Safety/Welfare Balance

Coming into winter we need to consider the restrictions in place especially around families. For example if my single sibling choses our parents as their extended household I am (also single household) then not allowed to have either of them as mine. This means I can only see my family if I can afford to visit a pub/cafe/restaurant with them. Many people can't do this so either break the rules to visit or take to the shops as a means of socialising. I cannot tell you how many groups of 3/4 households, sometimes adults, sometimes groups of teens coming into my store purely to browse and have a chat because they are bored or lonely. They touch things and spend up to half hour just browsing with no intention of buying purely so they can spend time with friends and loved ones. Are we saying this is safer than just allowing them to visit their homes? Is this safer for the staff that have to interact with them and products they touch? I do not understand why it is safe for me to serve 200-300 people per day who do not abide by 2 households or wear masks but cannot go and see my parents and sibling unless I wish to pay for a service.

Why the contribution is important

We are excluding poorer families wellbeing. Of course the economy has to keep going but we are now at a stage that you can only see your loved ones if you have money to do it. You are then also forcing people to mingle with more people than maybe they want to in a public setting. To see 1 friend or family member I have to go to a restaurant, share a bathroom, be served by a stranger. Measures may be in place but it is still more interaction than just 1 person coming to my home.

by watg on October 06, 2020 at 07:39AM

Current Rating

Average rating: 3.0
Based on: 1 vote