The Tragedy of the Public Parks (CW: pandemic)

[cimorene]

I don't read the comments myself, but waxjism likes to open Twitter threads and read all the subthreads of replies. Today's episode of Don't Read the Comments: a British public park being closed in one of the highest covid-affected areas; council tweets that there were over 3000 people in the park today.

Highlights include:

• 3000? That sounds like a lot. Source?


• 3000? That doesn't sound like that many. That park is probably big. Once you spread them all out they probably weren't close together. They probably weren't there at the same time.


• They probably weren't THAT crowded. Unless it was "like a concert" they're fine.


• They're sunbathing, so it's okay, because the sun will make Vitamin D and their bodies will use it to successfully fight the infection


• They're sunbathing, so it's okay, because they would just sunbathe in the road and get run over and be even more crowded if the park was closed


• Their homes probably don't have a lot of green spaces, so they HAD to be at the park for their mental health, even if by doing so they form crowds that are disease vectors


• Even if they have green spaces available, their children probably needed to be at the park to play, because social distancing measures may have to continue for months and months, and children can't be kept inside for that long


• It's not fair to close the park, because even if these guys are wrong, the 'innocents' (who would have maintained social distance while hanging out in the park) are now unable to use the park too


• It's hypocritical to close the parks if police officers are allowed to patrol without face masks and/or standing less than 6' from each other


• The problem isn't people who want to walk in the park, it's runners who aren't staying far enough away from them


• The problem isn't runners, who would have kept their distance if other people weren't in their way, it's the walkers and sunbathers who are taking up the path so the runners had no choice because they couldn't leave the path


• It's pointless to close the parks, because anybody who was going to be in a crowd will simply have a party indoors and there will be less fresh air there, so they will be more likely to get sick than if their party was at a park

Comments

[halojedha]

You've covered pretty much everything I was thinking! I think the cost benefit trade off is favourable for people playing / relaxing / sunbathing / doing nonessential nonexercise activities in a park as long as they maintain social distance. The problem is if it's so crowded this becomes impossible. Not sure how you enforce that, though.

[buddleia]

As a local, I agree with most of that, with the addendum that closing that park has had a ripple effect on the others and one local green space is packed and the other one has also been closed.

OTOH if this is the compromise before patrols keep us all inside unless we’re poorly paid delivery drivers, I’ll take it. I’m quite fond of the at-risk people in my life. Hearing a lot of ambulances.

[cimorene]

Well, these were all different people making these points and many of them disagree with each other! And many of them have valid points, but perhaps not useful ones, since eg the local government is unlikely to respond to a tweet asking them for their source regardless of whether it's a legitimate doubt; there's no evidence that sunbathers would literally sunbathe in the streets and get run over (one could hope they might at least go for the sidewalk?); and the health benefits of sunlight (against viruses) and vitamin D (for the immune system) are not strong enough to counteract an actual infection from inhaling active virus.

In practical terms, the question is just 'what should local government do?', and if you assume good intentions, if they believe the crowding is a dangerous amount that is likely to lead to infections between people who wouldn't have been in contact outside the park, closing the park is the most reasonable option. They might be wrong about the numbers or the risk, but the best that can be expected from them is to use numbers they believe are accurate in good faith.