Long term social distancing: Impact on public life & public transport?

[Cardiff123]

When people are able to return to what they were doing before the virus, they will do so.

Well they have a very, very long time to wait

 

[underbank]

this is at the heart of all the discussions on any of the large events / tourism questions.

In fact, most businesses. Say, shops - unless they know they're going to get enough customers to cover their costs, they're not going to open. Even if there are enough customers, can they actually serve them because of social distancing? Is there enough space behind the counter for the staff to social distance (especially in often tiny kitchens) or where there are two tills on one counter. Our village has several businesses that have closed but didn't need to - a chip shop, a pie/sandwich shop and a butchers. The chip shop closed because the staff couldn't social distance. The pie/sandwich shop closed because the customer area was tiny and they couldn't get enough customers served one at a time over their only busy time, lunchtime. The butchers shut because the butcher himself was on the most vulnerable list so had to self isolate for minimum 12 weeks. So in one tiny village, 3 businesses closed that weren't forced to for 3 different reasons. The pie ship is mostly likely to re-open first, but it also needs to know there'll be enough customers, even if they manage to work out how to serve them 2 metres apart - the village is currently dead, schools closed, churches closed, other businesses closed, no cars/lorries on the road, so the owners are going to be very reluctant to open any time soon until people are milling around again.

Even if B&Bs etc found a way to open and persuaded guests that it was safe, there may not be much to do, i.e. tourist attractions closed, gift shops and cafes closed, etc etc. Same with sporting events, even if you drastically limited attendance numbers so people weren't sat too close, you've still got "pinch points" such as toilets, turnstiles, refreshment counters etc which will be a nightmare to set up for social distancing when everyone is moving around at the same time, i.e. interval, when leaving at end, etc.

It's going to take months to get back to even partial normality and probably a year before we're back where we started pre covid. People need to get used to it.

 

[Envy123]

Well, how long can the UK government borrow to fund the NHS?

I dread to think about how high taxes will be if it will take a year for everything to be back to normal.

 

[Meerkat]

When people are able to return to what they were doing before the virus, they will do so.

There won’t be an ‘after the virus’ - it won’t be going away.
And whilst it is out there somewhere travel insurance is going to be pretty pricey, and the card companies are going to be a bit nervous about paying airlines and travel operators.
This is all more evidence why travel insurance, including repatriation insurance should be compulsory on leaving the country....

 

[Meerkat]

The chip shop closed because the staff couldn't social distance. The pie/sandwich shop closed because the customer area was tiny and they couldn't get enough customers served one at a time over their only busy time, lunchtime.

i would imagine shopfitters and associated trades are going to be pretty busy over the next few months.....

 

[yorksrob]

There won’t be an ‘after the virus’ - it won’t be going away.
And whilst it is out there somewhere travel insurance is going to be pretty pricey, and the card companies are going to be a bit nervous about paying airlines and travel operators.
This is all more evidence why travel insurance, including repatriation insurance should be compulsory on leaving the country....

There won't be an "after the virus" technically, but there might be a time after the virus has ceased to be a mortal risk (beyond what we would see as acceptable).

 

[C J Snarzell]

Anyone who thinks this virus will be gone in a few months are seriously deluding themselves. This virus is probably going to be around indefinitely but on a much smaller scale.

As human beings we cannot be expected to retain our lives on hold like we have done in recent weeks. Governments have to find the right balance for ensuring we can continue our lives but not being ignorant to the virus and what it can do. Social distancing is clearly a short term solution - realistically can we continue with it for another 5 or 10 years?

CJ

 

[greyman42]

There won’t be an ‘after the virus’ - it won’t be going away.

I did not say there would be an 'after the virus'.

 

[Bletchleyite]

this is at the heart of all the discussions on any of the large events / tourism questions. Whilst you could probably configure theatres, cinemas etc to have 6 seats taken off sale around each one sold, the economics are so fragile anyway that it would almost certainly not be worthwhile.

Why do you think that of cinemas, when the vast majority of the time they operate well under 50% capacity?

 

[6Gman]

Well, how long can the UK government borrow to fund the NHS?

I dread to think about how high taxes will be if it will take a year for everything to be back to normal.

Funding the NHS isn't the big ticket item. It's the business support.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Funding the NHS isn't the big ticket item. It's the business support.

Exactly.

In much the same way that those who think the virus will just go away are deluding themselves, so are the people who think that the whole country and economy can exist in a semi lockdown / social distancing state for years on end until a vaccine is found - if one is ever found at all.

Aside from that social distancing physically can't be practised in some small retail and food related outlets, nor in some other jobs and industries, it would render a vast swathe, if not all, of the tourism and leisure and hospitality industries uneconomic and unviable.

All the talk over the last two pages of reduced numbers in pubs, doormen, table reservation systems, table service etc. Who exactly is going to pay for all this? Most pubs work on wafer thin margins so are not flush with spare cash to pay for these things.

Travel and tourism alone accounts for nearly 10% of this nation's economy and accounts for some 3.5million jobs. This no doubt does not fully cover everything in pubs, clubs, cafes - so add more on top.

If this substantial sector of the economy completely collapses, which is very likely, that is a huge economic hit which will decimate livelihoods, whole regions of the country and send the benefits bill soaring through the roof.

Quite simply the economy and society cannot afford a prolonged lockdown or the effects of prolonged social distancing.

And if there is no effective vaccine for say 3 years, does that mean no weddings, no gatherings, no meeting new partners, no socialising with people outside your house, no holidays, nothing apart from work and staring at your computer screen as means of contact with others for that length of time? Well if so there'll be no need for this forum as there will be no rail industry left as the government would have run out of money to keep subsidising it to cart around socially distanced fresh air.

 

[JonathanH]

And if there is no effective vaccine for say 3 years, does that mean no weddings, no gatherings, no meeting new partners, no socialising with people outside your house, no holidays, nothing apart from work and staring at your computer screen as

For some of the population, I expect that this is very much the position.

For the rest, some level of caution is needed but from a practical perspective the Nightingale Hospitals are now assembled and we can start to allow the virus to spread widely through the population using the extra healthcare capacity.

I would caution that eighteen months of the virus circulating is going to be absolutely awful for healthcare workers. Some of those 10% of people who work in tourism could probably get backroom jobs in the healthcare response to the spread of Covid-19.

Quite simply the economy and society cannot afford a prolonged lockdown or the effects of prolonged social distancing.

It is a truly awful conundrum - let the economy collapse or subject healthcare professionals (and anyone else they can recruit to help them) to eighteen months of something they didn't sign up for.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would caution that eighteen months of the virus circulating is going to be absolutely awful for healthcare workers. Some of those 10% of people who work in tourism could probably get backroom jobs in the healthcare response to the spread of Covid-19.

The virus is probably going to circulate in some form for rather more than 18 months. It's very rare to be able to wipe one out entirely even with a vaccine. Flu is very much still going, for instance.

 

[JonathanH]

The virus is probably going to circulate in some form for rather more than 18 months. It's very rare to be able to wipe one out entirely even with a vaccine. Flu is very much still going, for instance.

That depends on how much we go about our normal lives during the period of infection and of course whether the same people get it over and over again.

In the latter case, I simply don't see how the healthcare profession can deal with it.

 

[yorkie]

It is a truly awful conundrum - let the economy collapse or subject healthcare professionals (and anyone else they can recruit to help them) to eighteen months of something they didn't sign up for.

It is an awful conundrum but the future of young and healthy people cannot be completely scarified, so a balance is going to have to be struck.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It does happen in life that you "sign up" for a career and it turns out, for whatever reason, not to be what you expected. No doubt those signing up to drive steam locomotives in the 1950s were very much in this position, albeit not in a "morbid" manner like this.

This might mean that some have to reconsider their career choices based on this. Others may reconsider a different way and choose to go into the NHS.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

For some of the population, I expect that this is very much the position.

For the rest, some level of caution is needed but from a practical perspective the Nightingale Hospitals are now assembled and we can start to allow the virus to spread widely through the population using the extra healthcare capacity.

I would caution that eighteen months of the virus circulating is going to be absolutely awful for healthcare workers. Some of those 10% of people who work in tourism could probably get backroom jobs in the healthcare response to the spread of Covid-19.



It is a truly awful conundrum - let the economy collapse or subject healthcare professionals (and anyone else they can recruit to help them) to eighteen months of something they didn't sign up for.

There are some places where the whole community relies on travel, tourism and hospitality. The Lake District for example. In that and similar regions elsewhere it will be well more than 10%. Collapse of that sector could lead to whole communities basically closing down and becoming ghost regions.

 

[JonathanH]

All the talk over the last two pages of reduced numbers in pubs, doormen, table reservation systems, table service etc. Who exactly is going to pay for all this? Most pubs work on wafer thin margins so are not flush with spare cash to pay for these things.

Travel and tourism alone accounts for nearly 10% of this nation's economy and accounts for some 3.5million jobs. This no doubt does not fully cover everything in pubs, clubs, cafes - so add more on top.

For what it is worth, I agree that this can't really happen - the implementation of artificial means of distancing in pubs and restaurants probably isn't affordable.

Tourism is something that we really can't contemplate - if we look at where the Nightingale Hospitals and large hospitals are, they are located in or near the major conurbations, (Bristol, Birmingham, Exeter, Harrogate, London, Manchester and Sunderland), not the traditional tourist locations. Covid-19 hasn't really taken hold in most of the tourist areas. It needs to stay that way - local tourism might be fine but long-distance tourism to the extremities of the country can not be countenanced (although it does seem that Exeter is getting a Nightingale Hospital now) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-52420086.


Source https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274

It is an awful conundrum but the future of young and healthy people cannot be completely scarified, so a balance is going to have to be struck.

Yes, it is, although not everyone who is being sacrificed is young and not everyone who is young is healthy.

Given we are still setting up Nightingale Hospitals, it seems pretty clear that the infection rate (and in turn the death rate) is going to go up again at some point - it is just a case of how best to manage it.

 

[JonathanH]

There are some places where the whole community relies on travel, tourism and hospitality. The Lake District for example. In that and similar regions elsewhere it will be well more than 10%. Collapse of that sector could lead to whole communities basically closing down and becoming ghost regions.

I guess that the Lake District is reasonably close to Manchester for healthcare overflow but the numbers visiting need to be tempered somehow - how do you best ration tourism whilst also allowing the economy to be supported?

Should some businesses serve locals and others the visitors to keep them apart and allow for distancing?

 

[yorkie]

Yes, it is, although not everyone who is being sacrificed is young and not everyone who is young is healthy.

Yes, agreed, I meant both 'groups' (and of course there is some overlap).

Given we are still setting up Nightingale Hospitals, it seems pretty clear that the infection rate (and in turn the death rate) is going to go up again at some point - it is just a case of how best to manage it.

Agreed; I think people are going to have to accept that may have to happen in order to get back to a new normal.

 

[yorksrob]

Given we are still setting up Nightingale Hospitals, it seems pretty clear that the infection rate (and in turn the death rate) is going to go up again at some point - it is just a case of how best to manage it.

That's not a forgone conclusion.

The Nightingale hospitals are a very sensible contingency, and they can also be put to use by providing capacity to spacially distance in existing hospitals, but that doesn't automatically assume a further rise in infection rates.

 

[bramling]

Yes, agreed, I meant both 'groups' (and of course there is some overlap).
Agreed; I think people are going to have to accept that may have to happen in order to get back to a new normal.

Yes ultimately we’re not going to be able to sustain some kind of apartheid-like arrangement where everyone stays in their area.

Ultimately there will have to be an acceptance that movement between areas will resume subject to people respecting social distancing for the time being.

It’s one thing having draconian restrictions in place whilst getting a hold of things, but ultimately we have to try and get back to a managed normality. My concern is, based on how *some* people have failed to respect the lockdown, is social distancing going to have quite a few leaks in it such that the infection rate starts climbing again? I’m already getting the impression that the scientists seem to believe we’re not in quite as good a position as we should be in considering we’ve now had over a months worth of lockdown.

Going out for a long walk this evening, once again it’s conspicuous how many cars were on the roads. Given the absence of places one would normally expect people to be driving to on a Saturday evening, and working on the basis there were too many cars for them to be all key workers, and it being a bit late in the day for people to be returning from local “beauty” spots, I can’t help but wonder if people are now socialising again by visiting friends and relatives by car, knowing the chances of getting picked up are pretty much zero.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes ultimately we’re not going to be able to sustain some kind of apartheid-like arrangement where everyone stays in their area.

Ultimately there will have to be an acceptance that movement between areas will resume subject to people respecting social distancing for the time being.

It’s one thing having draconian restrictions in place whilst getting a hold of things, but ultimately we have to try and get back to a managed normality. My concern is, based on how *some* people have failed to respect the lockdown, is social distancing going to have quite a few leaks in it such that the infection rate starts climbing again? I’m already getting the impression that the scientists seem to believe we’re not in quite as good a position as we should be in considering we’ve now had over a months worth of lockdown.

Going out for a long walk this evening, once again it’s conspicuous how many cars were on the roads. Given the absence of places one would normally expect people to be driving to on a Saturday evening, and working on the basis there were too many cars for them to be all key workers, and it being a bit late in the day for people to be returning from local “beauty” spots, I can’t help but wonder if people are now socialising again by visiting friends and relatives by car, knowing the chances of getting picked up are pretty much zero.

A week or so ago, I remember reading that the scientific modellers were expecting far fewer of the population to abide by social distancing than actually has happened.

Plus, if people being out and about now is going to have an effect on our position, that will be in the future, not now.

 

[JonathanH]

That's not a forgone conclusion.

The Nightingale hospitals are a very sensible contingency, and they can also be put to use by providing capacity to spacially distance in existing hospitals, but that doesn't automatically assume a further rise in infection rates.

I guess that the point is that an unknown number of people brought Covid-19 into the country from China, Italy and Spain (and potentially other places). They didn't necessarily distance themselves when they got here so infected many people.

When the lockdown measures are relaxed, there will still be people carrying Covid-19, maybe more than those at the start of March. I am fearful that it isn't possible not to assume a further rise in infection rates from that point. However, we potentially have more capacity to deal with it now.

Yes ultimately we’re not going to be able to sustain some kind of apartheid-like arrangement where everyone stays in their area.

The guidance could still be that, in the main, people do stay in their own area. Some will flout that but most people will follow the guidance.

It would be more responsible to think of somewhere we'd like to go on holiday and buy something from a small supplier in that area by mail order than to actually visit if we want to put money into the economy of tourist areas.

 

[yorkie]

A week or so ago, I remember reading that the scientific modellers were expecting far fewer of the population to abide by social distancing than actually has happened.

Plus, if people being out and about now is going to have an effect on our position, that will be in the future, not now.

Agreed. We're going round in circles

@bramling I agree with the first part of your post entirely, but the last paragraph is just a repeat of what you've said on many other threads; my response remains the same and I concur with @yorksrob too.

Therefore, let's try to avoid going round in circles and repeating previous discussion and sticking to the topic

 

[PTR 444]

And if there is no effective vaccine for say 3 years, does that mean no weddings, no gatherings, no meeting new partners, no socialising with people outside your house, no holidays, nothing apart from work and staring at your computer screen as means of contact with others for that length of time?

That would be a very poor quality of life for a lot of people. Some sort of compromise will have to be made otherwise suicide rates will go through the roof, quite possibly several times worse than the number of deaths from covid.

 

[yorkie]

That would be a very poor quality of life for a lot of people. Some sort of compromise will have to be made otherwise suicide rates will go through the roof, quite possibly several times worse than the number of deaths from covid.

Absolutely. By far the biggest risk for most of us is not the risk of getting Covid-19 (for the vast majority of us, the chances are we will not have any symptoms or only mild symptoms) but the far bigger risks that come with not getting back to normality.

Problem is, us humans are not very good at making rational, pragmatic decisions when it comes to perceived risks...

 

[yorksrob]

I guess that the point is that an unknown number of people brought Covid-19 into the country from China, Italy and Spain (and potentially other places). They didn't necessarily distance themselves when they got here so infected many people.

When the lockdown measures are relaxed, there will still be people carrying Covid-19, maybe more than those at the start of March. I am fearful that it isn't possible not to assume a further rise in infection rates from that point. However, we potentially have more capacity to deal with it now.

One can't assume that there won't be. Then again, one can't assume that there wil be. There are various countries in Europe which will probably have had large numbers of people entering from China, Italy and Spain in March. They haven't all had large increases in infection like here. We need try and replicate that.

Agreed. We're going round in circles

@bramling I agree with the first part of your post entirely, but the last paragraph is just a repeat of what you've said on many other threads; my response remains the same and I concur with @yorksrob too.

Therefore, let's try to avoid going round in circles and repeating previous discussion and sticking to the topic

Indeed. I would hope that the Government are looking into what's going on elsewhere to try and give an insight into why hospitalisation is still comparatively high here.

 

[bramling]

Absolutely. By far the biggest risk for most of us is not the risk of getting Covid-19 (for the vast majority of us, the chances are we will not have any symptoms or only mild symptoms) but the far bigger risks that come with not getting back to normality.

Problem is, us humans are not very good at making rational, pragmatic decisions when it comes to perceived risks...

I’m happy if the risks are mitigated, which once up and running social distancing should in most situations provide, and where it can’t be done then I’m happy to miss out on or modify the activities concerned (I’d have a takeaway instead of a restaurant meal, for example). Public transport is an exception however as one is much more at the mercy of others due to the confined nature of the space.

The problem that I see is how do we reconcile the over-70s and other high-risk groups? As far as I can tell no one has yet died (from C19 at any rate) due to not being able to secure NHS treatment. The lockdown has bought us some time both to uplift the NHS’s capacity and implement social distancing mitigation, however we still have a problem that the death rate is still fairly high even with the NHS not having gone over capacity.

Is it going to be widely acceptable to be essentially banking on social distancing alone to stop the death rate climbing steeply again? I’m not sure testing is a solution in this respect as notwithstanding the murmurings that there’s no guarantee of immunity, there’s still the massive problem that people can be asymptomatic for some time after infection, or perhaps for the whole duration of infection - during this period unknowingly passing it on to over-70s, and there is all kicks off all over again.

To restore anything like a normal life will require over-70s and others to be effectively very heavily isolated until something else arises like a vaccine, or the number of cases drops to very low levels and doesn’t flare up again due to herd immunity. I’m not sure as a society we can just expect to lock the over-70s up in their homes, even if it might help provide something of a solution.

On the other hand, people may be relatively supportive of the lockdown (I believe there are figures to bear this out) whilst on furlough, but that simply can’t last long due to the utterly immense cost of it. Stop furloughing and people will be straining at the leash to return to work such that pretty much all the measures would fall apart - we’re already seeing the seeds of that with the lockdown. On that score it may well be the case that the over-70s and other high-risk people will simply have to be locked up in their homes “until further notice” or play Russian roulette if they choose to venture out. That’s a very sad conclusion to come to, but as things are at this moment seems the most realistic.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

That would be a very poor quality of life for a lot of people. Some sort of compromise will have to be made otherwise suicide rates will go through the roof, quite possibly several times worse than the number of deaths from covid.

Absolutely. By far the biggest risk for most of us is not the risk of getting Covid-19 (for the vast majority of us, the chances are we will not have any symptoms or only mild symptoms) but the far bigger risks that come with not getting back to normality.

Problem is, us humans are not very good at making rational, pragmatic decisions when it comes to perceived risks...

Agree with both posts.

There is much talk from the various medical and scientific experts that we will have to stay in some sort of semi lockdown social distancing economic stasis for the foreseeable future until there is a successful vaccine or a treatment / cure. As there is no guarantee that we will ever get one of those at all, let alone quickly, what they expect us to do, stay inside for ever? Never meet up with family and friends? Never visit, hug and kiss your elderly parents? Never visit and hold your new nephew? Never have any form of intimate relations unless you already live with them? Never have any social interaction at all?

No. That is unrealistic to expect, even for much more than a few months let alone a year or so or longer.

It would be a very very poor quality of life for many people, especially those who live alone (like me). To be quite frank it is not one I'd want to live.

I have wittered on about the direct economic impacts but there are very significant societal and mental health impacts too - not just of lockdown, but also of social distancing - which cannot be overlooked.

As the government keeps telling us "we will be guided by the science" I hope they are getting advice from and listening to economic scientists and societal and mental health scientists and not just medical ones.