Coronavirus Regulations comparative law drafting advice (yes, this is a niche thread, but it will amuse @davidallengreen )
The UK adopted a ”lockdown but for reasonable excuse” approach, listing reasonable excuses. The amendments targeting the reasonable excuses and adding one that anyone can invoke and that cannot be disproved makes the model silly. What to do?
Curiously, German states followed two different models. Some had a lockdown but for reasonable excuse model, others only imposed social distancing.
Basically, what the amendment of the SI does is move from lockdown to social distancing (if you look at the permissible reasonable excuses). One German state ended up doing just that: it deleted the lockdown and replaced with social distancing. But explicitly.
How and why does the UK Regulation do the same, but implicitly? Here’s the reasonable excuse: 
You can see how anyone can always say ”I needed to get out”. Which invokes this reasonable excuse. So the reason becomes unenforceable. However, the excuse attaches conditions: alone, with your household OR 1 person outside your household”...
This seems more or less identical to the original German social distancing provision. Only it was not attached to a reasonable excuse for going out - it was a self-standing obligation. The effect seems identical.
