johnf wrote:I do note that the people here that have criticised my views have tended to go on the attack with name calling.
I put up a scientific argument in summery being that:
People living in the higher density areas of the city are inadvertently being in close contact with quite a high number people. This is particularly evident in the crowded parks that are the few places that allow exercise. If people were allowed to go bushwalking at further distant national parks, this would be an activity good for the physical and mental well being of the person at the same time reducing the number of close contacts and vastly reducing the number of networked contacts. This would reduce the likely number of people that could be/get infected as the overall reproduction number (R0) would be lower compared to what it would be if people rather than being remote in the bush had stayed in the crowded city.
I further say that if there were to be an infection in a regional area, the contact tracing would be simpler making any outbreak easier to suppress together with less network contacts likely.
It's true I am not an expert myself. But it doesn't mean my argument is not based on science and logic. It would be good to have less of the virtual signalling and more discussion about the flaws in my view that I put forward.
For those that aren't able to look at the substance of what I write and only want to listen to the experts, I refer you to the Professor in today Sydney Morning Herald
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/ope ... 54m8f.html
"I put up a scientific argument in summery (sic)"
No, you have presented fallacious arguments in contravention to expert advice that have been continually rebutted.
"I further say that if there were to be an infection in a regional area, the contact tracing would be simpler making any outbreak easier to suppress together with less network contacts likely. "
This is absurd. people should travel to rural areas because when they infect the local population it will be easier to trace? How about potentially infected people refrain from travelling - that way there will be no need to trace infections.
"If people were allowed to go bushwalking at further distant national parks, this would .....reduc(e) the number of close contacts and vastly reducing the number of networked contacts."
All people in the city have to do to minimise the risk of infection is to practice social distancing but travelling to a regional area amplifies the risk of infection in areas with less proportionate capacity to address infection. I have told you this 4 times now, this is also what the experts are saying. Clearly you don't believe it or you feel that your need to walk is greater than the risk you pose to others.
"It's true I am not an expert myself."
Enough said.
