GUI Statement - Mod warning #1

yawhat?

CalamariFritti wrote: »

So if we're setting aside the law and go by maths/risk then I think the following applies.

The increased risk of someone travelling 7.5 km to play golf over someone travelling 5km is virtually zero if not actually zero. A thousand times multiplied by zero is still zero.

Not advocating flouting the law but if we go down that argument then thats how I see it.

Virtually zero is not zero. You have changed virtually zero to zero and as a result the way that you “see it” is completely wrong. But if it makes you feel better, carry on.

Just Saying

thewobbler wrote: »

What about 6 pints then?

(Scratching my head at the nitpickery here)

I hope the poster who introduced 4.98km in to the discussion can see the irony in his own post!!

thewobbler

CalamariFritti wrote: »

So if we're setting aside the law and go by maths/risk then I think the following applies.

The increased risk of someone travelling 7.5 km to play golf over someone travelling 5km is virtually zero if not actually zero. A thousand times multiplied by zero is still zero.

Not advocating flouting the law but if we go down that argument then thats how I see it.

So true.

While we are it, if in the past 8 weeks you’ve been using power tools, drinking alcohol at all, or pushing your fitness levels a bit, then you’ve increased your chances of needing medical attention. If even only a little bit, it’s still too much, and a good citizen wouldn’t do that. Therefore you must be scum of the earth.

CalamariFritti

yawhat? wrote: »

Virtually zero is not zero. You have changed virtually zero to zero and as a result the way that you “see it” is completely wrong. But if it makes you feel better, carry on.

You're right can't argue with that. What I should have been saying is that the individual travellers risk increase is so far down the right side of the decimal that when you multiply it by 1000 its still far far right to the decimal. I think the technical term is negligible.

billy3sheets

kieran. wrote: »

This is it in a nutshell.
I'm type 1 also.

Poster type 4. Lives outside the 5km. Knows that travelling to play golf is breaking the law but sees fellow golfers ignoring it. Wonders then if it's really a law at all. Wonders also if so many people breaking the law will trigger a new spike in Covid-19 or a backlash from the government resulting in golf clubs being shut down again.

slave1

Horrible times for all but please stay away from the 5k tangent, it's just leading to frustration and taking us away from all the positives on the courses opening up tomorrow

CalamariFritti

Agreed. Whatever can be said about it has been said and summarised and turned over again three times over.

To those who can, enjoy your game tomorrow.

Just Saying

CalamariFritti wrote: »

So if we're setting aside the law and go by maths/risk then I think the following applies.

The increased risk of someone travelling 7.5 km to play golf over someone travelling 5km is virtually zero if not actually zero. A thousand times multiplied by zero is still zero.

Not advocating flouting the law but if we go down that argument then thats how I see it.

I actually think that the increased risk is very small also.

What I am far more worried about is how it will be viewed by Govt.and NPHET in particular.This is one of the first sports back so how the relaxation of the restrictions works out will be carefully monitored.

How can any Govt expect non golfers to adhere to the 5km law for exercise when it is patently obvious that thousands of golfers are flouting it?

It is not the effect on the case rate caused by golf that is the concern it is the knock on effect on the compliance rate of non golfers that will be the worry for Govt.

yawhat?

CalamariFritti wrote: »

You're right can't argue with that. What I should have been saying is that the individual travellers risk increase is so far down the right side of the decimal that when you multiply it by 1000 its still far far right to the decimal.

Multiply it by 10,000 for 21 days straight. Then start increasing the 10,000 because the result of Johnny travelling 10km to play golf may be that his neighbour says “well if Johnny is going 10km to play golf, it’s ok for me to drive 15km to the beach for a walk and a coffee, sure what harm can it do”.

This is not about the risk to any one individual, which remains very small even if all restriction are lifted in the morning. It’s about the greater good.

Be in no doubt that breaking the 5km limit will increase the spread of the virus. Pretend it won’t, but it will. If you don’t care, that’s a reflection on you.

thewobbler

Just Saying wrote: »

I hope the poster who introduced 4.98km in to the discussion can see the irony in his own post!!

I think you’ll find it’s the same argument on both topics from me.

Someone wanted to know if it’s a golf club’s responsibility to prevent their members from drink driving (which in fairness would be obvious enough to any half observant bar tender), and another poster wished to explain how to handle this situation by bringing into play a further and unrelated law (serving people who are clearly drunk). I’m simply pointing out that there is a point where someone is clearly over the limit, but very much capable of consuming more alcohol. Is it a golf course’s role to intervene here and take the keys?

With regards 4.98k, all I’m trying to go here is highlight the inherent folly in “5k”, as particularly in urban areas this could see semi-detached neighbouring golfers each being permitted to play and completely banned from playing, if following an absolutely militant Greebo-style understanding of the rules. That’s not what the 5k rule is about. If it a golf course’s role to intervene and tell no 11B to stay at home?

yawhat?

thewobbler wrote: »

I think you’ll find it’s the same argument on both topics from me.

Someone wanted to know if it’s a golf club’s responsibility to prevent their members from drink driving (which in fairness would be obvious enough to any half observant bar tender), and another poster wished to explain how to handle this situation by bringing into play a further and unrelated law (serving people who are clearly drunk). I’m simply pointing out that there is a point where someone is clearly over the limit, but very much capable of consuming more alcohol. Is it a golf course’s role to intervene here and take the keys?

With regards 4.98k, all I’m trying to go here is highlight the inherent folly in “5k”, as particularly in urban areas this could see semi-detached neighbouring golfers each being permitted to play and completely banned from playing, if following an absolutely militant Greebo-style understanding of the rules. That’s not what the 5k rule is about. If it a golf course’s role to intervene and tell no 11B to stay at home?

25 lads rock up to golf club bar and say to the barman we’re all going to have six pints and drive home, throw us on the first pint there. The next day, the same thing happens. Do you think the golf club would permit this for 21 days In a row and do nothing?

Just Saying

thewobbler wrote: »

I think you’ll find it’s the same argument on both topics from me.

Someone wanted to know if it’s a golf club’s responsibility to prevent their members from drink driving (which in fairness would be obvious enough to any half observant bar tender), and another poster wished to explain how to handle this situation by bringing into play a further and unrelated law (serving people who are clearly drunk). I’m simply pointing out that there is a point where someone is clearly over the limit, but very much capable of consuming more alcohol. Is it a golf course’s role to intervene here and take the keys?

With regards 4.98k, all I’m trying to go here is highlight the inherent folly in “5k”, as particularly in urban areas this could see semi-detached neighbouring golfers each being permitted to play and completely banned from playing, if following an absolutely militant Greebo-style understanding of the rules. That’s not what the 5k rule is about. If it a golf course’s role to intervene and tell no 11B to stay at home?

I'm only winding you up!!!

I'd have no problem with people close enough to the 5km playing...but I'd fear for the collective effect of lots of people congregating in one place who are obviously not in compliance with the law.

thewobbler

yawhat? wrote: »

25 lads rock up to golf club bar and say to the barman we’re all going to have six pints and drive home, throw us on the first pint there. The next day, the same thing happens. Do you think the golf club would permit this for 21 days In a row and do nothing?

That’s an extraordinarily convoluted situation you’ve created. This is not how people behave in the real world.

kieran.

yawhat? wrote: »

25 lads rock up to golf club bar and say to the barman we’re all going to have six pints and drive home, throw us on the first pint there. The next day, the same thing happens. Do you think the golf club would permit this for 21 days In a row and do nothing?

Yup I know of members in various club that regularly have 4-5 pints multiple times a week for years on end. Not an eyelid batted

thewobbler

Just Saying wrote: »

I'm only winding you up!!!

I'd have no problem with people close enough to the 5km playing...but I'd fear for the collective effect of lots of people congregating in one place who are obviously not in compliance with the law.

The point of the 14 minute tee intervals and the closure of communal areas Is that golf clubs should where possible minimise the chances of congregation.

Between that and the fact that we’ve all had 3 months of safe distance training, If people are still going to contrive ways to congregate, then it’s not a golf issue so much as a people issue.

tayto lover

kieran. wrote: »

Yup I know of members in various club that regularly have 4-5 pints multiple times a week for years on end. Not an eyelid batted

So you want a barman to also be a policeman?

kieran.

yawhat? wrote: »

25 lads rock up to golf club bar and say to the barman we’re all going to have six pints and drive home, throw us on the first pint there. The next day, the same thing happens. Do you think the golf club would permit this for 21 days In a row and do nothing?

kieran. wrote: »

Yup I know of members in various club that regularly have 4-5 pints multiple times a week for years on end. Not an eyelid batted

tayto lover wrote: »

So you want a barman to also be a policeman?

I don't expect the golf club to be law enforcers we have the garda for that. To yawhats comment I was saying that I have seen golf clubs do nothing for much longer than 21 days.

tayto lover

kieran. wrote: »

I don't expect the golf club to be law enforcers we have the garda for that. To yawhats comment I was saying that I have seen golf clubs do nothing for much longer than 21 days.

What would you like the club to do?

kieran.

tayto lover wrote: »

What would you like the club to do?

Nothing, I think their approach on both fronts is correct.

First Up

yawhat? wrote: »

This is the problem. Telling somebody who is right that their argument is “confused rubbish”.

The risk for an individual of catching or spreading it may be tiny, but there is a risk. The risk inherent in travelling 10km versus 5km is smaller still, but it’s a still an increased risk. A tiny increase on an individual level.

Now apply the law of large numbers. Thousands of people doing it, the reality is it will increase the spread of the virus. By travelling over 5km for any non essential reason you are contributing to this.

Anybody contemplating giving over the 5km should think about it that way, and then try and justify it.

The GUI have been incredibly weak on this. While they are rightly not expected to enforce the 5km limit, they should have been clear from the outset that they didn’t condone the breaking of this rule. They weren’t, and a significant number of people took that to mean a blind eye would be turned to golfers breaking the 5km limit. They were forced to clarify their position on Friday, but this will have little impact. It certainly hasn’t resulted in anybody removing their name from the timesheet in my club.

You are confused too by the look of it.

The risk is not increased by "travelling". You will not infect anyone from your car, whether you drive 5k or 500k.

The risk is in how many people you are in contact with. The 2, 5 and 20 kilometer radius theory assumes that the wider your radius, the more people you might meet. That is not applicable to a car journey to play golf - or to do anything else.

If you drive 5k or 20k to your golf club you have exactly the same risk of catching or spreading the virus. What matters is what you and others do when you are outside the car. Yes, the more people who are playing, the greater the risk of spreading it but how far any of them have travelled to do so is irrelevant.

I will respect the 5k limit and not go to my club before the travel limit is extended to 20k on June 8th. But I'm doing that because I respect the law, not because I misunderstand it.

lettuce97

First Up wrote: »

You are confused too by the look of it.

The risk is not increased by "travelling". You will not infect anyone from your car, whether you drive 5k or 500k.

The risk is in how many people you are in contact with. The 2, 5 and 20 kilometer radius theory assumes that the wider your radius, the more people you might meet. That is not applicable to a car journey to play golf - or to do anything else.

If you drive 5k or 20k to your golf club you have exactly the same risk of catching or spreading the virus. What matters is what you and others do when you are outside the car. Yes, the more people who are playing, the greater the risk of spreading it but how far any of them have travelled to do so is irrelevant.

I will respect the 5k limit and not go to my club before the travel limit is extended to 20k on June 8th. But I'm doing that because I respect the law, not because I misunderstand it.

Seems like there's a lot of confusion around so!

My understanding is that it's not to do with your risk of catching it or not, the 5k limit relates to what happens if/when somebody does catch it. Say you travel 15k to play, and there happens to be a load of members (from within 5k) who have Covid but are asymptomatic. You manage to pick up the virus, and instead of the outbreak now being contained within 5k of the course, it's managed to get 15k away and could start another cluster there.

yawhat?

First Up wrote: »

You are confused too by the look of it.

The risk is not increased by "travelling". You will not infect anyone from your car, whether you drive 5k or 500k.

The risk is in how many people you are in contact with. The 2, 5 and 20 kilometer radius theory assumes that the wider your radius, the more people you might meet. That is not applicable to a car journey to play golf - or to do anything else.

If you drive 5k or 20k to your golf club you have exactly the same risk of catching or spreading the virus. What matters is what you and others do when you are outside the car. Yes, the more people who are playing, the greater the risk of spreading it but how far any of them have travelled to do so is irrelevant.

I will respect the 5k limit and not go to my club before the travel limit is extended to 20k on June 8th. But I'm doing that because I respect the law, not because I misunderstand it.

I’m not sure if you, or others, fully understand the reasons for the restrictions. It’s not just the risk of spreading it from one person to another. It’s also reducing the risk of it spreading from one area to another.

By your reasoning, travel restrictions are unnecessary if social distancing is complied with. This is simply not the case.

FixdePitchmark

Think people are trying to create grey when there is none.

Your either going to break rules or not.

But,

I do think we need to move on now.

Enjoy your game either way.

GreeBo

Carazy wrote: »

I think the speeding and tax,nct analogy aren't really comparable as the club committees won't have known the offence occurred.

The point is that club committees have noted that their timesheets are full for the past number of days and know in advance that a large number of their members are prepared to break the restrictions brought in at this time of a global pandemic.
It must be noted that these rules are emergency rules for this period of time and comparing them to the speed,nct etc is not the same (in my view).

The fact remains that clubs have applauded frontline workers for weeks and now they know with little doubt that a lot of members are going to go against the emergency health laws from Monday onwards.

This advance notice of wholesale non compliance that clubs and committees are aware of and not in any way trying to rectify is disappointing and really lacks leadership.

Under what power do you suggest clubs prevent members from playing, and who bestowed this power?
What laws are covered under this power?

Carazy

GreeBo wrote: »

Under what power do you suggest clubs prevent members from playing, and who bestowed this power?
What laws are covered under this power?

No laws or power needed GreeBo but leadership.

Clubs and their committees (and the GUI) have failed to show leadership in this situation.

The resultant lack of leadership is a wholesale non compliance from Monday onwards.

GreeBo

Carazy wrote: »

No laws or power needed GreeBo but leadership.

Clubs and their committees (and the GUI) have failed to show leadership in this situation.

The resultant lack of leadership is a wholesale non compliance from Monday onwards.

"leadership" doesnt allow you to stop other members from playing.

Wholesale non compliance comes from people being dicks, nothing more or less. You can try to pass blame on to the bodies involved, but its plain old ordinary people who are getting into their cars and breaking the law.

hurikane

Carazy wrote: »

No laws or power needed GreeBo but leadership.

Clubs and their committees (and the GUI) have failed to show leadership in this situation.

The resultant lack of leadership is a wholesale non compliance from Monday onwards.

You appear to have an axe to grind with your own club and committee and are doing it under the pretence of clubs and committees not enforcing laws.

What caused this grievance you have with your own club and committee?

Carazy

GreeBo wrote: »

"leadership" doesnt allow you to stop other members from playing.

Wholesale non compliance comes from people being dicks, nothing more or less. You can try to pass blame on to the bodies involved, but its plain old ordinary people who are getting into their cars and breaking the law.

Leadership involves leading groups of people or an organisation.

If we had good leadership at the top level of the GUI or Club Committees we wouldn't have the scenario we are faced with on Monday.

GreeBo

Carazy wrote: »

Leadership involves leading groups of people or an organisation.

If we had good leadership at the top level of the GUI or Club Committees we wouldn't have the scenario we are faced with on Monday.

You can keep dancing around the point, but that doesn't change the facts.
Clubs have ZERO powers to enforce laws.

First Up

yawhat? wrote: »

I’m not sure if you, or others, fully understand the reasons for the restrictions. It’s not just the risk of spreading it from one person to another. It’s also reducing the risk of it spreading from one area to another.

By your reasoning, travel restrictions are unnecessary if social distancing is complied with. This is simply not the case.

Yes, but the logic of that extends to all travel, for any purpose. If the regulations allow for 5k or 20k, it doesn't matter if people are going to shop, play golf or anything else. In fact with time sheets, there is a better chance of tracking people at risk from a golf course than those shopping or walking around a busy park.

I am not objecting to any of the restrictions. I am pointing out that distance travelled for golf does not affect the risk of catching it. There is no more danger attached to playing tomorrow than on June 8th. And the guy who lives across the road from his club is no more immune than the guy who has driven 5 (or 20) kilometers.