Open Everything and let People Decide

Freedom.

Why the contribution is important

Freedom. Use it or lose it.

by rms on May 06, 2020 at 08:41AM

Current Rating

Average rating: 2.5
Based on: 63 votes

Comments

  • Posted by DeborahC May 06, 2020 at 09:18

    I am dead against this idea. It sends an unclear message and living in a shielding household I feel this would put my family at risk, pressure on us to return to normal and put my husbands life at risk.

  • Posted by Jemmamills May 06, 2020 at 09:21

    This would inevitably lead to a second spike. Phased opening is the only way to prevent this.

  • Posted by OMG May 06, 2020 at 09:21

    Absolutely not.

  • Posted by kezzy08 May 06, 2020 at 09:22

    Bad Bad Idea, this needs to be managed by experts not eejits

  • Posted by Pissedoffmum May 06, 2020 at 09:24

    Yes definitely plus wear masks and social distancing

  • Posted by MSLH May 06, 2020 at 09:45

    Definitely a bad idea. Some people can’t be relied upon to act sensibly even during lockdown. I don’t think they should be given the freedom to put other people’s health at risk!

  • Posted by stewartma May 06, 2020 at 10:02

    Definitely no dangerous idea, at present some people do not abide by the current lockdown.

  • Posted by Bee May 06, 2020 at 10:03

    Unfortunately not, while most people would be sensible, the minority would pose too great a risk, and with an infection this severe and contagious we simply can’t allow that. Even in current situation too many people still casually wandering too close.

  • Posted by lindyloo May 06, 2020 at 10:04

    Treat us as adults and let us decide. This virus is going to be around forever. The infection and death rates are similar to a bad flu outbreak, yet we've never had a lockdown before. If people want to lock themselves away let them. If the rest of us want to have some sort of quality of life then let us visit family, get a haircut, have a coffee with friends. The government and media have scared everyone witless with this.

  • Posted by Chicken May 06, 2020 at 11:03

    Without government authority to lockdown, people cannot realistically choose to lockdown due to financial implication. Lockdown & social distancing should remain and be more thoroughly enforced. People ARE meeting between households and seem to think 2ft is 2m.

  • Posted by dantelopez May 06, 2020 at 11:09

    Based on the Swedish model, this could work if people were trusted to make responsible decisions. This would rely on those who are symptomatic being honest and staying at home. This is particularly prudent as mental health is a concern. An alternative, however, is that bubble groups or small social gatherings limited to 2 or 3 people should be allowed as soon as possible. Minimal social interaction such as this will motivate people and help to maintain morale, good mental health etc. Another issue is partners living separately. For many who would (before lockdown) see partners daily or regularly, being apart like this will be causing huge issues - even some of the 'strongest' relationships may be weakening if there isn't a way forward or a way to allow people to at least have the choice to see their partner soon. It has been over six weeks and if this continues there will be lasting mental health issues as a result of this. Relationships that are irreparably damaged may result in a high number of relationships ending, divorces etc and that added mental stress at this time is unnecessary and dangerous. Relationship breakdown is a leading cause of suicide in Scotland (https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/a-to-z/s/suicide) and unless action is taken, there is a risk of a 'Mental Health Pandemic' looming on the horizon. Even for those not in relationships, the ability to visit a friend and talk in person would boost morale and mental wellbeing considerably.

  • Posted by noeldarlow May 06, 2020 at 11:56

    Unfortunately people cannot choose whether they become infected or not. The issue here is not freedom it's epidemiology.

    Infection depends on the amount of contact we have with other people.

    * exposure to respiratory droplets (created by coughing, sneezing, or simply talking)

    * touching shared public surfaces (door handles, park benches, etc)

    If you do anything which exposes you to either of these transmissions modes, you will put yourself at risk and you will put other people at risk.

  • Posted by HTML May 06, 2020 at 12:23

    Let me be realistic here, no its not going to work. Open Everything and let People Decide....so you are essentially saying that if you are a carrier and *if* you don't give a damn about it because you know you will survive it, you can decide someone else mother, father, aunt, uncle, grand parents, great grand parents ...fate? oh they shouldn't be going out if they are vulnerable right? but what if they need to get medicine/supplies and you infect the person working - its not your fault because you don't see it happening, you don't know if it was you...it can't be you right? Please to all Scottish people out there, think of the people who have to wake up everyday and literally go into a battle zone, fighting an enemy they cannot see or kill( yet) and think of what they are mentally going through especially the doctors and nurses who are watching people pass away.

    Its not about you, you , you , you...you. Its all of us that are in it together.

    Some people do not believe this is real ...like treating it as a normal flu. If it was "normal" the whole world won't be making a fuss about it. Please educate yourself and do some reading in your ample time at home.

  • Posted by Stephenaitken123 May 06, 2020 at 12:40

    Our disproportionate UK response has catered for the minority, but we should have legislated for the majority. Lift the lockdown and let those who wish to do so to self isolate.

  • Posted by BeccaN May 06, 2020 at 19:21

    People making this kind of argument aren't only demanding that they be able to decide the risk for themselves, they're demanding that people like hairdressers and baristas go back to work to serve them. Many of whom would lose their jobs, or face serious reprecussions if they wanted to choose to stay inside (if their employer is open, they will want them to work, and they will be harder to get things like sick or furlough pay). Its stupid and selfish to demand everything reopens immediately to serve your whims. Especially if the best reasoning you can come up with is "freedom"

  • Posted by John1911 May 06, 2020 at 19:48

    There's plenty of eminent scientists saying our approach is wrong because it simply slows the progress of the disease down, prolonging the misery for the vast majority of people. Furthermore, those scientists have suggested the eventual toll will be largely the same regardless.

    For those wanting to keep us in some lockdown indefinitely, waiting for the advent of a potential, but not guaranteed vaccine, it's simply not sustainable from a health and economic perspective; what right do we have to condemn innumerable thousands of currently young/yet to be born folk to an early death in the future because of the crippling poverty a large portion of the population are heading towards?

    On a positive note, now that we know more about the typical person seriously affected by this illness, a more targeted approach to lockdown would be sensible, sheltering all those who would be most at risk, and getting the herd immunity throughout the general population that would see off this round of the epidemic in short order. That naturally has logistical problems, but given that we're throwing the economy under the bus at present, anything that gets it going again more rapidly should be considered.

  • Posted by ZoeK May 06, 2020 at 21:30

    This virus will NOT just disappear. 
    We must learn to live with it.
    Social interaction between loved ones must be reinstated with immediate effect. 
    Mental health and domestic/child abuse is on the extreme rise. 
    As is violence in communities.
    We must think what is best for us and our own. 
    NO ONE is in control of anothers life. 
    We can NOT be kept as virtual prisoners no more.
    Restore our freedom!

  • Posted by Mummykins May 07, 2020 at 00:53

    Goodness, people are dying everyday from this virus - restore your freedom but be prepared to accept the consequences

  • Posted by irene108 May 07, 2020 at 11:44

    Absolutely disastrous idea.

  • Posted by JoysieJ May 07, 2020 at 19:51

    I agree with this idea. Sweden has done it (with some modifications) and it has worked well. People need to be able to live their life and have their freedom.

  • Posted by Scotland_is_flatlining May 10, 2020 at 12:42

    "Businesses will need to change the way they work, requiring them to operate under strict safe working guidance."

    Government can't legislate for this. Higher risk inter-personal engagement by businesses requires appropriate mitigation but it is unrealistic and inappropriate to maintain a default regime of business closure. That is the wrong mind-set and Scottish Governement should seek to be supportive in its guidance and trust businesses and their customers and staff to adapt.

    The economy needs to re-start and if that means hazmat suits being worn in some environments, the government should encourage this rather than exclude the possibility and declare these businesses closed.

  • Posted by Scotland_is_flatlining May 10, 2020 at 12:45

    People need to be able to come out their homes and build confidence that they can protect themselves from the risks through mitigation rather than blanket-avoidance.

  • Posted by Izzywizz May 10, 2020 at 17:43

    Not sure about this. The small minority who are not concerned about Covid 19 could pass it around everyone else. Those more concerned about others would be stuck at home at a great disadvantage.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas

Idea topics