The fact that there is practically zero human feces on my front lawn is not an invitation to shit upon it.
12 Likes
I fail to see the relevance in your comment.
1 Like
Is it common in California to take your surfboard on the bus? I his own car that wouldn’t be a risk to anyone, right?
Not the whole planet: E.g. in Germany we are not allowed unnecessary contact to people who are not members of our household. However we are explicitly allowed to go outdoors for physical exercise, provided we don’t come in close contact to other people. And that’s a pretty good idea, because if the social distancing is kept up for as long as it is necessary to keep the curve reasonably flat (up to 24 months), we can’t have people sitting indoors with deteriorating immune system due to lack of exercise and fresh air, because then they will suffer even more from coronavirus when they eventually become infected. We’re in this for the long game.
9 Likes
I’m not surprised. It requires seeing yourself as something not that special.
If everyone was to take the attitude “well it doesn’t look that crowded to me, and since I’m only one person what harm could it do ?” we would have a crowded beach full of people spreading disease.
The lack of people on the beach doesn’t give you or that guy special privileges to ignore rules in place for everyone.
Such as, “Well it is just me shitting on your lawn … don’t get so bent out of shape!”
14 Likes
This is not just about distancing, it’s also about reducing the risk of accidents that necessitate calling out rescue crews, exposing them to risk and landing people in hospital unnecessarily. I.e. don’t go hiking, climbing, mountain biking, swimming or anything else even slightly risky during lockdown.
19 Likes
None of those things are particularly risky.
1 Like
Simple: if the beach is crowded, don’t go there.
I go out walking at night in areas which are empty even during the day. I don’t see that as selfish.
3 Likes
As an example. People need rescuing doing things that aren’t particularly risky all the time.
12 Likes
Sure, people crash cars all the time too, and require more resources from emergency services than walkers.
That’s what the original instructions were. People ignored them. That’s why they had to close the beach entirely.
There is no practical way to enforce a “no more than X people allowed” policy at the beach because there is not a single point of entry that can be effectively controlled.
21 Likes
No, I understand that this was in LA (and that there’s no Manhattan beach in NYC). I meant that states like California who have been exerting their rights to not comply with every foolish whim of this monster are going to get screwed and take on all of the financial burden themselves while states sympathetic to his agenda will have all kinds of cash to dump into their booster’s pockets.
3 Likes
In California you are encouraged to get some exercise and outdoor time. In Los Angeles and the associated cities and counties it has been made abundantly clear that one should 1) enjoy the outdoors near your home 2) not drive if at all possible 3) the beaches and parks and trails are closed.
17 Likes
What? Of course they are, especially when you factor in natural elements like swimming in the ocean. Swimming in the ocean in always risky. Why do you think they have lifeguards?
14 Likes
That’s because the cops ordered everyone off the beach earlier, after they all ignored the lifeguard telling them to leave. This dude comes in at 11am and thinks he’s special. So exactly what you are talking about happens when people don’t follow the shelter in place rules. It’s never about “one person” per se, It’s about what happens when every “one person” does the same thing.
19 Likes
That’s rather missing the point. It’s not a matter of ranking the risks of activities then tolerating those with least (but non-zero) risks of needing emergency assistance.
It’s a matter of stopping all such activities. No hillwalking, no surfing and no avoidable driving.
#stayhomestaysafe
16 Likes
Yeah, you can still die from all of the above! This weird false equivalency misses the fact that Coronavirus deaths are in addition to whatever highway, cancer, influenza, etc deaths there are in a normal year. Which is already a tragedy. Do you think people are like “well, mom’s protracted battle with pancreatic cancer was within the statistical margin so… que sera sera”?
9 Likes
And this attitude, right here, is exactly why the US currently has over 100k cases, and about to have a no good very bad year.^
If your life hasn’t changed, significantly, already; you’re doing it wrong.
^ in addition to cheetolini, obviously.
14 Likes
“Surly surfer” should just stay indoors and watch The Endless Summer.
2 Likes
I suspect the recent ‘spring break’ vacationers likely eschewed statistical analysis for “we just don’t give a f**k for anybody else, woo-hoo”.
6 Likes
I mean, I get it. I gave serious thought to going tramping during the lockdown. Serious thought. It’d be the IDEAL time to go, with no one on the tracks or in the huts, and with winter rapidly approaching it may be the last chance for a while. But - aside from the fact that tramping was specifically called out a little while later - even though I’ve never required external support while up in the hills, I’d be needlessly be placing other people at risk if anything were to happen, either up in the hills, or on the road there and back again. And, of course, it’d be wildly against the intent of the lockdown here.
Meanwhile
At some point you have to make a decision, which basically comes down to whether you want your epitaph to be remembered as one of those guys who looked at a societal problem then just shrugged “fuck you, I got mine.”
7 Likes
