Stay At Home, Including Those Who Have No Home?

Those who have no home, those who must sleep on the streets, those who have been dislodged of family life or those who are alone and lonely, have a very big problem with the deadly Coronavirus.

 

by Victor Cherubim-2020-03-30

 

“Stay at home for seven (7) days even if you are mildly sick or if you have a temperature

above 37.8 degrees, or a new continuous cough.

 

Do not go to a Walk-In centre, a GP’s surgery, pharmacy or hospital.

 

You do not need to contact 111 to tell them you are staying at home.

 

Call the NHS 111 online Coronavirus service if you feel you cannot cope with your symptoms at home or your conditions get worse, or your symptoms do not get better after 7 days”

 

This is the Advice given by the Government in UK to one and all. But many have not taken it seriously and protested or have complained on “Twitter” and said it smacks of curtailing civil liberty.

 

Understandably staying at home can be a challenge especially for the elderly, for they are used to a set pattern of life, a routine as they grow old. But it can be just as much of a chore for people who look after and care for them too, who due to many restrictions, including travel or precaution, are prevented from attending to this needy assistance.

 

Even the young and able can find themselves overwhelmed by the lack of freedom of movement and cramped lifestyle at home 24/7.

 

Those who have no home, those who must sleep on the streets, those who have been dislodged of family life or those who are alone and lonely, have a very big problem with the deadly Coronavirus.

 

The Government of Britain has ordered the Police to evict all vagrants, and people who sleep on streets, to be removed and given immediate shelter and housed in appropriate accommodation to their needs. This is easily said than done, as the need of this vulnerable group of people is varied. Hygiene and prevailing medical conditions preclude easy settled lifestyle.

 

Working from home

 

With Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, a healthy 55 years old, and the Secretary of Health Matt Hancock testing positive for Coronavirus, as well as Britain’s Chief Medical Officer, Professor Chris Whitty who is also self-isolating with COVID-19 symptoms, a brand new way of not only staying at home but working from home, not envisaged a month ago has been forcibly actioned. Thanks to videoconferencing they can continue some part of their duties.

 

Lungs with clouded areas of infection

Many now going to office don’t even require heading out of their home. To some, “it sounds like heaven,” the work shy would do anything to take time off work. To most others, it is a difficult adjustment, as their usual routine has been disrupted, if not disarranged.

 

Besides, we all know that an Englishman’s home is his castle. There is further the strong sentiment expressed of the hard-earned rights and liberties that the English have been accustomed to over decades, if not centuries. The coronavirus has uprooted custom and tradition. There is a hidden and unspoken clamour against this situation which is witnessed when people are forced “to keep a social distance” in queues whilst shopping.

 

A new code of restriction on civil liberties

 

Suddenly, Liberty, the Human and Civil Liberties UK Group has stated the Government’s new Coronavirus Act hastily passed by Parliament this week without a division, a travesty, “without doubt the biggest restriction on individual and collective freedoms in a generation”. It complains what people may not realise which is, the extent of its powers and how long they can be in place as the law of the land. With the Law Courts not functioning as normal, this is an added curtailment.

 

They argue it gives authorities new powers to detain anyone they believe could be infected, or rather suspect of infection. It also removes vital safeguards in care standards, leaving many people who are already at risk, such as the disabled people at further risk, not only of poor care but also of potentially inhuman treatment due to severe restrictions imposed on Care Homes. No wonder, many in Care Homes up and down the country, have been the most vulnerable during this crisis.

 

A mother has bitterly mourned that the ICU bed occupied by her departed son was poste haste offered to another ill occupant at a London University Hospital, without sensitivity of her grief.

 

Added to this, the Duchess of Cornwall has warned of a greater risk of domestic abuse in the home due to the current lockdown.

 

There was also the case of Cabinet Secretary, Michael Gove who had to withdraw his statement not allowing access of children under the age of 18, to their separated or divorced parents.

 

Necessary safeguards at a time of crisis

 

With 558,905 global cases of coronavirus and 25,336 deaths globally, human sensitivities are hardly observed. While change is necessary and some of the measures outlined in the British law and observed stringently by many nations around the world, are imperative and sensible. There is little discretion between what is sensitive and what is sensible.

 

The Bunker Mentality

 

We all are transported to a “bunker mentality,” like the situation prevailing during World Wars. We may feel the situation today is overbearing and if left unchecked could create more problems than they expect to solve at present.

 

The breadth of any legislation in Britain is in some sense extreme. It runs to more than 300 pages including some spectacular restrictions, including powers to rearrange or cancel elections.

 

We in Sri Lanka, contrary to expectation, did exactly that and postponed our General Election with common sense, without any law. Our Prime Minister, Mahinda Rajapaksa, convened a cross party group of Parliamentarians recently and took appropriate steps as necessary.

 

Of course, the British understandably have a long tradition of civil liberties, are able and want to plan decades ahead. They rightly want to save lives, so do we in Sri Lanka, but what our Buddhist way of life has given us is a breadth of vision instead of a “bunker mentality.”