| Comment | The problem stems back to the government liking 'nudge' over explicit rules, and repeatedly using the term 'non-essential'. This is why we had folk still going into infectious workplaces for completely unnecessary jobs, and why we now have real/internet police making their own definitions for it when it comes to leaving the home.
The government needs to ditch that term completely and make it absolutely clear what is and is not allowed, and to take into account the impact on vulnerable people (including those suffering from domestic abuse and mental health) when they're doing so.
If, as with the evidence you've linked, the intent is to get 75% (or whatever) of people obeying the rules, then it's not going to be very long before some of those 75% look at what the other 25% are doing and then questioning it all. And then we have to enter the properly draconian lockdown, because consent has been lost. |
|---|