So I completely understand the purpose of the regional lockdowns. It makes total sense. If infections are increasing, then absolutely steps need to be taken to minimise them. But what I can’t understand is why the opposite can’t be happening as well. I’m concerned about the potential for school closures and failing businesses and rising unemployment in places where Covid quite frankly isn’t a huge threat.
In my town, we have a population of approx 140-150k. In July we had a total of 15 confirmed cases. Just 15. Across the entire month. In the past week, there were three days with one case. The rest were zero. The week before, we had seven days in a row with 0 cases.
Therefore in areas which are low spread why can things not be unlocked a little bit more? For example the measure announced yesterday - there are number of businesses that have lost considerable money this weekend due to loss of income. Salons were frantically trying to add in new appointments today as literally every appointment booked was basically eyebrow appointments. Why should these businesses be so badly affected? Also the idea that something could stop schools reopening - if we are low (and we have consistently been low since March) then surely there must be a way to enable these schools to stay open because it is safe.
Surely at this point for the good of the economy we need to protect as much as we can and not take straight-forward blanket approaches to the whole of the country? I’m really struggling to understand it all now tbh. Should local authorities have more ability to decide what is and isn’t safe in their areas? After all, they know what the reality is rather than BJ and his cronies