Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Honestly you can't look at it as fairness.
Some activities need to continue or the economy falls apart. Others don't.
I coach girls hockey in Calgary, they were crushed when play was suspended on November 13th. But nobody lost their job (could be some arena staff for sure) when they halted it as the lion's share of minor hockey if volunteer.
Malls need to be open to some degree (15%) in order to keep businesses alive, and the economy running.
Kids have to be in school (young ones) so their parents can go to work.
Outdoor rinks open at all is an attempt to give people something even though it's not "required", something that is becoming a headache and will likely end with a closure.
The fairness lens doesn't work in these times.
|
Agreed.
And just to add to that, it is totally fair that there is an unequal set of distancing rules. As a society, we often recognize that for the sake of fairness, things do not have to be equal. For example, we permit people with disabilities to park close to building entrances or board a plane first. It's not equal, but it is fair (or rather trying to create some level of fairness for people to whom life hasn't been fair). People with lower incomes pay fewer taxes. Not equal, but it is fair. Some people with certain conditions are allowed to bring support animals into public places, while not everyone can. Again, not equal, but fair.
Like you said, the COVID restrictions are not equally applied everywhere because we recognize the need to balance other important concerns like employment and education. It's not equal, but by definition, it is 100% fair. Fairness is about people getting what they need and not about everyone getting the same regardless of needs. Having to eventually resort to total lockdown of everything to make recreational hockey players happy in the short term would be the opposite of fair.