In fairness, none of this planning was done with reference to the new draft guidance.
I’d already done all the skeleton planning in January. I just top & tailed the documents and reviewed the RAs based on the one course we managed to squeeze in during the easing of restrictions.
It’s all planned on the assumption that nothing really changes in the fundamental control measures - as there is no reason why it should.
And that’s fair enough, I could do that too. But flying blind means if (and it is a big if) something changes in our guidance I would then need to redo it. I’d rather we just stuck to our promises, delivered when we said we would and let us get on with it.
I think you are overstating the problem a bit there. We aren’t flying blind, not would you have to redo everything - there might be small parts that have to change, but time spent doing the documentation wouldn’t be entirely wasted.
We have the experience of the last attempt to reopen to go on so there are some reasonable assumptions that can be made.
If some stupid things make it back in to the guidance like the 1:5 ratio, then I’ll either amend the numbers, or more likely make the case for why 1:5 silly.