The government, w@[HASHTAG]#kers[/HASHTAG] though they are, have a very difficult choice to make, between enforcing lockdown to slow the spread, knowing that it will mean financial ruin for many people and businesses (and that in itself has health implications) and the disaster for the economy - the ripples of which we will be feeling for generations to come, balanced against allowing some sort of 'normal' life to continue, lessening the blow to the economy and individual's finances, but allowing the virus to spread unchecked and the health issues that would cause - to say nothing of the burden on the NHS.
I would give local councils the powers to take - and enforce - decisions as they see fit, giving a more 'agile' localised approach, but nothing is foolproof.
Recent evidence suggests that over 40% of new infections originate from schools or other educational establishments, whilst less than 5% come from bars/restaurants. Closing the pubs would address the 5% - but what about the rest? Again, shutting the schools would be disastrous for the education of our young - plus the chaos it would cause amongst parents trying to work.
It's a case of 'damned if we dont and damned if we do.
Regarding City; all footballers and staff are tested regularly - plus the players and staff would have bussed in and bussed back out afterwards so it's not as if they would have been in contact with many people in Nottingham on Saturday. I would suggest that the risk to them was negligibly greater or worse than at any football stadium at this time.
