Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I dont want to sound like a preacher, but just needed to vent my frustration.


I understand why families want to use playgrounds (I have 3 of my own) but walking in peckham rye Park, when passing the playground, my kids and I counted only 1 adult wearing a mask, when walking past on 2 separate occasions.

We've all worked so hard to stop the spread of this virus and we have to maintain our civil responsibility to each other and the NHS to limit the spread wherever possible.

I would implore everyone to respect the basic rules that help limit the spread of this virus, When you are in close proximity in the playground atleast follow the rules and wear a mask!

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/276518-parents-in-playground/
Share on other sites

Yes, social distancing in open air is the key. Mask wearing is not mandatory because it is negligible in the open air where people socially distance. However, it is worth having a face covering to hand where people are prone to ignore the social distancing, and always sanitise after touching shared play equipment.

The times I've been to the playground at Peckham Rye, Goose Green, or Dulwich park, I've always felt that I've had plenty of space between me and other adults.


I feel I get into closer proximity with people when I'm just walking along the road or queueing to get into a shop.


Do you and your kids count the number of people walking along the street not wearing masks too?

Agree strongly with social distancing outdoors.


You only have to see, on a frosty morning, just how far one's breath carries - particularly in the case of joggers and runners. It is also really apparent when one sees people vaping or smoking cigarettes.


Wearing masks outdoors has proven effective in other countries such as Korea, Japan and China.

bobbsy wrote:

> And parents standing around chatting,

> provided they socially distance, are

> doing nothing wrong unless it was a

> pre-arranged meeting.


Do you not think that's a gathering as specified in the current regulations https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1374/regulation/2?


"2(6 )(e) a gathering takes place when two or more persons are present together in the same place in order?

(i) to engage in any form of social interaction with each other, or

(ii) to undertake any other activity with each other;"


Do you have any view on any risks of cross-infection in such a meeting?

bobbsy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Playgrounds need to be open, young children. And

> parents standing around chatting, provided they

> socially distance, are doing nothing wrong unless

> it was a pre-arranged meeting.


I disagree, you can play outside plenty of other ways (bikes, footballs, games, etc). Kids like playgrounds of course, but they do not NEED them. Swings and climbing frames, touched by countless children that day, seem distinctly unsafe to me. And parents ARE arranging to meet at playgrounds. Of course they are. So their kids can play together, while they stand round in groups and have a natter.


I am not trying villainize the parents (playgrounds are open after all)... but it just doesn't seem right to me.

Social isolation, both of parents/ carers and children is taking a terrible toll for many, and the long term damage may be significant.


For most people of child bearing age, and/ or children, the disease even when caught is mild, and may not even be noticeable. And its impact may be far less than the mental damage caused by isolation.


If the parents/ carers are keeping a 2 metre distance, in the open, that is likely to be fine, mask wearing or not. And it is, broadly, their risk, particularly as so many who are at high(er) risk are becoming protected by vaccines. By w/c March 8th all top 4 tiers (who chose to be vaccinated) will be 22 days or so into their cover, and hence will be covered (probably).

Six or seven young women in PR Park, hugger-mugger, very unlikely from the same households, squeezing together (inches apart) to get past others. I know the virus is less transmissabe in the open air but if they are flouting the rules about meeting up then what else are they choosing to ignore? Some people just can't help themselves...

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If the parents/ carers are keeping a 2 metre

> distance, in the open, that is likely to be fine,

> mask wearing or not.


But they are not...


If we can keep our child away from playground, finding other things (indoors and outdoors) to do, then I don't see why others can't. It is not easy, but it's the sensible thing to do. It's not just about our personal health/safety, it's about controlling the spread.


> For most people of child bearing age, and/ or

> children, the disease even when caught is mild,

> and may not even be noticeable.


It's mild in kids. But in young or middle-aged adults, it can be pretty bad. Of my work colleagues (pool of around 40), 3 have had Covid this year. Two of them (25 yr old and 40-ish yr old) were very ill for over two weeks. One of their girlfriends required hospital treatment. My wife also has a colleague in his 30s, who caught covid and had to call an ambulance because he could not breathe. I really think people are not taking the severity of this virus seriously enough.

I really think people are not taking the severity of this virus seriously enough.


I'm not sure you're entirely right there - (of course there are some who are deniers, but most I think do know that it can be awful) - but people are now prepared to take the risks they think are appropriate for them - of course some are getting this wrong. But for most young people (under 40) the disease will be mild if it's even noticeable - at worst like a relatively mild and short lived dose of flu. As you get older, or have other underlying conditions, your likelihood of severe, and indeed fatal, infection increases, and your level of caution with it.


As those in the most vulnerable groups become vaccine protected, the risks of getting it yourself without going on to infect others in much worse ways is diminishing - and thus more and more the risks you take are (almost) just for you.


What I do not understand is those in risk groups who are not taking up their vaccine offers - which seems mad - but again, they are adults taking a risk based decision.


Once bad decisions become those that impact only you - then I'm diffident about enforcing 'rules' where only the rule breaker suffers. We aren't, of course, quite there yet, but we will (in the grand scheme of things) soon be.

fishbiscuits Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Penguin68 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > If the parents/ carers are keeping a 2 metre

> > distance, in the open, that is likely to be

> fine,

> > mask wearing or not.

>

> But they are not...

>

> If we can keep our child away from playground,

> finding other things (indoors and outdoors) to do,

> then I don't see why others can't. It is not easy,

> but it's the sensible thing to do. It's not just

> about our personal health/safety, it's about

> controlling the spread.

>

> > For most people of child bearing age, and/ or

> > children, the disease even when caught is mild,

> > and may not even be noticeable.

>

> It's mild in kids. But in young or middle-aged

> adults, it can be pretty bad. Of my work

> colleagues (pool of around 40), 3 have had Covid

> this year. Two of them (25 yr old and 40-ish yr

> old) were very ill for over two weeks. One of

> their girlfriends required hospital treatment. My

> wife also has a colleague in his 30s, who caught

> covid and had to call an ambulance because he

> could not breathe. I really think people are not

> taking the severity of this virus seriously

> enough.


I know of people who grumble of kids in playground but who they themselves took advantage of low flight prices to travel abroad. So go figure.

RoundTable Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I know of people who grumble of kids in playground

> but who they themselves took advantage of low

> flight prices to travel abroad. So go figure.


Nobody likes a hypocrite, but that doesn't change my point.

fishbiscuits Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> RoundTable Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I know of people who grumble of kids in

> playground

> > but who they themselves took advantage of low

> > flight prices to travel abroad. So go figure.

>

> Nobody likes a hypocrite, but that doesn't change

> my point.





The general point is everyone wants to think it's other people causing the spread. People without kids point the finger at those with kids using playgrounds or childcare. People with kids point the finger at those without, but who chose to go abroad. People who wear masks point at those without. Those who go without but whilst observing social distancing point the finger at those who wear masks and don't distance. It's exhausting. Apart from a handful of blatant violators (hello lockdown party-goers), the vast majority of people people really are doing their best.

I disagree people are doing their best. I think taht most of us are aware of lapses and just say "oh well, I am doing my best mostly" and let themselves off. It's that kind of self-deception that this virus loves, as do others. I see groups of friends meeting in teh park and hugging, white van men sitting three-abreast with no masks and windows shut, doctors and nurses walking around health centres with ill-fitting masks. It's practically everywhere and then we wonder why the lockdowns don't work....

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...