals and are now playing the "well, we needed these people at work or there will be no meat!" card despite there being something along the lines of 9 billion tons of chicken in cold storage.

The implication I read into it was that they don't do enough tests on purpose in your post, versus just a generalized they don't have enough tests from Prestor Jon.

So my response was to the generalized comment. Not to your post about the wilful obfuscation of numbers/potential infections.

Otherwise again for the record, this limit on testing applies to certain European counties as well.

 Knockagh wrote:


You rarely even see the milk collector or the meal man. It’s all done on the phone. Meal drivers don’t even see anyone in the feed mill. They put their order into a computer and it sticks it into the lorry. Meal is blown into bulk bins on farms. Milk is collected by a regular driver who never sees anyone. The only risk we have is large volume animal movements to the abattoir as we need a lot of labour for this but it’s being done by teams that are working together daily. A friend of mine died recently after weeks on a ventilator and the family had awful trouble getting workers to come to the farm to remove the animals when they were ready for slaughter. The family had to arrange this on top of the funeral. The day he was buried his son and wife were up from 5 power washing yards and stores and spraying everywhere with Glutaraldehyde.

Despite the sadness of the situation, it's still very very unlikely that this was picked up from the person out walking for some exercise if it was related to COIVD19.

My father told me not to go were I wasn’t wanted and urban dwellers should respect rural food producers at least for a little while. We really really don’t want you in the countryside. Everyone I talk to is saying the same. Stay at home and let workers work safely.

Pfft, this is nothing compared to dealing with the hordes that turn up at B&Q or want to go down to the local waste site to get rid of the essentially broken lawnmower. You aren't the only one working each and every day and relatively to some workers your risk is tiny. You really don't have it bad, in fact you are unlikely to be doing yourself favours with some people because you have a lot of space to move around in. There are a lot of people in towns and cities that live in one bedroom flats that have to share lifts, rails, doors and god knows what else every single day. Allowing a few hours relaxation in the countryside on public footpaths is really not a problem in comparison to these places. Just because the disease kills and scares people does not mean that we should 'isolate by lifestyle' and that those lucky enough to live in the countryside should make it sacrosanct from those that can only afford to live in dense urban areas. This is the sort of approach that develops frustration and community divides not just now but in the future.

Look at this way, by allowing people onto your land you are improving people's self isolation and saving the NHS. Preventing it forces more people closer together increasing the risk of transmission and harming the NHS and reducing the availability of those that need ventilators.

Except Prestor Jon didn't say anything about a lack of tests. We're only testing, as he mentioned, a very small percentage of our population. New York State and California are two of the states that are performing more tests than most other states and their reported cases are through the roof compared to neighboring states. It is not necessarily a lack of tests, it is a lack of testing being done.

And then you have crap like what we're seeing relating to Tyson and Smithfield's meatprocessing facilities where they're the epicenters for huge outbreaks in their communities...yet it took people effectively acting as whistleblowers for testing to finally happen there.
Whether through incompetence or sheer Cover Your Own Rear, there is something that ain't right.

Additionally worth mentioning:
Here in the US? People don't tend to go to the doctors unless something is demonstrably wrong or it's an emergency. That's how bad insurance is for most working, young adults who aren't still covered by a parent's plan.

Just because the disease kills and scares people does not mean that we should 'isolate by lifestyle' and that those lucky enough to live in the countryside should make it sacrosanct from those that can only afford to live in dense urban areas. This is the sort of approach that develops frustration and community divides not just now but in the future.

Look at this way, by allowing people onto your land you are improving people's self isolation and saving the NHS. Preventing it forces more people closer together increasing the risk of transmission and harming the NHS and reducing the availability of those that need ventilators.

And? He has a point, Centers allways have better infrastructure and support, not to mention economic viability and opportunity.

You going to rural parts increases the Strain on most likely allready more meh than ok healthcare systems.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Except Prestor Jon didn't say anything about a lack of tests. We're only testing, as he mentioned, a very small percentage of our population. New York State and California are two of the states that are performing more tests than most other states and their reported cases are through the roof compared to neighboring states. It is not necessarily a lack of tests, it is a lack of testing being done.

And then you have crap like what we're seeing relating to Tyson and Smithfield's meatprocessing facilities where they're the epicenters for huge outbreaks in their communities...yet it took people effectively acting as whistleblowers for testing to finally happen there.
Whether through incompetence or sheer Cover Your Own Rear, there is something that ain't right.

Additionally worth mentioning:
Here in the US? People don't tend to go to the doctors unless something is demonstrably wrong or it's an emergency. That's how bad insurance is for most working, young adults who aren't still covered by a parent's plan.

That is what I'm reading into his post, a more generalized statement as opposed to yours. So for me it is hard to say if he agrees to your post or just replies to my post, which is what my reply was based on. Lack of testing is a pretty open statement that can go anywhere depending on the writer's intent.

I don't disagree with you that you can fix the numbers in certain ways and have general underreporting. I'm saying that in a few months from now, you can see how these last few months are doing compared to the average yearly deaths. For example, in my country we have far more deaths than the average over the last years, accounting even for positive Coronavirus deaths, which clearly seems to indicate more people are dying from the virus than are positively confirmed to have it upon death. So yes, you can hide the number of infected, but at the end of the line you can't hide the spike of deaths. So in the future we can make a reasonable accurate estimate of how deadly it was even with a lack of testing.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Just because the disease kills and scares people does not mean that we should 'isolate by lifestyle' and that those lucky enough to live in the countryside should make it sacrosanct from those that can only afford to live in dense urban areas. This is the sort of approach that develops frustration and community divides not just now but in the future.

Look at this way, by allowing people onto your land you are improving people's self isolation and saving the NHS. Preventing it forces more people closer together increasing the risk of transmission and harming the NHS and reducing the availability of those that need ventilators.

And? He has a point, Centers allways have better infrastructure and support, not to mention economic viability and opportunity.

You going to rural parts increases the Strain on most likely allready more meh than ok healthcare systems.

It really doesn't. You go, walk around, see a handful of other people, miles away, then you go home.

 Kanluwen wrote:


This isn't a question of "can't sufficiently test". It is literally that in some states? Testing is not being done unless someone exhibiting obvious symptoms and had come into an individual confirmed to have been infected...

This is how my state's Dept of Health phrases it on there website regarding testing counts. IIRC.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Just because the disease kills and scares people does not mean that we should 'isolate by lifestyle' and that those lucky enough to live in the countryside should make it sacrosanct from those that can only afford to live in dense urban areas. This is the sort of approach that develops frustration and community divides not just now but in the future.

Look at this way, by allowing people onto your land you are improving people's self isolation and saving the NHS. Preventing it forces more people closer together increasing the risk of transmission and harming the NHS and reducing the availability of those that need ventilators.

And? He has a point, Centers allways have better infrastructure and support, not to mention economic viability and opportunity.

You going to rural parts increases the Strain on most likely allready more meh than ok healthcare systems.

It really doesn't. You go, walk around, see a handful of other people, miles away, then you go home.

And for every 99 you get that understand this and do so you get the one moron that doesn't Like the nice dude on springbreak in florida , and then you got the salad.

My point also was more aimed at the oh woe is my kinda comment whirlwind gave.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Just because the disease kills and scares people does not mean that we should 'isolate by lifestyle' and that those lucky enough to live in the countryside should make it sacrosanct from those that can only afford to live in dense urban areas. This is the sort of approach that develops frustration and community divides not just now but in the future.

Look at this way, by allowing people onto your land you are improving people's self isolation and saving the NHS. Preventing it forces more people closer together increasing the risk of transmission and harming the NHS and reducing the availability of those that need ventilators.

And? He has a point, Centers allways have better infrastructure and support, not to mention economic viability and opportunity.

You going to rural parts increases the Strain on most likely allready more meh than ok healthcare systems.

It really doesn't. You go, walk around, see a handful of other people, miles away, then you go home.

Camera footage suggests something completely different. People still gather, together, not 'miles away.'

So total lock down ended here at midnight however judging by the amount of traffic about people have gotten the impression that that means buisness as normal, rather than limited freedom of movement. Going to be a fascinating week ahead seeing if there is going to be an uptick in cases again.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Just because the disease kills and scares people does not mean that we should 'isolate by lifestyle' and that those lucky enough to live in the countryside should make it sacrosanct from those that can only afford to live in dense urban areas. This is the sort of approach that develops frustration and community divides not just now but in the future.

Look at this way, by allowing people onto your land you are improving people's self isolation and saving the NHS. Preventing it forces more people closer together increasing the risk of transmission and harming the NHS and reducing the availability of those that need ventilators.

And? He has a point, Centers allways have better infrastructure and support, not to mention economic viability and opportunity.

You going to rural parts increases the Strain on most likely allready more meh than ok healthcare systems.

It really doesn't. You go, walk around, see a handful of other people, miles away, then you go home.

Except if you say it's permissible, then 1000 other people do it too.

This happened and you've consistently ignored it when it's been raised. The first couple of weekends after social distancing in the UK the hills and nice country walks in Scotland and Wales, and I presume the lakes etc in England, were extremely busy. Like, 'busier than we've ever seen on a beautiful summer day' busy.

Thousands of people on Ben Lomond all saying 'well, everyone else is staying home, I'll just go and I won't see anyone'.

You're right that it's no problem if it's very quiet (lest you have a breakdown or something) but how do you keep it quiet if you tell everyone it's fair game? Heavily discouraging going roaming is the only reason it's quiet enough for the entitled to crow about how safe it is because it's quiet!

Well it's the same old thing for him. His rights and freedom is everything. Idea that when everybody crams into same place it's not just him doesn't get through him.

As it is local national park is more crowded atm than downtown