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

[Bletchleyite]

How would that work at all stations? Are you suggesting that the tech be installed, and monitored at every single station in the country, and that there be BTP at every single one to enforce? Hmmmm, I foresee a slight problem with that....

No, I'm suggesting, as I already did, that these things don't have to be perfect, because most journeys involve a major station in some form (maybe 20 of them in England?), so if you install at those major stations you will get a considerable reduction by catching people at one end of their journey. Even if they were making a one-way journey to the major station, lives may be saved by them not going on to go shopping or making their return journey by train. And if you get them at the end of a journey, the contact tracing may be easier.

 

[Bantamzen]

No, I'm suggesting, as I already did, that these things don't have to be perfect, because most journeys involve a major station in some form (maybe 20 of them in England?), so if you install at those major stations you will get a considerable reduction by catching people at one end of their journey. Even if they were making a one-way journey to the major station, lives may be saved by them not going on to go shopping or making their return journey by train. And if you get them at the end of a journey, the contact tracing may be easier.

There's so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start....

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start....

How? You're doing what people did when I proposed what has basically (give or take) become the actual e-ticket system a couple of years ago on here. That was rubbished because people felt it had to be 100% secure, and now you're rubbishing this for the same reason.

The only test that it needs is "does doing so satisfy a cost benefit analysis for the number of cases it would catch and isolate?" Not "will it catch all cases?" It just has to be adequately better than not doing it to make it worth the cost, basically.

It's rather different from the idea of putting, say, X-ray/metal detector security at some stations but not others (as the Spaniards do) - that's pointless because terrorists have brains and can work out how to circumvent it by boarding a train at an unsecured station so the effect is negligible or possibly worse than negligible because of the "false sense of security". The virus isn't intelligent - it can't see measures, so if there are measures in only some places it will catch some of the cases.

 

[HH]

No, I'm suggesting, as I already did, that these things don't have to be perfect, because most journeys involve a major station in some form (maybe 20 of them in England?), so if you install at those major stations you will get a considerable reduction by catching people at one end of their journey. Even if they were making a one-way journey to the major station, lives may be saved by them not going on to go shopping or making their return journey by train. And if you get them at the end of a journey, the contact tracing may be easier.

Those Major stations are the busiest ones though. If today's papers are to be believed we are soon to go back to an 80% service. Will staff be able to measure all travellers temperatures and what % of BTP capacity will be required? You really need to stop people before they leave home. All I can see is some random checks to push people to check themselves, a bit like ticket checks in fact.

 

[Bantamzen]

How? You're doing what people did when I proposed what has basically (give or take) become the actual e-ticket system a couple of years ago on here. That was rubbished because people felt it had to be 100% secure, and now you're rubbishing this for the same reason.

The only test that it needs is "does doing so satisfy a cost benefit analysis for the number of cases it would catch and isolate?" Not "will it catch all cases?" It just has to be adequately better than not doing it to make it worth the cost, basically.

It's rather different from the idea of putting, say, X-ray/metal detector security at some stations but not others (as the Spaniards do) - that's pointless because terrorists have brains and can work out how to circumvent it by boarding a train at an unsecured station so the effect is negligible or possibly worse than negligible because of the "false sense of security". The virus isn't intelligent - it can't see measures, so if there are measures in only some places it will catch some of the cases.

It would utterly be pointless to have it installed at a handful of major stations. The numbers of people you might catch would be miniscule, and may have already travelled with dozens, maybe hundreds of others. And even if you did, what do you propose they do then? Send them back with hundreds of people more? You say it wouldn't be a false sense of security, I say it would.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Those Major stations are the busiest ones though. If today's papers are to be believed we are soon to go back to an 80% service. Will staff be able to measure all travellers temperatures and what % of BTP capacity will be required? You really need to stop people before they leave home. All I can see is some random checks to push people to check themselves, a bit like ticket checks in fact.

There are systems that can do it on a "walk through arch" type basis which could be placed near ticket barriers, some airports have it, I don't think any UK ones do but some Asian ones do.

 

[philosopher]

Commuting will definitely take a permanent hit. The CEO of Barclays Bank has said that he thinks that the day of the huge, central office has passed. My daughter works for a large, London Solicitors. Prior to the virus, there was very little WFH. They have been forced to provide WFH infrastructure by the crisis; now they have it, and can see that it works, why would they not take advantage of it to cut their costs? Let's face it, almost every firm will be looking for ways to cut costs; WFH provides an excellent opportunity to do that.

I am not very convinced that this will change things as much as a lot people think it will. After crisis such as 9/11 and the 2008 Global Financial Crisis I remember people saying that things will never be the same again, but afterwards the world did not seem that much different. Sure there were some changes such more security checks at airports post 9/11 or the rise of the gig economy after the financial crisis, but these changes were relatively minor, not the earth shattering changes some at the time were predicting.

For the WFH situation for example, if the benefits of WFH were that great it would not have taken a pandemic for it to become commonplace. Before Covid companies already quite a large incentive to encourage WFH in terms of reduced office costs. However despite this pretty large benefit, it was generally not encouraged by companies, even if they had the infrastructure. To me this indicates a lot of companies must have taken the view that the downsides of WFH outweigh the benefits. A lot of these downsides will remain and indeed they may have become more apparent during this situation. Therefore I think there will be a bit more working from home but I do not think it will not be that great a change and the vast majority of office type work will continue to be office based.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the big thing about WFH is that for some companies getting the infrastructure in place (switching from desktops to laptops, adding VPNs or switching to the cloud etc) was prohibitive. But now it's in place, it's not about barriers, it's about how can the business gain from it?

 

[HH]

I think the big thing about WFH is that for some companies getting the infrastructure in place (switching from desktops to laptops, adding VPNs or switching to the cloud etc) was prohibitive. But now it's in place, it's not about barriers, it's about how can the business gain from it?

Precisely this. Plus, they've had a chance to see it in action. That's pretty much what Barclays said and I've heard the same sentiments from my company. Indeed the current office lease comes up for renewal at the end of the year. It is already planned that we will look for less space in the new lease.

 

[37424]

I think the big thing about WFH is that for some companies getting the infrastructure in place (switching from desktops to laptops, adding VPNs or switching to the cloud etc) was prohibitive. But now it's in place, it's not about barriers, it's about how can the business gain from it?

I don't know the large company I used to work for had the capability for many years but it was very slow to be adopted. The benefits of saving office space didn't really apply to our offices as being offices in middle of a large manufacturing site were already underused and unlikely to be used for anything else due to our location, my boss didn't particularly like me working from home even though we as the IT department were pushing the technology! Video conferencing was adopted more as it meant reducing travel costs.

There is no doubt some companies will see certain benefits from it and there will be some increased adoption of it, although an on the ball company should have already identified it and done it, I except some my have been reluctant and this has pushed them into it, but I'm not sure in the long term its going to be as big as some people are now predicting, it may also depend on how long its going to be before we can get back to a full level of normality, if a vaccine can be developed fairly quickly then I think many might drift back to their old ways of doing things, if normality is a long way off then yes the old ways of working will be gone for good.

 

[HH]

I don't know the large company I used to work for had the capability for many years but it was very slow to be adopted. The benefits of saving office space didn't really apply to our offices as being offices in middle of a large manufacturing site were already underused and unlikely to be used for anything else due to our location, my boss didn't particularly like me working from home even though we as the IT department were pushing the technology! Video conferencing was adopted more as it meant reducing travel costs.

There is no doubt some companies will see certain benefits from it and there will be some increased adoption of it, although an on the ball company should have already identified it and done it, I except some my have been reluctant and this has pushed them into it, but I'm not sure in the long term its going to be as big as some people are now predicting, it may also depend on how long its going to be before we can get back to a full level of normality, if a vaccine can be developed fairly quickly then I think many might drift back to their old ways of doing things, if normality is a long way off then yes the old ways of working will be gone for good.

The main point is that it's been happening for some time anyway, but gradually. The consensus is that covid has given it a kick start, such that we will see what would have been several years of growth all happening at once. I agree that quite how much growth we'll see depends on how long people are asked to WFH, but this will be one of the last measures lifted, as has been made clear by ministers, e.g. Grant Schapps this morning on Andrew Marr (feel like I'm a living advert for AM today).

 

[yorkie]

Absolutely no way that's going to happen in practice.

Really? Sadly my experience of numerous instances of people legitimately entitled to travel, being denied travel, means I know this is far from true.

....yet the queue at Halfords this afternoon as I went past on my train home was again snaking round the car park, at least a couple of hundred metres long. Lots of productive home-working going on there!

Not this again! Can you give it a rest, please?!

 

[nlogax]

However despite this pretty large benefit, it was generally not encouraged by companies, even if they had the infrastructure. To me this indicates a lot of companies must have taken the view that the downsides of WFH outweigh the benefits.

Presenteeism never went away during 9/11 or the financial crisis. Now it's been binned by force and many companies and employees finally understand there are different ways of running a business that don't require sitting at desks in offices from 8am till 6pm. Office and corporate worlds were slowly moving in that WFH / flex working direction but this has forced the point, and it's a one positive outcome from all of this.

 

[philosopher]

The main point is that it's been happening for some time anyway, but gradually. The consensus is that covid has given it a kick start, such that we will see what would have been several years of growth all happening at once. I agree that quite how much growth we'll see depends on how long people are asked to WFH, but this will be one of the last measures lifted, as has been made clear by ministers, e.g. Grant Schapps this morning on Andrew Marr (feel like I'm a living advert for AM today).

The observation I have with WFH is that while I agree it has been growing, the rate of growth seems to have been very slow, when I started working 15 years, maybe 5% of people in the office where working from home on any given day. Last year I reckon that had grown to about 10%. The shift from office to WFH certainly seems to been a lot slower than the shift from high street to online shopping.

I remember 25 years ago watching a programme about the arrival of the internet and they predicted both rise of online shopping and WFH. With WFH they were saying pretty much all office type work would be done at home. Clearly this has not occurred anywhere near to the extent as that programme predicted.

Sure, WFH will get a bit of boost from this, for example it may become socially unacceptable to work in the office if you have cold. However unless normality is some way off, I think things will go back mostly to the way they were.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sure, WFH will get a bit of boost from this, for example it may become socially unacceptable to work in the office if you have cold.

I've long thought this should be the case. What would you rather do, even pre WFH? Lose one person on sick for a week, or have your entire business on reduced capacity for weeks as it makes its way round?

Part of the cause of this is sick pay policies, though, which often either don't pay immediately or don't pay full pay. This was one of the reasons furlough was needed.

 

[Smidster]

On the temperature checking issue I would hope that we would rely on personal responsibility rather than anything more officious. If for nothing else then if someone is over your threshold what do you do with them?

As an aside how many of us actually have thermometers hanging around?

On working from home a lot will depend on how business think it has gone - how much of the inertia in past years has been of fear of greater WFH rather than actual experience? If there is evidence it works companies will have incentive to continue

I work in the Civil Service for a central department and while we have moved toward more flexible working in recent years (like going to a hotdesk policy based on 80% occupancy) . One of the key lessons we have learned through this is that most things can be done remotely - only a very small proportion of staff are in the office - bit also that location really doesn't matter. I would expect that going forward that kind of location blind recruitment will happen...so someone who lives in Yorkshire is able to apply for roles that might have previously been in an office in London.

I certainly plan on WFH more often... spending hours a day, and thousands a year, travelling is just not fun and to be honest I feel more productive as I am not having to get up so early, can exercise properly and am not getting stressed by delays or problems.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

On the temperature checking issue I would hope that we would rely on personal responsibility rather than anything more officious. If for nothing else then if someone is over your threshold what do you do with them?

As an aside how many of us actually have thermometers hanging around?

On working from home a lot will depend on how business think it has gone - how much of the inertia in past years has been of fear of greater WFH rather than actual experience? If there is evidence it works companies will have incentive to continue

I work in the Civil Service for a central department and while we have moved toward more flexible working in recent years (like going to a hotdesk policy based on 80% occupancy) . One of the key lessons we have learned through this is that most things can be done remotely - only a very small proportion of staff are in the office - bit also that location really doesn't matter. I would expect that going forward that kind of location blind recruitment will happen...so someone who lives in Yorkshire is able to apply for roles that might have previously been in an office in London.

I certainly plan on WFH more often... spending hours a day, and thousands a year, travelling is just not fun and to be honest I feel more productive as I am not having to get up so early, can exercise properly and am not getting stressed by delays or problems.

You don't think that having no human contact, never having a face to face conversation, rarely going outdoors and spending day after day just staring at a computer screen might eventually have an effect on your mental health and quality of life?

 

[HH]

The observation I have with WFH is that while I agree it has been growing, the rate of growth seems to have been very slow, when I started working 15 years, maybe 5% of people in the office where working from home on any given day. Last year I reckon that had grown to about 10%. The shift from office to WFH certainly seems to been a lot slower than the shift from high street to online shopping.

The second sentence is undoubtedly true. As for the numbers, according to the ONS, "For the 12-month period from January to December 2019, of the 32.6 million people in employment, around 1.7 million people reported working mainly from home, with around 4.0 million (12.3%) working from home at some point in the week prior to the interview." "Around 8.7 million (26.7%) people said that they have worked from home". My own experience would suggest that 5% was quite high 15 years ago, but at 10% your company is now a bit behind the curve. In London the % is definitely higher; WFH Fridays seems quite a big phenomenon, judging by public transport. TOCs have been worried about the trend over the last 2-3 years, which they certainly were not 15 years ago.

 

[yorkie]

I certainly plan on WFH more often... spending hours a day, and thousands a year, travelling is just not fun and to be honest I feel more productive as I am not having to get up so early, can exercise properly and am not getting stressed by delays or problems.

You don't think that having no human contact, never having a face to face conversation, rarely going outdoors and spending day after day just staring at a computer screen might eventually have an effect on your mental health and quality of life?

I have some thoughts on this but to keep this thread on topic I won't reply here.

A couple of relevant threads regarding the issues of working from home and also the mental impact of restrictions (not directly related to working from home as such, but it's related):

• Remote working preferences (in the longer term)
• COVID-19 and the lockdown effects on mental health.

 

[HH]

You don't think that having no human contact, never having a face to face conversation, rarely going outdoors and spending day after day just staring at a computer screen...

I don't know how you read that into what Smidster wrote. He said he plans on WFH more often.

I changed from July 2019 to WFH 50%. I can say categorically that it has improved my mental health.

 

[Smidster]

You don't think that having no human contact, never having a face to face conversation, rarely going outdoors and spending day after day just staring at a computer screen might eventually have an effect on your mental health and quality of life?

It shouldn't be a binary choice and balance is key.

Ultimately the aim should be that you have the ability to choose what works best for you depending on the tasks that need doing as well as whatever you have going on privately. Clearly some things will always be best face to face and that is fine but for lots of things it really doesn't matter.

As for the Mental Health element and going outside. Firstly you can use the hours of extra time to pursue (or start new) interests and I know I have had much more energy these past few weeks and of course I go outside every day. It feels we might overstate the amount of socialising people do day to day - ultimately it is mostly staring at computer screens...or mobile screens on the commute.

 

[trebor79]

Suggestion in various articles over the weekend that trains, tube, metros and buses may be limited to 15% of seated capacity in order to allow social distancing.
Surely this can't be getting seriously considered?
How would that even work, people might be waiting hours for a bus, for example.
What's the point in mass transit if only a very few people can use it? We might as well shut all the railways and convert them to cycle paths.
Other people in the forms have suggested train travel will have to be booked in advance for specific trains. Again, hire does that work in real life when the inevitable delays and cancellations mean you end up travelling on a different train to the one planned? Do you end up marooned somewhere? Does someone else get bumped off their booked train? Not an issue in "normal" times but if social distancing is going to be rigidly enforced it doesn't work.
These ideas aren't workable or sensible, surely.

 

[nedchester]

Suggestion in various articles over the weekend that trains, tube, metros and buses may be limited to 15% of seated capacity in order to allow social distancing.
Surely this can't be getting seriously considered?
How would that even work, people might be waiting hours for a bus, for example.
What's the point in mass transit if only a very few people can use it? We might as well shut all the railways and convert them to cycle paths.
Other people in the forms have suggested train travel will have to be booked in advance for specific trains. Again, hire does that work in real life when the inevitable delays and cancellations mean you end up travelling on a different train to the one planned? Do you end up marooned somewhere? Does someone else get bumped off their booked train? Not an issue in "normal" times but if social distancing is going to be rigidly enforced it doesn't work.
These ideas aren't workable or sensible, surely.

Not workable at all.
The only solution is to ask people to wear some kind of face covering.
Anything else is unworkable in modern transportation systems.
Not sure how busy the trains are going to be after both the media and government have us gripped by fear.....

 

[bramling]

Suggestion in various articles over the weekend that trains, tube, metros and buses may be limited to 15% of seated capacity in order to allow social distancing.
Surely this can't be getting seriously considered?
How would that even work, people might be waiting hours for a bus, for example.
What's the point in mass transit if only a very few people can use it? We might as well shut all the railways and convert them to cycle paths.
Other people in the forms have suggested train travel will have to be booked in advance for specific trains. Again, hire does that work in real life when the inevitable delays and cancellations mean you end up travelling on a different train to the one planned? Do you end up marooned somewhere? Does someone else get bumped off their booked train? Not an issue in "normal" times but if social distancing is going to be rigidly enforced it doesn't work.
These ideas aren't workable or sensible, surely.

I think this is partly why the lockdown is continuing - for the simple reason these are very difficult issues for which there’s no easy solution.

As you say, many potential solutions are unworkable in practice (especially for commuter services), which keeps bringing us back to the “essential journeys only” situation. I suspect the most we’ll see is some flexing of the definition of essential, combined with tinkering at the seams (perhaps compulsory masks, tweaking of schedules to provide maximum capacity, et cetera).

 

[yorksrob]

I can't see 15% capacity being adopted.

Has any other country adopted a policy of 15% capacity on public transport ? (not a rhetorical question - I don't know if any have, although I suspect not).

 

[yorksrob]

As you say, many potential solutions are unworkable in practice (especially for commuter services), which keeps bringing us back to the “essential journeys only” situation. I suspect the most we’ll see is some flexing of the definition of essential, combined with tinkering at the seams (perhaps compulsory masks, tweaking of schedules to provide maximum capacity, et cetera).

We've seen the over 70's hitting back at the prospect of being arbitrarily locked down. Public transport users aren't going to stand for being arbitrarily detained in their towns and villages either.

 

[bramling]

We've seen the over 70's hitting back at the prospect of being arbitrarily locked down. Public transport users aren't going to stand for being arbitrarily detained in their towns and villages either.

In which case it seems likely we’d better all get ready for a possible second wave, or just keep fingers crossed that a vaccine happens sooner rather than later...

In my experience the shielded people I know (and this is only my experience, yours may differ) are generally taking this very seriously.

Apart from one colleague whose wife keeps dragging him round supermarkets and it seems to be the lesser of two evils to keep the peace, others aren’t venturing out at all. My neighbour I spoke to across the garden fence earlier - he’s early 50s and shielding, working from home in the process, and has only been out once in the last 6 weeks. Judging by how most of the cars in my road have barely moved in that time, some not at all, that seems to be fairly typical here.

 

[yorksrob]

In which case it seems likely we’d better all get ready for a possible second wave, or just keep fingers crossed that a vaccine happens sooner rather than later...

Well, even with staggared working hours, the chances are that the busiest trains will still be the commuter ones, so the presence of some non-essential travel at other times won't make a difference to the likelihood of a second wave anyway.

 

[PTR 444]

Not workable at all.
The only solution is to ask people to wear some kind of face covering.
Anything else is unworkable in modern transportation systems.
Not sure how busy the trains are going to be after both the media and government have us gripped by fear.....

I agree, compulsory face masks will be the way forward for some time. Discouraging use altogether defeats the purpose of mass transit and getting people out of their cars, although I think some measures to prevent overcrowding would be beneficial. These could include asking employers to stagger work shifts like the government is suggesting, banning standing on board and more staff on platforms to enforce 2 metre distancing and ensure that passengers do not board a train with no available seats.

 

[trebor79]

Not workable at all.
The only solution is to ask people to wear some kind of face covering.
Anything else is unworkable in modern transportation systems.
Not sure how busy the trains are going to be after both the media and government have us gripped by fear.....

I got stopped at the level crossing in town both going into and coming out yesterday. One train had 3 passengers over 4 coaches. The other train had zero passengers.
Oh and and EMR went through non stop. Looked like 2 or 3 punters on a 158.
I'd suggest a train at the moment is the last likely place to become infected. Probably riskier filling the car with petrol.