How much longer will social distancing go on for in the UK?

[philosopher]

Yes absolutely so. At present we have one subset of the population that recognise we simply have to crack on and do our best, another subset who are supposedly too scared to do anything, and another subset who possibly have more cause to be scared because they’re actually at high risk.

I do think there is another subset, who are not particularly scared of the virus, but are personally benefitting from a world with social distancing or are least find it no worse than when it did not exist. At the moment those who are too scared and those who see their lives being better in the current situation seem to outweigh those who want to return to some degree of normality.

This may change however when the job losses start increasing.

 

[43066]

This may change however when the job losses start increasing.

I hate to say it but I hope that the furlough scheme ending comes as a short sharp shock to the country, and makes it politically easier for the government to start being a little more pragmatic and sensible.

The sooner that happens the better.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

I hate to say it but I hope that the furlough scheme ending

Unless they give in and extend it, much to Ms Sturgeon's delight...

I seriously hope they don't extend it, but I do hope they keep support in place for those self-isolating/unable to return to work due to government guidelines.

 

[43066]

Unless they give in and extend it, much to Ms Sturgeon's delight...

I seriously hope they don't extend it, but I do hope they keep support in place for those self-isolating/unable to return to work due to government guidelines.

Yes, although that really needs to be a very small group, ie people with serious underlying medical conditions, not just mild asthma, being a bit fat etc.

We need a reality check. Quite simply, the government cannot pay the population to sit idle. People need to get back to work, or they need to be sacked, and their jobs given to people who are willing to work as required.

If that leads to an increase in cases, then so be it. Expectations need to be managed.

 

[Westcountryman]

Whilst I don’t doubt that there is truth to this, I think these positions are outliers, and are all very niche. The majority of people I think fit into the three boxes I suggested.

I doubt there are that many people that don’t care at all. I certainly do, however at the same time I recognise a need to be realistic, in the same way that there’s elements of risk present in most everyday activities.

I hope that they are outliers, but the first two are a very vociferous set of outliers. The last set just carry on socialising regardless.

 

[43066]

I hope that they are outliers, but the first two are a very vociferous set of outliers. The last set just carry on socialising regardless.

You’d prefer everyone to be locked up in their homes until we have a vaccine, I suppose?

 

[3rd rail land]

Unless they give in and extend it, much to Ms Sturgeon's delight...

I seriously hope they don't extend it, but I do hope they keep support in place for those self-isolating/unable to return to work due to government guidelines.

I read that Westminster are planning to pay those who have to quarantine for 10 days £130 and for 14 day quarantines £182. In both cases that is £13 a day.

Andy Burnham, the Manchester Mayor, says that this not enough for people to live on. I tend to agree. That's far less than even someone on minimum wage would earn.

 

[takno]

I read that Westminster are planning to pay those who have to quarantine for 10 days £130 and for 14 day quarantines £182. In both cases that is £13 a day.

Andy Burnham, the Manchester Mayor, says that this not enough for people to live on. I tend to agree. That's far less than even someone on minimum wage would earn.

It's not enough to live on, but it is enough to raise the level of criminality around breaking the rules from a relatively minor civil infringement into fraud, which might be enough to make people take the whole thing seriously, or not risk isolating just for a couple of weeks off when they have no reason to believe they are infected, depending on your preference

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not enough to live on, but it is enough to raise the level of criminality around breaking the rules from a relatively minor civil infringement into fraud, which might be enough to make people take the whole thing seriously, or not risk isolating just for a couple of weeks off when they have no reason to believe they are infected, depending on your preference

You isolate if:

1. You test positive
2. Track and trace tell you to

I don't see much scope for getting that wrong?

 

[bramling]

I do think there is another subset, who are not particularly scared of the virus, but are personally benefitting from a world with social distancing or are least find it no worse than when it did not exist. At the moment those who are too scared and those who see their lives being better in the current situation seem to outweigh those who want to return to some degree of normality.

This may change however when the job losses start increasing.

I think you’re right, though I was including this group in the subset (2). Perhaps I should have put scared in inverted commas!

You’re absolutely right some people are prepared to tolerate the distancing if it gets them out of work.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Aug 2020 ==

I hate to say it but I hope that the furlough scheme ending comes as a short sharp shock to the country, and makes it politically easier for the government to start being a little more pragmatic and sensible.

The sooner that happens the better.

Absolutely. Some people are going to have to make the choice between keep finding reasons why they can’t return to their workplace, or find a long-term solution (for example stay at home and live off savings).

I would not expect people in the extremely vulnerable group to be faced with that choice, but for the rest of the population it is a perfectly reasonable choice. Indeed it is no different to what many of us have been doing right through this.

It’s completely unacceptable that people are too scared to go to work or get on a train, but are quite happy to go discount dining.

 

[Mag_seven]

It’s completely unacceptable that people are too scared to go to work or get on a train, but are quite happy to go discount dining.

I wonder how many of those people who were quite happy to crowd onto packed trains to Bournemouth or Barry Island when the weather was good are now also saying it's not safe to get on a train to go to work.

 

[43066]

You isolate if:

1. You test positive
2. Track and trace tell you to

I don't see much scope for getting that wrong?

And in many cases, if you can’t afford to pay rent/mortgage/put food on the table, you won’t isolate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And in many cases, if you can’t afford to pay rent/mortgage/put food on the table, you won’t isolate.

Which is the purpose of paying people for it, which I agree with. However, it should be the 80% furlough rate in my view. Indeed, it'd be a good start to increase statutory sick pay to that, at least for postive-tested COVID.

 

[Westcountryman]

You’d prefer everyone to be locked up in their homes until we have a vaccine, I suppose?

No, just to have some consideration for others who are vulnerable. There are a large number of me first people. There is no need to lock oneself away, just to try to minimise risk.

 

[bramling]

No, just to have some consideration for others who are vulnerable. There are a large number of me first people. There is no need to lock oneself away, just to try to minimise risk.

"Me first" can be taken in several different ways. Walling one's self up in doors (discount dining excepted, apparently!) and expecting the taxpayer to support this is pretty "me first". As I posted elsewhere, if everyone took this line then how would we eat? There would certainly be no discount dining, as there wouldn’t be the people to provide and prepare the food, staff the restaurant, provide the electricity, etc etc etc etc.

I'd say this is rather more "me first" than declining to wear a mask.

 

[43066]

No, just to have some consideration for others who are vulnerable. There are a large number of me first people. There is no need to lock oneself away, just to try to minimise risk.

It’s quite possible to socialise and minimise risk. Vulnerable people need to isolate as far as possible, but there also needs to be a grown up acceptance that human beings cannot live forever, and the majority of Covid victims are at the end of their natural lives.

It’s not “me first” to be concerned about jobs being lost, lives being wrecked, educations being ruined, thousands of cancer (and other) patients condemned to premature death, to briefly extend the lives of people in their 90s living in care homes.

 

[Bantamzen]

It’s quite possible to socialise and minimise risk. Vulnerable people need to isolate as far as possible, but there also needs to be a grown up acceptance that human beings cannot live forever, and the majority of Covid victims are at the end of their natural lives.

It’s not “me first” to be concerned about jobs being lost, lives being wrecked, educations being ruined, thousands of cancer (and other) patients condemned to premature death, to briefly extend the lives of people in their 90s living in care homes.

Like +2

You are exactly right, we need to start being sensible again and stop acting like neurotic maniacs & start acting rationally, dealing with the fact that yes some people will die, we all will at some point. But we also have to accept that this isn't an extinction level event, in fact its rapidly approaching the level of viruses that we deal with each year. And we desperately need to start balancing virus mitigation against the very serious damage it is causing our society, our physical and mental wellbeing, and yes our economies. If we do not, we are sowing seeds that will reap far, far worse consequences than the virus.

 

[MikeWM]

It’s not “me first” to be concerned about jobs being lost, lives being wrecked, educations being ruined, thousands of cancer (and other) patients condemned to premature death, to briefly extend the lives of people in their 90s living in care homes.

It is a rather dangerous topic and not one to be approached lightly, but for the health of our society we desperately need to address the modern obsession for maintaining life at all costs, while apparently taking no regard for the quality of that life. The current nonsense massively amplifies this issue, but it has been an underlying issue for quite some time.

In the last decade I've seen two close elderly (90+) relatives go through prolonged and rather unpleasant deaths (and have been acquainted with a number of other of others of similar age which have been even more prolonged and/or even more unpleasant). In many respects a quick painless passing due to a respiratory infection a few weeks or months earlier would have been much better, both for them and those around them. Pneumonia used to be called 'the old man's friend', and I think that is a far healthier way of looking at such things.

 

[Class 33]

Well I'm losing hope now of the government EVER scrapping this social distancing nonsense. Even though the deaths are very low now, the government either aren't taking much notice of this or they still consider the daily deaths to be too high! But it's obvious they're taking a lot of notice of the uptick of numbers of new cases. I think they have no intention atall of scrapping social distancing until these numbers are much MUCH lower, i.e. way below an average of 500 per day. But the problem is with the daily testings being significantly increased as the weeks go on, and hence a higher number of positive tests returned, then it could well be many MANY months - if atall even, until the numbers of new cases are way below an average of 500 per day! So at the moment, it seems we just can't win on this battle! It's absolutely ridiculous.

The numbers of new cases have risen up sharply today to over 1,500. Which is a bit worrying. But hopefully this is just a blip - a bad day, and tomorrow's figures will be much lower again(although probably still over 1,000).

I hate to say it but I hope that the furlough scheme ending comes as a short sharp shock to the country, and makes it politically easier for the government to start being a little more pragmatic and sensible.

The sooner that happens the better.

Yes I agree. Not that I particularly want to see a much higher number of people unemployed when the furlough scheme ends at the end of October. But come November the numbers of unemployed could well be absolutely sky high. Probably at least 6 MILLION at the very least is my guess. Some others have predicted it could be 8 or 9 MILLION! And come then, I really hope this will push the government into doing something about this catastrophic situation, and finally scrap this social distancing nonsense! Otherwise there will continue to be more and more jobs cuts, unemployed, and companies closing down as the months go on......

 

[BJames]

Well I'm losing hope now of the government EVER scrapping this social distancing nonsense. Even though the deaths are very low now, the government either aren't taking much notice of this or they still consider the daily deaths to be too high! But it's obvious they're taking a lot of notice of the uptick of numbers of new cases. I think they have no intention atall of scrapping social distancing until these numbers are much MUCH lower, i.e. way below an average of 500 per day. But the problem is with the daily testings being significantly increased as the weeks go on, and hence a higher number of positive tests returned, then it could well be many MANY months - if atall even, until the numbers of new cases are way below an average of 500 per day! So at the moment, it seems we just can't win on this battle! It's absolutely ridiculous.

The numbers of new cases have risen up sharply today to over 1,500. Which is a bit worrying. But hopefully this is just a blip - a bad day, and tomorrow's figures will be much lower again(although probably still over 1,000).

Yet the death toll for today is 12, so although obviously not ideal, it's not on the levels of April/May's death toll either.

It could be that they are waiting it out at this current level to see what happens in Europe - if infections rise across Europe but remain lower in the UK, we could potentially regain some credibility around our handling of the pandemic. Scrapping social distancing at this stage would only be shouted down by the loudest section of society, and would create yet more negative media attention for Boris and co.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yet the death toll for today is 12, so although obviously not ideal, it's not on the levels of April/May's death toll either.

It could be that they are waiting it out at this current level to see what happens in Europe - if infections rise across Europe but remain lower in the UK, we could potentially regain some credibility around our handling of the pandemic. Scrapping social distancing at this stage would only be shouted down by the loudest section of society, and would create yet more negative media attention for Boris and co.

I think we are waiting on what happens with schools to be honest. I wouldn't expect more movement in any form (other than possibly increased mask use) until mid to late September now. If schools don't really affect figures, I would expect more loosening then.

 

[trebor79]

The numbers of new cases have risen up sharply today to over 1,500. Which is a bit worrying. But hopefully this is just a blip - a bad day, and tomorrow's figures will be much lower again(although probably still over 1,000).

There seem to have been issues with data collection and reporting over the past couple of days, with the government website not working. It's working again today. If you go into the detailed data, the number of cases reported yesterday is unfeasibly low, less than 100. So I think today's figure is an amalgam of yesterday and today, so we're probably around 800 per day. We'll find out tomorrow.
10% of those are in my local poultry processing plant. Apparently a local lockdown is not being considered,hopefully won't be another U-turn (at least not until next week after a planned family event). It would be pretty pointless anyway as most of the workers.love elsewhere.

 

[Scrotnig]

There seem to have been issues with data collection and reporting over the past couple of days, with the government website not working. It's working again today. If you go into the detailed data, the number of cases reported yesterday is unfeasibly low, less than 100. So I think today's figure is an amalgam of yesterday and today, so we're probably around 800 per day. We'll find out tomorrow.
10% of those are in my local poultry processing plant. Apparently a local lockdown is not being considered,hopefully won't be another U-turn (at least not until next week after a planned family event). It would be pretty pointless anyway as most of the workers.love elsewhere.

Yesterday’s figure was 1084, it did eventually show up.

 

[trebor79]

Yesterday’s figure was 1084, it did eventually show up.

Where is that figure, this is what I'm seeing (I'm not doubting you, your figure is far more likely than the government site is showing):

Cases by specimen date showing less than 100 across the UK for 26th August.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

That's by specimen date, you need to look at the data by date reported

 

[Scrotnig]

It was on there yesterday up until they updated with today's figures.

 

[trebor79]

That's by specimen date, you need to look at the data by date reported

Ah, yes that will be it!
Edit: mind you, it's hospital admissions that are actually important, and they remain at around 100.

 

[tj1997]

Just to point seemingly quite a lot of back dating in today's higher figure, making up for some of those lower figures seen last week.
https://mobile.twitter.com/stevebrown2856/status/1299010340794052613

 

[Bikeman78]

I wonder how many of those people who were quite happy to crowd onto packed trains to Bournemouth or Barry Island when the weather was good are now also saying it's not safe to get on a train to go to work.

Same goes for all the packed trains west of Chester. Worth pointing out that none of these wedged trains seem to have resulted in a surge of infections.

 

[farleigh]

Is it possible that the threat of Covid 19 to the general population has been somewhat overstated?