The problem is that the virus isn't actually 'deadly' to everyone. In fact the vast majority of people really have nothing to worry about in the grand scheme of things. And that makes it really difficult to reach everyone in terms of them taking responsibility for their own bio-security. In terms of measures, it's the many who have to try and protect the few. Nothing wrong with that from a moral standpoint; but it does have a very high price tag. So far despite the measures we've seen over 32,000 people lose their lives to it and really the only comfort we have is knowing that it could probably have been a lot higher. The trick now is to make sure that it doesn't come back and claim those additional lives whilst at the same time trying to reward those who have experienced a different type of loss.
So, in terms of adding, removing and changing measures, we have to ask 'what does this do to affect the potential spread of the virus?' And if the answer is well, nothing, then why are we doing it?
So I can meet you in the park as long as we stay more then 2m apart. Cool, that has a clear benefit. But, me and my missus can't meet you and your missus even if we stay more then 2m apart. Does that make any difference at all to the potential spread? Of course not. Grandad can go and pick one child up from school, but not two. What? Granny has to pick one up and Grandad the other. But both kids live together and so do Granny and Grandad? It's nuts.
What distance beyond 2m constitutes a meeting? Over the garden fence? Across the road? As I posted yesterday, the approach to rules and guidance is really poor and is just typing people up in knots.
Watching tv this morning, I sensed that some of this was beginning to dawn upon the "management" as suddenly we've got them saying, look, people just need to use their common sense....Ahh, so interpretation an application is up to me then?
The HSE have been dragged into this and now people are trying to use Health and Safety (As in the H&S@W etc Act 74) as a lever. Well good luck with that, because its going to be pretty much unenforceable other than cases where an employer has flagrantly flouted any common good practice whatsoever. The issue with Covid is that the reaction to it is utterly individual and unless you can do a biological analysis of every employee's DNA then how can you possibly have measures that meet every single need unless you put every employee in a chemical suit.
There are people saying they don't want to go to work because it's not 'safe; but will happily go to the shops. The test in relation to safety is one that requires employers to take reasonably practicable steps. You cannot be absolutely safe. Zero risk isn't achievable in a situation like a pandemic. They're now talking about doing risk assessments. The reality is that you can't - not in the sense required under UK legislation. It doesn't work due to the number of variables and unknowns. And at the end of the day, you're as likely to catch it from your kids or off a door handle in the park toilets. Given that you couldn't prove where a person contracted it, a case would be hard to prove and of course it would have to result in significant harm - which as we know, most people don't suffer. So really, in my view the whole H&S thing is a fairly hollow deterrent. Just don't tell anyone I said so. But safe to say that yesterday an ex Lord Chief Justice agreed.
I dug mine 2m deep so someone else can back fill 
