The Level 2 public gatherings policy is an absurdity

The fact that the Government has just expanded tangi and funeral gatherings to a maximum of 50 people, less than 48 hours after claiming it was unsafe to have any more than 10 people present, exposes how arbitrary and irrational their Level 2 public gatherings policy is.

Mosques, temples and churches are apparently safe for only 10 people if they hold a worship service, but they suddenly become safe for 50 people if they hold a worship service that is also a funeral for a deceased person.

Meanwhile, the pub across the road can host up to 100 alcohol-consuming people at any one time, because apparently that's safer than either a funeral or a religious service.

And if you are part of a professional rugby team, you can have full physical contact at your weekly training sessions, and your weekend matches with anywhere in excess of 30 different people - probably followed by a trip to the pub to socialise and drink alcohol at a venue where up to 99 other people could also be present.

Dr. Bloomfield suggested that the professional sports exemption makes sense because that’s a workplace, but just try hugging your coworkers at McDonald’s and see whether your protests that ‘prolonged close personal contact is okay at a place of business’ gets you anywhere fast.

The only apparent consistency here is money and public pressure - if you can make money or frighten the Government, they will adjust the rules in whichever way is deemed necessary to provide you with greater operating freedoms.

That’s why close contact at most workplaces is not allowed, but at others prolonged periods of intimate physical contact is, and why some public gatherings have been deemed more equal than others.

Apparently the reason that religious gatherings at mosques, temples and churches are only allowed 10 people is because (according to Health Minister David Clark) there is a risk of ‘fellowship.'

How is such a claim anything other than a total failure of Government to trust citizens with a religious faith to act responsibly ?

Is there some scientific research we're not aware of showing that there is a greater risk of 'fellowship' at a church full of sober people than in a bar with 100 people consuming alcohol?

Is there some research showing that religious people are incapable of adhering to social distancing when at a religious services, but if you took them to the pub and bought them drinks they’d strictly follow the guidelines without question?

What do they even mean by ‘fellowship’?

If you’re a person of faith you know that fellowship is simply another way of saying ‘socialising’ - which apparently we’re allowed to do, and with alcohol, as long as it's at a pub in the presence of up to 99 other people.

This policy is nonsensical.

Here's what a rational Level 2 public gatherings policy should look like:

1. There is a blanket limit placed on the maximum number of attendees allowed at public gatherings, and it applies equally to all public gatherings.

2. All public gatherings must adhere to safe social distancing protocols.

If you can follow those two criteria, then you should be free to hold a public gathering if you want to - especially in a country with such a low rate of Covid-19.

The policy the Government has crafted is absurd.

Anyone trying to show how it makes sense if the primary goal is public safety is attempting to do the impossible, or worse, they hold the prejudicial belief that religious organisations are not entitled to, or not capable of handling the same freedoms as everyone else.