Social contact not limited to a small bubble

A better approach in my view would be to treat the population as Adults in regards to socialising.

It is more humane to ask people to be sensible with their social activities, limit these to a small group of friends and family and keep good records of any visits. The current proposal of giving a list of names and being restricted to that list of names is detrimental to mental health and will break families apart.

This will ensure if someone did show symptoms they would have information readily available to pass to to potentially infected people.

Why the contribution is important

Social contact is important to everyone’s mental health especially those that live alone.

by Garywall8787 on May 05, 2020 at 01:27PM

Current Rating

Average rating: 4.3
Based on: 24 votes

Comments

  • Posted by gmb May 05, 2020 at 13:56

    Absolutely - trying to restrict this to a very specific list will be highly divisive, and lead to many of those already most isolated becoming even more so (depending on demographic of social circles, family, geography - eg having obligation to include family in bubble, but then not able to include friends who live closer and can be more easily seen).

    A more humane approach is definitely needed (at the very least, close family should be automatically allowed, and have no impact on the rest of the "list" for any bubble of friends).

  • Posted by Thalie May 05, 2020 at 13:57

    As long as it is safe to do so, I believe this to be the best idea to social restrictions. Very few people really have tens and tens of friends they cannot be apart from, however, limiting the bubbles to numbers/households will tear families and friend groups apart, while still leaving a lot of people who are single or live alone isolated. Large parties and gatherings can still be very risky, however, going for a picnic with a friend one week and then seeing another next week would massively improve people's mental health and perception of freedom while still keeping safe.

  • Posted by mauricehowieson May 05, 2020 at 13:59

    IF TWO ADULTS POSSIBLY WITH KIDS WHO HAVE SHOWN NO SIGNS AND BEEN ON LOCKDOWN COULD MEET UP WITH A PERSON OR SIMILAR GROUP, NOT TRAVELING BY PUBLIC TRANSPORT. THIS WOULD PROVIDE INTERACTION AND HELP WITH LONELINESS WITHN MINIMAL RISK

  • Posted by Scotelka May 05, 2020 at 15:46

    I don't believe this is the right approach, only when it is perfectly safe to do so. I understand people's need for socialising, however my point of view is different. The sooner we reduce the spread the sooner people will be able to go back to normal. Allowing groups of people to mix (I don't think "keeping a record" - on a sheet of paper? - is a proper way of dealing with this) will only extend the need for lockdown. If we do this right we will only have 1 lockdown. If we spring back to our old ways, going out with friends and meeting family, we will have multiple lockdowns and greater frustrations. And I can definitely understand missing loved ones, I personally won't be able to see my family who are spread around the world (Italy, Sweden, Poland and England, only small part of my family are in Scotland) for God knows how long. Years perhaps? So I feel your pain. But I would not dare to risk their lifes, even if they lived here, and go to visit them. I'm much happier knowing they stay safe and isolated for now.

  • Posted by Garywall8787 May 05, 2020 at 16:36

    Appreciate your opinion Scotelka but I fully disagree some people are on their own and suicides may occur by cutting all social contacts

  • Posted by Lynnw5500 May 05, 2020 at 22:53

    This makes more sense than a social bubble of 10 people
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas