Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
I don't think they should have eased the lockdown at all. However, this is a seperate point - and because observably trains were busy doesn't mean that the majority of the workforce are now going out to work.
It doesn't make them morons, but some journalists are clearly acting dim and I'm not sure why.
Each individual activity you describe here is low risk. The total number of infections resulting from a million low risk events and a hundred million low risk events varies drastically.
The Government management of the epidemic at this point doesn't care about your personal risk of infection. It cares about whether we get six thousand new infections tomorrow or seven thousand. If the R number goes up or down. That's the risk factor.
Then there's adherence to the rules. If you meet a family member at the park and it starts to rain you go home. If you meet in the garden eventually a percentage of people decide it's alright to sit in the kitchen two metres apart. Still a low risk event, but higher than being in the open air. It's a slippery slope.
The lines have to be arbitrarily drawn somewhere.
|
I'm with you, i think the lockdown should have been extended.
re adherence to the rules, you meet in the park, it starts to rain, you sit in the bandstand or a covered shelter together potentially not 2m apart, Or, you meet in the park and distance perhaps after a couple of times you decide it's ok to sit together and have a picnic.
A garbled message by it's very nature means that the lines haven't been drawn, hence, this is why so many people are questioning.
People need to be told the logic behind the governments decisions.