Don’t shut the parks, Boris — give us rules
There are ways to keep vital public spaces open safely
The magnolias and the cherry blossom are coming out, the sky suddenly seems bluer than before, and around London over the weekend families and individuals went out to put their faces in the sun and feel a little moment of joy.
Despite the bizarre drumbeat of demands in the media for maximal shutdown, and the almost gleeful finger-pointing of people’s transgressions over the weekend, the prime minister’s reluctance to shut down the parks and open spaces is wise. If this crisis is going to go on throughout spring and into summer, access to the great outdoors might just make life bearable — a not inconsiderable factor for a government to take into account.
Like what you’re reading? Get the free UnHerd daily email
Already registered? Sign in
I was out in a London park yesterday, and mostly people were doing their best. Occasionally it was tricky on a narrow path, but with a bit of help it would have been very possible to observe the 2m social distancing guidance throughout.
Instead of taking the easy option of shutting them down, the government should make it the responsibility of every market, park, and public space to implement measures that make social distancing easy to observe. Rather like restaurants having to observe hygiene standards, it can be up to each individual venue, with the penalty of being closed down if they are shown to be inadequate.
So parks might introduce booking time slots to avoid overcrowding; they might change their paths and walkways into a one-way route and paint 2m distancing marks on the paths, like for cars on a motorway; they might introduce stewards to help police it. If they need to temporarily shut while this is worked out, then fair enough.
What we need are rules, clearly spelled out, that everyone can understand. The English like rules — they protect the places you cherish, and end up liberating because they tell you what you can do as well as what you can’t.
With this approach, the National Trust, which took the sad decision yesterday to close all its gardens and parks, could gradually reopen them once they are confident they have systems in place. This will involve thinking of new ways to manage queues (perhaps repurposing a car park and painting a winding path on the tarmac with guidelines for appropriate intervals, and requiring disposable gloves to be worn if using any facilities).
With suitable systems in place, families could be encouraged to go camping, cycling, and hiking in nearby wilderness areas, avoiding any external contact. Sports facilities like golf and tennis should be permitted to remain open, with new practices for ensuring social distancing and proper hygiene.
These systems are not beyond the wit of humankind to devise, and they will have the effect of making this grisly spring — possibly summer — survivable and compliance with social distancing only better. Avoiding unnecessary deaths is rightly the priority of the government, but finding ways to make life worth living should be right up there alongside.
We’ve already got a rule – keep 2m apart – what’s difficult about that? It’s just the selfishness shown by what seems to be a large section of the public that refuse to think of others. A sad reflection on what is now quite a common attitude. Better advice in the article by Meghan Murphy today.
I agree with Steven Roberts posting earlier. The rule is clear. 6 foot apart or 6 foot under. If the government wants to amend the rule to 3 metres, do so. It isn’t hard to maintain that separation. So do it.
Absolutely keep the parks open. This New Authoritarianism is ugly and deeply depressing. “Look, that person clearly didn’t measure his distance! Killer! Murderer! Don’t you know what two metres is! Lock him up!” Tolerance seems to have evaporated overnight. It also amazes me how willing we are to give up rights over which wars have been fought and millions of lives lost. Where will it end? Currently around 30,000 people die from pneumonia every year. So what figure will enable us to walk side by side with a loved one? What will be an acceptable risk? Does it have to be below 50k? Do we have to see levels of Covid-19 falling off? Do we need to reach 80% immunity? If so, how will that be determined? At what point will the government decide it’s okay to visit elderly relatives, or care homes? Or for kids to go back to school? Or to enjoy a pint with an old pal? Only when we have a vaccine? Only when we’re completely broke? Only when people are rioting? Nobody knows. The government don’t know. And you can be damn sure the epidemiologists will be advising caution: like climate scientists, caution is their job. Our elected politicians are meant to defend liberty but they’re all so scared, none will. Meanwhile the climate of fear will be stirred up at every opportunity by a media led by petulant tyrants like Piers Morgan who peddle sensation. Autocratic politicians like Michael Gove and Macron will relish keeping us in our place, supported by sanctimonious middle class busy bodies. Philosophical thinking and perspective are needed more than ever amidst this outbreak of paranoia. Sadly, Roger Scruton took perspective with him.
Join the discussion
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.Subscribe