Huh, indeed. I quite agree that makes no logical sense. Personally, I would say masks should be required in pubs and restaurants except when you are not sat eating and drinking, which largely means when going to the bar to order.

But the problem is that dealing with things like infection control has never primarily been a matter of logic. That is not a criticism of the approach (though I have many!) It is that prevent the spread of infections is inherently a problem that does not lead to simple logical solutions.

Take the old rules on meeting up in groups. We went for six, but there was no great rationale why it should not be 5 or 7. How children fit into this varied between England and Scotland. Why people who are 12-plus-a-month should be considered entirely differently to 12-minus-a-month is not really logical. Moreover, even if you meet you meet in a group how you interact matters rather more than the number.

So we are not in the realm of what makes logical sense. We are working with a combination of what can be justified statistically, modified by what we can achieve pragmatically. We also have to add a psychological state to that: people doing chores like shopping may well accept restrictions more readily than those out enjoying themselves in a pub, or trying to chat up a potential partner.

To that we have to add that while it may be possible to solve a problem logically given all the information, the situation is quite different when much of the information is unknown or uncertain.

So, yes, very much 'Huh?' But realistically any solution will be rather a mess. You cannot take something which is essentially a smooth continuum of risk and add a legal line which says everything to the left is ok and everything to the right not ok without creating apparent absurdities.