Just on the note of people wearing masks and gloves whilst out and about, I'm not sure where the advice came from but everyone seems to be doing it. That said, I am seeing some people who I suspect are just doing it because "everyone else is" rather than understanding why people are wearing gloves. I've seen a few people driving out of supermarket car parks wearing disposable gloves, presumably having just done their shopping - I'd have taken the gloves off as soon as I got in the car rather than potentially spreading it from the supermarket to the steering wheel
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Exit strategy predictions
- Thread starter PTR 444
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
With the general consensus being that social distancing will be required until a vaccine is available (let's say 18 months), I wonder what will happen to those people who are in non-essential work but cannot work from home?
I myself am a PhD student, and while I have a couple of weeks worth of work I can do without access to a lab, as it stands my university will require me to suspend once my work runs out (and thus lose my pay - PhD students are not covered by the government guarantees as we are not employees - despite working a 45-50 hour week!). It is not possible to keep more than 2 meters apart from each other at all times in a lab. I personally then expect to join the thousands who will be looking for supermarket jobs or similar. I realise that posting this is rather pointless and there are no solid answers for any of our questions, but I am fed up so thought I may as well...
I myself am a PhD student, and while I have a couple of weeks worth of work I can do without access to a lab, as it stands my university will require me to suspend once my work runs out (and thus lose my pay - PhD students are not covered by the government guarantees as we are not employees - despite working a 45-50 hour week!). It is not possible to keep more than 2 meters apart from each other at all times in a lab. I personally then expect to join the thousands who will be looking for supermarket jobs or similar. I realise that posting this is rather pointless and there are no solid answers for any of our questions, but I am fed up so thought I may as well...
bramling
Veteran Member
I suppose the new obsession with masks and gloves means that hand gel is now more readily available to those who actually need it. Certainly we've had some delivered to our workplace in the last few days, such that there's now a reasonable supply. Thusfar I've not come close to being without.
bramling
Veteran Member
I suspect there will come a point that a calculated risk will have to be taken and such people will have to work, no doubt taking all other precautions and being required to distance as far as possible. If for example you work with a close group of people and can develop enough of a mutual trust between yourselves that you're all practising social distancing outside of work then that could provide a route through.
This is where non-essential leisure trips on public transport continues to be a factor - the less non-essential contact people have the better. Less essential work clearly comes higher up the priority list than the family day out to seaside, for example.
I would imagine that as some restrictions are relaxed, one strategy for employers would be to allow access to equipment on alternate days or weeks.
Before the full lockdown applied, my office was talking about a one week in / one week out arrangement with a deep clean at the weekend. This would allow social distancing while reducing the risk of transmission. This would appear to be a possible response where specialist equipment needs to be used also.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
What, if you don't mind me asking, are your medical qualifications that cause your posting to be more credible than the views of the WHO?
Most bigger supermarkets and chemists sell hair styling electrical goods, so I see no problem in them being purchased as an addition to the essential grocery or medical shop. Obviously a special visit would be not within the guidelines/law.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Do they? I'm seeing relatively few people doing it - almost exclusively Asians for whom it is a cultural matter anyway.
Both of these sound like plausible responses/solutions. It will be interesting to see if any such measures are implemented.
bramling
Veteran Member
The last week has seen certain people wearing them in conjunction with hoodies, a noticeable increase in such people using the transport network in London. It's been suggested some are wearing masks as a means of concealing their faces and/or to look more like key workers.
I'm seeing enough non-Asians doing it for it to be noticeable! Generally older people so it may just be people who are more at risk taking more precautions, but it was interesting to see - I'll admit that saying everyone is doing it was probably an overstatement!
Hardly anyone bar the East Asian students seem to be doing it in Manchester, but then they always have.
I’ve always thought it was more about pollution than diseases.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It might be that as well, but it's primarily about not giving others a cold. Even in the polluted Chinese large cities you only see a few.
Quite often they seem to be walking round outside on their own though. That’s why I’d come to the conclusion they were mostly concerned with protecting themselves from traffic fumes.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Yes, it's to protect anyone they may encounter, not just people with them.
Obviously mask wearing reduces spread
This shouldn't even be a discussion.
Theres a multitude of possible reasons why WHO might pretend masks don't help the general populace, I won't go into that, instead I will ask you- why have hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea been so successful against this virus?
Their ability to test and trace during the early stages of the outbreak allowing them to trace and effectively limit the spread...
Nobody is disputing that. However, it isn't "of clear and paramount importance" - as per WHO guidance (I have no idea why you've got some sort of obsessive distrust of them - would be nice if you could expand on it) you only need to wear them when dealing directly with someone who is infected with it - when out and about it's not going to be that effective compared to other tactics like washing your hands and not touching your face. Not to mention that they need to be focused on where they are needed (ie those treating the infected and suspected) being a limited resource.
There are many healthcare, social, genetic and evolutionary factors involved in virus spread. Walking down the street or going shopping covering your nose and mouth with a bit of random cloth or paper isn’t gong to halt the spread of the virus much. It could possibly make things worse, it’s very complicated.
There’s no scientific evidence that people showing no symptoms wearing simple masks covering the nose and mouth in public reduces spread. In a healthcare setting with staff in close contact with CoV2 positive patients obviously PPE makes sense, for patients and staff.
Then there are the possible negative effects of mask wearing on people with lung conditions such as COPD.
I dont have a distrust of WHO and I'm not a conspiracy theorist or anything like that. I have a distrust of authority perhaps and I think terrible decisions have been made.
Reminder that wuhan was totally locked down after a mere 24 deaths- the way china kept it contained (in china) is pretty miraculous and theres no way it ever could have happened without a mask wearing populace
...
That's down to the complete lock down, enforced by a fairly brutal authoritarian state, not the fact that some of the population wore masks
Greybeard33
Established Member
The key issue with any measures to relax the lockdown is how much they affect the 'R' virus transmission value. Without any social distancing measures, R0 was about 2.5 (each infected person gives it to 2.5 others on average), resulting in exponential growth in infections. I believe that the current UK lockdown has been estimated to have reduced R to about 0.65. If the full lockdown is maintained long enough, this will lead to a steady decline in cases and death rates. But any relaxation will increase R again, slowing or reversing the decline.
The highest tolerable R would be 1 - above this cases will accelerate again until critical care capacity is overwhelmed or a lockdown reimposed. But R0=1 will maintain cases at a constant level indefinitely - or at least until a vaccine is available or herd immunity develops, likely more than a year best case.
The big dilemma is that the earlier the lockdown is eased, the higher the ongoing death rate will be. If we ease off as much as possible at the peak, allowing R0 to increase to 1, the death rate will likely remain above 1000/day for months. Within the NHS capacity, but are we willing to tolerate that? At the other extreme, if the full lockdown is maintained for several weeks longer, it might be possible to get the death rate down to 100/day or less and then keep it there, with the same R0=1 easing measures. But are we willing to tolerate the additional damage to the economy and (other aspects of) public health from such a long lockdown?
An intermediate level of easing at the peak might give a R of, say, 0.9. Then there would be a slow decline in death rate, but many more deaths in total than from a prolonged lockdown.
An unenviable choice for policymakers, with the interests of different sections of the population in conflict (e.g. affluent pensioners, at risk from the virus, versus young families, at risk from the economy).
It appears that the government is considering mass testing plus contact tracing and quarantining, as in China and S Korea, as part of the exit strategy. This can potentially reduce R much more than social distancing measures alone, and so enable more easing. The catch is that contact tracing in the UK would only become feasible if we first drove infections down to a very low level through a prolonged lockdown, as the Chinese have done in Wuhan. No gain without pain!
The highest tolerable R would be 1 - above this cases will accelerate again until critical care capacity is overwhelmed or a lockdown reimposed. But R0=1 will maintain cases at a constant level indefinitely - or at least until a vaccine is available or herd immunity develops, likely more than a year best case.
The big dilemma is that the earlier the lockdown is eased, the higher the ongoing death rate will be. If we ease off as much as possible at the peak, allowing R0 to increase to 1, the death rate will likely remain above 1000/day for months. Within the NHS capacity, but are we willing to tolerate that? At the other extreme, if the full lockdown is maintained for several weeks longer, it might be possible to get the death rate down to 100/day or less and then keep it there, with the same R0=1 easing measures. But are we willing to tolerate the additional damage to the economy and (other aspects of) public health from such a long lockdown?
An intermediate level of easing at the peak might give a R of, say, 0.9. Then there would be a slow decline in death rate, but many more deaths in total than from a prolonged lockdown.
An unenviable choice for policymakers, with the interests of different sections of the population in conflict (e.g. affluent pensioners, at risk from the virus, versus young families, at risk from the economy).
It appears that the government is considering mass testing plus contact tracing and quarantining, as in China and S Korea, as part of the exit strategy. This can potentially reduce R much more than social distancing measures alone, and so enable more easing. The catch is that contact tracing in the UK would only become feasible if we first drove infections down to a very low level through a prolonged lockdown, as the Chinese have done in Wuhan. No gain without pain!
Last edited:
It isn't just some of the population though. It's a social expectation
You wont be allowed into a supermarket in east Asia right now without a mask
Enthusiast
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,226
I think it would. In the absence of hairdressers, such equipment would almost certainly be viewed as "supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household,". These regulations are supposed to allow people out when they have a "reasonable excuse". A non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses is provided into which I believe hair clippers would fit. But even if they don't, it is not reasonable to expect people to have to endure hair that is too long for their liking - especially when no end date for the restrictions is forthcoming. I would suggest it is perfectly reasonable to venture out to buy hair clippers. Though I'm quite sure most people could combine it with a trip for "essentials".
One of the things about this saga I do not understand is the way 'necessary shopping' is defined by items but not by actual needs. My mum keeps going shopping but it's fine because she is buying 'essential items', but yet theres loads of food she could cook in the house. Governments have sent out blanket laws and recommendations but little thought has gone into them.
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,671
I've got that already - next stop Farmer Giles
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Good post, I agree entirely. Just to add a couple of points:The key issue with any measures to relax the lockdown is how much they affect the R0 virus transmission value. Without any social distancing measures, R0 was about 2.5 (each infected person gives it to 2.5 others on average), resulting in exponential growth in infections. I believe that the current UK lockdown has been estimated to have reduced R0 to about 0.65. If the full lockdown is maintained long enough, this will lead to a steady decline in cases and death rates. But any relaxation will increase R0 again, slowing or reversing the decline.
The highest tolerable R0 would be 1 - above this cases will accelerate again until critical care capacity is overwhelmed or a lockdown reimposed. But R0=1 will maintain cases at a constant level indefinitely - or at least until a vaccine is available or herd immunity develops, likely more than a year best case.
The big dilemma is that the earlier the lockdown is eased, the higher the ongoing death rate will be. If we ease off as much as possible at the peak, allowing R0 to increase to 1, the death rate will likely remain above 1000/day for months. Within the NHS capacity, but are we willing to tolerate that? At the other extreme, if the full lockdown is maintained for several weeks longer, it might be possible to get the death rate down to 100/day or less and then keep it there, with the same R0=1 easing measures. But are we willing to tolerate the additional damage to the economy and (other aspects of) public health from such a long lockdown?
An intermediate level of easing at the peak might give a R0 of, say, 0.9. Then there would be a slow decline in death rate, but many more deaths in total than from a prolonged lockdown.
An unenviable choice for policymakers, with the interests of different sections of the population in conflict (e.g. affluent pensioners, at risk from the virus, versus young families, at risk from the economy).
It appears that the government is considering mass testing plus contact tracing and quarantining, as in China and S Korea, as part of the exit strategy. This can potentially reduce R0 much more than social distancing measures alone, and so enable more easing. The catch is that contact tracing in the UK would only become feasible if we first drove infections down to a very low level through a prolonged lockdown, as the Chinese have done in Wuhan. No gain without pain!
Firstly we have to remember the time lag. People being hospitalised now probably caught the virus before the current restrictions or very soon after, during which time the numbers of cases went up by a big factor. Relaxing restrictions too much risks the same sort of increase happening again in a few weeks time, which from current levels would easily overwhelm the NHS. Even a slight relaxation is a risk because without a lot of testing we don't know with certainty what is happening to R0 until it is reflected in hospital admissions in a few weeks time.
Secondly, everyone is talking today about the future app, which will apparently build a list of everyone who also has the app and where their phones have been close together for more than a few minutes. If someone has symptoms then the app can alert all those contacts from recent days. If it works reliably then it would allow people to self-isolate if they had a strong indication they had been exposed, which could then be confirmed or otherwise by testing if that was ramped up too. It might then allow other restrictions to be relaxed more, perhaps only for people carrying their phones with the app loaded. My concern about this is the level of false positives, especially as it relies on Bluetooth which can work through walls so will potentially alert for people like neighbours who haven't had any contact (and then presumably cascade on through their contacts like the neighbours on the other side...).
bramling
Veteran Member
I think we have to accept it's rushed guidance / legislation, and as such didn't have the time to be really heavily thought through.
The whole thing does to some extent rely on people being sensible, and in *some* cases this clearly hasn't been happening. Boris did say "as infrequently as possible", however evidently this isn't clear enough for some people.
- Status