Rural areas and plague tourists

[teuchter]

There are many rural areas of the UK which have not really suffered high levels of Covid, compared to the national average. Of course, it's understandable that if you lived in one of those areas, you would want to keep it that way. And when there are surges of infection its quite right that travel is restricted in the short term to try and contain them.

However, in the longer run, is there a point at which it simply becomes selfish for those in rural areas, popular with holidaymakers, to resent visitors from outside?

My feeling is that the countryside should be there for the benefit of everyone, not just the people that happen to live there. People in rural areas have probably had a better time of it in general through the various lockdowns, not just because of the lower levels of infection but because they have had the freedom to enjoy that open space that many in cities have been shut off from for months. The lower levels of infection in rural areas are not a product of the actions of people who live in them, they are simply the outcome of what happen to be fortunate living circumstances in the context of this particular disease.

If the posh bits of an urban area tried to close itself off from neighbouring, poorer areas with higher levels of infection, I don't think most people would see that as acceptable. Nor if parks were made available only to those living directly adjacent to them.

When we get into the summer I predict all sorts of arguments about this.

 

[planetgeli]

I live in a (very) rural area. I have no problems with tourists coming to visit when the time is right.

 

[Pickman's model]

There are many rural areas of the UK which have not really suffered high levels of Covid, compared to the national average. Of course, it's understandable that if you lived in one of those areas, you would want to keep it that way. And when there are surges of infection its quite right that travel is restricted in the short term to try and contain them.

However, in the longer run, is there a point at which it simply becomes selfish for those in rural areas, popular with holidaymakers, to resent visitors from outside?

My feeling is that the countryside should be there for the benefit of everyone, not just the people that happen to live there. People in rural areas have probably had a better time of it in general through the various lockdowns, not just because of the lower levels of infection but because they have had the freedom to enjoy that open space that many in cities have been shut off from for months. The lower levels of infection in rural areas are not a product of the actions of people who live in them, they are simply the outcome of what happen to be fortunate living circumstances in the context of this particular disease.

If the posh bits of an urban area tried to close itself off from neighbouring, poorer areas with higher levels of infection, I don't think most people would see that as acceptable. Nor if parks were made available only to those living directly adjacent to them.

When we get into the summer I predict all sorts of arguments about this.

Have you heard of gated communities?

 

[teuchter]

I live in a (very) rural area. I have no problems with tourists coming to visit when the time is right.

When will you see the time as being right?

 

[Teaboy]

edit. not relevant really.

 

[Pickman's model]

If the posh bits of an urban area tried to close itself off from neighbouring, poorer areas with higher levels of infection, I don't think most people would see that as acceptable. Nor if parks were made available only to those living directly adjacent to them.

there are many squares in London, eg Bedford Square, with gardens in them only available to the people living by them. There are gated communities and private roads across London, including some in Brixton. Yet you don't talk about these segregated spaces, you don't talk about the private public spaces people can only access on sufferance of the landowners, you don't give a fuck about them. Just as you don't give a fuck about the countryside, you're just trolling.

 

[planetgeli]

When will you see the time as being right?

It's not up to me is it. There's never going to be a zero Covid, so I have to put my trust in the scientific advisors and the government listening to them and acting on that.

It's different here to Devon and Cornwall. I think there's a resentment down there, that may well be geographical because of transport issues and overloaded tourism in general. That just doesn't apply in west Wales.

 

[Supine]

Here in the lakes most people love tourists because that's how the community survives.

Having said that when the tourists turn up and don't wear masks or socially distance its no surprise there is some resentment. Especially as we have an older populace.

And let's not mention all the cnuts who turned up last summer, wild camped having parties and then left all their shit on the fells.

 

[Badgers]

It generally comes down to the rest of the country hating people from London/Kent/Essex and who can blame them

 

[Pickman's model]

It generally comes down to the rest of the country hating people from London/Kent/Essex and who can blame them

And Berks

 

[teuchter]

there are many squares in London, eg Bedford Square, with gardens in them only available to the people living by them. There are gated communities and private roads across London, including some in Brixton. Yet you don't talk about these segregated spaces, you don't talk about the private public spaces people can only access on sufferance of the landowners, you don't give a fuck about them. Just as you don't give a fuck about the countryside, you're just trolling.

Of course I'm aware of all that. Just like some people in cities have gardens and some don't have any private external space at all. What's your point?

 

[Pickman's model]

Of course I'm aware of all that. Just like some people in cities have gardens and some don't have any private external space at all. What's your point?

I am surprised but gratified by your admission you don't give a fuck about the topic and that you're trolling

 

[High Voltage]

Once every hundred years or so it becomes "beneficial" to live in a rural area over living in a city - can't you just be happy with the other 99 years??

 

[Sasaferrato]

Have you heard of gated communities?

I was just about to post that.

 

[kebabking]

Build a wall, and make London pay!

Normally I would take the view that there's enough to be shared as long as everyone thinks a bit, has consideration for others, as is prepared to change their plans if necessary - see Supine's post - but in this case all you dirty city dwellers can just fuck off and keep to your filthy plague pits.

 

[two sheds]

Having said that when the tourists turn up and don't wear masks or socially distance its no surprise there is some resentment. Especially as we have an older populace.

This ^^

Combined with a lot who came down to Cornwall were second home owners. Some of whom knew they had the virus or didn't care.

 

[Badgers]

A rural area recently...

 

[kebabking]

Fuck off.

 

[teuchter]

People showing up in a rural area without masks is just the same as people showing up on trains or in shops without masks in urban areas. It's not a thing that rural areas are unique in suffering. If anything, you are less subject to the consequences of these kinds of actions in rural areas because of things like lower dependence on public transport and lower general population density. The problem is people not caring about the effects of their choices. It's not associated with where they are from or where they are going.

 

[teuchter]

View attachment 256036View attachment 256037
Fuck off.

Assume you'd be OK with the same response when you want to make use of something in an urban area, like a hospital.

 

[kebabking]

People showing up in a rural area without masks is just the same as people showing up on trains or in shops without masks in urban areas. It's not a thing that rural areas are unique in suffering. If anything, you are less subject to the consequences of these kinds of actions in rural areas because of things like lower dependence on public transport and lower general population density. The problem is people not caring about the effects of their choices. It's not associated with where they are from or where they are going.

Are you suggesting there's a big influx of country folk going into South London and not wearing masks?

You are correct in that because the disease has less prevalence in rural areas than cities, it matters marginally less if X random person who lives there walks into a shop without a mask, it's also true that if a person from an area - a city for example - goes to a rural area and doesn't wear a mask when visiting a shop it matters far more than the reverse.

 

[trashpony]

Generally I welcome tourists. When the toilets and the shops are shut so they're shitting in front gardens and not benefiting the local economy in any way, not so much.

I'm hoping that the end of lockdown coinciding with the weather getting warmer will mean less piss and shit and greater benefit to the community.

 

[teuchter]

Are you suggesting there's a big influx of country folk going into South London and not wearing masks?

You are correct in that because the disease has less prevalence in rural areas than cities, it matters marginally less if X random person who lives there walks into a shop without a mask, it's also true that if a person from an area - a city for example - goes to a rural area and doesn't wear a mask when visiting a shop it matters far more than the reverse.

I'm saying that there will come a point where, in order to share the resources the country has more equally, those in areas which have not seen high levels of infection will have to accept an increase in the relative level of risk they experience.

This is like me, one of the lucky people who can mostly work from home and reduce my exposure significantly, going to the local supermarket and accepting that there's a risk in there resulting from it also being used by people who have jobs where they are much more exposed to the virus. The supermarket is a resource we share, and I'm not going to start demanding that people like bus drivers or health workers only get to use it between certain times, so that I can only go in there when the only other customers are lucky people like me.

In other words, this situation where those in lower-exposure circumstances mix with those in higher exposure circumstances in order to share resources is not unique to the scenario of visitors to rural areas. It's something that has to happen unless we accept the idea of segregating populations in order to preserve the good fortune of those less exposed to the virus. It's also the case that there are mitigations like mask-wearing, that apply in either scenario. The rural dweller who sees the urban visitor in the shop without a mask is in the same position as an urban dweller who sees another urban dweller, one who is obviously in a high-exposure occupation, in their local shop without a mask. The problem is the willingness to take part in mitigating measures, not the predetermined circumstances of that person.

 

[teuchter]

Generally I welcome tourists. When the toilets and the shops are shut so they're shitting in front gardens and not benefiting the local economy in any way, not so much.

The same kind of problems occur in urban areas. But are harder for people to avoid. If the park is the only place you can go, and the park is full of rubbish and/or crowded with people behaving in a way that you feel is risky to you, then your option is to hide at home.

Those who live in places with more space, may see some of these unpleasant consequences in their immediate neighbourhood, but generally have some options to go elsewhere.

 

[kebabking]

The same kind of problems occur in urban areas. But are harder for people to avoid. If the park is the only place you can go, and the park is full of rubbish and/or crowded with people behaving in a way that you feel is risky to you, then your option is to hide at home.

Those who live in places with more space, may see some of these unpleasant consequences in their immediate neighbourhood, but generally have some options to go elsewhere.

Perhaps they should take a leaf out of your own (copious) advice when it comes to the problems of car free rural living - live somewhere else?

This is, imv, a serious subject that should be discussed, but I'm afraid that your own absolute lack of empathy towards anyone who lives in circumstances not exactly matching your own makes it impossible on any thread started by you.

(I'm sat on the grass in an 8,000 acre forest, with miles of countryside in every direction, in t-shirt and shorts - I've seen 3 people in the last 3 hours of walking here - and I do this pretty much every day.

How was your mocha-latte with an extra shot?)

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

If there were any actual proposals to stop people travelling to the country beyond the general lockdown then this might have some traction. Whether it's OK for some people in those areas to have a bit of a grumble isn't so interesting.

 

[teuchter]

Perhaps they should take a leaf out of your own (copious) advice when it comes to the problems of car free rural living - live somewhere else?

Who should live somewhere else, and why?

 

[Pickman's model]

Who should live somewhere else, and why?

You should because where you are has suffered enough

 

[Saul Goodman]

Who should live somewhere else, and why?

You should. Oh, wait, you do!

 

[Saul Goodman]

In other words, this situation where those in lower-exposure circumstances mix with those in higher exposure circumstances in order to share resources is not unique to the scenario of visitors to rural areas. It's something that has to happen unless we accept the idea of segregating populations in order to preserve the good fortune of those less exposed to the virus.

I'm all for that. Or a mandatory 2 week quarantine.