I think most people would argue it makes sense to prioritise the wider economy and education over fun, and so what they're doing is whittling away at the at the stuff around the edges until the only thing left is those two. They foreshadowed this with public health experts saying they may have to close pubs to keep schools open in August, and the majority accepted it. I wouldn't rule out those two being on the horizon as well as, rather than instead of, these restrictions.
I do think the scale of transmission in schools changes that equation somewhat though. It was suggested that young kids aren't much of a concern back in August, but primary schools have 10x as many clusters as universities, and education is the source of 5x as many cases vs. restaurants, pubs, and seemingly every other leisure activity. Those figures don't seem to fit with their projections, so surely they should at least be revising the model.
If it was put to the public that you could stop the surge in transmission entirely by taking kids out of school, and all other recent restrictions could be removed, how many people would agree? I'd guess it would be a majority. Especially if they provided real figures for how many jobs will be lost in hospitality because of it.
The problem with the education system is it's less flexible. A couple of months of no school means the entire school year is fecked, the curriculum is very rigid in that way. Whereas a couple of months without pubs means nothing when people go straight back to normal routines afterwards.
The other thing is about mental health. People are quick to point to pubs being important for people's mental health, which is true to a point, but I'd imagine it's more true for schools. Some affluent and like minded families have found the extra time with their kids a net benefit but loads were close to breaking point being teacher, carer and worker all day long. On balance I'd say it's much more of a risk to long term mental health.
I well remember the speech talking about sacrificing the pub for schools, and I think my reaction to it (like everyone else's) was 'well that's shit, but if that has to happen it has to happen'.
My issue is that now the data is in, it's clear it's not a 1 for 1 trade off, and I would argue it's questionable whether it is even possible at all to have schools open and pretend like we are still attempting to control the virus. Maybe it
is possible, at the expense of literally everything else (including most workplaces where it is impossible to WFH), but that seems like something that at the very least needs to be publicly debated, and if it's not possible, which strongly seems to be what the data is indicating, then we need to see the modelling and we need to know what the projected death tolls are going to be as a result of it spreading rapidly again. If we, as a society, decide having schools open is worth that price then so be it.
As the government has absolutely no appetite to do either of those things, it really pisses me off that you get this faux moralising (which a lot of people in this thread have fallen for) that the spread of coronavirus is somehow a failure of personal responsibility. As if if we'd all agreed to not have one extra pint, or if 2% more of the population wore masks more effectively, we'd still be on top of it. It's the exact same bollocks as global warming: it's going to make feck all difference if you put your Muller Fruit Corner in the correct bin when the government are approving new coal mines, greenlighting fracking, and working hand in hand with BP, so it's galling to see idiots like Robert Jenrick arguing things like 'it is commonsensical (fecking sic) that the longer you stay in pubs and restaurants, the more likely you are to come into contact with other individuals' as proof that local lockdowns aren't working and need to be more strict. Of
course that's a factor, but why is that the debate when the stats suggest it is a tiny proportion of a tiny proportion of cases without ministers ever being questioned about whether local lockdowns might not be working because kids are still going to school in those areas, or that both Manchester universities have imported thousands of cases because the government refused to bail out the university sector and gave universities a very simply choice between becoming covid incubators or going bankrupt.
No one is going to argue that hospitality can happen with zero cases. Lockdown extremists will logically argue that we should not have them open at all. My position is simply that if you don't have schools open the evidence of the summer seemed to suggest you can have some degree of normality, and if you DO have schools open it's irrelevant whether those places are open or shut because you're not going to be able to keep a lid on case numbers anyway.
It's a difficult debate, for sure, I'm just frustrated that we're being cheerled back into fairly major restrictions on all of our lives, especially for those of us who don't live lives that conform to the expectations that you live with/have a close nuclear family unit, without much evidence to suggest it's going to have any effect whatsoever.