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

[Bletchleyite]

The next few months are going to be interesting! I wonder how many people are willing to work from home potentially for the next 12 months

I have done for about 7 years. It's not that bad!

On that note, I can see the government keeping all franchises as management contracts for at least the next year. Any move back to traditional franchises & they'll start going bust within months.

Franchises won't be back. They'll move to whatever the Williams report says.

 

[chris11256]

I have done for about 7 years. It's not that bad!

In my case I live in a small 1 bedroom flat, so I enjoy the physical distance between work & home. If I lived in a larger flat or house with more space it wouldn't be that bad.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In my case I live in a small 1 bedroom flat, so I enjoy the physical distance between work & home. If I lived in a larger flat or house with more space it wouldn't be that bad.

Yes, agreed, that would make a fair difference. Depending on your circumstances, though, if you live in a small flat because of the need to live in an expensive place, e.g. London, WFH might give you the opportunity to relocate somewhere cheaper and therefore bigger.

 

[trebor79]

Yes, agreed, that would make a fair difference. Depending on your circumstances, though, if you live in a small flat because of the need to live in an expensive place, e.g. London, WFH might give you the opportunity to relocate somewhere cheaper and therefore bigger.

That assumes the London pied a terre is still going to attract silly prices. With WFH and perhaps less willingness to live in crowded cities in a post COVID world, that may not be the case.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That assumes the London pied a terre is still going to attract silly prices. With WFH and perhaps less willingness to live in crowded cities in a post COVID world, that may not be the case.

There might be some harmonisation and stagnation of prices, but I can't see London prices dropping that much.

 

[westv]

I wonder what percentage of people are WFH at the moment. At my place everybody is.

 

[chris11256]

Same here, although there's one person that goes in once a week for post & general building checks.

 

[Belperpete]

One of the ways employers save with working from home is by not providing personal desk space - if you do need to come into the office, you use a hot desk, rather than having your own desk which is sitting empty while you are at home. However, I note that the government is going to discourage hot desking. This will surely make working from home, especially part-time, less financially attractive?

 

[JonathanH]

Taken from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/future-job-cuts.203942/page-3

I completely agree with you on what should happen but there appears to be dark forces wanting to restrict travel until the pandemic is over (ie. Potentially 12 to 18 months) for example there is a campaign to deny entry into Devon and Cornwall until such time.

How is the restriction of long distance travel the work of 'dark forces'? The need to keep outbreaks of the virus localised is rather obvious I would have thought. There is no 'essential need' for people who live in London, the Home Counties, Yorkshire or anywhere else to travel to Devon and Cornwall to maintain its economy, no matter how important the tourist industry is.

And if the disease is that bad, why is the Nightingale Hospital being stood down? Why are relatives not allowed to visit hospitals to visit ill/dying family? I have noticed an increase in security at hospital entrances turning people away

The Nightingale Hospitals are being stood down because at the moment due to the 'lockdown', the transmission has reduced. They aren't being restored to their normal use (ie conference centres etc) because there is the possibility of a 'second wave' and we need to retain emergency capacity.

Relatives aren't allowed to visit hospital because of the risk of transmission, because they would be 'in the way' and because there is insufficient PPE for healthcare professionals to start letting relatives use it for visits. It is a nasty disease, the last thing you want to allow happen is transmission because of hospital visits. No 'dark forces' in that decision.

 

[yorksrob]

Taken from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/future-job-cuts.203942/page-3



How is the restriction of long distance travel the work of 'dark forces'? The need to keep outbreaks of the virus localised is rather obvious I would have thought. There is no 'essential need' for people who live in London, the Home Counties, Yorkshire or anywhere else to travel to Devon and Cornwall to maintain its economy, no matter how important the tourist industry is.



The Nightingale Hospitals are being stood down because at the moment due to the 'lockdown', the transmission has reduced. They aren't being restored to their normal use (ie conference centres etc) because there is the possibility of a 'second wave' and we need to retain emergency capacity.

Relatives aren't allowed to visit hospital because of the risk of transmission, because they would be 'in the way' and because there is insufficient PPE for healthcare professionals to start letting relatives use it for visits. It is a nasty disease, the last thing you want to allow happen is transmission because of hospital visits. No 'dark forces' in that decision.

The idea of closing off whole counties for months on end isn't sustainable. Quite aside from tourists travelling to beauty spots, residents of those areas will also have reason to move to other areas of the country, including metropolitan ones.

 

[Belperpete]

The idea of closing off whole counties for months on end isn't sustainable. Quite aside from tourists travelling to beauty spots, residents of those areas will also have reason to move to other areas of the country, including metropolitan ones.

I imagine it might be done precisely to stop tourists from metropolitan virus hot-spots travelling to the generally virus-free rural areas. I know that in the part of Wales where I live, there is great disquiet about visitors from the Midlands and North-West hot-spots bringing the virus into what is currently a largely virus-free area. Beaches and car parks have been closed to discourage visitors.

 

[Western Lord]

Taken from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/future-job-cuts.203942/page-3



How is the restriction of long distance travel the work of 'dark forces'? The need to keep outbreaks of the virus localised is rather obvious I would have thought. There is no 'essential need' for people who live in London, the Home Counties, Yorkshire or anywhere else to travel to Devon and Cornwall to maintain its economy, no matter how important the tourist industry is.

On the countrary, the economies of Devon and, especially, Cornwall are almost entirely dependent on the tourist industry.

 

[yorksrob]

I imagine it might be done precisely to stop tourists from metropolitan virus hot-spots travelling to the generally virus-free rural areas. I know that in the part of Wales where I live, there is great disquiet about visitors from the Midlands and North-West hot-spots bringing the virus into what is currently a largely virus-free area. Beaches and car parks have been closed to discourage visitors.

And what happens when someone living in one of these areas needs to travel to a city to visit a loved one or for work ? They will presumably travel back afterwards.

 

[bramling]

I imagine it might be done precisely to stop tourists from metropolitan virus hot-spots travelling to the generally virus-free rural areas. I know that in the part of Wales where I live, there is great disquiet about visitors from the Midlands and North-West hot-spots bringing the virus into what is currently a largely virus-free area. Beaches and car parks have been closed to discourage visitors.

That strategy just won’t work in the medium term.

It’s quite reasonable as a short-term suppression measure, but it’s simply not viable to wall people up in their own county. There will always have be an element of movement, which works in both directions, and ultimately people in these areas will have to come to terms with living with other measures - in other words social distancing.

There will doubtless have to be some control imposed to stop too many people flocking to popular locations all at the same time, but that’s not the same as shutting down altogether.

Economically many rural areas depend on tourism, and sadly it’s inevitable we’re probably going to see an element of rural warfare, which I don’t think will be just confined to “outsiders”, but may pitch locals against locals - eg the local hotel owner and staff against others. Hopefully we won’t see too much of this, but it’s bound to happen - it already has with second home owners.

 

[Belperpete]

And what happens when someone living in one of these areas needs to travel to a city to visit a loved one or for work ? They will presumably travel back afterwards.

It obviously could not be absolute. There is still limited movement into and out of those countries that have closed their borders.

 

[philosopher]

The next few months are going to be interesting! I wonder how many people are willing to work from home potentially for the next 12 months, I know I'm not. I'll be going back in as soon as lockdown moves to the next stage(I work in IT is can justify physically being on site). On that note, I can see the government keeping all franchises as management contracts for at least the next year. Any move back to traditional franchises & they'll start going bust within months.

I bought a new flat last Autumn and being within walking distance of work was my primary reason for moving. So at the moment I am getting zero benefit from the biggest reason why I choose where to live. If I had to work from home for a year it would certainly be through gritted teeth. Related to that I also worry that if working from home becomes the norm than the appeal of where I live will be diminished which will impact on me financially due to falling house prices in my area.

 

[Belperpete]

Economically many rural areas depend on tourism, and sadly it’s inevitable we’re probably going to see an element of rural warfare, which I don’t think will be just confined to “outsiders”, but may pitch locals against locals - eg the local hotel owner and staff against others. Hopefully we won’t see too much of this, but it’s bound to happen - it already has with second home owners.

Will it be worth going on holiday before pubs and restaurants have opened? You would be OK in self-catering, but what is the point of going to stay in a hotel if you can't get anything cooked to eat?

I was staying in a Travelodge the day the government ordered all restaurants to close, so no evening meal or breakfast available at the Travelodge. Fortunately, the McDonalds around the corner was open, but they closed a day later. Fortunately I had returned home by then, as finding somewhere to get a cooked meal could have got interesting.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Taken from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/future-job-cuts.203942/page-3
Relatives aren't allowed to visit hospital because of the risk of transmission, because they would be 'in the way' and because there is insufficient PPE for healthcare professionals to start letting relatives use it for visits. It is a nasty disease, the last thing you want to allow happen is transmission because of hospital visits. No 'dark forces' in that decision.

Yes, I know and understand that - but that argument is wearing thin and caronavirus is being used as a "catch-all" excuse. I don't buy it any more.

Nobody is physically turned away if they enter a hospital with a common cold, vomiting or diarrhoea, flu, step throat, ringworm, Giardiasis, lyme disease or any other infectious disease - all of which can be highly contagious. How many people die of flu every year for example?

If my elderly, or ill relative was dying in hospital, why shouldn't I be able to see them for the last time? Naturally, I would bring my own PPE. And before the counterargument of "well if everyone did that..." what if it was your relative or close friend? Would you seriously not go to the hospital for the sake of the "greater good?"

There appears to be a sinister move towards hospitals being patrolled by security (or gatekeepers) who can dictate who and who can't enter and I feel very uncomfortable with this. A blanket ban will not help

 

[bramling]

Will it be worth going on holiday before pubs and restaurants have opened? You would be OK in self-catering, but what is the point of going to stay in a hotel if you can't get anything cooked to eat?

I was staying in a Travelodge the day the government ordered all restaurants to close, so no evening meal or breakfast available at the Travelodge. Fortunately, the McDonalds around the corner was open, but they closed a day later. Fortunately I had returned home by then, as finding somewhere to get a cooked meal could have got interesting.

We’d certainly go away, as our holidays tend to be rural sightseeing - quite often obscure stuff like disused railways, castles and the like. However, I’m put off at present more the thought that there will be loads of people hanging around in places there normally wouldn’t be.

Whilst we do like to eat out in the evenings when away, this is more because at the end of a tiring day it’s expedient, rather than being a key element of the holiday. So we’d quite happily manage even if we had to be as extreme as a microwave in the hotel room!

 

[JonathanH]

Nobody is physically turned away if they enter a hospital with a common cold, vomiting or diarrhoea, flu, step throat, ringworm, Giardiasis, lyme disease or any other infectious disease - all of which can be highly contagious. How many people die of flu every year for example?

Flu isn't a great comparator - true it knocks people out for a while and is deadly to the wrong people but the hospital workers can take a vaccine dose at the start of the flu season such that is poses less of a threat to them. Hospital workers are dying of Covid-19 and there is public outrage about it.

If my elderly, or ill relative was dying in hospital, why shouldn't I be able to see them for the last time? Naturally, I would bring my own PPE. And before the counterargument of "well if everyone did that..." what if it was your relative or close friend? Would you seriously not go to the hospital for the sake of the "greater good?"

There appears to be a sinister move towards hospitals being patrolled by security (or gatekeepers) who can dictate who and who can't enter and I feel very uncomfortable with this. A blanket ban will not help

I really don't think we should be reading anything sinister into this. While hospital security has been increasing over time - gone are the days when you could walk freely round hospitals without being asked who you were visiting - would people really have their own PPE to go and visit a loved one for the last time? The last thing anyone wants to do is die in the same way as their elderly or ill relative.

My experience is that it isn't that practical to be with an ill relative at their passing in many cases in any case.

 

[JonathanH]

it’s simply not viable to wall people up in their own county

Who is it not viable for? There are plenty of opportunities for recreation within anyone's own area.

I have a lot of sympathy for people who are not able to visit loved ones at the moment, and would hope that this, in time, can be permitted, but I don't have any sympathy for anyone who needs to travel for other recreation, not in the current and future circumstances.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Who is it not viable for? There are plenty of opportunities for recreation within anyone's own area.

I have a lot of sympathy for people who are not able to visit loved ones at the moment, and would hope that this, in time, can be permitted, but I don't have any sympathy for anyone who needs to travel for other recreation, not in the current and future circumstances.

Why would you not have sympathy for them? It might be impossible for them to undertake that travel any time soon, but why no respect for why people want to?

 

[bramling]

Who is it not viable for? There are plenty of opportunities for recreation within anyone's own area.

I have a lot of sympathy for people who are not able to visit loved ones at the moment, and would hope that this, in time, can be permitted, but I don't have any sympathy for anyone who needs to travel for other recreation, not in the current and future circumstances.

I’m all for it for the time until such time as things are brought under control, which seems to be a point we certainly haven’t reached yet.

However so long as we can maintain a state of managed decline for the virus then there’s certainly a need for a returned to controlled normality. In reality movement will happen for things like delivery, staff needing to move round the country for work purposes and the like. It’s simply not sustainable to wall up and stop people moving around. Where we could perhaps have done that was with our external borders when the whole thing first emerged, but that boat has now well and truly sailed.

Interestingly one country which seems to have kept a lid on things is Poland, we don’t seem to hear much about what they seem to be getting right.

 

[BJames]

If my elderly, or ill relative was dying in hospital, why shouldn't I be able to see them for the last time? Naturally, I would bring my own PPE. And before the counterargument of "well if everyone did that..." what if it was your relative or close friend? Would you seriously not go to the hospital for the sake of the "greater good?"

There appears to be a sinister move towards hospitals being patrolled by security (or gatekeepers) who can dictate who and who can't enter and I feel very uncomfortable with this. A blanket ban will not help

I agree and I suspect this is one of those cases that it's quite easy to say from the comfort of your own home that we shouldn't do this and shouldn't do that, but actually when it comes down to it, saying goodbye through a phone call just isn't good enough.

However so long as we can maintain a state of managed decline for the virus then there’s certainly a need for a returned to controlled normality. In reality movement will happen for things like delivery, staff needing to move round the country for work purposes and the like. It’s simply not sustainable to wall up and stop people moving around.

Completely. I fully understand that we want to reduce the transmission but lockdown has always had to be a short-term solution. We now need to think about the medium term to prevent major issues down the line, both health wise and economy wise.

 

[yorkie]

Coronavirus: 'Segment and shield' way to lift UK lockdown now

Strengthen protection for high-risk people while easing restrictions for others, scientists say.

www.bbc.co.uk

.... this new study, by academics from the Universities of Edinburgh and London, looks at what might happen during the next phase of the coronavirus outbreak if shielding could be strengthened while some other measures are relaxed.

They say:

• Those most susceptible to the disease - such as the elderly and those with underlying medical conditions - would still need to be shielded from anyone potentially infected with the virus
• To achieve this, people sharing a house with a susceptible person, as well as care workers and health professionals, would also need to protect themselves from infection and have frequent tests....

"By targeting protection to those that need it most, the strategy helps to ensure that the health system is not overwhelmed by severe cases, while giving policymakers greater leeway to partially relax social-distancing measures for the majority of the population."

The comments of many articles on the BBC site are frequently full of rubbish but some of the comments I saw that struck a chord with me are:

The the long term effects of economic melt down on health inc. suicides, mental health, dietary changes from the economic downturn, and under privileged area effect need considered.

"Strengthening protection for people shielding, while easing restrictions for everyone else"

We could have done that from the beginning with strong shielding, testing and tracing. Like Sweden & Germany have done in fact with significantly less deaths per million of population that UK has to date.

Common sense really, even if you're in the group allowed to go out you can still stay home if you arent comfortable. I think there was only 28 deaths in those under 40 who had no underlying health conditions, loosening the restrictions for that group should go ahead. Essentially the majority of the working population.

Surely the correct approach was this in the first place. Business as usual with social distancing for most, complete isolation for only the most vulnerable.

Instead we have damaged the economy for years to come which will have deeply unpleasant consequences, including direct deaths. If we continue as we are until a vaccine is distributed it'll be right to ask if this was worse than the disease.

The virus doesn't scare me, but no work indefinitely does. We need some economic normality or the tragic death toll is going to be dwarfed by the unintended consequences of economic restrictions.

Can we look at Austria more closely

A few weeks of easing and no extra cases. This looks promising.

We need to look at all countries and see what is working and what didn’t

Until recently I think the majority of people were of the view that we should lockdown until we either have a vaccine or the virus disappears, but many people are increasingly realising that is not sustainable. Many people were under all sorts of false pretences such as if we had a harsh lockdown for a long time the virus would disappear (and some still thought that even after the WHO's David Nabarro made it clear that wasn't happening)

I chatted to various people at work today and found a lot of agreement with my thoughts on all this. I had a conversation with our Union rep and that was very heartening as she sounded as keen as I am to get back to work (I am glad I am in a sensible union!)

I'm still rather worried about the future but at least some people are realising that the bigger picture cannot be ignored.

Completely. I fully understand that we want to reduce the transmission but lockdown has always had to be a short-term solution. We now need to think about the medium term to prevent major issues down the line, both health wise and economy wise.

Indeed; I think most sensible people are now realising this.

 

[6862]

I agree Yorkie - people are realising the impossibility of long term lockdown, and it is being borne out in the media (which I personally feel is just increasingly becoming an echo chamber). But I think you only have to look at the document released by the Scottish government today to see how jumpy people are going to be about the effects of any changes that are made to the lockdown. I think we could quite easily end up in a situation where the lockdown is relaxed somewhat in 3 weeks, but then any rise in cases leads to an immediate clamp down again. You only have to look at the reports coming out of Germany last week (later apparently shown to be just a blip) that R > 1, to see how the media (and hence society and the government) will react to any change, no matter how small or short lived. I think public opinion (and hence government policy) will swing backwards and forwards with alarming frequency over the next few months/year.

 

[trebor79]

Maybe time to emigrate to Australia/New Zealand. They seem to have it sussed and by acting quickly and closing borders just in time look to be well on the way to local eradication and developing plans to keep it that way whilst life inside the country resumes as normal.
My wife was actually born in Aus, time to encourage her to get the Australian passport she's never got round to obtaining... I went to New Zealand for a holiday in 2005 and could have quite happily thrown away the return ticket and just stayed there.

 

[Bikeman78]

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).

I'll be happy to go back to the office. Trying to work in a house with two small children is hard work. Admittedly that will ease when they go back to school. Also I like talking to other adults at work. Being stuck at home with an occasional group Skype call isn't the same.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe time to emigrate to Australia/New Zealand. They seem to have it sussed and by acting quickly and closing borders just in time look to be well on the way to local eradication and developing plans to keep it that way whilst life inside the country resumes as normal.
My wife was actually born in Aus, time to encourage her to get the Australian passport she's never got round to obtaining... I went to New Zealand for a holiday in 2005 and could have quite happily thrown away the return ticket and just stayed there.

I've never had much time for Australian politics, it's rather nanny state and protectionist. NZ I know less about, but isn't it basically Wales but a long way away?

 

[Bikeman78]

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.

I'm inclined to agree. People won't all rush back to work on a train the day after lockdown ends. Some people have lost their jobs, some will carry on working from home. Others will be too scared to use public transport and try to find another another way to travel. Apparently bike shops are doing a good trade. I expect the majority of new bike users used to be bus passengers. I saw a bus yesterday with no one on it. I think that is the first time I've seen that in 20 odd years, apart from out of service moves to or from the depot.