Concerned release from lockdown was premature
I have to say I am not at all comfortable with not extending the shelter-in-place measures beyond May 2. I understand that the Government is operating under direction of health “experts”, but I believe it was merely three weeks ago, if that, where this same government was rightly saying that no one is an expert when it comes to Covid-19.
With all due respect, I don't trust that experts have so quickly emerged. Not too long ago the questions far exceeded the answers.
Although a lot has been learnt in recent days and weeks, we don't want to make the crucial error of assuming we now have all the answers that we need.
The two-week incubation period is all fine and dandy, but I should think we would be keen to err on the side of caution, going above and beyond that which we think is needed.
With all of the talk in the past few weeks — from the Premier himself, no less — about exercising an abundance of caution and not wanting to undo all the work that the shelter-in-place accomplishes, I would have thought for sure we would attach a meaningful and significant “buffer period” to the end of the recommended incubation period.
What harm could there be in installing a cushion of defence, so to speak?
Although assurances have been given that we will not repeat the mistakes of other nations, I still feel we are too hastily heading towards populating our streets, parks, beaches and the like.
No offence meant, but the Premier needs to be very careful about presuming Bermudians are any smarter than communities in the United States or elsewhere when it comes to our behaviour.
I earnestly feel that when it is thought to be time to permit more business activity and invite more public and social engagement, we make the decision to add our own buffer period, recommended or not, to better protect ourselves.
People often say a little more sanitiser cannot hurt. Well, a little bit more time inside can certainly help more than it hurts. As the adage goes: Better to be safe than sorry.