Everything you say here is correct but you have put your finger on the conflicting issue, which I have made bold in the quote. What is currently regarded as an acceptable standard of care may very probably be strict adherence to government guidelines. Of course, before you take me to task, that has not been tested in court, but it would be reasonable for a care home manager to make the assumption that falling below the standards set out in government guidance would expose him to a future risk of litigation, the claimant basing his case on that non-adherence. There could also be a prospect of criminal prosecution under health and safety legislation. Here I think the care home manager might be able to defend himself more easily as all risks, not just those of covid, need to be considered including the welfare of residents. However it would be a bold care home manager who defied popular coronaphobia and defied government guidance, and the local authority quite possibly, to take a balanced risk-based approach that took full account of the damage to residents' mental health and their welfare by denial of family visits, for example. Actually, now I think about it, there could be a case made that denial of family access constitutes a breach of S.4 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 but I can't see any local authority having the guts to persue that in the current climate.It is a mess!. To clarify for anyone trying to follow, there are a number of laws that govern care home provision e.g Consumer law. In cases of negligence this reverts to case law in which a test has to be proved in order for negligence to have taken place. Negligence cases are unique in that each test or standard of measure is adapted to the particular matter in question. So any test of negligence by a care home would be proportionate to that which is accepted as an acceptable standard of care. On that basis the claim would not be on whether the care home was opened to visitors, but what foreseeable measures were taken to reduce the risk of harm to other residents who were not being visited at the time. (in a nutshell). I think there is too much emphasis on only one factor here rather than weighing all of the issues at stake and coming up with a balanced approach.