0.5 years = aprox. 182 days going to the beach. So, she shouldn’t go to the beach today—and we’re not even discussing the odds of her infecting someone else.
However, I think limiting the access to open spaces to a number of people per day would be a better policy than just shutting then—since it seems extremely unlikely you can catch covid in sunny open spaces if you’re careful enough.
Nevertheless, I totally agree with you that we should consider a little bit more how much is being sacrificed in terms of quality of life in the current lockdown, and try to find ways to mitigate this loss. Too often, the fiercest defenders of a strict lockdown are something like aspies who spend more time in front of a computer/phone than outdoors (and enjoy it), so they don’t see it as a real sacrifice. I just think your example is not very good.
The comparison is with her not going to the beach, socializing etc. for a year (rather than one-off), which I’m arguing could well halve her quality of life, so be equivalent to losing 0.5 years of life expectancy.
I assume the concerns about people visiting open spaces—even if social distancing—are largely about the other associated risks, from people using public transport to get there, going into shops to buy sandwiches/drinks, etc.
I assume the concerns about people visiting open spaces—even if social distancing—are largely about the other associated risks, from people using public transport to get there, going into shops to buy sandwiches/drinks, etc.
Why not restrict only those sources of contagion? Is it easier to prevent people from accessing parks than buses? (honestly, I don’t know)
This confirms my priors that outdoor contagion must be really rare. Moreover: if that’s true, then outdoors / environmental disinfection would be a waste, if not overall harmful.
Presumably they need to keep public transport operating for key workers, e.g. medical staff, supermarket staff etc. So if it’s available then others will use it to get to parks.
0.5 years = aprox. 182 days going to the beach. So, she shouldn’t go to the beach today—and we’re not even discussing the odds of her infecting someone else.
However, I think limiting the access to open spaces to a number of people per day would be a better policy than just shutting then—since it seems extremely unlikely you can catch covid in sunny open spaces if you’re careful enough.
Nevertheless, I totally agree with you that we should consider a little bit more how much is being sacrificed in terms of quality of life in the current lockdown, and try to find ways to mitigate this loss. Too often, the fiercest defenders of a strict lockdown are something like aspies who spend more time in front of a computer/phone than outdoors (and enjoy it), so they don’t see it as a real sacrifice. I just think your example is not very good.
The comparison is with her not going to the beach, socializing etc. for a year (rather than one-off), which I’m arguing could well halve her quality of life, so be equivalent to losing 0.5 years of life expectancy.
I assume the concerns about people visiting open spaces—even if social distancing—are largely about the other associated risks, from people using public transport to get there, going into shops to buy sandwiches/drinks, etc.
Why not restrict only those sources of contagion? Is it easier to prevent people from accessing parks than buses? (honestly, I don’t know)
This confirms my priors that outdoor contagion must be really rare. Moreover: if that’s true, then outdoors / environmental disinfection would be a waste, if not overall harmful.
Presumably they need to keep public transport operating for key workers, e.g. medical staff, supermarket staff etc. So if it’s available then others will use it to get to parks.