Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
While I agree the message was garbled Nomadking has a point.
Because X and Y are like for like activities doesn’t mean the Government wants everyone doing both. None of this advice eliminates risk. What it does is tries to reduce the risk by restricting the numbers and types of interactions. It’s not because Y is inherently more dangerous than X.
If we allow all like for like activities in significantly greater numbers of people are at risk.
Why can I go and meet my boss at work but not my mum at her house is doing the rounds on social media. The reality is a small number of people are returning to work gradually, as opposed to everyone going to visit their mum tonight.
The vast, vast majority of workers this morning were either key workers anyway or working from home and still doing so. The outcome of the change is negligible by comparison.
|
You must of missed the reports of packed commuter trains then this morning ? and also major traffic jams on the roads in certain areas of the country?
A large amount of the population are quite possibly anxious, scared or nervous. what was needed last night was explicit clarity. It wasn't given. People are going to ask questions and quite rightly so. it doesn't make them morons.
I'm not sure how one person driving to another persons house to enter a private garden via a side entrance is a greater risk than one person from one house and another person from another house driving separately to a location such as a park or a beach ?
---------- Post added at 12:06 ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 ----------
Or, I could employ my father in law as my handyman. in which case him coming INTO the house would be perfectly acceptable providing 2m distancing is maintained.