I can see how 'spreading risk across the country' looks like an obviously bad thing, but I think it does not reflect what the main dangerous elements of an epidemic are. If one infected person goes to a nearby cinema or pub and infects 20 others, who then go to a nearby cinema or pub and ..... then you risk a massive outbreak. If a few people who, let's say, are infected travel across the country to be with a few other people, then this might create some geographical; spread, but does not have the same multiplier effect. And we already have geographical spread.
View attachment 67177
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdash...DkezUPSE0uo#/f94c3c90da5b4e9f9a0b19484dd4bb14
I recognise that if you think that 'total lockdown' is necessary and can be effective and sustainable, then
any risk of any kind of spreading is unacceptable. But if you believe that 'partial lock down' is the appropriate approach, then some kinds of spreading will risk things getting out of control and others may not.