There is a really important general point here. As these restrictions change, we will need proper debate about and scrutiny of the new rules.
If some businesses are to reopen, which businesses? What should the trade-off be between the economic importance of the business and the health implications of reopening it? How do you define robustly which businesses can and can’t reopen?
If some people are allowed out but not others, which people? How do you define the groups you are allowing out? How will the new relaxed rule be enforced? What about discrimination issues (are the poor/old/BAME being unjustifiably impacted)?
If we are to rely on apps, what sort of app? What about people who don’t own smartphones? What happens to the app data? Is using the app to be genuinely voluntary or in practice compulsory?
Is the Govt or are contact tracers to have access to details of everyone we have met over the last few weeks (just think about the privacy implications of that)?
All of these issues involve scientific input. But the choices are ultimately political, and the details matter and can easily be got wrong (issues just not thought about).
And public confidence in the rules - that they are fair and necessary - is critical.
So the role of Parliament - proper scrutiny, with Ministers being transparent about the advice received and the judgments being made, and answering questions fully and frankly - is essential.
The practice of issuing these regulations by fiat and without scrutiny or Parliamentary debate was necessary once. It isn’t now.
