Enforcement of the new rules on social distancing, unnecessary journeys etc.

[Bletchleyite]

I see the 'lockdown' review planned for Monday has been postponed, but in reality it never was going to be lifted, maybe at least another 3 weeks+

I think Bojo being "indisposed" is a convenient way to make saying this seem more reasonable to the public, but I agree it would have been extended anyway.

 

[trainophile]

Far too soon to relax the restrictions, the numbers of infected and deaths are still going up.

 

[yorkie]

Far too soon to relax the restrictions, the numbers of infected ... are still going up.

No way is this the case for new infections right now. Don't forget it can take several days for symptoms to appear; most people will not be tested and only those with the most serious symptoms are going to be in the statistics, which means people appearing in the stats today were infected quite some time ago now.

From another thread:

....The reckoning is that we are seeing R down to around 0.6-0.65 in UK....

 

[trainophile]

Isn't that the problem though, that there's no way of knowing whether the numbers are reducing until we have had upwards of 10 days with lower infection rates?

 

[hexagon789]

Isn't that the problem though, that there's no way of knowing whether the numbers are reducing until we have had upwards of 10 days with lower infection rates?

A couple of weeks potentially

 

[CaptainHaddock]

I see the 'lockdown' review planned for Monday has been postponed, but in reality it never was going to be lifted, maybe at least another 3 weeks+

No way is this the case for new infections right now. Don't forget it can take several days for symptoms to appear; most people will not be tested and only those with the most serious symptoms are going to be in the statistics, which means people appearing in the stats today were infected quite some time ago now.

Indeed. People tend to get fixatedly on using the number of deaths each day to judge whether we've reached the peak yet but, because of the delay between a death occurring and being logged, it's not necessarily an accurate yardstick.

The number of new infections is the key figure and, as it seems to have plateaued at around 4,000 per day, it could be argued that we''re more or less at the peak right now. Even if the number of new daily infections goes up, that would probably due to the increase in testing that the government is bringing in.

 

[LowLevel]

That, I'll be blunt, strikes me as criminal negligence. What is the take of this from the Unions?

Clearly it's impossible to walk down a train without quickly passing within 2m of someone, but loitering there is unnecessary and inexcusable.

I would be using their worksafe procedure against them. From the off TPE have had by far the worst approach to this situation in terms of their processes. They're a disgrace.

Other TOCs have done everything from stop on board checks to totally closing booking offices.

You would not get me checking tickets on a train at the moment for anything. I would walk off the job and dump the train first and I'm quite sure the train driver would be walking off with me rather than use the same cab as me.

 

[C J Snarzell]

Far too soon to relax the restrictions, the numbers of infected and deaths are still going up.

The news suggests a further 3 week lockdown that will take us to around the 4th May.

I honestly think the lockdown measures will be in force until June.

I'm still concerned that the small minority of idiots out there are going to put the rest of us on complete lockdown though & rob us of that vital hour of exercise each day.

CJ

 

[JonathanP]

What for me is the big question, is how much "social distancing" will become a permanent feature of our society long after it is no longer a legal obligation, with a corresponding permanent effect on our way of life and the business models of some industries.

Right now the window between the most cautious it is possible to be and what is actually illegal is very narrow, but this will widen over time.
I know lots of people that are taking measures(sometimes of questionable value) which go beyond the mandatory social distancing, like immediately washing all their clothes on high heat after returning home.

In a few months the lockdown will be gone, but the virus will still be out there and just as deadly.

Even after the measures are over, how long, if ever, will it be that people would be willing to share a compartment with a stranger on a heritage railway, visit a nightclub, or eat cake brought in by a co-worker(even though there was always a risk of catching cold or flu from things like this). After all, even a vaccine has been developed, you have no way of knowing who has had it.

 

[Mogster]

Indeed. People tend to get fixatedly on using the number of deaths each day to judge whether we've reached the peak yet but, because of the delay between a death occurring and being logged, it's not necessarily an accurate yardstick.

The number of new infections is the key figure and, as it seems to have plateaued at around 4,000 per day, it could be argued that we''re more or less at the peak right now. Even if the number of new daily infections goes up, that would probably due to the increase in testing that the government is bringing in.

Yes, the media are fixated on these stats but as you say delays and changes in reporting make them almost meaningless day to day. As I understand it deaths in particular can have lengthy reporting delays but are then added to each days stats when the reporting process is complete. So in that case today’s deaths could have happened days or even weeks ago.

The most important stats and this point are new hospital admissions and capacity but we mostly can’t see those.

 

[Bletchleyite]

After all, even a vaccine has been developed, you have no way of knowing who has had it.

I won't be saving any time for anti-vaxxers. People will choose not to have it at their own risk, and if they do and get infected that was their error.

I would suggest that it should be compulsory for children, this could be done by banning them from schools unless it is done. Making children vulnerable to serious diseases by not vaccinating them is tantamount to child abuse.

 

[krus_aragon]

I’ll be surprised if London doesn’t get a second wave, or perhaps doesn’t see the flattening which the rest of the country might be expected to be seeing.

In a few months the lockdown will be gone, but the virus will still be out there and just as deadly.

Up here in North Wales, I don't think we've really had the first wave yet. We've only had 277 cases test positive, out of a population of 700,000. That's an (apparent) infection rate of only 40 per 100,000 (even lower in the Western end). We've effectively locked down long before any surge of cases like those in London and Gwent.

 

[fishquinn]

I'm still concerned that the small minority of idiots out there are going to put the rest of us on complete lockdown though & rob us of that vital hour of exercise each day.

To be fair I highly doubt they'll ban exercise entirely (although right now there's no limit on length or distance for exercise so they might bring the guidelines of once per day into law but it would surprise me). Banning exercise entirely would lose a large amount of the country to riots I'd imagine, particularly those areas that are already on the edge because of this whole debacle.

 

[C J Snarzell]

Yes, the media are fixated on these stats but as you say delays and changes in reporting make them almost meaningless day to day. As I understand it deaths in particular can have lengthy reporting delays but are then added to each days stats when the reporting process is complete. So in that case today’s deaths could have happened days or even weeks ago.

The most important stats and this point are new hospital admissions and capacity but we mostly can’t see those.

ITN Health Correspontant Emily Morgan stated live on air on the 27th March that the daily deaths being recorded during the first few days of the lockdown were not accurate and that deaths in the community were not being recorded alongside hospital deaths.

Like you said - the huge numbers of fatalities being recorded the last few days are not necessarily people who have passed away in the previous 24 hour period - they are likely to be deaths from maybe last week that have only just been added to the list.

In reality the UK may have already passed the 10,000 mark by now but it will take a few days for the deaths to be recorded.

CJ

 

[PaulMc7]

To be fair I highly doubt they'll ban exercise entirely (although right now there's no limit on length or distance for exercise so they might bring the guidelines of once per day into law but it would surprise me). Banning exercise entirely would lose a large amount of the country to riots I'd imagine, particularly those areas that are already on the edge because of this whole debacle.

I agree with this fully. It's only asking for trouble if exercise gets banned. Mental health issues and domestic abuse cases etc would skyrocket instantly and they're already on the rise even under current conditions

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair I highly doubt they'll ban exercise entirely (although right now there's no limit on length or distance for exercise so they might bring the guidelines of once per day into law but it would surprise me). Banning exercise entirely would lose a large amount of the country to riots I'd imagine, particularly those areas that are already on the edge because of this whole debacle.

I can see them doing two things - bringing in the "once a day" thing as Wales has, and banning the use of cars and public transport for that purpose. Those together would keep it local and stop the honeypotting - most people won't bother walking 10 miles just to hang out somewhere nice. It will be unfortunate for those who live in rural areas fronting onto main roads with no pavement, but enforcement in those areas is likely to be low anyway. Literally everyone else can exercise from home.

 

[ashkeba]

I started to notice that last weekend tbh.
One of the guys coming in to work said it was like driving in the Tour de France.

Many motorists aren't competent at judging the distance between their vehicle and a cyclist, so I'll bet they're not good at judging the distances between cyclists!

I wonder whether the guy could go to work by cycling rather than driving an injury-maker among so many cyclists and do his bit to ease the strain on the NHS.

 

[ashkeba]

I can see them doing two things - bringing in the "once a day" thing as Wales has, and banning the use of cars and public transport for that purpose.

I think they should ban more than one adult in a car for anything except health and care transport, which is the rule now in some countries. Essential shops are only allowing one adult per group and there must be very few households with car sharing workers where more than one cannot work from home or use other transport. The benefits to the many would outweigh the inconvenience to a few.

 

[fishquinn]

I can see them doing two things - bringing in the "once a day" thing as Wales has, and banning the use of cars and public transport for that purpose. Those together would keep it local and stop the honeypotting - most people won't bother walking 10 miles just to hang out somewhere nice. It will be unfortunate for those who live in rural areas fronting onto main roads with no pavement, but enforcement in those areas is likely to be low anyway. Literally everyone else can exercise from home.

I agree most people won't walk 10 miles just to hang out somewhere nice, but 10 miles can be done cycling in a shade over half an hour so would still be an option for many. Cycling was my form of exercise yesterday for a 51 mile trek down some back roads and national cycle ways. Saw a few police officers when out and about but wasn't challenged (I'd imagine having a bike makes it pretty obvious what I'm doing).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think they should ban more than one adult in a car for anything except health and care transport, which is the rule now in some countries. Essential shops are only allowing one adult per group and there must be very few households with car sharing workers where more than one cannot work from home or use other transport. The benefits to the many would outweigh the inconvenience to a few.

I think, from an article I read yesterday on the Grauniad app (can't find it now), that there is allegedly pressure from Police chiefs to make it easier to enforce by removing some of the ambiguity. That would be another way to achieve the same thing. Basically the Police are under a lot of pressure and they quite understandably want the law to be such that as soon as they see someone (pretty much) they can be sure they are breaking the law, or only with a very brief conversation with no "get-outs". The understandable fear is that otherwise this weekend there'll be another exodus to the Lakes etc and a mass of spread again, and there's nothing they'll be able to do other than "advise" because the law doesn't actually ban an inhabitant of Penzance driving to Wick to exercise if they so choose.

Limiting the use of motor vehicles and public transport more strictly than leaving the house would achieve this quite well.

 

[Tom B]

The trouble with a once per day stipulation is the difficulty in enforcing it. We do not have enough polis to do this as it is. Other countries have systems where a form or text message must be available when challenged, but whether the UK has the infrastructure or IT back end to support this is another matter (we all know how well government IT projects go).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree most people won't walk 10 miles just to hang out somewhere nice, but 10 miles can be done cycling in a shade over half an hour so would still be an option for many. Cycling was my form of exercise yesterday for a 51 mile trek down some back roads and national cycle ways. Saw a few police officers when out and about but wasn't challenged (I'd imagine having a bike makes it pretty obvious what I'm doing).

Some will, yes, but most people won't cycle 51 miles for the sake of it. It's about getting numbers down, not dealing with the odd few.

The other thing that's useful in the Welsh legislation (not in either the English or Scottish) is that it mandates local authorities to close footpaths and access land that may pose a risk through either overcrowding or being narrow. That's the powers that "closed" Snowdon the other weekend.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The trouble with a once per day stipulation is the difficulty in enforcing it. We do not have enough polis to do this as it is. Other countries have systems where a form or text message must be available when challenged, but whether the UK has the infrastructure or IT back end to support this is another matter (we all know how well government IT projects go).

Really you don't have to catch absolutely every case, you just need to reduce the numbers on the streets. If a Police officer sees someone twice that's a start. See it more like Penalty Fares than ticket barriers - it's based on fear of being caught, which doesn't require you to catch everyone to get enough of a behaviour change to be worth it.

It strikes me as bizarre that the English law doesn't reflect all the stipulations. The Welsh and Scottish ones do.

I would also increase the penalty substantially. £30 just isn't enough to make people really think. Perhaps it should be Swiss style - 10% of your monthly pre-tax income would be a start? Or just go with a flat £200 or thereabouts.

 

[ashkeba]

£30? I thought it was 60 and doubles for each subsequent offence! Abroad fines start at €135 in France and €250 for some offences in Belgium.

 

[Bletchleyite]

£30? I thought it was 60 and doubles for each subsequent offence! Abroad fines start at €135 in France and €250 for some offences in Belgium.

It's like a parking fine. £60, but halves to £30 if paid promptly. I believe this is the standard "fixed penalty" approach in the UK, perhaps the legal framework doesn't allow for higher to be imposed without a Court case.

 

[krus_aragon]

It strikes me as bizarre that the English law doesn't reflect all the stipulations. The Welsh and Scottish ones do

I see it as a case of the devolved Governments going "right, we'll make sure we include everything Westminster's talking about, to be consistent" , without realising that the Westminster Government wanted to keep the law a bit more liberal than what they were actually saying.

 

[Tom B]

Really you don't have to catch absolutely every case, you just need to reduce the numbers on the streets. If a Police officer sees someone twice that's a start. See it more like Penalty Fares than ticket barriers - it's based on fear of being caught, which doesn't require you to catch everyone to get enough of a behaviour change to be worth it.

It strikes me as bizarre that the English law doesn't reflect all the stipulations. The Welsh and Scottish ones do.

I would also increase the penalty substantially. £30 just isn't enough to make people really think. Perhaps it should be Swiss style - 10% of your monthly pre-tax income would be a start? Or just go with a flat £200 or thereabouts.

Indeed. But I feel that, if you wanted to do that, it wouldn't be too difficult. Mandate employers to provide the letters which many have already. Then do checkpoints of public transport or the roads. The issue is, though, that there isn't the resource to do this following years of cutbacks combined with sickness amongst the polis.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. But I feel that, if you wanted to do that, it wouldn't be too difficult. Mandate employers to provide the letters which many have already. Then do checkpoints of public transport or the roads. The issue is, though, that there isn't the resource to do this following years of cutbacks combined with sickness amongst the polis.

Erm, are supermarkets going to provide letters for people driving there? (Obviously on the way back you can see the shopping in the boot!)

Not really workable, therefore.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think, from an article I read yesterday on the Grauniad app (can't find it now), that there is allegedly pressure from Police chiefs to make it easier to enforce by removing some of the ambiguity.

"We don't understand a simple law, we got embarrassed by it, so we're going to moan about it."

As for further restrictions, and people moaning about those in parks, here is a cartoon that sums it up nicely.

Cartoon shows two people sunbathing in a huge garden, whilst their children play badminton, calling people doing the same in the park selfish. In the background is a block of council-style flats with people on tiny balconies.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which of course spectacularly misses the point, because if they are in their own garden there isn't a risk of spread outside their family. The issue in parks is not one person sunbathing on their own, it's groups of young people (primarily) who are from different families. Because the UK doesn't have compulsory identity it's not feasible to check that because "we're housemates innit" can't be argued with.

Restrictions are about minimising spread, not about being fair. Plenty of people who paid a fortune to live in posh flats will have exactly the same problem as someone in a Council block.