- mandatory face covering in shops, retail setting and public transport
- restriction of movement (5 km)
- limited number of people attending funerals, weddings, masses
- limited number of people at public gatherings
- prohibited family reunions
- restricted activities of small and medium businesses
- restrictions in public transport (fewer seats, masks)
- the inability to visit family and friends outside of the 5 km
- the inability to visit family and friends who are in nursing homes
- negative impact on the socialisation of young people during adolescence
- selective approval of gatherings (e.g., schools remain open)
- inability of the father to be present during childbirth
- inability of hospital visits even in case the patient is dying
- economic collapse and instability
- increase in the number of homeless people (incomes decreased, living costs remained the same, which leads to an increased number of homeless people)
- irrelevant classification of essential products, businesses, and services
- neglect of other diseases giving priority to the coronavirus
- (official study) consequence of wearing a mask (bacteria, difficulty breathing)
- impairment of mental health, which directly causes an increased number of suicides, alcoholism, and drug abuse
- non-publication and censorship of studies on the positive effects of hydroxychloroquine
- inadequate utilisation of medical and healthcare staff
- irrelevant restrictions for potential carriers and impact on them
- limited access to information
- selective censorship on and by social networks
- censorship of free speech, thought-sharing, and any sort of independently formed opinions that are not in line with the mainstream media and their narrative
- direct blocking and prevention of expressing the opposite opinion (groups, profiles, and channels are being blocked/removed)
- information control and selective sharing of information
- spreading panic and fear
- no space in the media for debates and alternative views
- lack of relevant medical studies
- labelling and discrediting experts of the opposite opinion
- hydroxychloroquine
- restriction of freedom of opinion and speech without objective checks and evidence
- funded by private organisations
- not acting in the best interest of the public (instead of educating and providing reliable sources, they are discrediting non-mainstream statements/people)
- demoralization of people due to the inability to access various information
- use media to promote solutions and effective prevention of the disease instead of promoting negative outcomes and presenting irrelevant statistics
- expert opinion on the PCR test (this test should never be used for diagnostic purposes, and it is highly unreliable)
- reconsideration of the need for the introduction of health passports
- reviewing the reasons and pressures for mass testing and familiarisation with the possible background (mass DNA collection)
- whether it is logical to introduce these restrictions due to the virus that causes fewer deaths than the seasonal flu (survival rate is extremely low – so much it is negligible)
- the paradox of reality between COVID and seasonal flu
- similarity between self-isolation measures/national lockdown and house arrest
- whether the goal of these measures is a social or physical distance (the phrase “social distance” is used, why?)
- should we consider the “New Normal” as normal?
- file claims against specific publishers, news portals, and others who remove/censor articles without carrying out proper research
- flag and report fake news that is published to scare and deceit the public
- collaboration with legal experts in order to educate our legal team
- mass promotion of knowledge of personal rights and their protection based on legal advice
- change of the approach: we demand that protective epidemiological measures (masks, gloves, sanitizers) be adopted based on verified studies and professional research and not on a subjective initiative
- reopening of all businesses that, based on relevant studies, do not contribute to the spread of the disease (instead of closing them on a subjective initiative)
- making a clear distinction between recommended and necessary by taking into account different opinions, recommendations, and conclusions based on evidence and studies
- review of restrictive measures: their efficiency, functionality, and way of implementation
- reanalysis of restrictive measures and their impact on the economy
- examination of the maximum level of socialization (the “old normal”) and cultural and social life in accordance with the realistic COVID-19 guide
- abolition of all classification of essential products, businesses, and services
- adoption of non-selective measures for protection and prevention against COVID-19
- publishing of all studies on positive treatments of COVID-19 cases
- educating the masses on various sources of information and promoting accessibility to different sources of information
- comparison of models of protection measures of different countries and their effectiveness in practice