Coronavirus Briefing with Whitty and Vallance (21/09)

[yorkie]

It will be in the millions for sure, but extremely unlikely to be as many as 12 million.

 

[bramling]

The bubble thing is all nonsense anyway. Aside from the puerile name, there no official list of who is bubbled with who. So you could be in multiple bubbles and nobody is any the wiser.
I wouldn't worry from an isolation POV, you can always get up away from home anyway. I'm more concerned about how my kids get to see their grandparents without risking curtain twitchers dobbing us in. Current plan would be to meet at a park and hope Priti Patel isn't hiding in the bushes to tell on us.

It’s lunacy isn’t it. The above just about sums things up perfectly. Goodness knows what anyone would have thought if we’d said a year ago that this would be real now!

 

[Bayum]

Yes, that's right. It'll be a press conference on Tuesday, rather than "addressing the nation". Tomorrow it's Whitty and Valance delivering some sort of evidence to some sort of committee I think with live TV coverage, rather than addressing journalists or the public directly.

The Daily Mail has broken ranks.

A 'circuit breaker' lockdown would be madness: Dr RENEE HOENDERKAMP

Dr RENEE HOENDERKAMP: Shutting down the country for two weeks will turn a dangerous situation into a disaster. It's precisely the wrong thing to do, at exactly the wrong time.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Boris loses the support of the Mail at his peril. Che mck out the comments underneath the article. This lady has support. The Murdoch press is currently staying loyal, but there is a change in the air.

Not too difficult to find a doctor who disagrees with the government and the various people within. With all due respect, is she an authority on epidemics of past and present?

 

[yorkie]

With all due respect, is she an authority on epidemics....

If you want to listen to an authority in epidemics, look no further than Anders Tegnell.

I'm not sure that the consequences of any measures taken against the spread of a virus should exclusively be considered by epidemiologists, though? That seems a rather extreme and narrow view to take!

 

[Bayum]

If you want to listen to an authority in epidemics, look no further than Anders Tegnell.

I will do, but clearly I was talking about the quoted doctor. Sounds like she’s about as far removed from epidemiology than any other doctor I know!

 

[DB]

I will do, but clearly I was talking about the quoted doctor. Sounds like she’s about as far removed from epidemiology than any other doctor I know!

What specifically in her article do you disagree with?

 

[AM9]

Whilst I largely agree with your point about the confusion between the four countries being exaggerated, I don’t think this variation has really served us that well, apart from creating a distracting sideshow. In my view a unified strategy would have worked better.

The bigger issue is perhaps the regional variations. I’m in Wales at the moment and could easily stray into somewhere like Caerphilly without realising, either that I’m entering that area or knowing exactly where is restricted. Likewise I’ve lost track of which parts of England now have restrictions, though to be fair the English restrictions probably wouldn’t affect me so it might not matter as such.

The obsession with calling small areas 'counties' is really a misuse of the County Borough status that they have, yet it causes much confusion everywhere. However, if somebody is visiting another UK nation, it is in their interest to be familiar with the restrictions and of course understanding the geographical borders that those restrictions take effect from. The locals know, but they might feign ignorance in an attempt to ignore the rules.

 

[Class 33]

My concern with the Witty and Valance messaging today is that while Whitty did, for probably the first time, recognise there are economic implications of further restrictions, and that some of these are bad, he still seemed to imply that "keeping people safe from Covid" was more important than the other issues, especially general societal issues.

On numerous occasions he seemed to hint that meeting people from other households was the most dangerous thing you could do at all. He hinted that schools and workplaces were important [to keep the economy going] but everything else in life didn't matter and had to be given up to keep us safe.

Thus I would not be surprised if the measures Boris announces tomorrow would be near enough lockdown for many / most people anyway, namely:

No social interaction between or meeting other households in any setting indoors or outdoors

Curfew on hospitality with some types of venues being forced to close


They could then argue they are keeping schools, colleges and workplaces open to protect education and the economy, and are just simply restricting interaction between households.

But that is a natural human desire. And without it many other problems emerge. I'm not normally a stressed or depressed or anxious person at all, far from it in fact, but I do live alone and the bulk of my life outside of work relies on interaction with others, either in my hobby or my social activities. For the best part of 3 months earlier this year I saw no family, saw nobody except a one or two friends, had no social engagement with anyone apart from on a computer screen and when I wasn't at work just sat at home with nothing to do. After 3 months of that I was feeling lonely and isolated. I was glad when pubs opened and other social activities started up again.

It now seems, from all the hints so far being dropped, that all form of social activity with other households will be barred again - which for many people is a lock down in all but name.

We will likely just become worker drones, being allowed to go to work and go home again, and probably being allowed to go for a meal or a drink, but only with your own household with £10,000 fines if you even briefly acknowledge somebody who doesn't live in your house.

And still with no end in sight apart from some vague suggestion that we might have a vaccine next year.

And Whitty says we have to do this for 6 months to save lives.

Not for me all that. If I was forced to live the life of a hermit again then I don't think I would cope.

Did he mention social distancing has got to continue for another 6 months too? And why as long as 6 months if in the meantime before that we can get the numbers of new cases and deaths down much lower(again)? And come 6 months time, if the numbers start creeping up again, will this mean yet another 6 months of all this taking us up to September 2021??!!

If we've got another 6 long months of these social distancing rules, then godknows what this country is going to be like by next March. Many hundreds of companies going under because it is not financially viable for them to operate with these "social distancing rules", thousands upon thousands more people will become unemployed. The country will be in a right state!

We could lose many number of venues in the arts, entertainment, leisure and tourist industry VERY soon if this social distancing drags on for too much longer. It is reported that the theatre industry will collapse if they are not allowed to open by November WITHOUT social distancing, a similar situation for HALF of the nation's leisure centres, and also spas and hotels too to name just a few sectors.

And as you say, all these restrictions are effecting many many people's mental health too.

We can't let this happen to this country. They're going to have to drop this very restrictive social distancing and all these other restrictions sooner rather than later! We just can't continue like this for months or even years on end!

 

[DB]

Did he mention social distancing has got to continue for another 6 months too? And why as long as 6 months if in the meantime before that we can get the numbers of new cases and deaths down much lower(again)? And come 6 months time, if the numbers start creeping up again, will this mean yet another 6 months of all this taking us up to September 2021??!!

If we've got another 6 long months of these social distancing rules, then godknows what this country is going to be like by next March. Many hundreds of companies going under because it is not financially viable for them to operate with these "social distancing rules", thousands upon thousands more people will become unemployed. The country will be in a right state!

We could lose many number of venues of the arts, entertainment, leisure and tourist industry VERY soon if this social distancing drags on for too much longer. It is reported that the theatre industry will collapse if they are not allowed to open by November WITHOUT social distancing, a similar situation for HALF of the nation's leisure centres, and also spas and hotels too to name just a few sectors.

And as you say, all these restrictions are effecting many many people's mental health too.

We can't let this happen to this country. They're going to have to drop this very restrictive social distancing and all these other restrictions sooner rather than later!

And don't forget that we have a probably no-deal Brexit to make things even worse. It's going to be a very long winter.

 

[yorkie]

We can't let this happen to this country. They're going to have to drop this very restrictive social distancing and all these other restrictions sooner rather than later! We just can't continue like this for months or even years on end!

The tide of public opinion is turning but I don't think it's enough to stop them, at least not yet.

The hysterical brigade are extremely active on social media (e.g. Twitter/Facebook) and believe me they don't care about mental health, deprivation, job prospects for young people. The people driving this are those who have secure jobs or are retired, often in reasonably comfortable homes, typically with gardens.

They are not interested in deaths by suicides; Covid19 is the only game in town for these people.

 

[david1212]

While of course it will not be admitted Boris & Co are partly responsible for the situation now.

Three months back it was "I want to see bustle, I want to see activity!”. Nothing wrong with that with the need to get the economy rolling faster and initially as shops reopened numbers and spacing were controlled. Locally the council put up signs like ' Welcome Back ' and ' Support Local Businesses ' but any mention of distancing was literally small print. The only big clear ' in your face ' 2m distancing sign was and still is an A-board outside House of Fraser. By August everywhere there was both much more mixing between different households and much less distancing. ' Eat out to help out ' commenced too. While pubs, cafes and restaurants spaced out tables and/or put up screens even if three couples as a group wanted a table so they could sit spaced 2m or even 1.5m apart how many had that provision?

The warnings were there when the Manchester area restrictions were imposed at the end of July with Boris saying there was too much mingling. However since then nationally virtually no reminders about distancing between members of different households or to consider how many different people you were mixing with until the sharp rise the average number of daily new infections. Nicola Sturgeon did urge Scots to consider how often they wanted or needed to visit pubs.

While carefully worded so as not to make those being (too) cautious let alone paranoid never leave home there needed to be constant reminders about both distancing and limiting the number of people from different household met both at one time and over a week. This ought to have resulted in a much slower rise in the number of infections as schools returned to be followed by universities.

Behind closed doors was the gamble to keep quiet to maximise the spending of shops and particularly pubs? If so IMO any significant restriction will result in a drop and probably over six months overall lower receipts.

 

[yorkie]

@david1212 I strongly disagree; what's your proposal? Make everyone redundant and stay at home until a vaccine is rolled out?

Just restrict the histerical

My concern with the Witty and Valance messaging today is that while Whitty did, for probably the first time, recognise there are economic implications of further restrictions, and that some of these are bad, he still seemed to imply that "keeping people safe from Covid" was more important than the other issues, especially general societal issues.

On numerous occasions he seemed to hint that meeting people from other households was the most dangerous thing you could do at all. He hinted that schools and workplaces were important [to keep the economy going] but everything else in life didn't matter and had to be given up to keep us safe.

Thus I would not be surprised if the measures Boris announces tomorrow would be near enough lockdown for many / most people anyway, namely:

No social interaction between or meeting other households in any setting indoors or outdoors

Curfew on hospitality with some types of venues being forced to close


They could then argue they are keeping schools, colleges and workplaces open to protect education and the economy, and are just simply restricting interaction between households.

But that is a natural human desire. And without it many other problems emerge. I'm not normally a stressed or depressed or anxious person at all, far from it in fact, but I do live alone and the bulk of my life outside of work relies on interaction with others, either in my hobby or my social activities. For the best part of 3 months earlier this year I saw no family, saw nobody except a one or two friends, had no social engagement with anyone apart from on a computer screen and when I wasn't at work just sat at home with nothing to do. After 3 months of that I was feeling lonely and isolated. I was glad when pubs opened and other social activities started up again.

It now seems, from all the hints so far being dropped, that all form of social activity with other households will be barred again - which for many people is a lock down in all but name.

We will likely just become worker drones, being allowed to go to work and go home again, and probably being allowed to go for a meal or a drink, but only with your own household with £10,000 fines if you even briefly acknowledge somebody who doesn't live in your house.

And still with no end in sight apart from some vague suggestion that we might have a vaccine next year.

And Whitty says we have to do this for 6 months to save lives.

Not for me all that. If I was forced to live the life of a hermit again then I don't think I would cope.

Excellent post.

Right now I am very lucky in that I am back in a working environment regularly (not just going in to a skeleton staff one day a week), doing walks, cycle rides, meals etc with other forum members, seeing family, playing football (though that was a big battle and involved switching games and doing a lot of organising) and so on.

If I was denied those things I'd be really struggling.

I find it hard to describe the contempt I feel for people like Whitty; I am dismayed that while Sweden has people of the calibre of Johan Giesecke and Anders Tegnell, we are lumped with someone as lowly and one dimensional as Chris Whitty.

You'd have thought someone in his position would be capable of seeing the bigger picture, wouldn't you?!

 

[C J Snarzell]

If they ban us from seeing people outside of our households then the police are going to be very busy over Christmas.

Forget Christmas, the police are very busy now! My old force has put front line officers on 12 hour shifts. The volume of calls they are recieving daily about large gatherings, breaches of social distancing and people not self isolating has gone through the roof. Most incident logs are just being filed without being allocated which is staggering. Boris will have to make exemptions for Christmas because millions of people will simply not be kept from their families.

CJ

 

[LAX54]

The tide of public opinion is turning but I don't think it's enough to stop them, at least not yet.

The hysterical brigade are extremely active on social media (e.g. Twitter/Facebook) and believe me they don't care about mental health, deprivation, job prospects for young people. The people driving this are those who have secure jobs or are retired, often in reasonably comfortable homes, typically with gardens.

They are not interested in deaths by suicides; Covid19 is the only game in town for these people.

The report was 690,000 lost their jobs between March and July, now they reckon it will be 10's of thousands on the eviction list, on the Railway, we have had a big increase in 'suicidal people' on the tracks, Severe illnesses have bee put to one side, (although during the lockdown many Hopsitals were empty!), millions at home on 80% pay, doing not a lot, If you want a holiday to recoup from the events of the past months, well tough, Boris says 'No'
and the working at home malarky, OK at the start fair do's, but now..get back to the office ! I am fed up with emails (and recorded phones) saying our staff are working from home, it will take longer to reply to your question, please allow at least 7 to 10 days for a reply, no, I will go somewhere else that can help me ! the other thing they say, is I am having issues trying to connect to the 'works server / internet' I cannot help you right now...

 

[talldave]

Forget Christmas, the police are very busy now! My old force has put front line officers on 12 hour shifts. The volume of calls they are recieving daily about large gatherings, breaches of social distancing and people not self isolating has gone through the roof. Most incident logs are just being filed without being allocated which is staggering. Boris will have to make exemptions for Christmas because millions of people will simply not be kept from their families.

CJ

It's irrelevant whether Boris makes exemptions or not, a lot of people are just going to do what they want. I suspect that all the bubbles, lockdowns, 6 people rules and other rubbish are only being followed by Facebook Karens - who were cowering in their bunkers anyway, and are thus pointless.

If it's apparently so important to isolate ourselves from the deadly killer virus, then Christmas is an irrelevance and any exemptions would undermine what little credibility, if any, the rules have. If Granny's worth not killing, she’s worth not killing at Christmas too, surely?

The need for further national measures is very dubious. Downward trends in cases in London, South East, East, E Mids & South West started almost two weeks ago, before the 6 rule came in.

 

[yorksrob]

It's irrelevant whether Boris makes exemptions or not, a lot of people are just going to do what they want. I suspect that all the bubbles, lockdowns, 6 people rules and other rubbish are only being followed by Facebook Karens - who were cowering in their bunkers anyway, and are thus pointless.

I'm not sure that's true.

I think most people will try and be sensible and limit their risk of infection. But not to the extent of living like a hermit for the next six months.

I'm not sure what value the 10clock kerfew will be - but it is at least relatively limited in scope (hopefully that's last orders, rather than chucking out ?). The "rule of six" is similarly comparatively limited in scope - with the exception perhaps for some larger families, but if they try to impose limits more stringent than this, i.e. limiting social interaction to household bubbles, they will lose the cooperation from the public that they would have had.

 

[adc82140]

It's interesting that amongst friends and work colleagues, most of those who were very pro restrictions in March are now saying enough is enough, and we have to learn to judge risk for ourselves, like we do with everything else. Unscientific I know, but I wonder if this attitude is now more widespread.

 

[yorkie]

If the hysterical brigade want to be restricted, they can stay at home, but the rest of us should not be victims of their demands.

It's interesting that amongst friends and work colleagues, most of those who were very pro restrictions in March are now saying enough is enough, and we have to learn to judge risk for ourselves, like we do with everything else. Unscientific I know, but I wonder if this attitude is now more widespread.

It absolutely is.

A lot of the people who supported lockdown earlier on thought it could be suppressed or eliminated; and of those who didn't think that, there was a belief that the benefits would outweigh the disbenefits.

I now know several people who are suffering from depression (some are forum members; some have even hinted at having nothing they feel worth living for if things get much worse for them), lost their livelihoods, suffering from loneliness, and much more.

Of the people I know who got the virus, most who suspect they had it early on could not get diagnosed as they were not hospitalised. My 93 year old great auntie did get tested as she was hospitalised but pulled through. And in recent months all the people I know who were tested positive were all asymptomatic and only got tested because they were contacts of others who were tested positive. This includes forum members and people at work and more.

People also realise that the average age of those who die from Covid19 is around 83 and the majority of people infected with Sars-Cov-2 do not develop Covid19 symptoms and of those that do, it's very mild for most. People are also starting to realise that more young people die of 'flu (and that's with us having a vaccine and prior immunity) than die of Sars-Cov-2.

And yet the madness persists, because the hysterical brigade won't listen to the facts. The myth that only people with detectable levels of antibodies have immunity has been busted but this is not widespread public knowledge and people still peddle misinformation to justify their views. This is very frustrating.

 

[Crossover]

It would actually be helpful to change the focus of the counting - hospital admissions stats are of far more use than number of cases.

Fully agree with this - but it doesn't fit the message of fear that various outlets wish to batter home so I can't imagine it is likely to happen.

Unscientific I know, but I wonder if this attitude is now more widespread.

there was a belief that the benefits would outweigh the disbenefits.

I will happily "hold my hands up" and declare that I was in this category (and @yorkie and a few others know it) and I was truly of the belief that we had a potentially major issue on our hands and that the benefits of the measures were worth it and happily followed the message that was put out.

All we have seen recently is a lot of flip-flapping over what we can/cannot/should/shouldn't do and overdramatisiation of the positive test results that doesn't appear to be having a significant knock on two weeks or so down the line, as is the message that has been peddled throughout.

I do believe the tide is turning - even some members here (who will remain nameless ) who wrote in a way that suggested they were staunch believers in everything that has been said have very much developed their stance over the last handful of weeks to be rather different

 

[Yew]

Not too difficult to find a doctor who disagrees with the government and the various people within. With all due respect, is she an authority on epidemics of past and present?

I feel the signatories of this letter are quite a convincing list.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do believe the tide is turning - even some members here (who will remain nameless ) who wrote in a way that suggested they were staunch believers in everything that has been said have very much developed their stance over the last handful of weeks to be rather different

If you mean me, yes, my view is shifting as the situation develops. But that's not a full U-turn - on masks for instance I always said I wanted to trial them, and having done so they are proving not to be very effective.

 

[Ian Cunningham]

I'm not sure that's true.

I think most people will try and be sensible and limit their risk of infection. But not to the extent of living like a hermit for the next six months.

I'm not sure what value the 10clock kerfew will be - but it is at least relatively limited in scope (hopefully that's last orders, rather than chucking out ?). The "rule of six" is similarly comparatively limited in scope - with the exception perhaps for some larger families, but if they try to impose limits more stringent than this, i.e. limiting social interaction to household bubbles, they will lose the cooperation from the public that they would have had.

The SI for the existing 2200-0500 "curfew" areas is badly written (there's a surprise) but a strict interpretation is everyone out by 2200 (could be interpreted as staff out, lights out too)
4.—(1) A person responsible for carrying on a restricted business or providing a restricted service in the protected area must not carry on that business or provide that service in the protected area during the emergency period between the hours of 22:00 and 05:00.

 

[Huntergreed]

Fully agree with this - but it doesn't fit the message of fear that various outlets wish to batter home so I can't imagine it is likely to happen.


I will happily "hold my hands up" and declare that I was in this category (and @yorkie and a few others know it) and I was truly of the belief that we had a potentially major issue on our hands and that the benefits of the measures were worth it and happily followed the message that was put out.

All we have seen recently is a lot of flip-flapping over what we can/cannot/should/shouldn't do and overdramatisiation of the positive test results that doesn't appear to be having a significant knock on two weeks or so down the line, as is the message that has been peddled throughout.

I do believe the tide is turning - even some members here (who will remain nameless ) who wrote in a way that suggested they were staunch believers in everything that has been said have very much developed their stance over the last handful of weeks to be rather different

I think that’s very respectable being open to changing your views on a thing like this. I’ve actually fallen out with some of my friends over this situation, who’ve labelled me as a “conspiracist”, “delusional” and said I “want to see people die”. I just get so so frustrated with the approach we are taking towards this situation, but I do believe the public attitude is surely (albeit slowly), turning to a less hysterical, more reasoned and rational one.

I don’t quite understand why Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance, who are very good epidemiologists and medical scientists, cant in this situation look at the bigger picture. We have learned a lot about this virus, and one of the things we have learned is that it is not as deadly as we first believed it do be. I do think when we learned that a change of approach should have taken place, but the media scaremongering and the government being too afraid to stop pandering to the hysterical brigade has prevented this.

Here’s hoping by Christmas we’ll be following a different path. If not, I believe that the absolute maximum anyone would be willing to put up with this would be for one year.

 

[Crossover]

I feel the signatories of this letter are quite a convincing list.

A very interesting read

If you mean me, yes, my view is shifting as the situation develops. But that's not a full U-turn - on masks for instance I always said I wanted to trial them, and having done so they are proving not to be very effective.

There have been a few to be honest.

I appreciate some have been more vocal than others throughout - I was a relatively quiet voice in the outset (partly because it was so new and the evidence more limited) in many parts (spoke a little about it on the phone with people) but am maybe a bit less so now.

 

[greyman42]

I'm not sure what value the 10clock kerfew will be - but it is at least relatively limited in scope (hopefully that's last orders, rather than chucking out ?).

I presume that the value is to close the pubs that are acting as nightclubs, predominately for the younger generation, where the government think most of the problems are occurring. I do not believe that pubs are causing problems during the day and evening.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I presume that the value is to close the pubs that are acting as nightclubs, predominately for the younger generation, where the government think most of the problems are occurring. I do not believe that pubs are causing problems during the day and evening.

I think 10pm is quite a clever choice, to be fair. Much earlier and you would get lots of "come back to mine for a drink", much later and people get more drunk. But if you've finished drinking at 10 it's in that comfortable band of "oh, we can get the last bus home and save on a taxi" and the likes, which means you probably won't get huge numbers of house parties other than students who would do it anyway.

 

[DB]

I think that’s very respectable being open to changing your views on a thing like this. I’ve actually fallen out with some of my friends over this situation, who’ve labelled me as a “conspiracist”, “delusional” and said I “want to see people die”. I just get so so frustrated with the approach we are taking towards this situation, but I do believe the public attitude is surely (albeit slowly), turning to a less hysterical, more reasoned and rational one.

The typical response of the Karen-types to people being realistic does seem to be "so why are you OK with lots of people dying?". It is impossible to get through to them that the numbers are acutally quite low now, and that the virus is going to spread whatever measures are taken, and slowing it down just causes massive problems in evyer other area of society, for little to no gain at the end of it. It's not a case of being 'OK' with it - it' a case of being realistic, and there is no point in all the futile theatre if it makes little or no difference.

I don’t quite understand why Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance, who are very good epidemiologists and medical scientists, canr in this situation look at the bigger picture.

Staying on-message with what the government wants? Wanting to avoid giving the government opportunities to make scapegoats of them?

Incidentally, it's worth considering that something like 4 in 10 deaths have been in care homes, and the average time someone is in one of those is something like 14 months - so we are already reaching the point where something like half of those who have died from Covid in care homes would probably have died from other causes by now anyway, i.e. somewhere not that far short of a quarter of the total deaths overall.

 

[bramling]

I think that’s very respectable being open to changing your views on a thing like this. I’ve actually fallen out with some of my friends over this situation, who’ve labelled me as a “conspiracist”, “delusional” and said I “want to see people die”. I just get so so frustrated with the approach we are taking towards this situation, but I do believe the public attitude is surely (albeit slowly), turning to a less hysterical, more reasoned and rational one.

I don’t quite understand why Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance, who are very good epidemiologists and medical scientists, cant in this situation look at the bigger picture. We have learned a lot about this virus, and one of the things we have learned is that it is not as deadly as we first believed it do be. I do think when we learned that a change of approach should have taken place, but the media scaremongering and the government being too afraid to stop pandering to the hysterical brigade has prevented this.

Here’s hoping by Christmas we’ll be following a different path. If not, I believe that the absolute maximum anyone would be willing to put up with this would be for one year.

Developing views is very much what one would expect.

Back in March there was a lot more unknown, so it was much more of a walk down a dark alley. Now we’ve got a better idea of what the score is then we’d expect people to have developed their views. It’s unfortunate that the Karen types haven’t. There’s also other factors, like we’d expect the NHS to be more adept at dealing with cases, new treatments available, and perhaps most importantly there’s been six months of time bought to get the house in order (though shamefully the government don’t seem to have derived the maximum benefit from that).

The other thing to remember is that back in March we had essentially *no* measures in place. Things like hand gels were essentially unavailable, and we had a significant proportion of the population taking no mitigation whatsoever - seemingly including the prime minister himself! Against that backdrop something had to be done, though I don’t think any of us expected it to drag on for anything like as long as it did.

 

[Yew]

Unfortunately I can't post the graphs, but it seems that this analysis of cases by date of sample don't seem to be supporting Wittys exponential growth.

 

[yorksrob]

The SI for the existing 2200-0500 "curfew" areas is badly written (there's a surprise) but a strict interpretation is everyone out by 2200 (could be interpreted as staff out, lights out too)
4.—(1) A person responsible for carrying on a restricted business or providing a restricted service in the protected area must not carry on that business or provide that service in the protected area during the emergency period between the hours of 22:00 and 05:00.

A thanks. I agree that that might be the strict interpretation, but I suspect "chucking out" might be the more likely one.

I presume that the value is to close the pubs that are acting as nightclubs, predominately for the younger generation, where the government think most of the problems are occurring. I do not believe that pubs are causing problems during the day and evening.

I think 10pm is quite a clever choice, to be fair. Much earlier and you would get lots of "come back to mine for a drink", much later and people get more drunk. But if you've finished drinking at 10 it's in that comfortable band of "oh, we can get the last bus home and save on a taxi" and the likes, which means you probably won't get huge numbers of house parties other than students who would do it anyway.

Yes, I suspect that that is the case. I personally don't think the measure is unreasonable - I just hope it isn't the straw that breaks the camels back for the businesses.