The end of hibernation

[KGarrad]

Having a different perspective is one thing, but breaking the law isn't a matter of personal choice.

Agreed. But going out, even travelling to a beach (in England), is not against the law.

If people want to go to the beach, then they should respect social distancing rules.

Agreed. But failing to comply with social distancing "rules" is not against the law.

But both of these things SHOULD be against the law!
That's what happened in the Isle of Man - Emergency Powers were enacted; people who ignored the rules were arrested, possibly fined, and repeat offenders were gaoled.

Guess what! No covid-19 cases for 35 days!!

Result: No social distancing anymore; pubs and bars open; hairdressers and barbers open; most swimming pools open; gyms open; most shops now open!

[Jomot]

Interesting read: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53192532

[Roobarb]

Jumping off a cliff into water of unknown depth is stupid and idiotic.

But the incident you describe happened nearly a month ago when the situation with coronavirus was very different.

And tombstoning at Durdle Door is not a new activity related to Covid:-
https://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/17752731.men-jumped-durdle-door-warned-tombstoning-danger/

This doesn't only happen on the south coast, there have been a number of incidents in North Yorkshire. In May a man suffered spinal injuries after tombstoning at Goathland, which led to a large scale operation. Yesterday another young man suffered serious injuries after jumping into the same water. On Wednesday another suffered leg injuries after jumping into the reservoir at Osmotherley. A friend of mine told me that last night there were numerous young men jumping into the sea from the pier at Saltburn. Never a good idea jumping into the North Sea. The situation with coronavirus may have been different a month ago but these people still have to be rescued if injured or get into difficulties in the sea, then treated at hospital. I get that they're bored and frustrated but as many of that generation like to say - 'Get over it' without risking others' lives.

As for "targetting protection and resources for those most at risk" (sonofthom) - how exactly? A good start would be to stop those who are lucky enough to have a lower level of risk from behaving so irresponsibly.

[Nick_Ips]

The situation with coronavirus may have been different a month ago but these people still have to be rescued if injured or get into difficulties in the sea, then treated at hospital.

Of course, but they won't need treatment for their spinal injuries etc because of Coronavirus.

If someone argues that jumping off a cliff places a burden on the NHS and needs to be stopped by forcing people of a certain age/gender to stay at home and not go to the seaside then they are arguing for that to become a permanent feature of our law.

It only becomes a valid Covid-related argument if the emergency services and NHS are so stretched that they don't have the capacity to deal with any additional cases that aren't Covid infections.

Various reports suggest with the tailing off of Covid cases, the suspension of elective surgery, and people avoiding going to A&E, most hospitals are now substantially quieter than normal.

So whilst it is valid to say that jumping of a cliff is idiotic, adding "because of Covid" would need to be justified with some kind of evidence. I doubt that evidence could be found.

There is a really serious issue here. The original 'lockdown' measures were some of the greatest peacetime curtailments of rights ever legislated for in this country.  There were many people outraged at what the Government was doing, referring to it as "house arrest", a "police state", and plenty of conspiracy theories circulated about how the measures were being introduced to permanently control the masses.

The Government could only introduce the required measures because (a) The population accepted they were necessary and (b) it was promised they would only be in place for as long as necessary.

If it is now argued that the controls should be kept in place for some undefined period of time until everyone is happy for them to be removed then you are arguing that the Government should break what amounts to a covenant that rights would only be restricted by necessity.

And the reason why that is such an important issue is that the next time the Government wants us to go into 'lockdown' it will be just as vital that people believe it is (a) necessary and (b) temporary.  Otherwise observance of lockdown will be poorer, and the beneficial effect will be weakened.

It is the same principle as over-use of antibiotics. Use it unwisely and excessively and you'll find it doesn't work when you need it.

[Llwyd]

Here in Wales there has been of late a series of incidents on beaches between Cardiff and Swansea involving youths gathering and partying. Last night this culminated in a large scale disturbance to which the police were called, two arrests were made and the beach cleared of people, but not litter, two tons of which was collected by local residents this morning. To say the least, locals are not best pleased.
Today, at his daily briefing, our First Minister, Mark Drakeford, was asked about this incident. His response was not one of condemnation of the behaviour and the people involved. It amounted to a threat that, should this type of behaviour continue, the relaxation of "lockdown" may not happen. Quite frankly I find this response, to threaten law abiding citizens, of which I am one, with extending their loss of liberty because of some congenital idiots, outrageous and I can tell you, Mr Drakeford, that should you take this course of action then I, for one, will no longer comply. It will be manifestly unfair to penalise the majority of the population of Wales who, by the way, have been compliant, for the sins of these idiots and who cannot comply even now, never mind in future.
I will not take this step lightly because I am normally a law abiding person, but I cannot accept that would be the right and proper course of action.
Furthermore, yesterday on the BBC Wales news a reporter was In Aberystwyth when he spoke to two blokes who had travelled from Birmingham for a day out in the warm weather. It wasn't clear if they had any family with them. When it was pointed out to them they shouldn't be there they seemed to think it was funny and even funnier when the reporter told them they could be fined. The response was that they would pay it!.
So, if there is any extension of "lockdown", I shall, in future, pick and choose what I comply with. Criticise me if you wish but I cannot accept this announcement as being just.
 

[Roobarb]

The situation with coronavirus may have been different a month ago but these people still have to be rescued if injured or get into difficulties in the sea, then treated at hospital.

Of course, but they won't need treatment for their spinal injuries etc because of Coronavirus.

If someone argues that jumping off a cliff places a burden on the NHS and needs to be stopped by forcing people of a certain age/gender to stay at home and not go to the seaside then they are arguing for that to become a permanent feature of our law.

It only becomes a valid Covid-related argument if the emergency services and NHS are so stretched that they don't have the capacity to deal with any additional cases that aren't Covid infections.

Various reports suggest with the tailing off of Covid cases, the suspension of elective surgery, and people avoiding going to A&E, most hospitals are now substantially quieter than normal.

So whilst it is valid to say that jumping of a cliff is idiotic, adding "because of Covid" would need to be justified with some kind of evidence. I doubt that evidence could be found.

I didn't say that and wasn't suggesting it, I was relating it to your own comment about the case on the south coast - "the incident you describe happened nearly a month ago when the situation with coronavirus was very different". I was pointing out that these incidents are still going on and Covid is still present.

[guest189040]

Idiots are not confined to Beaches.

[Nick_Ips]

Idiots are not confined to Beaches.

What other locations do you have concerns about?

[Pheno]

I see this as a distinct Age divide.  Youngsters who generally do not suffer severe covid symptoms being willing to take a fairly minimal risk in order to restore something akin to their previous way of life, and I don't blame them.

The older generation, possibly over 65's and those with underlying health problems, wanting to remain outside the remit of catching covid for as long as possible and actually not really living a life at all seeing as it consists of washing everything, quarantining it, remaining within the confines of house or garden etc.

I feel that the more the lockdown regs ease and venues open up, the more that youngsters can return to their previous life and the less likely there is to be an overwhelming strain on the few places that they can go now - the beach.

As for the older generation it seems that unless they begin to ease the restrictions they have placed on themselves it is going to be virtually impossible to return to any kind of normality, and they certainly shouldn't be trying to impose even more restrictions on the young.  What are these older people going to do when all the support for shielding/staying indoors etc comes to an end?

Pheno