STOP ABUSING THE PHRASE "STAY AT HOME"

"STOP ABUSING THE PHRASE "STAY AT HOME"!

IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND WHAT IS SOCIAL DISTANCING THEN YOU STAY AT HOME!"

o 2020 Zombie Apocalypse o

~ Imagine ~

In January: the cities and towns were filled with zombies who could turn any human being into a zombie with a mere bite. However, these zombies are human-like. So we wouldn't know who is actually a zombie and who is not unless being medically tested. So the best way to prevent yourself from being bitten is by distancing yourself from any human beings as much as possible.

In Feb: The government foresaw the possibility of Zombie Apocalypse. As such, the Government legally ordered everyone to minimize any kind of contact with one another. However, none listened because the phrase: "MINIMIZING ANY KIND OF CONTACT WITH ONE ANOTHER WHENEVER POSSIBLE" was way too difficult for people to understand. People continued to mingle around with each other resulting in more people being bitten, thus, ended being zombies themselves.

In March: The government realized the problem with its people of having a hard time understanding a 10-words-phrase. As such, the government then simplified the law to a 3-words-phrase viz. STAY AT HOME. This, people understood. Most people abided and most stayed at home. However, law worded in a simple sentence is likely to be abused (if you’ve read Animal Farm, you would know).

And in fact, most have indeed ABUSED the phrase "Stay At Home" (emphasis required).

Now:

MINIMIZING ANY KIND OF CONTACT WITH ONE ANOTHER WHENEVER POSSIBLE (also Social Distancing) vs. STAY AT HOME

What's the difference?

The problem with "Social Distancing" is most people do not understand what it means. Hence, "Stay at home" is being substituted. It's simple, sweet and easy-to-understand.

However, if "stay at home" is the law, then it is a bad law even though it is simple, sweet and easy-to-understand. It is effective only in combating the brain of the simple-minded, but definitely not the essence to prevent an outbreak. Reasons are as follows:

1. Stay at home can be exclusive of social distancing:

People can stay at home and still not practicing social distancing. For example, I can stay at home with my other 10 housemates, who potentially, one of them could be a zombie. All eleven of us could stay at home yet mingle and socializing, and we are still staying at home though being exposed to the risk of being bitten by a human-like zombie.

Yet, a person who performs activity ALONE out of the house could be said to be acting against the law even though there is NO risk at all for the person to be potentially bitten by zombies because THERE IS NO HUMAN BEING in the area or in the vicinity of the area at all! This is a prime example of practicing social distancing but not staying at home.

2. People need food to survive:

Stay at home is not a viable law because people need to eat to survive. Hence, people need to get OUT of their houses to stock up their daily or weekly needs. This is the reason why the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures within the infected local areas) regulations 2020 contains exceptions to staying at home. If "staying at home" is subjected to exceptions, then it is safe to say that the 2020 regulations is a law of "Social Distancing" and not a law of "Staying at home".

3. Stay at home deprives you your right to freedom of movement (or maybe you don't care about your right and that it's okay, but it still has the effect of preventing a person from engaging in basic activities which some people might think it is essential in life, though most "stay at home" supporters don't):

No doubt "stay at home" would deprive a person's freedom of movement. But, social distancing does not. This because, if stay at home is the law, then your movement is only confined to the 4-lines or walls of your house. Whereas, if social distancing is the law, you are not confined to a particular area, but you are only prevented from having close contact with other humans whenever possible. In fact, right to freedom of movement is a constitutional right as enshrined in the Federal Constitution which I do not think a regulation should have the effect of abrogating a person’s fundamental right. However, if such abrogation is necessary in such an emergency situation, then the right to freedom of movement must give way to such an emergency situation, but only to the extend of achieving the object intended i.e. to prevent further spreading, nothing more! In short, the means adopted must not be disproportionate to the object intended to achieve.

Yet, understandably, the two phrases, "having close contact" and "whenever possible", might be difficult to be understood by most people. Hence, "stay at home" is now being used as the purported law to restrict movement in order to fight the zombies.

Consequently, people started to misuse and abuse the term "Stay at Home" against people who leave their houses but closely practicing social distancing.

STOP ABUSING THE PHRASE "STAY AT HOME"!

IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND WHAT IS SOCIAL DISTANCING THEN STAY AT HOME! Further in response to the controversial matter concerning a Cardiologist who defied authorities to go jogging (https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2020/03/30/cardiologist-who-defied-authorities-to-go-jogging-charged-with-breaching-mc/1851614)

Who is right and who is wrong?

One is trained to engage with his logical faculty when forming a judgment despite the given standardised guidlines/order, whereas, the other is trained to obey order and guidelines made without any room for questioning.

Same concept as to the dilemma faced by the late-night driver: whether to run the red light when the road is obviously and completely empty or to obey the traffic rule by stopping for a few minutes or less for the light to turn green.

If everyone is to engage with their logical senses as did by the Doctor, most people would argue that 2 outcomes would likely to successively ensue: 1. Everyone would be out the doors and exercise at the recreation areas; and 2. People would start infecting each other.

And the above two points are definitely what the Restricting Movement Order is trying to prevent.

Can there be a leeway or an exception to such a general restriction, knowing that since most people would obey and stay at home, for them to engage in activities with reasonable care that will not result in the above 2 points though is in violation of the order?

The order is to stay at home. But is it unacceptable if I were to run alone in an empty public park?

Another example, if you're a candidate for an exam, and every candidate in Hall A is required to bring 3 books each to cover-up 3 sides of the table for the purpose of preventing cheating, but you knowing that since the chances of people obeying the order are high in Hall A, you opt not to bring any books as ordered. And just so happened when you arrived in Hall A, your guess turned out to be right in which everyone has obeyed and there's no way you can cheat because everyone has had their table covered of all 3 sides. Should the exam invigilator suspend you from the exam?

Unpopular opinion:

I think not (and I don't want to state my reasons as for now unless prompted to do so), and unless it is an absolute lockdown, then it's a different story.

Those who are in violation of the Order are not those who leave their house to engage in basic and essential activities. But are those who engage in crowd gathering and etc. Just because you think exercise is not necessary or essential in life, doesn't mean that a Dr. who is well-aware of the essential need to exercise should be prevented from maintaining his physical well-being. In fact, he had been acting with care by avoiding the crowds. Leaving your house won't get you infected, only by having contact with infected people will. In fact, exercising helps to strengthen your respiratory system and immune system which is essential to combat viruses such as Covid-19. Look at the statistics, they have shown that the weak prone to succumb to Covid-19 than the healthy ones.

I see people judging the Dr. because they are innately judgmental, and the fear in them has clouded their capability of making reasonable judgment and comments! If things can be done at home, then do it at home. But if things can't be done at home such as jogging (given they dont have a treadmill), then do it outside but with care.