The feeling I get is that people are almost evenly divided between those who are fearful and want to be locked down and those who are sick of lockdowns and economic privation and want to return to life. Among those wanting to be locked down, there's a dangerous subset with the

2. "if I must be locked down, then so must you" attitude. This is illogical, here's why: if you are at risk need to remain in your house and avoid human contact then the government should assist you to do this. This is part of the "social contract" of living in a polite society.

3. But the counterveiling point is not true - those who are not at risk do not need to be locked down to save those who are at risk. It is not something the economy can afford and there is no surety that any vaccine will be timely or effective. Instead of treating medicos,

4. cashiers and other staff as your serfs, accept that not all people want to live in fear - some just want to go back to their lives. BOTH should be accommodated and surely, both could be. We know the risk profiles, we know how it spreads. ACT has had kids playing AFL for a

5. month and still no community transmission - 0 cases. We can't wait for a vaccine as a panacea. To put it in proportion - AIDS is a RNA virus and it's been subject to research since the 1980s, so I wouldn't hold my breath and wait for a vaccine.