This is a good point. What should the Opposition response to it be?
“Common sense” only works, for most of us, under 2 conditions. (a) You need information (or as much information as possible) about the risks (eg what are the real risks of teaching a classroom of 15 6-year olds in an area like Newham)?
(b) You need real control over those risks - the ability to say, without unacceptable consequences, to your employer (or anyone else) that you are not putting up with a risk that your (informed) “common sense” tells you is too high.
On (a), the demand needs to be full openness by Govt as to what advice it is getting about risks (and making sure Govt is getting that advice). Obviously huge uncertainties but we must be learning more about the risks all the time.
On (b), you need various things eg: strong trade unions; employers who work with employees to create a safe place of work; clear rights (clearer than s44 ERA) not to work (and not to be sacked) if you/your TU take the “common sense” view that your work place is unsafe for you.
It seems to me that those points need to be at the heart of the Opposition response to a Govt shift to a “use your common sense” approach.
And @meadwaj is right that keeping the furlough scheme is part of the picture: if employees (and employers) are to be able to exercise their “common sense”, furlough payments need still to be there for cases where safe working schemes can’t be worked out.
