No, we're being asked to do too much compared to my scenario. I am positing active government and civil coordination to enable the least disruption to economic and societal functioning day to day. You should still be able to go out but destinations will have reduced capacities to facilitate adequate separation of customers. People should be encouraged to go out locally rather than all pile into central districts. Heaven forbid money be more equitably spent rather than hoovered up by trendy entities. Etc.
People
are still able to go out?
Pubs for example, aren't closed (unless by landlord's decision, there's no govt decree to that effect).
But what's happening as a natural consequence is that less people are getting out and about, and then naturally, places are closing through lack of custom, or because they want to be seen to do the right thing.
People can still go their local cinema. But many are choosing not to because they don't want to spread it. People can go to their local whatever, the govt hasn't decreed otherwise?
Depending on the daily/weekly numbers of the spread, then more draconian action may be taken, as it has in other European countries.
The whole strategy means that things wind down, and that will reduce the spread of the virus.
It seems to me that the govt are making a big effort, pledging £330Bn to try to help the economy and save businesses from going under (which pro-rata, is on a par with the US, with their just under $1Tn commitment). Of course they have to find a way to get that money out there, but they've pledged it.
It seems to me that whatever the govt does, there will still be economic hell to pay. It's a shit situation, all they can do is try to make it less shit, they can't make it go away.
