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

[yorkie]

I do find the views of some people e.g. @HH deeply worrying and i hope that people with such views are not able to have any influence over any decisions. I understand why some people have a particlar view due to personal circumstance but some of us can see the bigger picture and are looking towards the future.

 

[bramling]

I do find the views of some people e.g. @HH deeply worrying and i hope that people with such views are not able to have any influence over any decisions. I understand why some people have a particlar view due to personal circumstance but some of us can see the bigger picture and are looking towards the future.

Something which has been on and off my mind today, if we’re working on the basis that the over-70s will probably have to shield for the foreseeable future as the least-worst of an awful bunch of options, what happens to others on the vulnerable list? At my place we have people shielding as young as in their 20s.

It’s unfortunately not going to be as simple as shield the over 70s and the rest carry on as normal.

Not that I have a solution to the problem.

We have some train crew depots with 25 to 50% of people shielding, and in some teams of staff it reaches as high as about 80% (although this high is the exception not the norm). What’s going to happen to the individuals concerned, and what happens about their work? In our case replacement can’t happen overnight due to time lags involved in training.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The younger ones will probably have to shield too. Ideally the furlough scheme should be continued as a form of benefit for them. But companies will need to recruit and adapt in the meantime.

If that leaves TOCs short, they'll need to implement and publish an emergency timetable.

 

[underbank]

Something which has been on and off my mind today, if we’re working on the basis that the over-70s will probably have to shield for the foreseeable future as the least-worst of an awful bunch of options, what happens to others on the vulnerable list? At my place we have people shielding as young as in their 20s.

I know of several small business owners who are either shielding or vulnerable. If they are going to have to lock themselves away, their businesses will fold.

I think too many people think of the "vulnerable" as retired oldies who find it only a mild inconvenience to stay indoors for months on end. My OH is shielding, only 55 years old and otherwise fit and healthy, running her own business, except for treatable cancer (for which treatment has been cancelled due to the hospitals abandoning all except covid patients!) - with treatment, high probability of living another 10/20 years and continuing to run her business!

 

[bramling]

I know of several small business owners who are either shielding or vulnerable. If they are going to have to lock themselves away, their businesses will fold.

I think too many people think of the "vulnerable" as retired oldies who find it only a mild inconvenience to stay indoors for months on end. My OH is shielding, only 55 years old and otherwise fit and healthy, running her own business, except for treatable cancer (for which treatment has been cancelled due to the hospitals abandoning all except covid patients!) - with treatment, high probability of living another 10/20 years and continuing to run her business!

This is exactly my thinking. Young versus old is too simplistic in all this.

 

[Meerkat]

I know of several small business owners who are either shielding or vulnerable. If they are going to have to lock themselves away, their businesses will fold.

I think too many people think of the "vulnerable" as retired oldies who find it only a mild inconvenience to stay indoors for months on end. My OH is shielding, only 55 years old and otherwise fit and healthy, running her own business, except for treatable cancer (for which treatment has been cancelled due to the hospitals abandoning all except covid patients!) - with treatment, high probability of living another 10/20 years and continuing to run her business!

But the alternative is everyone hiding away and the business goes bust!
The vulnerable people are either hiding or taking a huge risk. Why does that mean the rest of the country have to hide too? Who is going to pay to look after the vulnerable if the economy isn’t working?

 

[MDB1images]

Looks like one Airline has adapted it's Uniform to protect it's staff.....

AirAsia unveils red PPE suits for cabin crew

JAKARTA (JAKARTA POST/ASIA NEWS NETWORK) - Low-cost carrier AirAsia has introduced new personal protective equipment (PPE) for its cabin crews to be used as flights resume in the coming days in the region. Read more at straitstimes.com.

www.straitstimes.com

 

[JonathanH]

Looks like one Airline has adapted it's Uniform to protect it's staff.....

Who is going to want to travel on a plane with staff in PPE kit? I get the point but it seems really weird.

Maybe eventually once the supply chains are in place we will all being going around in PPE whenever we go outside.

 

[Meerkat]

Who is going to want to travel on a plane with staff in PPE kit? I get the point but it seems really weird.

Maybe eventually once the supply chains are in place we will all being going around in PPE whenever we go outside.

”Don’t worry, you are perfectly safe.....well we are anyway”

 

[Bantamzen]

Something which has been on and off my mind today, if we’re working on the basis that the over-70s will probably have to shield for the foreseeable future as the least-worst of an awful bunch of options, what happens to others on the vulnerable list? At my place we have people shielding as young as in their 20s.

It’s unfortunately not going to be as simple as shield the over 70s and the rest carry on as normal.

Not that I have a solution to the problem.

We have some train crew depots with 25 to 50% of people shielding, and in some teams of staff it reaches as high as about 80% (although this high is the exception not the norm). What’s going to happen to the individuals concerned, and what happens about their work? In our case replacement can’t happen overnight due to time lags involved in training.

Realistically even shielding as it stands can only be a short term solution. As hospitalisation from covid falls & capacity is re-released those vulnerable groups need to be at the heart of the track & trace ideas being mooted. So they may need to be more regularly checked for signs of infection and/or anti-bodies, and wherever possible we need to make sure that they have access to the proposed tracker app, even if this means procuring the mobile technology to allow them to have this facility & offer some guidance on how to use & understand it. Combined with the wider population using it, this will offer them a greater amount of information if they may have been potentially exposed & help them get to the medical help that they might need. The healthcare community are learning more and more about the most effective ways to treat the various symptoms, and as they do mortality rates will go down further.

Away from the healthcare system, the same simple mitigations that will help the healthy not spread it as much will apply. So, for example in your industry, better access to hand sanitisers in crew rooms & perhaps even on units to help them keep key surfaces clean, offer face masks if they want them, and just generally encouraging crews to observe simple things like covering mouths when showing cold or flu like symptoms, keeping mess areas clean & uncluttered, respecting a bit more personal space etc. Of course for people suffering anything more than mild symptoms encouraging staying at home & seeking medical advice will be key, which of course will lead to potentially crew shortages & cancellations. TOCs will have to get used to this concept, the government will have to change agreements to allow for it without punishment, and we the general public will have to accept that from time to time that our trains might get cancelled.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Away from the healthcare system, the same simple mitigations that will help the healthy not spread it as much will apply. So, for example in your industry, better access to hand sanitisers in crew rooms & perhaps even on units to help them keep key surfaces clean, offer face masks if they want them, and just generally encouraging crews to observe simple things like covering mouths when showing cold or flu like symptoms, keeping mess areas clean & uncluttered, respecting a bit more personal space etc. Of course for people suffering anything more than mild symptoms encouraging staying at home & seeking medical advice will be key, which of course will lead to potentially crew shortages & cancellations. TOCs will have to get used to this concept, the government will have to change agreements to allow for it without punishment, and we the general public will have to accept that from time to time that our trains might get cancelled.

But also TOCs will need to plan realistically for the staffing they are likely to get - which means fewer, longer trains and less dependence on overtime so this is instead available to cover for missing staff.

Short DMUs on excessive frequencies never made sense, but now they make *even less* sense.

 

[Bantamzen]

But also TOCs will need to plan realistically for the staffing they are likely to get - which means fewer, longer trains and less dependence on overtime so this is instead available to cover for missing staff.

Short DMUs on excessive frequencies never made sense, but now they make *even less* sense.

I agree on most points, although perhaps not on fewer trains especially away from the major hubs. Fewer trains in many areas will just send people back to their cars, which will lead to even fewer services. More staff to better be able cover absences has to be the long term goal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree on most points, although perhaps not on fewer trains especially away from the major hubs. Fewer trains in many areas will just send people back to their cars, which will lead to even fewer services. More staff to better be able cover absences has to be the long term goal.

Yes, long term there will need to be recruitment, but bringing a member of staff "online" takes about 12 months I believe, and cancellations and resultant overcrowding in the medium term won't be OK.

I wouldn't look to cut rural lines that are already down to hourly (other than the likes of the centre section of the Cumbrian Coast which could go back down to 2 hourly given the low demand). It's things like the number of trains across the Pennines that could feasibly reduce. Even on Merseyrail you could run a semi-permanent Sunday service with all trains 6-car and it'd still be useful.

 

[Bantamzen]

Yes, long term there will need to be recruitment, but bringing a member of staff "online" takes about 12 months I believe, and cancellations and resultant overcrowding in the medium term won't be OK.

I wouldn't look to cut rural lines that are already down to hourly (other than the likes of the centre section of the Cumbrian Coast which could go back down to 2 hourly given the low demand). It's things like the number of trains across the Pennines that could feasibly reduce. Even on Merseyrail you could run a semi-permanent Sunday service with all trains 6-car and it'd still be useful.

Routes like the TP have only just had the relief in getting enough capacity to stop overcrowding, dialling that back would be madness in the current situation. And even if rural routes are quiet, that doesn't mean we should knock them back. We might just have to accept that some trains will cart fresh air around for a while. And be we I mean the government, and RUK...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Routes like the TP have only just had the relief in getting enough capacity to stop overcrowding, dialling that back would be madness in the current situation.

Capacity can be increased in other ways, e.g. using doubled-up 185s where a 5-car LHCS set isn't adequate.

And even if rural routes are quiet, that doesn't mean we should knock them back. We might just have to accept that some trains will cart fresh air around for a while. And be we I mean the government, and RUK...

It's not about "knocking them back" nor about funding nor carting fresh air, it's about the fact that the railway should not operate a service level it cannot reliably resource. Hourly but reliable is better than half-hourly with many trains cancelled per day due to staff shortage.

Not only are cancellations annoying, but they also pose a genuine hazard in these circumstances - crowded platforms and crowded following trains would be a dangerous spread risk. To avoid this, whatever is operated has to be really, really reliable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I find this highly insulting. The moderator needs to be moderated!

He's engaging in discussion as a member of the Forum, not acting as a moderator. He, like you, has the right to do that.

 

[Bantamzen]

Capacity can be increased in other ways, e.g. using doubled-up 185s where a 5-car LHCS set isn't adequate.

By and large 5 car sets were adequate. But if you knock back regular 5 car sets for less frequent 6 car sets you are only going to increase loadings.

​

It's not about "knocking them back" nor about funding nor carting fresh air, it's about the fact that the railway should not operate a service level it cannot reliably resource. Hourly but reliable is better than half-hourly with many trains cancelled per day due to staff shortage.

Not only are cancellations annoying, but they also pose a genuine hazard in these circumstances - crowded platforms and crowded following trains would be a dangerous spread risk. To avoid this, whatever is operated has to be really, really reliable.

You will get crowded platforms if you knock back services. People will start off getting to the platforms with a few minutes to go, then as they find themselves struggling to get a seat regulars will start to arrive earlier & earlier to get to the "sweet spots" on the platforms. And before long you'll have the same lengthy crowded platform times that you are trying to avoid, but less trains & less capacity. Surely it is better to keep something close to the planned timetables, but encourage passengers to make use of the technology out there that can alert us to cancelled trains? Yes it will require more diligence & accuracy from TOCs, but the tech is there. Use an app to set up alerts for your planned train, train gets cancelled, you get a push message, you go to station for the next available time.

These really aren't hard issues to solve. But I'll award you points for trying to re-introduce your "less-is-more" agenda from previous threads into covid related ones. I shall await your Covid-MancBahn suggestions with baited breath....

 

[Bletchleyite]

These really aren't hard issues to solve. But I'll award you points for trying to re-introduce your "less-is-more" agenda from previous threads into covid related ones. I shall await your Covid-MancBahn suggestions with baited breath....

I'll be honest, I almost did mention Castlefield but shied away in favour of TPE

However, this is also close to my heart - LNR need to do it as well. Fewer trains but more of them 12-car.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'll be honest, I almost did mention Castlefield but shied away in favour of TPE

He he, I did wonder....

​

However, this is also close to my heart - LNR need to do it as well. Fewer trains but more of them 12-car.

That might work on their routes, but in other places with shorter platforms would still prove problematic, especially where shorter non-gangwayed stock is the norm.

 

[yorkie]

This thread is more about the longer term impacts but if anyone wishes to debate what the next steps of easeing the restrictions, the best thread for that is probably Exit strategy predictions

 

[HH]

I do find the views of some people e.g. @HH deeply worrying and i hope that people with such views are not able to have any influence over any decisions. I understand why some people have a particlar view due to personal circumstance but some of us can see the bigger picture and are looking towards the future.

I find your attitude highly worrying, because it seems to be totally focussed on what you perceive as being problems for the "young", for which you only have anecdotal evidence.

I'm the one who's looking at the bigger picture, because I understand that all age groups are suffering and that those who will suffer the most from the whole pandemic are the disadvantaged, as usual.

 

[yorkie]

I find your attitude highly worrying, because it seems to be totally focussed on what you perceive as being problems for the "young", for which you only have anecdotal evidence...

I'm trying to redress the balance as it is young people who are disproportionately affected by any harsher and/or prolonged lockdowns.

I'm the one who's looking at the bigger picture, because I understand that all age groups are suffering and that those who will suffer the most from the whole pandemic are the disadvantaged, as usual.

I have spoken when older relatives who mostly say they are not too impacted by current events; in contrast I know that young people are suffering hugely. There is a definite correlation there that I have noticed.

I find it worrying when I see calls for stricter and/or more prolonged restrictions, as the stricter and/or more prolonged any restrictions are, the more it affects young people in particular.

For example Spain made a decision not to allow children out; this is an example of a decision which was designed to protect the elderly in particular at the expense of the younger generation. That's the sort of decision I strongly disagree with.

While I accept this is a terrible time for the elderly and people in at risk groups, to me it seems undeniable that the biggest dangers for the majority of the population right now (and in particular young people) are not the virus itself, but the all the other things, such as the risk to their livelihoods, the mental health impacts of a prolonged and/or harsher period of restrictions, etc. Therefore, when decisions are made, these factors must be taken into consideration.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For example Spain made a decision not to allow children out; this is an example of a decision which was designed to protect the elderly in particular at the expense of the younger generation. That's the sort of decision I strongly disagree with.

I'd go so far as to say that is abuse. There was no need for it, either, with children being of low vulnerability. Restricting them to going out with an adult (so they don't sneak off to their mates' house) would have been quite adequate.

 

[HH]

I'm trying to redress the balance as it is young people who are disproportionately affected by any harsher and/or prolonged lockdowns.

What is imbalanced that needs redressing? You're not being clear. And I don't think it is self-evident that young people will be disproportionately affected as a group. Especially as "young" is a very vague description.

I have spoken when older relatives who mostly say they are not too impacted by current events; in contrast I know that young people are suffering hugely. There is a definite correlation there that I have noticed.

Anecdotal, and I've noticed the opposite.

I find it worrying when I see calls for stricter and/or more prolonged restrictions

Who is calling for stricter restrictions? Certainly not me.

For example Spain made a decision not to allow children out; this is an example of a decision which was designed to protect the elderly in particular at the expense of the younger generation. That's the sort of decision I strongly disagree with.

I don't know Spain well enough to comment. Do you?

While I accept this is a terrible time for the elderly and people in at risk groups, to me it seems undeniable that the biggest dangers for the majority of the population right now (and in particular young people) are not the virus itself, but the all the other things, such as the risk to their livelihoods, the mental health impacts of a prolonged and/or harsher period of restrictions, etc. Therefore, when decisions are made, these factors must be taken into consideration.

Who said that those factors shouldn't be taken into consideration?

It seems to me that you have got a bee in your bonnet about "the young" suffering and that you are therefore unable to look at the situation at all objectively.

 

[yorkie]

I'd go so far as to say that is abuse. There was no need for it, either, with children being of low vulnerability. Restricting them to going out with an adult (so they don't sneak off to their mates' house) would have been quite adequate.

I completely agree. Children are extremely unlikely to be hospitalised with the virus and the latest research indicates they are not 'super spreaders'

More evidence children don't pass on the coronavirus

The unnamed boy was at the centre of a cluster of cases in February. He didn't infect anyone else while he spent time with other skiers in France's Haute-Savoie region.

www.dailymail.co.uk

But doctors say the same may not apply for coronavirus, according to research that suggests they are not major spreaders of the disease.

An infected nine-year-old boy in France did not pass the vicious virus on to anyone - despite being in contact with 172 people while contagious.

'One child, co-infected with other respiratory viruses, attended three schools while symptomatic, but did not transmit the virus, suggesting potential different transmission dynamics in children,' Kostas Danis, an epidemiologist at Public Health France, and lead study author, told AFP.

 

[Chester1]

I'd go so far as to say that is abuse. There was no need for it, either, with children being of low vulnerability. Restricting them to going out with an adult (so they don't sneak off to their mates' house) would have been quite adequate.

I completely agree. Children are extremely unlikely to be hospitalised with the virus and the latest research indicates they are not 'super spreaders'

More evidence children don't pass on the coronavirus

The unnamed boy was at the centre of a cluster of cases in February. He didn't infect anyone else while he spent time with other skiers in France's Haute-Savoie region.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Locking up children, especially in a country where flats are very popular, without clear medical reason is unexcusable. I don't think any other western country banned children from exercising outside under parental supervision. Its the sort of thing that makes me glad to live in a country with a very stubborn attitude towards government. Our government knows that the lockdown can only be as strict and as long as people consent to. It doesn't matter if there was majority support for draconian measures because far too many people would disobey to enforce it.

 

[nlogax]

I completely agree. Children are extremely unlikely to be hospitalised with the virus and the latest research indicates they are not 'super spreaders'

No, but I would also look to the stories floating around this morning relating to an increased number of children suffering from Kawasaki disease - a form of vasculitis that affects the young - and apparant connections to Covid-19. A relatively small numbers of sufferers but certainly appears to have increased during the pandemic period.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-52439005

NHS doctors have been warned to look out for a rare but dangerous reaction in children that may be linked to coronavirus infection.

An urgent alert sent out to GPs said that intensive care departments in London and other parts of the UK have been treating severely sick children with unusual symptoms. This includes "multi-system inflammation" with flu-like symptoms.

Some, but not all, tested positive for coronavirus.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, but I would also look to the stories floating around this morning relating to an increased number of children suffering from Kawasaki disease - a form of vasculitis that affects the young - and apparant connections to Covid-19. A relatively small numbers of sufferers but certainly appears to have increased during the pandemic period.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-52439005

The risk is not zero, but it is still very, very low.

 

[HH]

Locking up children, especially in a country where flats are very popular, without clear medical reason is unexcusable. I don't think any other western country banned children from exercising outside under parental supervision.

Parents weren't allowed outside either, except to undertake very specific tasks. No-one was allowed out to exercise.

 

[JonathanH]

Indications today from the Scottish Parliament that the capacity of public transport under social distancing might be set to 10 to 25 percent of full capacity:

Official Report - Parliamentary Business : Scottish Parliament

The Official Report is the substantially verbatim transcript of the meetings of the Scottish Parliament and its committees

www.parliament.scot

The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity (Michael Matheson):
I would like to provide Parliament with an update on the measures that we are taking in relation to Scotland’s transport system as we continue to respond proactively to the challenges that are presented by the Covid-19 threat.

...

We must be open and transparent about how transport capacity will be limited because of continued physical distancing. Initial thinking suggests that capacity on our public transport system could be reduced to between 10 and 25 per cent of previous levels, so we will need to ensure a system-wide approach to our transport network’s operation within those constraints. We need many of the measures that have helped to reduce demand, such as working from home, to continue.

I think this makes it pretty clear that the bus and rail network will need to be reserved for essential travel for some time.