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

[bramling]

There would no doubt be exemptions for being at work.

No thanks. If it’s so dangerous to be out after 10pm, just like it’s apparently so dangerous for office staff to return, then sorry I shall be expecting to be through my front door at 21:59!

 

[Skimpot flyer]

There would no doubt be exemptions for being at work.

But how, exactly, if stopped by a police officer or covid marshall (!) do you prove that you are travelling to or from work? And if not required to produce evidence, how do they stop people from flouting curfew?
More unenforceable b******s

 

[bramling]

But how, exactly, if stopped by a police officer or covid marshall (!) do you prove that you are travelling to or from work? And if not required to produce evidence, how do they stop people from flouting curfew?
More unenforceable b******s

Last time round my place were issuing letters, though I never had to show it. Indeed I was only challenged once during the whole lockdown period, by a PCSO ironically when entering a railway station. With hindsight I was probably a little unfairly sarcastic, but I was having a bad day and could have done without the intrusion into my business at that particular moment!

Of course that was before the lilac brigade, and of course soon there will be a Covid marshal or Journey maker lurking round every corner...

 

[DB]

Last time round my place were issuing letters, though I never had to show it. Indeed I was only challenged once during the whole lockdown period, by a PCSO ironically when entering a railway station. With hindsight I was probably a little unfairly sarcastic, but I was having a bad day and could have done without the intrusion into my business at that particular moment!

Of course that was before the lilac brigade, and of course soon there will be a Covid marshal or Journey maker lurking round every corner...

Surely we won't need the ridiculously-titled 'journey makers' if we are all expected to hide behind the sofa again, though!

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Where has talk of curfews come from? Nobody in authority has even mentioned it as far as I know.

The nearest has been the 'takeaways must close at 10pm' thing in Bolton, but that's not a curfew, it's just an instruction to close certain businesses at that time.

It was definitely mentioned on one of the news channels this evening, though I’m not sure where it’s come from.

Could be just the usual media dramatising?

I can see absolutely nothing which would be gained by an actual 10-5 curfew - and even more so now that winter is coming. Surely even this government wouldn't do something so futile and illogical?

It was mentioned very briefly in the speech by Boris. "...We will also restrict the opening hours of premises, initially in some local areas....".

Gov.uk goes on to say "The government will restrict the opening hours of premises, initially in local lockdown areas, with the option of national action in the future. This has been introduced in Bolton, following a steep rise in cases, and will seek to restrict activities that may lead to a spread in the virus."

Whilst not a curfew per se, for many people and many businesses it will be and will prove difficult for many. The hint is that it is only initially in some local areas. If I were a betting man I'd be expecting the restrictions currently inflicted on Bolton to be extended to other areas with local restrictions, then possibly to wider regions or even countrywide. This would of course make many businesses unviable and for large chunks of society effectively be a curfew in all but name, especially if combined with travel restrictions such as those imposed on Caerphilly.

Also something which hasn't been picked up on, which Boris failed to mention was this, which I picked up on Gov.uk...

"...Later this month, businesses will also be required to ensure there are no unlawful gatherings in their premises...."

This will place huge pressure on some businesses. In hospitality which is already struggling, many employees are young and low paid. Now it seems they will be responsible for making sure people sit correctly and don't socialise in the incorrect manner. I can see this will place a huge burden on many businesses small and large and also open them up to even further risk of enforcement from the little hitler brigade.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A curfew? What would that achieve, it’s hardly like the virus is nocturnal (and surely this will cause a rise in indoor gatherings, and create issues for night shift workers etc). That seems very far-fetched and is far stricter than even full lockdown, I truly hope it doesn’t come to that.

Supposedly it worked in Belgium. I'm not quite sure why, though. It seems more applicable to places where people tend to congregate and drink in public places, which isn't really the done thing in the UK in winter as it's too cold.

I'm not overly opposed to the idea of temporarily only allowing alcohol to be served (both from pubs and from shops[1]) until say 10pm, because the more drunk people get the less they distance. I don't however see any benefit in banning people from going for a run at 4am if they want to.

[1] In Scotland shops are already limited to 10am-10pm.

 

[HSTEd]

They are only "zombie businesses" as they have been forcibly closed by government order and are either still closed by law or so heavily restricted by government covid guidelines and rules that they are temporarily unviable.
It would be grossly unfair to the business owners and staff if they were driven out of business directly due to government action.

They are zombie businesses because government regulations mean they will not be permitted to operate within the next year, and probably more.
How long do you propose the state prop them up in defiance of its own regulations?

Another important factor is that it's not just individual businesses that are at risk of failing but entire sectors of the economy - this is much harder to recover from (if recovery is possible) and much more damaging to the overall economy
In normal times if a company failed then other companies in the sector would have picked up the pieces and bough up the remains of the company or re-hired some of the staff. At the moment this isn't happening in some sectors as all the companies are fighting for their own survival. For example two of the UK's biggest Audio Visual production companies have recently failed and there is no sign of rescue for either

But these sectors have no future under coronavirus restrictions.
We can't just throw money at them until some undefined future time.

 

[Class 33]

They are zombie businesses because government regulations mean they will not be permitted to operate within the next year, and probably more.
How long do you propose the state prop them up in defiance of its own regulations?



But these sectors have no future under coronavirus restrictions.
We can't just throw money at them until some undefined future time.

What makes you think these businesses will not be able to operate within the NEXT YEAR and probably more?? There is no way social distancing can continue for as long as the next year or so! It would be economically suicide on a catastrophic scale! Thousands upon thousands of more businesses will end up closing down, millions more will become unemployed and little hope of being able to find other work! And also the effect this will have on the mental health of the nation!

Are you saying the government will say "These businesses can't operate. They'll just have to close down."??? This is not acceptable. These businesses have a right to reopen, and the way to do that is scrap this seemingly never-ending social distancing nonsense as soon as possible once and for all. Because at this rate, if the likes of theatres, spas, leisure centres, etc are not able to reopen(or operate) without social distancing within the next few months, then many hundreds of these venues will end up going under. Many cities across the UK will become a cultural wasteland. This just can not happen.

Come November after the furlough scheme ends, the unemployment figures are going to astronomically high if this social distancing nonsense is still going. Hopefully these shock figures along with hopefully the daily Coronavirus death rate still being very very low, will finally push the government into FINALLY scrapping social distancing. At the moment they're taking too much notice of the numbers of new cases, and not the daily deaths and hospital admissions.

 

[HSTEd]

What makes you think these businesses will not be able to operate within the NEXT YEAR and probably more?? There is no way social distancing can continue for as long as the next year or so! It would be economically suicide on a catastrophic scale! Thousands upon thousands of more businesses will end up closing down, millions more will become unemployed and little hope of being able to find other work! And also the effect this will have on the mental health of the nation!

What makes you think the government cares?
Their objective is to minimise the number of deaths from coronavirus, at almost any cost.

Are you saying the government will say "These businesses can't operate. They'll just have to close down."??? This is not acceptable. These businesses have a right to reopen, and the way to do that is scrap this absolutely social distancing nonsense as soon as possible once and for all. Because at this rate, if the likes of theatres, spas, leisure centres, etc are not able to reopen(or operate) without social distancing, then many hundreds of these venues will end up going under. Many cities across the UK will become a cultural wasteland. This just can not happen.

But a substantial number of extra pensioners will be around to vote Boris in 2024.

 

[Class 33]

Well at the moment it seems the government doesn't care about all these businesses suffering as a result of this. But come November when the furlough scheme has ended and MILLIONS more people will then become unemployed because they're unable to go back to work due to their workplaces being unable to accommodate them because of these ridiculous "social distancing guidelines", then hopefully we are going to see a LOT of pressure on the government to finally scrap social distancing. I hate to say it, but there could even be civil unrest across the country from November if this nonsense drags on.

You say the governments objective is to minimise the number of deaths from Coronavirus. Well the 7-day rolling average is low enough now as it is, currently an average of under 10 per day! Is this not low enough??

 

[Yew]

Yougov poll on curfews:

Would you support or oppose the introduction of a curfew (a time each day after which people are not allowed to leave their homes) between 10pm and 5am to help prevent a second wave of COVID-19? | Daily Question

Would you support or oppose the introduction of a curfew (a time each day after which people are not allowed to leave their homes) between 10pm and 5am to help prevent a second wave of COVID-19?

yougov.co.uk

Just shows how stupid people are. How on earth does the proposal in the question ' introduction of a curfew (a time each day after which people are not allowed to leave their homes) between 10pm and 5am to help prevent a second wave of COVID-19?' even make any logical sense? There will be far fewer people out and about in that period during the winter anyway - and if venues were shut there would be nowhere for them to go. How could it conceivably 'help prevent a second wave', when most contact between people will occur during the daytime anyway?

It doesn't, but its a personal sacrifice that would make people feel like they're helping. They don't want to help; they want a pointless inconvenience on their life, to feel like they're helping.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It doesn't, but its a personal sacrifice that would make people feel like they're helping. They don't want to help; they want a pointless inconvenience on their life, to feel like they're helping.

It's probably more that the vast, vast majority of people don't leave their homes after 10pm most days, other than for something "de minimis" like putting the bins out. So they see a measure that doesn't affect their life, possibly has a general upside (no groups of lads walking around late at night vandalising stuff, say) and is presented as reducing COVID, they're naturally in favour.

 

[Huntergreed]

This is an interesting (and concerning) one I found:

With regards to COVID-19, which matters more? | Daily Question

With regards to COVID-19, which matters more?

yougov.co.uk

With regards to COVID-19, which matters more?

Trying to save every life - 57%

Protecting the economy - 21%

Can’t Answer - 14%

Don’t Know - 7%

The costs of saving every life are extremely damaging and unsustainable, but that seems to be the approach wanted by the majority.

 

[Yew]

It's probably more that the vast, vast majority of people don't leave their homes after 10pm most days, other than for something "de minimis" like putting the bins out. So they see a measure that doesn't affect their life, possibly has a general upside (no groups of lads walking around late at night vandalising stuff, say) and is presented as reducing COVID, they're naturally in favour.

Perhaps, but I think there's a group of people that if you told them that they had to wear stockings on their arms on every alternate Tuesday, they would relish in being inconvenienced for the "good of the country".

 

[MikeWM]

This is an interesting (and concerning) one I found:

With regards to COVID-19, which matters more? | Daily Question

With regards to COVID-19, which matters more?

yougov.co.uk

The costs of saving every life are extremely damaging and unsustainable, but that seems to be the approach wanted by the majority.

It is *such* a loaded question though ('should we prioritise money or people'), and ignores the fact that there are many reasons other than economical that a 'no-one should die!' approach is crazy.

I'd be a bit concerned about YouGov polls like this anyway, even taking into account all the usual caveats about polling. There was one a few weeks ago about masks in schools that did a very large mysterious flip in a very short period of time (from a large number against to a large number in favour). Some people questioned YouGov about it and asked them to show raw data of how that happened - YouGov haven't replied to my knowledge.

 

[route101]

Was waiting in the queue in Aldi and the girl behind the checkout shouted at me to move away from the gentlemen in front to maintain social distancing. Maybe the Aldi mangement are asking staff to do that.

 

[Class 33]

I see on the news this morning that Rishi Sunak is coming under pressure from MP's from all parties to extend the furlough scheme yet again, to avoid unemployment sky rocketing to 4 million after 31st October. For goodness sake, we don't need the furlough scheme to be extended yet again! The government can't keep forever paying for people to sit at home with no work! The answer to this is to scrap these now ridiculously over the top "social distancing guidelines" so that all these workplaces can accommodate all their staff again, and get all these furloughed staff back to work!! I really can't believe that no MP's from either parties are suggesting this, rather than wanting the furlough scheme extended YET AGAIN!!! Furthermore, it seems they think just 1 and a half million more people will become unemployed on 31st October. I think they're being optimistic on that figure, what with 9 MILLION people furloughed! It's going to be a hell of a lot more than 1 and a half million becoming unemployed I think! Someone on here the other week mentioned that they saw someone in government on the TV predicted there will be 8 to 9 MILLION people unemployed after 31st October!

Also it appears the policy on reviewing social distancing can not or will not be reviewed until November. Now why is this? Why can it not be reviewed before then?

 

[HSTEd]

But how, exactly, if stopped by a police officer or covid marshall (!) do you prove that you are travelling to or from work? And if not required to produce evidence, how do they stop people from flouting curfew?
More unenforceable b******s

They identify if the person is one of the usual suspects, and if so, deal with them.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I see on the news this morning that Rishi Sunak is coming under pressure from MP's from all parties to extend the furlough scheme yet again, to avoid unemployment sky rocketing to 4 million after 31st October. For goodness sake, we don't need the furlough scheme to be extended yet again! The government can't keep forever paying for people to sit at home with no work! The answer to this is to scrap these now ridiculously over the top "social distancing guidelines" so that all these workplaces can accommodate all their staff again, and get all these furloughed staff back to work!! I really can't believe that no MP's from either parties are suggesting this, rather than wanting the furlough scheme extended YET AGAIN!!! Furthermore, it seems they think just 1 and a half million more people will become unemployed on 31st October. I think they're being optimistic on that figure, what with 9 MILLION people furloughed! It's going to be a hell of a lot more than 1 and a half million becoming unemployed I think! Someone on here the other week mentioned that they saw someone in government on the TV predicted there will be 8 to 9 MILLION people unemployed after 31st October!

Also it appears the policy on reviewing social distancing can not or will not be reviewed until November. Now why is this? Why can it not be reviewed before then?

Where do I start?

First of all let me partly agree with you in that you are right that the furlough scheme cannot be extended again in its current form.
However, the rest of your post is where you lose me.

1. There are not 9 million people on furlough right now. We do not have numbers since the middle of August but at that point there had been 9.6 million employees who had been furloughed at some point during the scheme. That does not mean there were 9.6 million people on the scheme at that date as many would have gone back to work, and more will have gone back to work in the near month since that number.
2. What about people employed by businesses that just cannot open in the current climate? Are you suggesting we remove every restriction currently in place (so things like nightclubs can reopen and events like gigs and football matches should be able to be held with full capacity audiences? Or are you suggesting we just tell those employees affected "tough luck" and deal with the repercussions of increased unemployment?

IMO what should happen is the furlough scheme should close in its current form for most people, with an extension for specific industries that are particularly affected right now.

I also think the government has dropped the ball by not including those who are asked to self isolate in such a scheme, because right now for many employees, they just cannot afford to self isolate because they will lose a significant amount of money.

In addition, some people on the forum have suggested that those who are specifically vulnerable should be asked to shut themselves away so everyone else can get back to normality - whilst I disagree with that on principle, it is also the case that if it was to happen, surely the government would need to extend the furlough scheme to that group too?

 

[DB]

In addition, some people on the forum have suggested that those who are specifically vulnerable should be asked to shut themselves away so everyone else can get back to normality - whilst I disagree with that on principle, it is also the case that if it was to happen, surely the government would need to extend the furlough scheme to that group too?

I do agree that there should be financial provision but why do you disagree with it on principal? If those people were given the opportunity to stay at home without losing out financially for a few weeks or a couple of months, while it was allowed to run through the population, they would then be at a far lower risk of getting it when they went out and about again as herd immunity would very significantly reduce its opportunities to spread.

With the current situation, they are going to continue to be at risk of getting it for months or years. How is that better?

 

[Freightmaster]

I do agree that there should be financial provision but why do you disagree with it on principal? If those people were given the opportunity to stay at home without losing out financially for a few weeks or a couple of months, while it was allowed to run through the population, they would then be at a far lower risk of getting it when they went out and about again as herd immunity would very significantly reduce its opportunities to spread.

With the current situation, they are going to continue to be at risk of getting it for months or years. How is that better?

It isn't, and I think that the public are starting to realise this now - in fact, I was just looking
at the 'have your say' comments on today's Coronavirus news story on the BBC news website,
and the fifth highest rated comment (out of almost 2500) was this:




So hardly a marginal view?



MARK

 

[scotrail158713]

It isn't, and I think that the public are starting to realise this now - in fact, I was just looking
at the 'have your say' comments on today's Coronavirus news story on the BBC news website,
and the fifth highest rated comment (out of almost 2500) was this:

View attachment 83428


So hardly a marginal view?



MARK

That’s very encouraging. I suppose it’s yet more evidence that the mood of the country towards restrictions is changing.

 

[Freightmaster]

It's yougov. They are absolutely the least respectable accredited polling org. I would never suggest that they make it up as they go along, but they are always more interested in a headline than accuracy, and judging by the Scottish referendum polling they think absolutely nothing of completely changing whatever they want to call their methodology with no notice whatsoever

Just to reinforce the above, there was an interview with one of the directors of YouGov on LBC yesterday.

When questioned over the current attitudes of the public, he repeated over and over again in gushing terms about how
the public were “Willing to give everything economically to save as many lives as possible” and “There have been almost
no mutterings against government policy, and he was 100% confident that the public "would do whatever it takes and
whatever was asked of them”


Who on here doesn't think that sounds downright sinister/dystopian???




MARK

 

[bramling]

Where do I start?

First of all let me partly agree with you in that you are right that the furlough scheme cannot be extended again in its current form.
However, the rest of your post is where you lose me.

1. There are not 9 million people on furlough right now. We do not have numbers since the middle of August but at that point there had been 9.6 million employees who had been furloughed at some point during the scheme. That does not mean there were 9.6 million people on the scheme at that date as many would have gone back to work, and more will have gone back to work in the near month since that number.
2. What about people employed by businesses that just cannot open in the current climate? Are you suggesting we remove every restriction currently in place (so things like nightclubs can reopen and events like gigs and football matches should be able to be held with full capacity audiences? Or are you suggesting we just tell those employees affected "tough luck" and deal with the repercussions of increased unemployment?

IMO what should happen is the furlough scheme should close in its current form for most people, with an extension for specific industries that are particularly affected right now.

I also think the government has dropped the ball by not including those who are asked to self isolate in such a scheme, because right now for many employees, they just cannot afford to self isolate because they will lose a significant amount of money.

In addition, some people on the forum have suggested that those who are specifically vulnerable should be asked to shut themselves away so everyone else can get back to normality - whilst I disagree with that on principle, it is also the case that if it was to happen, surely the government would need to extend the furlough scheme to that group too?

Surely if the funds were directed towards those who are genuinely vulnerable, there wouldn’t need to be much furloughing for everyone else, as they’d be back at work.

I do sense a change in mood. Back in the summer it was very much the idea that furlough was an extra elongated bank holiday. Now more and more people are seeing that it’s not a solution at all.

 

[RuralRambler]

Surely if the funds were directed towards those who are genuinely vulnerable, there wouldn’t need to be much furloughing for everyone else, as they’d be back at work.

I do sense a change in mood. Back in the summer it was very much the idea that furlough was an extra elongated bank holiday. Now more and more people are seeing that it’s not a solution at all.

Adding up everyone over 60, pregnant, BAME, diabetic, premature babies, any respiratory condition, any heart condition, anyone obese, anyone with cancer... plus everyone that whole list of people live with, plus all their families, it becomes a huge proportion of society including vast numbers of seemingly otherwise healthy working adults and schoolchildren.

 

[DB]

Adding up everyone over 60, pregnant, BAME, diabetic, premature babies, any respiratory condition, any heart condition, anyone obese, anyone with cancer... plus everyone that whole list of people live with, plus all their families, it becomes a huge proportion of society including vast numbers of seemingly otherwise healthy working adults and schoolchildren.

That was the initial list when a lot less was known. There is a lot more knowledge now as to who is actually at significant risk.

 

[Class 33]

So it appears we could well have to put up with this social distancing NONSENSE for yet another 6 months now then. They really are dragging this on and on aren't they. This just seems never ending! That said, it is very very unfortunate that just after we had got the daily deaths down to an average of just under 7, we are now going through a second spike. Number of new cases shooting right up pretty fast, whilst hospital admissions and deaths are rising again at a slower rate. So I can partly understand the reason for us having to continue with this social distancing and all these other restrictions. But why does Boris envisage that we may well have to continue with these restrictions for another 6 months? Does he think it will take that long to get all these cases and deaths right down to low levels again? And/or is he banking that we'll have a vaccine by that time? I'm not sure if we'll have a vaccine by then. But I don't think it will take as long as 6 months to get the cases and deaths right down again. I predict that we're probably going to have a very uncomfortable 3 to 4 weeks ahead of us of rising cases and deaths, but after that they should start falling again, and maybe by around mid January the stats of each should hopefully be pretty low. In which case, can we then finally scrap all these restrictions and not have to hold out until the end of March? Also of course in the meantime over the next few months or so there could well be job cuts "of biblical proportion", as one of the ITV News correspondents mentioned yesterday. All these ongoing restrictions are wrecking the economy week by week and effecting the mental health of a large bulk of British people, it is ruining our lives. We just can't continue like this for potentially years on end! If we have to put up with this until the end of March, that would then have been a long TWELVE MONTHS of social distancing and the problems it has caused. That would be more than long enough of all this!

On a positive note though, I'm becoming a little more confident now that if we do have to put up with this for another 6 months, then I do think that really will have to be the end of it. Come late March, the government will HAVE to scrap social distancing and all these restrictions once and for all, so that we can get this country back to normal again, albeit having to still live with this virus still about. It's completely unsustainable to continue with all these restrictions very long term.

 

[brad465]

This isn't yet in the BBC article description, but some other sites like the Metro have grabbed this particular detail from Johnson's conference speech, that he has now promised to end social distancing by this time next year:

Social distancing 'to end by October 2021', Boris Johnson promises

The PM previosuly said he hopes for 'normality' by November this year.

metro.co.uk

The Prime Minister has promised no social distancing measures will be in place in the UK by this time next year. In a Conservative Party conference speech delivered to a nearly empty room, Boris Johnson said he expected people to meet ‘face-to-face and cheek-by-jowl,’ at next autumn’s event, thanks to ‘almost daily improvements in the medicine and the science’. He told colleagues he had ‘more than enough’ of Covid-19, which he described as a ‘plague’ and an ‘alien invader’. The PM had previously promised relative ‘normality’ by November this year, but with rising cases across the country this is not looking likely.

I'm confident social distancing will be long gone by this time next year, but the question is whether this is gone officially or because of a major revolt in multiple forms leads to mass non-compliance, so is effectively gone. Business will not survive another year of this policy, mental health challenges will reach a tipping point (and in some cases already are) long before then, while there is a good chance one such revolt will be from Johnson's own party to get rid of him, when the further damage done to the economy shows up through continuing this policy.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

This isn't yet in the BBC article description, but some other sites like the Metro have grabbed this particular detail from Johnson's conference speech, that he has now promised to end social distancing by this time next year:

Social distancing 'to end by October 2021', Boris Johnson promises

The PM previosuly said he hopes for 'normality' by November this year.

metro.co.uk

I'm confident social distancing will be long gone by this time next year, but the question is whether this is gone officially or because of a major revolt in multiple forms leads to mass non-compliance, so is effectively gone. Business will not survive another year of this policy, mental health challenges will reach a tipping point (and in some cases already are) long before then, while there is a good chance one such revolt will be from Johnson's own party to get rid of him, when the further damage done to the economy shows up through continuing this policy.

Another vague and empty promise from Boris to file alongside "We'll send the virus packing in 12 weeks" and "We'll beat the virus by Christmas".

This time next year? If people are still social distancing this time next month it will alreayd have gone on for far too long!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another vague and empty promise from Boris to file alongside "We'll send the virus packing in 12 weeks" and "We'll beat the virus by Christmas".

This time next year? If people are still social distancing this time next month it will alreayd have gone on for far too long!

He's just waffling, like he usually does, I would read nothing at all into such a statement.