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.
tneva82 wrote: Well it's the same old thing for him. His rights and freedom is everything.
Ohh it's his right allright, what got to me is the comment from whirlwind and so long he behaves no worries from rural folks will happen.
However don't expect them when you show up after basically ignoring the countryside to be thrilled or how great it is and how Rich supposedly Land folk compared to cities are like whirlwind inferred in his answer to knockgah (sorry if wrong in the Name) .
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
England: passes 21,000 death mark (more likely 31,500+).
English people: take a day trip to B&Q with family to buy a BBQ.
Police: hang around outside SPAR and ALDI to check you're not buying chocolate bars.
NHS: "Are we a joke to you?".
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!
nfe is 100% right here. The roads around us are crowded at times, cars lined up along the side and of the road. It’s never like this normally. I passed a man on an electric wheel chair a few days ago. He’s almost certainly vulnerable and definitely more than 2km away from home.
I get that it’s hard living in a flat or town house in a city, but the reality is that’s were most people live. I could never live in a city to me it looks horrendous and I do feel for urban dwellers. But urban dwellers have better access to hospitals, waste collection and shops than we do. Life in the countryside is more complex than urban folk can imagine. Most of us work alone or in family units, self isolation or stopping work even when sick is rarely possible. Delivery services don’t always come to us so we have to go to shops anyway, sick or not. Animals need fed, milked, medicines applied. Ground needs worked as seasons pass, it’s not possible to stop. The last thing YOUR food producers need is our substandard, poorly maintained road systems clogged up with furloughed workers feeling the need to stretch their legs. A couple of months inside won’t kill you.
Whilst I expect it to be a bit too early to say that, I'm very jealous of the way NZ have handled this.
Nz is smaller, has less people and therefore better controll aswell as beeing an island and highly developped.
Not to say it was expected but they did what many a somewhat isolated country could've done.
It also had a Government that was quick and decisive, and was also clear in what it was expecting from its citizens.
Being an island hasn't helped the UK.
Not to get too technical but England has that chunnel linking it to france so in some ways it's not exactly an island anymore. Also it's so close to europe that birds can easily fly to it from the mainland, so they could be carrying some infections too.
"But the universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed..."
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!
There's plenty of countryside for the majority of people to go out, and still be ample distance from others. They will be more spread out than they are in cities. Look at the photos from London. Obviously if everyone goes at the same time, what you say might be the case, but that isn't going to happen. People will go at different times. It's not a reason to tell people not to go, which is the point I was making.
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!
There's plenty of countryside for the majority of people to go out, and still be ample distance from others. They will be more spread out than they are in cities. Look at the photos from London. Obviously if everyone goes at the same time, what you say might be the case, but that isn't going to happen. People will go at different times. It's not a reason to tell people not to go, which is the point I was making.
How many times? It did happen. They went en masse. It would really be worth listening to the evidence people present in this thread before repeating statements that have been flatly disproved.
Further breakdown of ONS numbers shows 4,343 care home deaths in the two weeks to 17th April. Four times the fortnight before that and the cut off is still before deaths peaked. At least the picture is clearer as to why hospitals haven't been full despite the fourth highest European death toll (probably actually the highest) - we've just not bothered treating thousands of cases in hospitals at all.
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!
There's plenty of countryside for the majority of people to go out, and still be ample distance from others. They will be more spread out than they are in cities. Look at the photos from London. Obviously if everyone goes at the same time, what you say might be the case, but that isn't going to happen. People will go at different times. It's not a reason to tell people not to go, which is the point I was making.
How many times? It did happen. They went en masse. It would really be worth listening to the evidence people present in this thread before repeating statements that have been flatly disproved.
Can you provide any evidence? Other than anecdote? Because I've searched the news pages and can't find anything. I'm aware that lots of people visited seasides and coastal resorts, but not seen anything about the general countryside.
I’ve never been as well groomed as I am these days.
I mean, I’m always clean. I shower daily regardless. But in terms of shaving, trimming and oiling the beard? Never been this hot on it! The joys of not being knackered after a long commute!
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
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!
There's plenty of countryside for the majority of people to go out, and still be ample distance from others. They will be more spread out than they are in cities. Look at the photos from London. Obviously if everyone goes at the same time, what you say might be the case, but that isn't going to happen. People will go at different times. It's not a reason to tell people not to go, which is the point I was making.
How many times? It did happen. They went en masse. It would really be worth listening to the evidence people present in this thread before repeating statements that have been flatly disproved.
Can you provide any evidence? Other than anecdote? Because I've searched the news pages and can't find anything. I'm aware that lots of people visited seasides and coastal resorts, but not seen anything about the general countryside.
Is this one of those cases where someone asks for evidence but if any is provided it'll be dismissed because it wasnt reported in mainstream news and this bs side topic goes on for another 50 pages???
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!
There's plenty of countryside for the majority of people to go out, and still be ample distance from others. They will be more spread out than they are in cities. Look at the photos from London. Obviously if everyone goes at the same time, what you say might be the case, but that isn't going to happen. People will go at different times. It's not a reason to tell people not to go, which is the point I was making.
How many times? It did happen. They went en masse. It would really be worth listening to the evidence people present in this thread before repeating statements that have been flatly disproved.
Can you provide any evidence? Other than anecdote? Because I've searched the news pages and can't find anything. I'm aware that lots of people visited seasides and coastal resorts, but not seen anything about the general countryside.
I mentioned hills, right? And Ben Lomond specifically? What did you google?
OK, granted, those popular national parks, a day before lockdown fair enough, but I'm talking about the countryside generally, right now. Where I was this weekend could've easily accommodated thousands of people, and allowed for social distancing. Obviously that's an extreme example as that isn't going to happen. I'm talking about the countryside on people's doorsteps, not national parks, which are always going to have more visitors because of their nature.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: OK, granted, those popular national parks, a day before lockdown fair enough, but I'm talking about the countryside generally, right now. Where I was this weekend could've easily accommodated thousands of people, and allowed for social distancing. Obviously that's an extreme example as that isn't going to happen. I'm talking about the countryside on people's doorsteps, not national parks, which are always going to have more visitors because of their nature.
'Bugger, you've given me exactly what I asked for, let me move my goalposts'.
There's so much strangeness in here.
First up, 'talking about the countryside generally, right now' is daft. People are being told not to go. Of course these places are quiet. You're suggesting that discouragement be removed/ignored. Telling people that, provided they socially distance, visiting these places is fine draws quite a lot of people. As you asked me to demonstrate, and I did.
What you claim 'isn't going to happen' is what did happen, and what you've just conceded happened.
Your trying to shift the focus towards persons specifically seeking out less well-known parts of the countryside. The countryside 'on people's doorsteps'. Well, most people don't have countryside on their doorstep. What they're familiar with is the national parks and other rural beauty spots, or the little woods near their homes. People aren't going to go to that bit of land somewhere near a river by a little A road that comes off the M64. They're going to go to the places they're familiar with. In large numbers.
How do I know that? Because they already did.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/28 10:49:38
Exactly - plus don't forget parking is limited so suddenly even if people can disperse into an area, they are going to be flooding to the same carparking spots. Sure you might socially distance - but you're ALL going to touch the same bit of fence/gate/post getting in and out.
Suddenly social distancing doesn't matter because you've all picked it up in the carpark. Or on the roadside etc....
Plus you can bet its going to be hard to socially distance come the evening when everyone floods back to leave at the same time.
Plus we've not even started on the issues with walkers in more hilly regions falling, tripping and otherwise needing rescue. The volunteer services were overloaded with people having accidents. Plus with social distancing there's more incentive for people to go "off path" and get themselves into all kinds of trouble in places where they are off the beaten trail and don't have any clue how to tell others where they are (and that's assuming they get phone reception to call for aid).
The problem isn't one person its a vast number of people; many of which are not "outdoors experienced" or know how to behave in the countryside. They'll walk into the field of cattle with calves whilst walking their dog; they'll cross the bulls field and feed sugar and chocolate to friendly horses. The lockdown put a lot of people on pause at once and many who never really had any interest in going to the countryside suddenly wanted to go - en-mass.
I'd still argue, that even if those places did have a higher number of visitors, that its still not a problem.. Provided they keep their distance from others, there's no issue. It's not like they're going to be packed in elbow to elbow. They're going to be closer to other people in the supermarket, or in city streets or even city parks, and they're outside so any risk of transmission is considerably lower anyway.
You're allowed to drive to the countryside. I'd bet most people (barring maybe those in the absolute centre of big cities) are within about a 30 minute drive to a green space.
But you do you, I'll do me. I'm still within the law. Catch me outside, or don't, if you insist on quarantining yourself despite being healthy (I'm assuming)
The problem is if a large number of people decide "you do you, I'll do me" we end up in similar situations to what people have already pointed out. It's not just about one person, it's about the collective's behaviour, which is why it's potentially dangerous to think "it's only me, so it's fine". Again, we have evidence of this behaviour.
For example, I live right on the edge of Edinburgh. Within a 20 minute drive of me there are about a dozen nice outside spaces to visit. Of those, some have car parks (probably closed right now) but most don't and I can tell you right now where people will end up parking when they go there. So the general area might be more or less empty but there will be a potential concentration of people in one or two locations by necessity. Also, I don't know if those places will be empty or not because I don't know how many people will think "the guidelines don't apply to me".
queen_annes_revenge wrote: OK, granted, those popular national parks, a day before lockdown fair enough, but I'm talking about the countryside generally, right now. Where I was this weekend could've easily accommodated thousands of people, and allowed for social distancing. Obviously that's an extreme example as that isn't going to happen. I'm talking about the countryside on people's doorsteps, not national parks, which are always going to have more visitors because of their nature.
The countryside‘generally’ as you call it is private property, owned and worked by someone. It’s not yours to walk around. Go buy a field and walk round it to your hearts content.
You're allowed to drive to the countryside. I'd bet most people (barring maybe those in the absolute centre of big cities) are within about a 30 minute drive to a green space.
Yes. And somewhere between tens and hundreds of thousands of other people will be within 30 mins drive of the same green space. If that's a popular one? It'll be busy. I can drive to Loch Lomond in half an hour and 600,000 people live here.
But you do you, I'll do me.
Problem is, several million people would do you given the chance, and then we have 1,000 people trying to get in one car park in the Trossachs again. You don't care, because you're walking by a river somewhere you're familiar with that other people don't know, but I'd suggest recognising the inherent privilege in this and how that skews your perception of how this plays out in reality would be helpful.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/28 11:18:10
I've been in the office this week, and when I've been driving home through my local streets I've been amazed at just how many people there are out walking around. Aside from school-run times, I have *never* seen that many people out and about.
I think the problem is, a lot of people are approaching the government's recommended restrictions as a target - i.e. "I'm allowed to go out to work, I'm allowed to go out to buy essentials from the shops, I'm allowed to go out for exercise. Better make sure I do all those things..."
It would be more sensible to look at it from the perspective of 'what is the bare minimum I actually *need* to do?' For instance...
I'm doing alternate weeks in the office at the moment - there's stuff I/my team need to do onsite that can't be done remotely. Ejecting backup tapes and handing them over for offsite storage, for instance. But I'm working from home as much as I can.
We're ordering groceries online where possible (but all supermarkets seem to be overloaded on that front at the moment) so we do also visit the local supermarkets on occasion. Maybe once every week to ten days.
I am also going out exercising. Before this kicked off I signed up for a charity trek to raise money for the Alzheimers Society in September. I'm very much hoping this still goes ahead, so I'm going out training for this. But only once a week, and I'm trying to walk round places where other people aren't - last time I went through our local industrial estate and didn't see another soul.
I could go out a lot more and still be complying with the government restrictions - but that feels like losing track of the actual goal...
queen_annes_revenge wrote: OK, granted, those popular national parks, a day before lockdown fair enough, but I'm talking about the countryside generally, right now. Where I was this weekend could've easily accommodated thousands of people, and allowed for social distancing. Obviously that's an extreme example as that isn't going to happen. I'm talking about the countryside on people's doorsteps, not national parks, which are always going to have more visitors because of their nature.
The countryside‘generally’ as you call it is private property, owned and worked by someone. It’s not yours to walk around. Go buy a field and walk round it to your hearts content.
I just can't understand these people. As hard as it is for me as someone who has been wrongfully imprisoned to say it, I hope these people get prison sentences, at least several years actual time. Impersonating a police officer is a crime. Impersonating medical personnel in a medical crisis should be too.
And yes, it's hard for me to recommend that. People who have been imprisoned often find it harder to casually recommend prison. They could disrupt hospitals and endanger lives with this .
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/04/28 11:42:15
"But the universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed..."
I just can't understand these people. As hard as it is for me as someone who has been wrongfully imprisoned to say it, I hope these people get prison sentences, at least several years actual time. Impersonating a police officer is a crime. Impersonating medical personnel in a medical crisis should be too.
And yes, it's hard for me to recommend that. People who have been imprisoned often find it harder to casually recommend prison. They could disrupt hospitals and endanger lives with this .
They're always the first to yell about "stolen valour" whenever a kid dresses as a soldier for Halloween too.
Jesus effing Christ.
Just read about a dctor in NY who committed suicide after having been on the frontlines battling this disease nonstop who just couldn't take seeing so many people dying horribly anymore.
And then there's idiots like these. "He/She needed killin' y'honour" is becoming more and more attractive...
queen_annes_revenge wrote: OK, granted, those popular national parks, a day before lockdown fair enough, but I'm talking about the countryside generally, right now. Where I was this weekend could've easily accommodated thousands of people, and allowed for social distancing. Obviously that's an extreme example as that isn't going to happen. I'm talking about the countryside on people's doorsteps, not national parks, which are always going to have more visitors because of their nature.
The countryside‘generally’ as you call it is private property, owned and worked by someone. It’s not yours to walk around. Go buy a field and walk round it to your hearts content.
That’s only Open access land not private land.. open access land doesn’t exist anywhere within 50 miles of me. It’s pretty much an English thing, in a lot of the UK it doesn’t exist. It mostly apples to mountain ranges, open moors or more rarely common grazing ground. If you can find some near you and you couldn’t care less about locals or workers I’m sure legally you can access some. But then again I could squat in your house if you went on holiday for long enough and claim squatters rights. I would be a prick for doing it though.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: OK, granted, those popular national parks, a day before lockdown fair enough, but I'm talking about the countryside generally, right now. Where I was this weekend could've easily accommodated thousands of people, and allowed for social distancing. Obviously that's an extreme example as that isn't going to happen. I'm talking about the countryside on people's doorsteps, not national parks, which are always going to have more visitors because of their nature.
The countryside‘generally’ as you call it is private property, owned and worked by someone. It’s not yours to walk around. Go buy a field and walk round it to your hearts content.
thats true, but having a walk over land, compared to someone taking your property, is different in orders of magnitude. I dont understand your attitude that people who are merely walking around open spaces are bad people. I've been on country walks every weekend for the past month and I havent even seen any workers or locals.
If anything, I would suggest those who believe people shouldn't take part in harmless activity, just because of some warped sense of entitlement is the bad person. I'm not saying this is you, but you do seem to have a large chip on your shoulder about such trivial issues as law abiding citizens walking.
Texas is starting to open up. I'm of mixed minds. We need to be careful, but even with all the precautions and locking down in late February it still killed the FIL and the MIL got it.
On the positive doing my first shooting competition Saturday. This should be...interesting. "all right everyone lets be especially careful to watch your hoses and and avoid tripping in your biohazard suit. Winner gets an entire roll of TP!"
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
queen_annes_revenge wrote: thats true, but having a walk over land, compared to someone taking your property, is different in orders of magnitude. I dont understand your attitude that people who are merely walking around open spaces are bad people. I've been on country walks every weekend for the past month and I havent even seen any workers or locals.
If anything, I would suggest those who believe people shouldn't take part in harmless activity, just because of some warped sense of entitlement is the bad person. I'm not saying this is you, but you do seem to have a large chip on your shoulder about such trivial issues as law abiding citizens walking.
Here’s a couple of snaps around the farm last while. Haven’t put people in for obvious reasons. Blocking gates, clogging turning circles and one real smart Alec parking on a bend in front of a road closed sign so no tractors can get past. Cost half a day of mans wages that little walk.
EAT - SLEEP - FARM - REPEAT 
Heresy World Eaters/Emperors Children 
.
6000 pts - Harlies: 1000 pts - 
4000 pts - 
1000 pts - 
1000 pts 