I wasn’t saying that. I’m saying it seems like they’re angling at that train of thought now that they’ve moved away from staying at home (albeit ‘everything’s fine’ was obviously an exaggeration). Also, “save lives” within the previous slogan was pretty easy to follow. Stay at home - in doing so you’ll protect the NHS, and in doing so you’ll help save lives.
I disagree with the idea of moving away from staying home, but putting that aside as it’s clearly a point that’s open for debate, at least it was a clear instruction.
As others have said, we should know now to stay at home, so in that sense, moving the advice along should be fine. But this weekend has shown that certain people in this country need clear, absolute instruction - and even then, they’re still at risk of ignoring it.
Also, there’ll be issues around work etc if the government start leaving it up to individual workplaces to decide whether they can return or not which could make things messy, too. Employers that are eager to get people back in to the workplace will just interpret the advice in a way that suits them, if the advice isn’t clear enough tonight. “Work from home unless you absolutely can’t do so” avoided that problem (again, clearly only a temporary measure).
As Matty said in this thread and as you’ve alluded to, the message has to be more nuanced now that they’ve moved on, but it still needs to be more clear than a fuzzy, unclear ‘stay alert and control an invisible, often asymptomatic virus ’. If people were out doing congas during the ‘stay home’ phase, I highly doubt that those same people are going to take any notice of an even vaguer message.
I know it was always going to be difficult to manoeuvre our way out of full lockdown, and maybe there’ll be a lot of points made tonight that ease some of the concerns, but the message isn’t a good start. We’ll see.