Does Closing Beaches Make Any Sense?

[Pushka]

Expert pans 'panic decisions that don't make biological sense'

Canberra infectious diseases expert criticises moves to clamp down on people leaving their home without excuse.

www.canberratimes.com.au

Australia's extreme restrictions on going out in public that are born of panic and don't even make biological sense, Canberra infectious diseases expert Peter Collignon says.

"You are safer outside than inside," he said. "I do not see how anyone's going to get his virus if they keep two metres away from someone and I don't see how anyone's going to get it if they sit on a park bench."

"... it made no sense to stop people walking on the beach, or pausing on the beach to rest. These are panic decisions not decisions based on data," he said.

Because people were not keeping their distance at the beaches on Bondi. Fine if they were the only ones who got sick, but then they return to the supermarkets, the chemists etc and give those infections to others who are simply trying to do the right thing to protect others and medical people.

The Medical People are sacrificing potentially their lives, certainly their family life, to keep people well. Maybe we can do our bit by just following the rules the Health Advisers deem as safe.

 

[dajop]

On social distancing, my favourite scene in all this .... in Singapore outside my local shopping centre.

Everyone social distancing in the supermarket.
Everyone social distancing at food courts and cafes.
Everyone keeping apart on the escalators.
People staying well apart walking down the footpaths.
Go outside the shopping centre. A group of a dozen smokers all huddled together.

Maybe cigarette smoke reduces infectiousness.

The point is, maybe sometimes you just have to save people from themselves. Sitting on a beach for a day in close proximity to others is very different to passing by for a few seconds. Sometimes you have to apply rules for everyone, unfortunately. That doesn't necessarily mean someone wanting to go to the beach at 1770 in Qld should be prevented from doing so, but it probably does for someone wanting to head to Bondi, St Kilda or Surfers main beach.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Expert pans 'panic decisions that don't make biological sense'

Canberra infectious diseases expert criticises moves to clamp down on people leaving their home without excuse.

www.canberratimes.com.au

Australia's extreme restrictions on going out in public that are born of panic and don't even make biological sense, Canberra infectious diseases expert Peter Collignon says.

"You are safer outside than inside," he said. "I do not see how anyone's going to get his virus if they keep two metres away from someone and I don't see how anyone's going to get it if they sit on a park bench."

"... it made no sense to stop people walking on the beach, or pausing on the beach to rest. These are panic decisions not decisions based on data," he said.

Why is our rate dropping = social distancing in the main, as well as isolating those that are likely to be infected.

Look at the countries where CV 19 is rampant = ignored social distancing or brought it in very late.


Did you read the full article?

because coronavirus had an incubation period of about five days or 10 at most, the success was due to measures put in place 10 days ago, including the closing of pubs, clubs and restaurants, the social-distancing measures and the quarantining of overseas arrivals. Those measures should continue, Professor Collignon said.

So in the context of your original question at your supermarket yes the good professor has stated social distancing measures should remain, and that he believes that such measures are reducing CV 19 in Australia.

 

[straitman]

Expert pans 'panic decisions that don't make biological sense'

Canberra infectious diseases expert criticises moves to clamp down on people leaving their home without excuse.

www.canberratimes.com.au

Australia's extreme restrictions on going out in public that are born of panic and don't even make biological sense, Canberra infectious diseases expert Peter Collignon says.

"You are safer outside than inside," he said. "I do not see how anyone's going to get his virus if they keep two metres away from someone and I don't see how anyone's going to get it if they sit on a park bench."

"... it made no sense to stop people walking on the beach, or pausing on the beach to rest. These are panic decisions not decisions based on data," he said.

Science is never exact.
It seems that Peter Collignon is standing alone on this one or you have misquoted him and that the majority do not agree with you.

This is not an experiment that can be tried and changed. (Oops that didn’t work and sorry we killed those thousands of people per USA)

What is being done is working with the only issues being shown to be where people flout the rules. If it’s a bit draconian in spots then who really cares. They are getting it mostly right.

* Bold is highlighting and CAPITALS IS YELLING!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

"... it made no sense to stop people walking on the beach, or pausing on the beach to rest. These are panic decisions not decisions based on data," he said.

But he goes on to say:

Professor Collignon said extreme measures were unwarranted and risked rebellion, especially among younger people least at risk from the virus.​

​

"My real worry is if we overdo it now we will have people particularly in 30s and 40s who will say 'stuff this'," he said.​

​

"I think this is not sustainable for six months.​

I'd suggest that he is a professor of microbiology, not a law enforcement officer or in government. They are the experts in establishing the rules and social control. He says he's looking for facts, but then proffering an opinion - seemingly not based on fact - about how a 30 year will think.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

I'd suggest that he is a professor of microbiology, not a law enforcement officer or in government. They are the experts in establishing the rules and social control. He says he's looking for facts, but then proffering an opinion - seemingly not based on fact - about how a 30 year will think.

Exactly. Part of the reason that the limit of two was brought in was not just about decreasing the transmission, but that it makes it so much easier for the police to enforce gathering and social distancing rules.

Prior to this a larger groups could be walking enmasse and it was very hard for the police to effectively prevent gathering to enforce suitable social distancing.




Also with articles modern journalists often have a tendency to quote the interviewee out of context or in proportion to what their intent was.
The professor may disagree with some of the more restrictive measure, but he clearly believes that the bulk of the measures are working and that they should remain.


And on the beaches. Social distancing was not occurring on a number of beaches. They were closed due to this. Many of the beaches are open for walking etc now. So perhaps some just to acknowledge that with respect to beaches that a severe transmission threat was occurring and that the authorities acted appropriately in a timely manner to defuse that threat.

Bondi Beach could well have become the "Ruby Princess" of beaches if they had not have acted.

 

[andye]

Restricting gatherings to 2 makes contact tracing much easier too
There is a still a small possibility of squashing (rather than flattening) the curve

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Restricting gatherings to 2 makes contact tracing much easier too
There is a still a small possibility of squashing (rather than flattening) the curve

I think that is what they are hoping to achieve without publicly saying so. But yes the first step is to limit the spread so that the hospitals and not overloaded. Do this well and then the squashing may well be achievable (at least on Australian shores).

The new 15 minute test when it gets deployed will provide a method to try and root out the infected that they do not yet know about.

 

[woodborer]

Australia's extreme restrictions on going out in public that are born of panic and don't even make biological sense, Canberra infectious diseases expert Peter Collignon says.

"You are safer outside than inside," he said. "I do not see how anyone's going to get his virus if they keep two metres away from someone and I don't see how anyone's going to get it if they sit on a park bench."

"... it made no sense to stop people walking on the beach, or pausing on the beach to rest. These are panic decisions not decisions based on data," he said.

Because the "if" bit wasn't being maintained. Unfortunately, people weren't doing it when asked, so now they are compelled.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Scientific and ethical basis for Social Distancing.
Here’s a bit of background on the basis for what we see happening here.
In the absence of any proven treatment or vaccination it gives some perspective to what is being done.
Doesn’t specifically mention beaches sorry but does go into some detail and the original paper by Koo et al is also available through The Lancet.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Scientific and ethical basis for Social Distancing.
Here’s a bit of background on the basis for what we see happening here.
In the absence of any proven treatment or vaccination it gives some perspective to what is being done.
Doesn’t specifically mention beaches sorry but does go into some detail and the original paper by Koo et al is also available through The Lancet.

Thank you.

This is a good overview too I think of the logic behind what we are doing.

Flattening the curve to help Australia’s hospitals prepare

University of Melbourne mathematical modelling helps us understand whether Australia is flattening the COVID-19 curve and whether our hospitals are prepared.

pursuit.unimelb.edu.au

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Expert pans 'panic decisions that don't make biological sense'

Canberra infectious diseases expert criticises moves to clamp down on people leaving their home without excuse.

www.canberratimes.com.au

Australia's extreme restrictions on going out in public that are born of panic and don't even make biological sense, Canberra infectious diseases expert Peter Collignon says.

"You are safer outside than inside," he said. "I do not see how anyone's going to get his virus if they keep two metres away from someone and I don't see how anyone's going to get it if they sit on a park bench."

"... it made no sense to stop people walking on the beach, or pausing on the beach to rest. These are panic decisions not decisions based on data," he said.

Having a look a bit deeper at other articles by Prof Collignon he says that there is evidence to support the transmission of coronavirus through faecal matter*, and further, that the virus, shed in faecal matter, could survive in seawater if that seawater is contaminated by effluent. So... another reason why beaches should be closed! Source: What we still don't know about the coronavirus

*in the article I read about hotel isolation in China, those in isolation were provided with buckets which they had to fill with water and add powerful disinfectant tablets to use in place of flushing the toilet.

 

[straitman]

Perhaps they shouldn't have held infected passports?
Regards,
Renato

Another assumption on your behalf.

 

[Renato1]

You don't need to stop someone going to a supermarket because buying food is an essential item which is allowed. Someone driving out to a dark secluded spot should raise questions. And probably some detailed questions if the response to the officer was 'I'm out to look at stars'. Even if they stop one astronomer, that is one other person on the isolation list they could be following up instead.

Sorry - but that is ridiculous.
Who do you think the Police are stopping?
Are our policemen psychic or presecient that they can tell an astronomer from a supermarket goer, and thus only stop the astronomer?
And the notion that Policemen tasked to check isolation lists suddenly divert from that task to start stopping motorists at random is equally nonsensical.
Regards,
Renato

And I'm pretty sure the ABF officers who tested positive are not in the habit of hugging or kissing strangers either...

Perhaps they shouldn't have held infected passports?
Regards,
Renato

Expert pans 'panic decisions that don't make biological sense'

Canberra infectious diseases expert criticises moves to clamp down on people leaving their home without excuse.

www.canberratimes.com.au

Australia's extreme restrictions on going out in public that are born of panic and don't even make biological sense, Canberra infectious diseases expert Peter Collignon says.

"You are safer outside than inside," he said. "I do not see how anyone's going to get his virus if they keep two metres away from someone and I don't see how anyone's going to get it if they sit on a park bench."

"... it made no sense to stop people walking on the beach, or pausing on the beach to rest. These are panic decisions not decisions based on data," he said.

Thanks very much for the article.

What the infectious disease expert says is remarkably similar to my Original Post.

Regards,
Renato

Another assumption on your behalf.

No not an assumption at all.
A suggested possibility is not an assumption - the suggested possibility being indicated by the use of the word "Perhaps" and ended with a "?", which indicates a question mark over what was written.

And as for the actual assumptions I have made on this thread - if you read the article posted above - they have been confirmed by an infectious disease expert.
Regards,
Renato

 

[straitman]

No not an assumption at all.
A suggested possibility is not an assumption - the suggested possibility being indicated by the use of the word "Perhaps" and ended with a "?", which indicates a question mark over what was written.

And as for the actual assumptions I have made on this thread - if you read the article posted above - they have been confirmed by an infectious disease expert.
Regards,
Renato

In this context it is effectively the same thing.

Again your response is selective as People have already commented about how your ‘expert’ stands alone with his opinions.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Thanks very much for the article.

What the infectious disease expert says is remarkably similar to my Original Post.

Regards,
Renato

The Professor in that article confirms why beaches should be closed

Who do you think the Police are stopping?
Are our policemen psychic or presecient that they can tell an astronomer from a supermarket goer, and thus only stop the astronomer?
And the notion that Policemen tasked to check isolation lists suddenly divert from that task to start stopping motorists at random is equally nonsensical.
Regards,
Renato

I don't know. I assumed if you go star gazing that you aren't doing it in a supermarket car park? That at some point you are going to somewhere dark and away from crowds? So if you are going to a place like that it might draw the attention of police.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Your position is that social distancing works in among groups of people visiting stores, visiting doctors, visiting pharmacies - but amazingly doesn't work when practiced on the beach or in a park.

Rubbish. Where have I ever written that? Can you please quote when I stated that was my position?

You either lack the ability to understand what is written or said, or you just enjoy trolling. I am yet to determine which one you are.

Social distancing works everywhere. And conversely when it was not being practiced some beaches like Bondi were quite rightly closed.

Oddly enough, on tonights' program Andrew Bolt seems to be as astounded as I am with this sort of strange thinking.
Cheers,
Renato

So Bolt stated that it was ok for groups of people to gather closely together? That laying on towels closely spaced together is ok? I did not see the show but if he said that he is wrong.

Not that I believe Bolt to be the best commentator, but it would not surprise me at all that you are misrepresenting what he actually said.

 

[Renato1]

In this context it is effectively the same thing.

Again your response is selective as People have already commented about how your ‘expert’ stands alone with his opinions.

Perhaps you can study the rules of grammar, instead of making assumptions about context and breaking those rules.

A bunch of AFF posters have determined the expert stands alone?
Nonsense.
Regards,
Renato

Having a look a bit deeper at other articles by Prof Collignon he says that there is evidence to support the transmission of coronavirus through faecal matter*, and further, that the virus, shed in faecal matter, could survive in seawater if that seawater is contaminated by effluent. So... another reason why beaches should be closed! Source: What we still don't know about the coronavirus

*in the article I read about hotel isolation in China, those in isolation were provided with buckets which they had to fill with water and add powerful disinfectant tablets to use in place of flushing the toilet.

Faecal matter in our beach water comes from dog and bird poop in road gutters that gets flushed into the ocean when it rains. It does not come from treated sewage.

So unless birds and dogs have coronavirus, your conclusion about why beaches should be closed is flawed.
Regards,
Renato

By the expert's own words he has said beaches should be closed!! I think we're agreeing with him

The expert's own words were -
"Beach parties should certainly be broken up, Professor Collignon, of the Australian National University medical school, said. But it made no sense to stop people walking on the beach, or pausing on the beach to rest. "

Beach parties being broken up does not equate to the beach being closed.
Regards,
Renato

 

[MEL_Traveller]

A bunch of AFF posters have determined the expert stands alone?

By the expert's own words he has said beaches should be closed!! I think we're agreeing with him

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Faecal matter in our beach water comes from dog and bird poop in road gutters that gets flushed into the ocean when it rains. It does not come from treated sewage.

So unless birds and dogs have coronavirus, your conclusion about why beaches should be closed is flawed.
Regards,
Renato

Unfortunately, maybe not: Australia’s pristine beaches have a poo problem - CSIROscope

At present, places where sewage impacts are generating community concern include Merimbula, Warrnambool and, perhaps most bizarrely, Vaucluse and Diamond Bay in Sydney’s affluent eastern suburbs.​

​

It’s hard to believe this location has raw and untreated sewage from 3,500 people discharged directly into the Tasman Sea. Sydney Water pledged in 2018 to fix this unsightly pollution by transferring the flow to the nearby Bondi sewage treatment plant.​

Post automatically merged: Apr 3, 2020

The expert's own words were -
"Beach parties should certainly be broken up, Professor Collignon, of the Australian National University medical school, said. But it made no sense to stop people walking on the beach, or pausing on the beach to rest. "

Beach parties being broken up does not equate to the beach being closed.
Regards,
Renato

Another article he wrote - which I linked - states that seawater can carry the virus, particularly in effluent which may be present in the seawater.

So you have to piece it together - some sewage is getting in to seawater. Seawater can carry the virus in effluent. Therefore - can't go swimming or in contact with sand that has come in contact with the seawater. Therefore - close the beach