rangersac wrote:Gotta say for mine this is massive overreaction that will just encourage rebellious behaviour. I have no truck in closing visitor centres, huts, campgrounds, toilets etc that would all require regular sterilization and encourage congregations of people, and backcountry tracks given they would be difficult to effectively manage. However what's the point in closing small reserves like Peter Murrell or Coningham, where people go to walk a dog, or have a quiet walk or bike ride on a fire trail? What's so difficult about adopting sensible rules like NZ has?
Time spent in nature feeds the soul, keeps us fit and calms the mind.
rangersac wrote: However what's the point in closing small reserves like Peter Murrell or Coningham, where people go to walk a dog, or have a quiet walk or bike ride on a fire trail? What's so difficult about adopting sensible rules like NZ has?
Son of a Beach wrote:They are trying to prevent people travelling.
Son of a Beach wrote:But I appreciate that it's easier to manage a blanket ban, than trying to police a long list of exceptions to the rule.
rangersac wrote:Son of a Beach wrote:But I appreciate that it's easier to manage a blanket ban, than trying to police a long list of exceptions to the rule.
I must confess I don't agree with this statement at all. A blanket ban is virtually impossible to police because of the resources involved. It's also potentially counter productive because if everyone obeyed the ban it would concentrate people into the few areas that are still open such as dog recreation areas. It also makes zero logical sense in the wider community restrictions. So you wanna go and get a three hour haircut or beauty treatment that's safe, and go to a supermarket where social distancing is a nebulous concept, but a solo walk on a fire trail can't be undertaken?
As already stated, put some sensible rules in place a la DOC NZ and people will respect them. There will always be a portion of twats that will disobey restrictions regardless of their wording but you can't legislate for that.
Rexyviney36 wrote:If you don’t understand the decision I suggest you do a little more research about the virus and how it can be spread.
Then see if you disagree with this measure.
Thornbill wrote:Rexyviney36 wrote:If you don’t understand the decision I suggest you do a little more research about the virus and how it can be spread.
Then see if you disagree with this measure.
I’ve done my research. And still disagree. Close facilities and tourist attractions yes, but I can guarantee you it’s not spread by a handful of locals walking solo in their local reserve. Especially when i can apparently still go to Bunnings
Rexyviney36 wrote:Thornbill wrote:Rexyviney36 wrote:If you don’t understand the decision I suggest you do a little more research about the virus and how it can be spread.
Then see if you disagree with this measure.
I’ve done my research. And still disagree. Close facilities and tourist attractions yes, but I can guarantee you it’s not spread by a handful of locals walking solo in their local reserve. Especially when i can apparently still go to Bunnings
Let’s see how this post ages in a couple of weeks...
I await your research which shows people walking solo in outdoor areas are a significant COVID-19 infection vectorRexyviney36 wrote:If you don’t understand the decision I suggest you do a little more research about the virus and how it can be spread.
Then see if you disagree with this measure.
blackbutt wrote: Lets get the balance right and reopen low use areas of national parks to day and overnight walkers.
rangersac wrote:I await your research which shows people walking solo in outdoor areas are a significant COVID-19 infection vectorRexyviney36 wrote:If you don’t understand the decision I suggest you do a little more research about the virus and how it can be spread.
Then see if you disagree with this measure.
blackbutt wrote:Lets get the balance right and reopen low use areas of national parks to day and overnight walkers.
tastrax wrote:blackbutt wrote:Lets get the balance right and reopen low use areas of national parks to day and overnight walkers.
How about we all keep a detailed list of all the places we go to and the number of people we pass in the next 14 days - and then consider at the end of that period that you may have infected them all. That will really help the epidemiologists should they have to trace all our contacts.
Lets compare in 14 days.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-27/ ... s/12090420
Closing parks in Tasmania is going to make the risk of spreading Covid-19 greater than it would be if the parks were allowed to remain open.
Mechanic-AL wrote:blackbutt wrote: Lets get the balance right and reopen low use areas of national parks to day and overnight walkers.
If you reopen "low use areas " while keeping higher use areas closed what are the chances of these areas remaining "low use" ?
Azza wrote:You guys realise its not about the risk of spreading it while in the park?
Its the travelling to/from the park, perhaps you stop at a toilet, supermarket, petrol station on the way.
Going outside your local area and passing through other communities.
It might involve an unnecessary trip to get food because you were going hiking.
Unnecessary interactions with the community.
Sure ok.. you say I won't stop anywhere along the way. But the problem is everyone thinks they are an exception to the rules.
It's okay for me because I'm not going to spread the virus.
The rules are not perfect, consistent or fair. But its already proven that relying on people to self isolate hasn't worked.
Ask me two weeks ago I would have said going for a walk was a good idea.
But at this point if we actually batten down the hatches we might actually get through this quicker, than if we all think its okay to go out because we're not the problem.
btw.. I tend not to drive 100km to go to bunnings.. (not that I have gone) but there is big difference in terms of spreading viruses.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 75 guests