Chance for remote communities

While often large cities have large advantages, during a pandemic they do not.

Small, remote communities have great natural protection from this problem. They should be allowed to benefit from that advantage. Communities with no known current cases should be a priority.

When testing capacity is up they could all be tested and any active cases could be properly controlled and traced. Or it may be possible to estimate the probability they have any current cases. They could then be allowed them to resume aspects of normal life with confidence (locally).

This is particularly doable for island communities. But longer term I would hope small safe areas could grow and merge into larger safe areas.

It would have to be very clear that nonessential travel into these areas was not permissable. (People could be required to show proof of address to visit shops etc.)

France appears to be doing a regional of strategy of this type.

While of course some key workers may have to cross boundaries from less safe to safer areas. It looks like the NHS may be under regular testing. Overall it will be a small number (that could be probably be tested alongside the residents). And no system is without risk entirely.

If an outbreak occurred they could rapidly return to previous restrictions.


(I am not in a small remote community. However, I can see the unreasonable length of time it could take to clear an entire country during a situation where the virus is as widespread as it is, and the unfairness of damaging communities that are at very low risk.)

Why the contribution is important

It could offer a real chance for what have been relatively neglected and deprived communities to really be at the forefront of progress. Their industry could be revitalised, modernised. This could redistribute the investment and opportunities to communities that have often missed out.

by CatK22 on May 06, 2020 at 09:45PM

Current Rating

Average rating: 3.2
Based on: 14 votes

Comments

  • Posted by BUTEMACS May 06, 2020 at 22:01

    Not a bad idea but think the priority at the moment is a lot more testing still to be done in other people before this like front line workers who I know personally who have't even been tested yet.

  • Posted by WSR May 06, 2020 at 22:07

    People need to travel in and out to be with their families.

  • Posted by Oldknees May 06, 2020 at 22:21

    As long as social distancing and hand hygiene are observed local communities should not need such special treatment- while Covid is clearly a highly transmissible virus I think there is a lot of ill informed and groundless anxiety e.g. farmers seeing any "stranger" as a potential bearer of doom.

  • Posted by Lizwren May 07, 2020 at 00:00

    If there are no cases on an island eg then I see no reason for them to be in lockdown as long as there are no new people coming or going to the island.

  • Posted by bethfife May 07, 2020 at 02:22

    Remote communities should be given exactly the same priority whilst the virus is a factor . When we get back to the "new normal", it would be good if we all made a commitment to have our holidays in the beautiful (often remote) areas of Scotland. This would go a long way to increasing the "oneness" of the population which has been so evident during recent months.

  • Posted by Eallan May 07, 2020 at 07:49

    I think we should leave lockdown at the same time. The virus can easily travel to isolated areas, viruses do not recognise boundaries nor borders.

  • Posted by John1911 May 07, 2020 at 08:36

    Oldknees is correct in this - it is social distancing and thorough hygiene that will save us all from infection. It just doesn't matter if a person who asymptomaticaly has the virus comes around, because they are very unlikely to spread it when people follow good distancing and hygiene guidelines.

    Rural communities cannot close up and prevent tourists or day-trippers visiting, because a great deal of income for rural communities depends on people coming into them and spending money. Plus, I suspect such an approach would very quickly make cities virtual prisons, where borders around them would be required to prevent movement outside, since rural communities are more likely to be clear far quicker.

  • Posted by JoanofArc May 10, 2020 at 12:36

    Lockdown should be eased quicker for areas with low/no case numbers and travel into these areas restricted to key workers. Visiting family and holidays should wait to see if it’s safe to do so. Meanwhile concentrate on test, trace and quarantine in the places with high case numbers.

  • Posted by JoeReade May 10, 2020 at 18:08

    Impractical and dangerous. Not possible to 'seal off' an area and prevent the virus arriving, particularly if this long term. Some degree of travel back and forth is needed even in the tightest lockdown, and eventually the virus WILL arrive. This plan would mean that when it arrives, it will enter a complacent population, guard down because of their isolation.
    Much better that the whole country leaves lockdown together slowly, and with thorough testing / tracing across the whole country.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas

Idea topics