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

[bramling]

Sorry but this post is really random and paradoxic; I don't really see how you can simultaneously talk of the possibility of herd immunity and getting cases down to implausibly low levels.

I mean new cases, and with herd immunity being based on recovered cases (if there is any immunity).

 

[Starmill]

I'm not expecting the government to support people forever, because I'm not expecting the current measures to be fully in place forever. I speak to lots of people, in lots of age groups and in lots of jobs; none of them are feeling suicidal and none of the children are struggling. I obviously move in the wrong circles.

This is a genuinely ridiculous take. What any one person witnesses in their own social circle is merely anecdotal evidence, and tells us nothing.

 

[Bantamzen]

Yes there may never be a vaccine; there may never be a 'cure' (aka a treatment to reduce mortality rates); catching the virus might not even confer immunity. If that's the case then we'll probably be reliant on test & trace to keep the spread at manageable levels. Whichever it is, life will then be at the new normal. Imagining that this will be in a couple of weeks is a pipedream. The government is not going to condemn thousands of people to death, even if the majority of them only have a few years life expectancy (actually WHO have estimated that the average reduction in life expectancy by covid-19, even with the very high average age of those dying, is 13 years), because the media and opposition would crucify them, even if they were so minded.

And conversely the government cannot afford to keep measures in place when those measures may themselves condemn thousands of people to death. The are already suggestions that non-covid deaths are on the increase because people are not seeking help with other medical conditions, not going for check-ups when under treatment etc. Throw in additional stress that millions are currently suffering because they face an uncertain future, and that's going to be a big problem in the months and years to come. A balance is going to have to be struck sooner rather than later. Our politicians are right now eying up what other countries are doing in terms of relaxing measures, because they know that the government cannot afford the bill that covid is racking up.

I really can't see a "new normal", which fundamentally goes against how humans have evolved to operate, lasting forever.

"A new normal", it seems to be almost as popular a cliché as "social distancing". I think a lot of people think the two are one of the same, but they almost certainly will not be. Yes, there will likely be some much longer term measures such as home working, cancelling major events, even just things like offering more opportunities to wash / sanitise. But lockdowns & social distancing are measures to gain control of the healthcare situation, not long term measures to protect us.

Sounds familiar. Basically, handshakes were for businessmen (though one uncle also did it), and "touchy feely" was exclusively for close relations, never friends. You'd just say "bye", maybe a quick wave and wander off.

I think you will find this differs a lot between regions and demographics. For example working as I do with people from Indian / Pakistani backgrounds handshakes are very important, and not greeting someone with a handshake would be considered very rude. And lots of other people have various forms of handshakes, be it cultural or just more formal. My step-family in Cheshire for example men will always greet with a handshake.

But for how long can this continue?

It's all very well talking about girls over social media, but what happens if social distancing continues for years and he can't meet any girls apart from looking at them from 2 metres away?

The use of social media is a great thing which will help many people old and young through the immediate situation. But it is not a long term solution.

If there is no vaccine for years and social distancing is required for years, shall your son just stare at a computer screen for years, with the closest interaction with anyone else being a 2 metre away conversation in the street? Perhaps not going to university because they aren't viable with social distancing being enforced in student housing, lecture theatres, tutorials etc. And even if he did go to uni, not allowed out of his room to socialise or play sport or do anything at all? Then what does he do? Sit at home on his computer?

As I've said above, social distancing seems to have become for some people something it really isn't, i.e. a long term measure. But it is not a cohesive strategy in the long run, humans are (despite what some might believe) a social creature. We will congregate to socialise, to seek enjoyment, to see family & friends, and maybe to find romance. Social media can sometimes fill temporary gaps, but we most certainly cannot have generations of people only getting any real human interaction online. That is not healthy.

Quite honestly, starting as I am week 7 of working from home I am now seriously missing friends & family, and for all it's attempts to bridge the gap, social media and video calls are not the same. I crave the company of others, to share a tale or a joke, to not have those inevitable awkward silences that seem to always happen on video calling. I am prepared to see what the government's strategy is going forward for the next few weeks. But mark my word, if weeks continue into months and I still cannot see family especially, I and doubtless countless others will start to think seriously about doing it anyway. And if that sounds selfish, well it is. But separating families for prolonged periods is also selfish, especially when there are easily applied mitigations to allow it, but are not pursued to reassure others.

As I see it the clock is now ticking, people are starting to get impatient and need to see some positive moves towards going back to some kind of normal. I can see it all over my social media feeds, on forums like this, and even in the media. We need some light at the end of the tunnel, and we will need that long before any vaccine or treatment is ever going to be trialled let alone mass produced.

 

[bramling]

As I've said above, social distancing seems to have become for some people something it really isn't, i.e. a long term measure. But it is not a cohesive strategy in the long run, humans are (despite what some might believe) a social creature. We will congregate to socialise, to seek enjoyment, to see family & friends, and maybe to find romance. Social media can sometimes fill temporary gaps, but we most certainly cannot have generations of people only getting any real human interaction online. That is not healthy.

Quite honestly, starting as I am week 7 of working from home I am now seriously missing friends & family, and for all it's attempts to bridge the gap, social media and video calls are not the same. I crave the company of others, to share a tale or a joke, to not have those inevitable awkward silences that seem to always happen on video calling. I am prepared to see what the government's strategy is going forward for the next few weeks. But mark my word, if weeks continue into months and I still cannot see family especially, I and doubtless countless others will start to think seriously about doing it anyway. And if that sounds selfish, well it is. But separating families for prolonged periods is also selfish, especially when there are easily applied mitigations to allow it, but are not pursued to reassure others.

As I see it the clock is now ticking, people are starting to get impatient and need to see some positive moves towards going back to some kind of normal. I can see it all over my social media feeds, on forums like this, and even in the media. We need some light at the end of the tunnel, and we will need that long before any vaccine or treatment is ever going to be trialled let alone mass produced.

Surely it depends upon how one defines "long term". I don't think anyone envisages social distancing will be permanent, but we clearly have it for the time being. What's the alternative? Frustrating though social distancing may be, the alternative is that infection rates - and therefore deaths - start rising again, possibly at a rate where it starts to go out of control again. Then we'll be forced back into a lockdown which everyone now seems to agree we simply can't afford. That really would be a disaster.

Is social distancing *really* that bad? At the moment it certainly seems to be the least-worst option available. What would you prefer, not see granny, or infect granny and kill her? Realistically that may be the choice for the time being, lights at the end of the tunnel simply isn't there for the taking at the moment, and there's no point pretending it is, this is something we all have to accept, difficult though it may be.

It might help if we had some better TV. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels the continuous repetitive point-scoring news coverage of C19 utterly draining.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It might help if we had some better TV. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels the continuous repetitive point-scoring news coverage of C19 utterly draining.

This is one reason why some consideration is going into getting professional football restarted. It might seem trivial or unimportant, and it might seem just about overpaid prima-donnas (and in many senses it is both of those things). But what it does do is keep men (and it is mostly men) of all generations occupied, primarily at home, on a weekend afternoon and stop them wanting to go out and do other stuff. Getting it going again could actually save lives by stopping twentysomethings going out and congregating somewhere else.

 

[Bantamzen]

Surely it depends upon how one defines "long term". I don't think anyone envisages social distancing will be permanent, but we clearly have it for the time being. What's the alternative? Frustrating though social distancing may be, the alternative is that infection rates - and therefore deaths - start rising again, possibly at a rate where it starts to go out of control again. Then we'll be forced back into a lockdown which everyone now seems to agree we simply can't afford. That really would be a disaster.

Is social distancing *really* that bad? At the moment it certainly seems to be the least-worst option available. What would you prefer, not see granny, or infect granny and kill her? Realistically that may be the choice for the time being, lights at the end of the tunnel simply isn't there for the taking at the moment, and there's no point pretending it is, this is something we all have to accept, difficult though it may be.

It might help if we had some better TV. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels the continuous repetitive point-scoring news coverage of C19 utterly draining.

It all depends, if someone's business involves situations where social distancing is more difficult, and therefore currently furloughed, then yes it is bad. And a significant proportion of the UK's business falls into this category, which means tax revenue is down which could eventually have a very negative effect on the very body social distancing is supposed to aid, i.e. the NHS. And then there is this whole 2 metre rule itself, which is now in some dispute with different countries have differencing distances:

Two-metre social distancing rule was 'conjured out of nowhere', professor claims

'There's never been a scientific basis for two metres, it's kind of a rule of thumb. But it's not like there is a whole kind of rigorous scientific literature that it is founded upon.'

metro.co.uk

Advice to keep two metres apart while social distancing was ‘conjured up out of nowhere’, a government adviser has claimed. Robert Dingwall, of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG), says there has ‘never been a scientific basis for two metres’, naming it a ‘rule of thumb’. NERVTAG is an expert committee of the Department of Health (DH) that feeds into the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), which is advising the cabinet on the country’s coronavirus response. Speaking to Radio 4 on Saturday, Mr Dingwall said: ‘We cannot sustain [social distancing measures] without causing serious damage to society, to the economy and to the physical and mental health of the population.


I think it will be much harder to get compliance with some of the measures that really do not have an evidence base. I mean the two-metre rule was conjured up out of nowhere.’ He added: ‘Well, there is a certain amount of scientific evidence for a one-metre distance which comes out of indoor studies in clinical and experimental settings. ‘There’s never been a scientific basis for two metres, it’s kind of a rule of thumb. But it’s not like there is a whole kind of rigorous scientific literature that it is founded upon.’

UK government advice currently recommends people maintain a distance of two metres, while the World Health Organisation advises staying at least one metre away from others. The WHO is assessing ongoing research on the ways Covid-19 is spread, as experts debate whether tiny airborne droplets that remain in the air for minutes to hours can cause infection. Sociologist Mr Dingwall has previously claimed the government should ‘call off the dogs’, saying he has seen no evidence at NERVTAG that there is a major threat of coronavirus transmission outdoors. He told The Telegraph: ‘If it was entirely down to me, I would be calling the dogs off. I don’t think it is appropriate to harass sunbathers. ‘It is an indictment of the political and scientific elite that they are not recognising that people living in flats and social housing do not have an alternative to going to parks.’ Metro.co.uk has contacted the government for comment.

 

[HH]

One factor I have not seen considered is what the vaccine will do. Will it actually kill Covid-19 almost immediately it enters the body, will it be killed but over several days or will it simply make the body more resilient, like those who already are carriers but have no or minimal symptoms ? The vaccine or vaccines, as there may have to be several to cover in particular those on long term medication with no or negligible side effects, are unlikely to be absolutely 100% effective.

This all shows a misunderstanding of how vaccines work. Rather than enter a long explanation here, let me provide a link (there are plenty more if you Google).

You need to have the vaccine before you get the virus; they are never 100% effective, but they don't have to be.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the latter paragraph of @Bantamzen's post, even if it does spread outdoors to a small extent that may not be a reason to lock people up,precisely because of the reason (flat dwellers in cities) you outline.

I'm not convinced it does to any significant extent. If it stayed in the air for hours, the R value would surely be 10+ more like measles which definitely does.

 

[HH]

This is a genuinely ridiculous take. What any one person witnesses in their own social circle is merely anecdotal evidence, and tells us nothing.

Now that is a genuinely ridiculous take, because the government's figures are now showing what I and many others have observed.

 

[HH]

And conversely the government cannot afford to keep measures in place when those measures may themselves condemn thousands of people to death. The are already suggestions that non-covid deaths are on the increase because people are not seeking help with other medical conditions, not going for check-ups when under treatment etc. Throw in additional stress that millions are currently suffering because they face an uncertain future, and that's going to be a big problem in the months and years to come. A balance is going to have to be struck sooner rather than later. Our politicians are right now eying up what other countries are doing in terms of relaxing measures, because they know that the government cannot afford the bill that covid is racking up.

I don't disagree at all. I've just said that there will need to be some measures in place for some time. That they will have to relax them in the near future is not in doubt. How near is the question. I note that Italy, whose shocking death total we are now exceeding, are only just relaxing theirs and they started them weeks earlier - and they were more stringent.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't disagree at all. I've just said that there will need to be some measures in place for some time. That they will have to relax them in the near future is not in doubt. How near is the question. I note that Italy, whose shocking death total we are now exceeding, are only just relaxing theirs and they started them weeks earlier - and they were more stringent.

Though our curve has closely followed theirs, which might serve to suggest that the extra measures they had over us were perhaps not necessary.

 

[nedchester]

And conversely the government cannot afford to keep measures in place when those measures may themselves condemn thousands of people to death. The are already suggestions that non-covid deaths are on the increase because people are not seeking help with other medical conditions, not going for check-ups when under treatment etc. Throw in additional stress that millions are currently suffering because they face an uncertain future, and that's going to be a big problem in the months and years to come. A balance is going to have to be struck sooner rather than later. Our politicians are right now eying up what other countries are doing in terms of relaxing measures, because they know that the government cannot afford the bill that covid is racking up.



"A new normal", it seems to be almost as popular a cliché as "social distancing". I think a lot of people think the two are one of the same, but they almost certainly will not be. Yes, there will likely be some much longer term measures such as home working, cancelling major events, even just things like offering more opportunities to wash / sanitise. But lockdowns & social distancing are measures to gain control of the healthcare situation, not long term measures to protect us.



I think you will find this differs a lot between regions and demographics. For example working as I do with people from Indian / Pakistani backgrounds handshakes are very important, and not greeting someone with a handshake would be considered very rude. And lots of other people have various forms of handshakes, be it cultural or just more formal. My step-family in Cheshire for example men will always greet with a handshake.



As I've said above, social distancing seems to have become for some people something it really isn't, i.e. a long term measure. But it is not a cohesive strategy in the long run, humans are (despite what some might believe) a social creature. We will congregate to socialise, to seek enjoyment, to see family & friends, and maybe to find romance. Social media can sometimes fill temporary gaps, but we most certainly cannot have generations of people only getting any real human interaction online. That is not healthy.

Quite honestly, starting as I am week 7 of working from home I am now seriously missing friends & family, and for all it's attempts to bridge the gap, social media and video calls are not the same. I crave the company of others, to share a tale or a joke, to not have those inevitable awkward silences that seem to always happen on video calling. I am prepared to see what the government's strategy is going forward for the next few weeks. But mark my word, if weeks continue into months and I still cannot see family especially, I and doubtless countless others will start to think seriously about doing it anyway. And if that sounds selfish, well it is. But separating families for prolonged periods is also selfish, especially when there are easily applied mitigations to allow it, but are not pursued to reassure others.

As I see it the clock is now ticking, people are starting to get impatient and need to see some positive moves towards going back to some kind of normal. I can see it all over my social media feeds, on forums like this, and even in the media. We need some light at the end of the tunnel, and we will need that long before any vaccine or treatment is ever going to be trialled let alone mass produced.

I can't disagree with any of that.

The clock is certainly ticking and I think that if we don't return to 'near normal' (note not 'new normal') and that it is communicated well resulting in strong public support then it will break down.

Whilst it is selfish to do something which will potentially cause the deaths of others many will not be willing to let their own livelihoods and financial security of themselves or their families go down the pan. What do you do if you're a business owner and you either open your business or lose everything. Human instinct will kick in, it will be a case of survivial of the fittest. Individuals unable to do the things they like will rebel, there's a real risk of civil disorder.

Therefore, a balance needs to be found whereby we can limit the spread and effects of the disease as much as possible but allow the rest of the population to continue much as normal. Otherwise, we have a much bigger issues both healthcare (mental and physical health) and economic health. The two cannot be separated.

 

[bramling]

The clock is certainly ticking and I think that if we don't return to 'near normal' (note not 'new normal') and that it is communicated well resulting in string public support then it will break down.

I do think the government have been poor on communicating exactly *why* the lockdown was brought in. Boris's address to the nation simply started with "I must give the British people a simple instruction".

If you want people to seriously buy-in to something, it's very important to explain the rationale behind it. We would also then have a yardstick against which to measure success.

 

[nedchester]

I do think the government have been poor on communicating exactly *why* the lockdown was brought in. Boris's address to the nation simply started with "I must give the British people a simple instruction".

If you want people to seriously buy-in to something, it's very important to explain the rationale behind it. We would also then have a yardstick against which to measure success.

Agree. I think the lockdown has been mostly successful so far because the public have used common sense. But that won't last forever.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do think the government have been poor on communicating exactly *why* the lockdown was brought in. Boris's address to the nation simply started with "I must give the British people a simple instruction".

If you want people to seriously buy-in to something, it's very important to explain the rationale behind it.

Isn't that what the press conferences have done, or tried to do? It's more than most countries have done.

 

[HH]

Though our curve has closely followed theirs, which might serve to suggest that the extra measures they had over us were perhaps not necessary.

Or maybe they have a different social set up, with more apartments and multi-generational households. Our curve has begun to climb above theirs.

 

[bramling]

Agree. I think the lockdown has been mostly successful so far because the public have used common sense. But that won't last forever.

The government's comms since Boris's initial address have been utterly dire, which is no doubt at least partly due to Boris's illness.

 

[bramling]

Isn't that what the press conferences have done, or tried to do?

ROFL!

Seriously, yes the press conferences might have sought to have done that, but if they did then I don't feel they've achieved it very well in practice. Some of the performances have been worse than dire.

The likes of Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance have attempted to provide some detail, but the problem is they're not the actual decision makers, so what they say doesn't quite cut through IMO.

 

[nedchester]

ROFL!

Seriously, yes the press conferences might have sought to have done that, but if they did then I don't feel they've achieved it very well in practice. Some of the performances have been worse than dire.

The likes of Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance have attempted to provide some detail, but the problem is they're not the actual decision makers, so what they say doesn't quite cut through IMO.

Whitty and Vallance have been very good but of course they can't tell the whole story. As an example Whitty will say from a scientists point of view that social distancing will have to continue 'for some time', which is correct from a scientific point of view but not those of a social scientist or an economist. A bit like doctors saying you shouldn't smoke because it will kill you but the Government won't ban it because it brings in valuable tax revenues.

 

[Starmill]

Now that is a genuinely ridiculous take, because the government's figures are now showing what I and many others have observed.

I mean they're not at all are they, and you could literally just say that about anything.

 

[Starmill]

On the point about news, it's worthy of note that there far more grown-up political debate now in many other countries because the government have admitted that the country wasn't prepared for the crisis and responded with some degree of humility. Here the line from government is flat 'our plan is working, so sorry if you feel that it's not'. A lot of the press elsewhere have taken it as part of their role to inform the public by spreading the government's clear messaging. Here there has been such a lack of clear messaging that suspicion and hackery have taken its place. This is probably irreversible now. Ministers expect to be able to act without being scrutinised or challenged, and the lobby flat out don't believe Ministers. This situation is very bad for democracy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think a commitment to an independent enquiry afterwards (with a definition of when "afterwards" is in terms of measures rather than dates) would help here.

 

[underbank]

What do you do if you're a business owner and you either open your business or lose everything.

But a business owner doesn't work in a vacuum. They also need suppliers, customers and usually, staff.

When lockdown was first announced, our village chip shop and the sandwich/pie shop tried to stay open, but both struggled. The chip shop due to the tiny kitchen and behind counter area meaning social distancing was impossible for staff. The pie shop because the shop area was tiny and could only have 1 customer at a time, not helped by a narrow pavement outside meaning people had to wait stood in the road.

Both would face the same problems when they try to re-open. Even if "the law" reduces the 2 metres to just 1 metre, or even goes back to the original "catch coughs and sneezes" advice, will staff/customers really be happy to be cramped together, almost touching in such places.

I don't think they will. Without customers willing to stand in a congested tiny shop space, or without staff willing to work in a small workspace, those businesses won't re open.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My local chippy is reopening today. The customer side is tiny, so I suspect what they'll do is that you queue outside and one customer will be served inside at a time, probably with a perspex screen between staff and customer.

Re staff they can I reckon easily manage to keep 2 of them 2m apart, one cooking and one serving, which is how they normally operate anyway. Might just require the peas/gravy/curry warmer to be moved as that's the only repeated crossover I can think of.

Chippies that have a two-sided range with the chef on one side and the servers on the other will find it even easier.

 

[nedchester]

My local chippy is reopening today. The customer side is tiny, so I suspect what they'll do is that you queue outside and one customer will be served inside at a time, probably with a perspex screen between staff and customer.

Re staff they can I reckon easily manage to keep 2 of them 2m apart, one cooking and one serving, which is how they normally operate anyway. Might just require the peas/gravy/curry warmer to be moved as that's the only repeated crossover I can think of.

Chippies that have a two-sided range with the chef on one side and the servers on the other will find it even easier.

My local chippy opened two weeks ago. Two in the shop at any one time and a socially distanced queue outside. When I went there last week (delicious fish and chips) it was all very well ordered. Not sure the staff were very socially distanced though! But I understand why they opened, either open and survive or close and lose your livelihood. They were doing a roaring trade!

 

[HH]

I mean they're not at all are they, and you could literally just say that about anything.

They've even mentioned it on the last two Downing Street Press Conferences! But I suppose you'll have an answer to that too!!!!

 

[HH]

My local chippy opened two weeks ago. Two in the shop at any one time and a socially distanced queue outside. When I went there last week (delicious fish and chips) it was all very well ordered. Not sure the staff were very socially distanced though! But I understand why they opened, either open and survive or close and lose your livelihood. They were doing a roaring trade!

It's strange. We have one chippy open and two that are closed. Similar story with other takeaway restaurants. Equally some sit down restaurants have started doing takeaway, but many haven't. I guess that it's probably easier for family-run businesses...

 

[Domh245]

Now that is a genuinely ridiculous take, because the government's figures are now showing what I and many others have observed.

I'm curious as to what Government figures track how many people are struggling with their mental health or feeling suicidal?

 

[HH]

I'm curious as to what Government figures track how many people are struggling with their mental health or feeling suicidal?

Me too. Lack of data hasn't stopped people stating that it has massively increased though, has it?

 

[Domh245]

Me too. Lack of data hasn't stopped people stating that it has massively increased though, has it?

Based on their personal observations it has though. Just as there are plenty of people on here who've noted that people they speak to are struggling, you've not noticed anyone - the reality is that it'll be somewhere in the middle, some are fine, some are struggling. Trying to say that there are government figures showing that isn't an increase in people who are struggling or feeling suicidal (as you appear to in post 400) isn't right though, because there isn't any.

I would also just caution that people are likely to 'under report' how bad they might actually be feeling - as far as my family and university lecturers and tutors are concerned, I'm fine apart from maybe struggling to focus on uni work. Reality is I'm not doing particularly well (although not suicidal), and only a select few friends (and now this forum!) know that - again, anecdotal evidence and all, but there's plenty of stories where people seem to be fine and happy one day and then take their lives the next - opening up about how you are feeling can be very difficult, particularly to people who are close.