I have two sources of confusion.......

[OldQueen1969]

The gathering thing - reducing to no more than 6 on the domestic level, but anything "constructive" economically / educationally speaking is exempt. But working public facing potentially exposes people to lots more than 30 people in a day hence masks and stuff so why not just say masks and social distancing? Or is it assumed that groups over 6 are all going to lick each other and have orgies?

Testing - only people with symptoms should be tested (if they can which seems like a weird Russian roulette exercise according to media and these boards)..... but is it confirmed if the asymptomatic are infectious, in which case shouldn't testing be done on anyone who wants it, particularly if they are, for example, in an area where cases are rising?

I'm probably just thick, but the measures seem to be a weird version of the hokey cokey and I am rapidly losing faith in my ability to function morally and scientifically in the "real" world......

1. Lots of people don’t work in public facing roles. By removing these people from the transmission chain as much as possible you break down the spread of cases. Plus people can’t be trusted to socially distance and wear masks at home, whereas in public jobs most people are more compliant and less willing to take risks.

1. Agreed. I’m not sure there’s much evidence yet on how infectious the asymptotic are. However it’s going to be a lot less than someone who is coughing, so in the light of current evidence and testing capacity there isn’t much more we can do. Hopefully some studies will come out soon.