Livery yards being closed, banned from seeing our horses

Saving lives and rebuilding the economy later is easy to say, but a lot of people will be looking at a choice between taking their chances with coronavirus or starvation (or both). They are highly unlikely to be on this message boards, and many won't be in this country, although if this lockdown goes on for months, some may well be. Poor countries like Zimbabwe will see lots of unrest and death when people can't feed themselves, and 'shelter-in-place' is in itself very first world and classist. It assumes you have a place to shelter and aren't living in a tin shack shanty town. India has instituted a lockdown and it's become apparent quickly -- where the hell are people going to lock down?

In other words, we are all pretty much screwed no matter what we do.
 
Caol Ila said:
Saving lives and rebuilding the economy later is easy to say, but a lot of people will be looking at a choice between taking their chances with coronavirus or starvation (or both). They are highly unlikely to be on this message boards, and many won't be in this country, although if this lockdown goes on for months, some may well be. Poor countries like Zimbabwe will see lots of unrest and death when people can't feed themselves, and 'shelter-in-place' is in itself very first world and classist. It assumes you have a place to shelter and aren't living in a tin shack shanty town. India has instituted a lockdown and it's become apparent quickly -- where the hell are people going to lock down?

In other words, we are all pretty much screwed no matter what we do.
Click to expand...

Completely agree with you but we aren’t in Zimbabwe or India. There are things we can do here right now to make a positive impact on the spread of Coronavirus. If we do them it will mean that lockdown restrictions are relaxed/lifted sooner which will have have a positive impact on the economy.
 
Upthecreek said:
Totally agree. But why 190 people more per day are walking there since before lockdown baffles me ??‍♀️ I still can’t work out why staying at home and only going out when it is essential is such a difficult concept for so many people. The government has said it’s an instruction not a request so I don’t know how they can make it clearer. Nobody can use ignorance as a defence because you would have to have been living in a cave not to see and hear it.
Click to expand...

Well I'm just one person but I'm walking and cycling (roads and byways depending on which bike I take), I would ordinarily be doing bootcamp, weights, swimming and cycling (either communting or group rides) so you wouldn't normally see me walking. I think there's a lot of people like me who are having to alter their normal exercise routines. We have quite a lot of gyms locally, they add up to a lot of people + those now not commuting by bike.
 
Last edited:
See I don't understand that argument logically either UTC, if we have a bigger impact on the spread than we are hoping to it risks not flattening the curve when everyone goes out again. It is a very fine balancing act and one I think they will only be able to assess once all those infected pre shutdown have been accounted for and we are only counting new infections.
Can you explain how you understand it will shorten the time of restrictions?
 
Last edited:
As soon as you lift the lockdown, the virus comes back. Are you going to keep everyone in lockdown for the next 18 months? Italy's now having problems with social unrest. I don't see that going well. I think people will play ball up to a point, but then they need to eat and live somewhere, and plenty will fall through the cracks of the government's half-assed plans to deal. And obviously international travel will have to remain extremely restricted if not banned outright, because there are too many countries in the world without the resources to contain the virus (or who have the resources and don't use them... looking at you, America). China, South Korea, etc have found themselves doing this.

As far as walking goes, the government did say we are allowed out to exercise (haha, like prison), and like ester has pointed out, a lot of people's normal exercise routines won't be available anymore, say if they played team sports, used a gym, whatever. Or if they would normally be walking up mountains but are now walking in city parks. Or indeed, if they have a horse at a yard that has now banned owners. Plus, people are really fecking bored.

No matter what we do, we are all up sh ** t's creek without an outboard. Might as well go for a walk, while staying six feet away from everyone else.
 
Pearlsasinger said:
My neighbours are shielding, if I were them, I would put a sign on the footpath asking walkers to go round on the road, rather than across their land.
Click to expand...
Someone round here did that, put up a sign requesting people didn't go through their land as they were in self isolation and vulnerable people. The sign got pulled down and ignored, and the council told them they are not allowed to restrict access to a public right of way.
In the matter of seeing more people than usual out and about, they go out to get their daily exercise while they would normally be at work or at the gym. I don't understand why some people get so upset about seeing more people out enjoying the countryside. As long as everyone is careful about keeping distance, not touching your face and washing your hands as soon as you get home, it shouldn't be a problem.
 
JB I agree with you. I was out for three hours (so shoot me!) yesterday, walking from home in an area which is a no more than a ten minute drive from two towns. We saw three people, all on bikes. I found it really sad that people were stuck in town when they could safely have been enjoying acre upon acre of open countryside.

.
 
Pearlsasinger said:
My neighbours are shielding, if I were them, I would put a sign on the footpath asking walkers to go round on the road, rather than across their land.
Click to expand...
Its no worse or more difficult isolating for those with a footpath through their land than it is for people who live next to a road!!
 
ester said:
See I don't understand that argument logically either UTC, if we have a bigger impact on the spread than we are hoping to it risks not flattening the curve when everyone goes out again. It is a very fine balancing act and one I think they will only be able to assess once all those infected pre shutdown have been accounted for and we are only counting new infections.
Can you explain how you understand it will shorten the time of restrictions?
Click to expand...

I can’t explain any of it, but unless everything we’re being told by government is false the way to get through this is for people to stay at home. As for what happens when everyone goes out again, I don’t know, but my understanding is that the immediate priority is to slow the spread down to enable the NHS to cope now and that is why movement has been restricted. Matt Hancock has just said on the Andrew Marr Show that they will have to ban exercise of all forms outside the home if people don’t follow the rules because this is how they think the curve will begin to flatten.

Parks are closed today because people were sitting around in groups in them yesterday (not exercising) so now there will be even less places for people to exercise and get fresh air, which is sad.

I think there is a realistic possibility that by the end of this week further restrictions will be imposed. It also sounds like life as we know it will not return for a long time because I would think that the lifting of restrictions without the numbers spiking will be a difficult situation to manage.

I just have this hope (though maybe I am being completely stupid) that if we all follow the rules the NHS will be able to treat everyone that requires it, less people will die and once the numbers drop the government will be able to look at relaxing some of the restrictions. Of course I could be completely wrong, but that’s how I see it.
 
Upthecreek said:
I can’t explain any of it, but unless everything we’re being told by government is false the way to get through this is for people to stay at home. As for what happens when everyone goes out again, I don’t know, but my understanding is that the immediate priority is to slow the spread down to enable the NHS to cope now and that is why movement has been restricted. Matt Hancock has just said on the Andrew Marr Show that they will have to ban exercise of all forms outside the home if people don’t follow the rules because this is how they think the curve will begin to flatten.

I just have this hope (though maybe I am being completely stupid) that if we all follow the rules the NHS will be able to treat everyone that requires it, less people will die and once the numbers drop the government will be able to look at relaxing some of the restrictions. Of course I could be completely wrong, but that’s how I see it.
Click to expand...

I just wish the government would be honest, if the NHS is not going to issue recovery care to those that are older and or already have serious health conditions at least tell us.
 
I see they have closed a lot of the parks in London including Victoria Park which is over 200 acres. I understand some people that attended London parks yesterday were not following the guidelines and have large gatherings, BBQs etc. But the majority from the photos seemed to be sitting a fair distance apart or walking/cycling in pairs. Closing parks in cities will just lead to people exercising on the streets where it is harder to practice social distancing.

Although sitting in parks is not strictly allowed I think we are forgetting many of these people are cooped up in flats all day long in a city and don’t have a garden to get some fresh air in.
 
ester said:
See I don't understand that argument logically either UTC, if we have a bigger impact on the spread than we are hoping to it risks not flattening the curve when everyone goes out again. It is a very fine balancing act and one I think they will only be able to assess once all those infected pre shutdown have been accounted for and we are only counting new infections.
Can you explain how you understand it will shorten the time of restrictions?
Click to expand...

For sure you are right that it will be a balancing act. I don't see the restrictions being lifted altogether for a long time, but they can hopefully be loosened more quickly if the curve can be flattened enough to give some capacity within the NHS. A smaller number of carriers coupled with a well prepared health service makes the risk of looser restrictions lower, but probably only for a period of time. To be honest I think the restrictions will be here for some time now, probably will need to be strengthened in the immediate future, and once loosened will most likely will need to be re-introduced several times. At least based upon most of what I have read about the assumptions used in some models this seems to be the best guess. Until we have some effective treatment and vaccines it seems it is our best and only hope.
 
Gingerwitch said:
I just wish the government would be honest, if the NHS is not going to issue recovery care to those that are older and or already have serious health conditions at least tell us.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is as black and white as that. I think (and have some knowledge to give this view) it depends on demand and availability on a day by day basis. And may differ from hospital to hospital I don't think demand has typically reached the point of needing to make choices yet. But it may do.

To be truthful it always has been thus, that in winter not every elderly person can have an intensive care bed with pneumonia complications, it depends on availability, and with 100% occupancy rates common, may need the bed occupier to die first.

I do think it is possible that people in care homes, not able to live independently will not be admitted to hospital with CV. And to be fair, would you want your older, confused, living with a lot of support, relative to be admitted to a CV ward, and be intubated, and barrier nursed, with no one familiar with them?

Stark choices are likely if demand outstrips availability, and there maybe some guidance provided on making choices when pressure points arise, but the truth is the NHS does this already, deciding who to give organs too, and who to get surgery etc. there are ethical choices all the time as money isn't limitless, they just aren't spoken about much. But there wont be a blanket decision not to support certain groups of people (care homes aside).
 
Winters100 said:
For sure you are right that it will be a balancing act. I don't see the restrictions being lifted altogether for a long time, but they can hopefully be loosened more quickly if the curve can be flattened enough to give some capacity within the NHS. A smaller number of carriers coupled with a well prepared health service makes the risk of looser restrictions lower, but probably only for a period of time. To be honest I think the restrictions will be here for some time now, probably will need to be strengthened in the immediate future, and once loosened will most likely will need to be re-introduced several times. At least based upon most of what I have read about the assumptions used in some models this seems to be the best guess. Until we have some effective treatment and vaccines it seems it is our best and only hope.
Click to expand...

Given the behavior witnessed yesterday of people out in the sunshine at beauty spots etc. there is talk now of the restrictions being further tightened to keep people in their homes! Despair of the people driving to popular spots, or even attending them if local. It is obvious are places to avoid at the moment. I can walk to a range of popular spots from home, I am avoiding them and walking little known routes at less social times whilst it is the weekend and sunny.
 
Gingerwitch said:
I just wish the government would be honest, if the NHS is not going to issue recovery care to those that are older and or already have serious health conditions at least tell us.
Click to expand...
This already happens, and it will happen more often when there are many fewer ICU beds available than patients who need them.

Best prioritise those patients who have the best chance of recovery. And as alluded to earlier on another thread by someone who has worked in this field, doctors are only human. If one of those patients is deemed to have suffered a self inflicted injury, say for instance after from falling from a horse during lock down, then they may be prioritised lower than other patients with equal need of the bed who are not considered to have been behaving unwisely before becoming ill.
 
So where would a learner driver fit into this, i was especially bothered by one whom was really out of control. Round my way the local council is still cutting grass on those ride on mowers so if these had an incident would they currently be treated.
 
Yes I’m not sure triage is allowed to be conducted on whether the doctor thought what the person was doing was moral or not. It’s entirely based on the extent of the person’s injuries and likelihood of recovery.

For example, in a war zone where there a multiple casualties a military doctor would still have to treat the enemy first (even if that person was a terrorist) if their injuries were greater and needed more urgent care than their own soldiers. Triage is supposed to be morally impartial.
 
Abi90 said:
Yes I’m not sure triage is allowed to be conducted on whether the doctor thought what the person was doing was moral or not. It’s entirely based on the extent of the person’s injuries and likelihood of recovery.

For example, in a war zone where there a multiple casualties a military doctor would still have to treat the enemy first (even if that person was a terrorist) if their injuries were greater and needed more urgent care than their own soldiers. Triage is supposed to be morally impartial.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, that must be an awful call to make, especially if the enemy has just been shooting at your and yours and then your going to give them the first wave of treatment.
 
Abi90 said:
Yes I’m not sure triage is allowed to be conducted on whether the doctor thought what the person was doing was moral or not. It’s entirely based on the extent of the person’s injuries and likelihood of recovery.
Click to expand...
Absolutely true. But if there are two patients with equal clinical need, and just one bed available, who should get it? These dilemmas are faced every day by our medics even in non corona times. And now, when we are being exhorted to stay at home?

In normal times medics, who tbh are often absolutely barking and into crackpot dangerous pastimes themselves, do not want us to lead boring sanitised lives. But just for now, could we please just stay home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top