When can Victorians expect to go fishing again?

[purple5ive]

Agree with what you say Ango. Hard to believe that so many support a ban on fishing......on a fishing forum. Maybe we really do deserve the government we have in Victoria. This ban has no basis in science or medicine as far as the pandemic goes.

Im pretty shocked and disappointed that after so many articles, threads and discussion on here about the very topic that some members mindsets are still unchanged about the subject

Sook down..
What I take from this, is that a lot of fishermen r sooks...dissapointing

you will find that the majority of the members here agree to the temporary ban, a little bit of a sacrifice for the thing you love is never a bad thing!

[SnapperRapper]

Agree with what you say Ango. Hard to believe that so many support a ban on fishing......on a fishing forum. Maybe we really do deserve the government we have in Victoria. This ban has no basis in science or medicine as far as the pandemic goes.

Lol, literally can make this stuff up. when there is overwhelming evidence out there as to which countried have and have not done well, we have this trump supporter. Carry on, I'm gonna invest in Tin mining.

I'm talking about the fishing bans.

How many times do you need to be proven statistically wrong before you stop making a fool of yourself. You've already stated you dont' care how many people die. What piece of evidence do you need to see to change your mind?

Ah... good ole comrade Stumpjumper! The only way to keep him quiet and under wraps for awhile is to insist that he provides evidence or apologise to people with intellectual disabilities who he calls 'Retards'. He goes missing for a bit, but then reappears when he thinks its OK to spruik more rubbish. Increasingly people are seeing him and his weird views as a bit of a joke.

[4liters]

[piscateur]

As far as the fishing ban, while I know I can go fishing without travelling and without going near anyone else, the same can not be said about the whole state. The main reason for the ban on a number of recreational activities is that you have to police the rules So for examle if we say you can go fishing with a member of your household, within 50km of your house, but not an a crowded pier etc etc Then you have to send out the police to enforce it multiply that with golf, tennis and a whole bunch of other recreational activities that people will whinge about and it gets all too complicated.
We are just over one month since this started. A month ago it would have been a huge task for the people who were advising and making the rules. This gov decided on the KISS principle.

Whilst what you say is 100% correct and would take the commonsense of a child to fugre out. We have this guy

I'm talking about the fishing bans.

Who required a special policy just for him to suit his "fishing needs. ahd we would have to a=have another special one for Ango, and onother for whoever out there that would have a specific special circumstance where thier actual activity would incur minimal social interraction, except for when they have to fill up, buy bait, use public amenities liek toilets fish cleaning facilities. then muiltply this by the unlimited other leisure activities and their own "special needs" people. we would still be writing policies and watching this Hoax virus spread.

[Stumpjumper]

How many times do you need to be proven statistically wrong before you stop making a fool of yourself. You've already stated you dont' care how many people die. What piece of evidence do you need to see to change your mind?
[/quote]
You really need to read what I wrote. What evidence do you have that going for a quiet fish down the river away from people is going to kill thousands......or even one.

[4liters]

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/coro ... ?r=US&IR=T


I guess this kind of illustrates my feelings on the lockdowns. If you miscalculate and a bunch of people die as a result you can't just go back to your last save and have another go, you can't just wave a magic wand and bring them back to life. They're dead and they'll stay that way.

The same applies to the potentially lifelong complications that survivors are facing, lung scarring, kidney damage etc.

Sweden made a call to impose fairly limited restrictions and now maybe they're realising it wasn't the best move. Now the virus is established there and a huge number of people are infected they would need an extremely tight lockdown (like the lvl 4 lockdown in NZ) to eliminate it in a reasonable timeframe. They did so on the theory was that this would avoid some damage to the economy and save a bunch of jobs, but they're still facing a 7% decline in GDP and 11% unemployment (double the current figure).

[Bugatti]

What about the rights of the people who don't want to catch this virus?

Mike, how is your situation going with (I think it was) with your Daughter and Son in-law? A few of us have gone through similar (my situation had a good outcome) and it's not a nice feeling. Puts everything into perspective of what is really important.

Regards, Bill

[4liters]

How many times do you need to be proven statistically wrong before you stop making a fool of yourself. You've already stated you dont' care how many people die. What piece of evidence do you need to see to change your mind?

You really need to read what I wrote. What evidence do you have that going for a quiet fish down the river away from people is going to kill thousands......or even one.
[/quote]

It wouldn't, if it was a quiet fish by yourself.

But if you allow that you'll also be allowing people to driving all over the state to their favourite fishing spot every weekend, standing shoulder to shoulder on piers and generally taking the ****. You get more trips to the shops, more trips to buy fuel and so on, the exact thing they're trying to avoid. The whole point of the lockdown was to reduce travel as much as humanly possible so a localised infection would stay that way and not get spread to every petrol station toilet between Melbourne and Portland because the barrels are on.

[Bugatti]

I just hope people don't get too complacent. Every outbreak (allowing cruise ships to disembark aside) started from a handful of infected people.

Adelaide Airport Cluster
Minimum of 34 COVID-19 cases, 750 staff quarantined and who knows how many more in the community

Started by ONE person

Cedar Meats Outbreak
Minimum of 62 COVID-19 cases, and all the other issues, quarantined staff, people, Businuss shut down etc etc

Most likely from ONE person

[Stumpjumper]

How many times do you need to be proven statistically wrong before you stop making a fool of yourself. You've already stated you dont' care how many people die. What piece of evidence do you need to see to change your mind?

You really need to read what I wrote. What evidence do you have that going for a quiet fish down the river away from people is going to kill thousands......or even one.

It wouldn't, if it was a quiet fish by yourself.

But if you allow that you'll also be allowing people to driving all over the state to their favourite fishing spot every weekend, standing shoulder to shoulder on piers and generally taking the ****. You get more trips to the shops, more trips to buy fuel and so on, the exact thing they're trying to avoid. The whole point of the lockdown was to reduce travel as much as humanly possible so a localised infection would stay that way and not get spread to every petrol station toilet between Melbourne and Portland because the barrels are on.
[/quote]
All that applies to surfing for example.....something the Vic govt flipped on and allows, same with kayaking. And of course all that doesn't seem to have had any negative outcomes in other states either, where fishing and hunting is allowed. Just requires you practice physical distancing and stay reasonably local.