I'm a bit perplexed that evidence from scientific data is required to live life as normal and not the other way around. Hear me out, I'm generally one of the more cautious types around when it comes to Covid and restrictions etc, or at least that's how I'd view myself anyway.
But surely the presumption and standard should be on as normal a life as possible unless scientific data suggests it's too dangerous and the restrictions are needed. Backed up with data, numbers and confidence levels.
Questions around hospital bed occupancy, ICU and deaths are the right questions, but they should be answered by means of why the country should be restricted and not why it shouldn't be, if that makes sense.
It's like a court defendant being presumed guilty and having to go to trial to prove his innocence, it seems a bit backwards. So instead of labour party asking for proof it's safe to open up, shouldn't they be providing data why it's completely unsafe to do just that?