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

[yorksrob]

The problem is that it's extremely difficult for shielding residents to remain separated from the rest of society to an extent that would cut the virus off completely, particularly if the virus is rampant in the rest of society. Plus it's not desireable for shielded groups to be locked away behind closed doors any more than it is for the rest of us.

It's still a question of balance between enabling social and economic activity to take place whilst mitigating the risk of infections within the less vulnerable groups. We probably haven't got that balance right yet, but it's not a simple question of shielding one part of society and not restricting the other.

 

[ThameslinkUser]

The economy will take a harder hit and longer to recover if there are fewer people alive and able to fulfil jobs. The countries with the fewer deaths probably will have a smaller economic impact than those who failed to look after their citizens, like us.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As you said, you have the option of a car

FWIW, the latest guidance (published today for Monday) says:

1.12 Can I use public transport if I’m seeing friends in a park or going to my parents’ garden?

You should avoid using public transport if you can. You should cycle, walk or drive wherever possible. Consider all other forms of transport before using public transport. If you need to use public transport, use should follow the safer travel guidance for passengers.

So yes, you can, but only if another option is not viable.

Therefore, Northern etc (and the errant traincrew we have heard about on this thread and others) need to pack in the "key worker" diatribe. At most I guess you could put a notice on TVMs and ticket office windows saying "Before you buy a ticket, are you sure you can't walk, cycle or drive instead?"

National lockdown: Stay at Home

Coronavirus remains a serious threat across the country. Find out what you can and cannot do.

www.gov.uk

It also seems open to the idea that you have considered the other modes of transport even if you had them but chose not to use them. For instance, driving to London is a mug's game, so the train would be a natural choice, though you might be better driving to the station than taking the bus.

 

[MikeWM]

Yes, really.

The term "essential" is a misnomer; what matters is whether the journey is permitted by the relevant legislation.

The legislation can be found at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6

(note there is an upcoming change to the legislation to allow gatherings of up to 6 people, but there is no material change to the types of journey that is permitted)

Any journey that is not permitted under the legislation is not permitted by any transport mode.

It is worth pointing out that regulation 6 is to be entirely replaced as of tomorrow. At that point, it will no longer be required to have a 'reasonable excuse' to leave, or stay outside, your home - that is reduced to a prohibition on overnight stays away from your home (again with some exceptions).

So, it already wasn't hard to find a 'reasonable excuse' since the list was extended a few weeks back to allow 'public open spaces', but from tomorrow, you can go anywhere you like outdoors, for any reason or no reason, as long as you're not out overnight.

 

[yorksrob]

FWIW, the latest guidance (published today for Monday) says:



So yes, you can, but only if another option is not viable.

National lockdown: Stay at Home

Coronavirus remains a serious threat across the country. Find out what you can and cannot do.

www.gov.uk

Well, that's certainly good news and welcome clarification.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would strike me, from looking at the above diagrams, that it actually might be viable to follow, with the resources provided by the Nightingale Hospitals and similar (remember, we didn't have those back in March, nor indeed that knowledge), a policy of shielding plus herd immunity and let it sweep through quite quickly.

This would have to be a more extreme version of shielding - for instance, care homes would have to be served by live-in staff with the doors closed other than for deliveries, and those deliveries made outside, zero-contact and all thoroughly disinfected before use.

Indeed, if it is the case that immunity lasts about 12 months, you need it to sweep through quickly if that approach is to be followed.

Interesting. Is that, I wonder, what's effectively happening in Sweden?

45-60 is a very wide group, FWIW, and I suspect if you split it into 5 year chunks you'd find most were 55-60.

 

[43066]

This would have to be a more extreme version of shielding - for instance, care homes would have to be served by live-in staff with the doors closed other than for deliveries, and those deliveries made outside, zero-contact and all thoroughly disinfected before use.

Yes absolutely. If this approach had been taken we’d be down to half the COVID 19 deaths due to half (or more) of the fatalities occurring in care homes.

Indeed, if it is the case that immunity lasts about 12 months, you need it to sweep through quickly if that approach is to be followed.

Interesting. Is that, I wonder, what's effectively happening in Sweden?

I’m sure it is.

We are going to end up having to take the Swedish approach in any case. The alternative is locking down until we have a vaccine which is clearly a nonsensical idea.

On topic(ish), I wonder what the level of herd immunity is in London due to people travelling on packed tubes in Jan and Feb when the virus was likely already circulating.

 

[ThameslinkUser]

On topic(ish), I wonder what the level of herd immunity is in London due to people travelling on packed tubes in Jan and Feb when the virus was likely already circulating.

Probably quite high considering London now has some of the lowest R-rates, including City of London currently on 0.0, from the stats I've read. I'll see if I can find the source

 

[Peter Mugridge]

It's not sustainable to effectively ban people indefinitely. 'Public' Transport.

Of interest, France - which is about a month ahead of us in lockdown terms - has just announced that SNCF is to return to 100% capacity, apart from ongoing restrictions within the Ile de France area ( Paris and the approximate surrounding equivalent of the Home Counties over here ).

 

[Cowley]

Can we keep this on topic from here please and leave the irrelevant references to the leader of the SNP behind...
Thanks all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes absolutely. If this approach had been taken we’d be down to half the COVID 19 deaths due to half (or more) of the fatalities occurring in care homes.

I listened to an interesting Guardian (I think) podcast earlier which described a home that had done that off their own bat - and they had zero (0) cases.

On topic(ish), I wonder what the level of herd immunity is in London due to people travelling on packed tubes in Jan and Feb when the virus was likely already circulating.

I think I heard 17% (based on randomised antibody tests), so not that high.

 

[Domh245]

45-60 is a very wide group, FWIW, and I suspect if you split it into 5 year chunks you'd find most were 55-60.

That is indeed what the data shows:

Total registrations since outbreak began (as of w/e 15th May):
45-49: 390
50-54: 722
55-59: 1231
60-64: 1765
(and for extra info)
65-69: 2385
70-74: 3872
75-79: 5559
80-84: 7803
85-89: 8291
90+: 8628

 

[Bletchleyite]

It wouldn't overly surprise me if a big chunk of that was based on prevalence of type 2 diabetes - this does tend to "kick in" in middle age and seems to be a big issue.

 

[Huntergreed]

I must admit these figures are making me consider if leaving everyone in lockdown is really the right approach to be taking.

Considering the above figures, why not let under 55’s, which make up the good majority of the UK workforce, to get the economy going again, whilst still protecting these that are the most vulnerable. I’m not saying they need to stay in forever, but advising them to stay in lockdown for the meantime whilst preventing any more damage to the economy seems more sensible to me than locking everyone in and risking the livelihoods and futures of the younger generation to protect the lives of the small minority who are most vulnerable to this disease.

I’m almost certain this won’t be the approach taken by our government, but I feel it should be considered to protect our economy more than we currently are. Our current approach of vague messaging, fear mongering and confusion has served its purpose, now we need to look rather rapidly at a more sustainable long term solution.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I must admit these figures are making me consider if leaving everyone in lockdown is really the right approach to be taking.

Considering the above figures, why not let under 55’s, which make up the good majority of the UK workforce, to get the economy going again, whilst still protecting these that are the most vulnerable. I’m not saying they need to stay in forever, but advising them to stay in lockdown for the meantime whilst preventing any more damage to the economy seems more sensible to me than locking everyone in and risking the livelihoods and futures of the younger generation to protect the lives of the small minority who are most vulnerable to this disease.

You don't necessarily even need to keep over 55s in actual lockdown, just distancing (though you may want to shield 65+ or so). You could perhaps offer a 100% (no cap) furlough scheme to those of that age group who can prove they cannot work remotely? Stick income tax up on the 40% bracket for those working to fund it? Much more affordable if it's a narrower age group, most notably one of whom a fair chunk are retired anyway.

 

[43066]

I must admit these figures are making me consider if leaving everyone in lockdown is really the right approach to be taking.

Considering the above figures, why not let under 55’s, which make up the good majority of the UK workforce, to get the economy going again, whilst still protecting these that are the most vulnerable. I’m not saying they need to stay in forever, but advising them to stay in lockdown for the meantime whilst preventing any more damage to the economy seems more sensible to me than locking everyone in and risking the livelihoods and futures of the younger generation to protect the lives of the small minority who are most vulnerable to this disease.

I’m almost certain this won’t be the approach taken by our government, but I feel it should be considered to protect our economy more than we currently are. Our current approach of vague messaging, fear mongering and confusion has served its purpose, now we need to look rather rapidly at a more sustainable long term solution.

I think that’s exactly right. And of course under 55s make up the vast bulk of the workforce.

The problem is that the government frightened the population so much with their alarmist messaging that it’s now politically difficult for them to relax
lockdown and cajole people back to work.

 

[Enthusiast]

I travelled on Friday to visit family and wasn't stopped at all despite at Leeds having walk past plenty of security staff and take an extended route to reach the platform

Why would you have been stopped? There is nothing to prevent you using the train.

So, it already wasn't hard to find a 'reasonable excuse' since the list was extended a few weeks back to allow 'public open spaces', but from tomorrow, you can go anywhere you like outdoors, for any reason or no reason, as long as you're not out overnight.

There's nothing to prevent one staying out overnight. So long as you don't spend it in somebody else's house. You can kip on the beach, ride up and down on one of London's Night Buses, or simply roam around the streets. Not my idea of a nice night out but there's no time limit or curfew.

 

[ChrisC]

It is worth pointing out that regulation 6 is to be entirely replaced as of tomorrow. At that point, it will no longer be required to have a 'reasonable excuse' to leave, or stay outside, your home - that is reduced to a prohibition on overnight stays away from your home (again with some exceptions).

So, it already wasn't hard to find a 'reasonable excuse' since the list was extended a few weeks back to allow 'public open spaces', but from tomorrow, you can go anywhere you like outdoors, for any reason or no reason, as long as you're not out overnight.

I live in a relatively rural area and did not venture far outside of my village during the first few weeks of lockdown. Even in recent weeks I’ve mainly remained local with just a few trips to shops in neighbouring villages. Therefore I have only really seen how people have followed the lockdown rules in a fairly small rural area.

When out walking, just about everyone has been keeping to the 2 metre social distancing with people standing to one side in gate ways to let others pass. These last few weekends it has been very busy with people from nearby towns and probably Nottingham parking in the village and walking. Most have follwed the rules, everyone has been smiling and happy, and I think as a village we have been very welcoming towards this great influx of walkers. I’ve found it lovely to see so many elderly people out and about during the last few weeks, all keeping their distance, and obviously very happy to venture outside. No problems at all they have all been keeping very safe and the fresh air and exercise will do them good.

Our village shop has had a policy of one person in the shop at a time, with hand sanitising and the wearing of gloves. The small Co op in the neighbouring village has never been crowded and I’ve never had to queue.

I have been aware in recent weeks of some people visiting neighbours gardens, often for a quiet drink of tea or perhaps wine. It’s been no secret that they have been doing this but from what I have seen they have sat chatting well over 2 metres apart. They may have broken the rules but I think it’s been quite sensible and put no one in danger. Far less of a risk than those meeting in crowded parks in urban areas.

I’ve only come across a few incidents of people seriously going against the rules and this has mainly been groups of teenagers from nearby towns riding into our village on bikes and mopeds and congregating without any social distancing. Sadly the churchyard in a neighbouring village has had to be locked due to groups of teenagers from outside the area meeting in the church porch with some drug activity.
I am aware of one neighbour of mine whose car has been missing from the drive these last 3 weekends with her being away from home from Friday afternoon until Monday morning. Perhaps she has been to stay with her boyfriend who just happens to be a policeman! He did come to visit her last week and on arrival walked straight in the front door and stayed for a couple of hours. I saw it happen so it’s not just village gossip!

These are just a few observations from the countryside where I live but I have no real idea what has been happening within our towns and cities.

 

[northernchris]

Why would you have been stopped? There is nothing to prevent you using the train.

Reading some of the stories and views on here I was prepared to be stopped, especially when I realised staff significantly outnumber passengers!

 

[Clayton]

I would argue that the under 45's should be let out almost immediately looking at that evidence.

I don't see why this wouldn't be a good approach forward. There are issues surrounding staffing admittedly, but I would imagine letting the younger half roam more freely whilst maintaining (or perhaps advising) the older half to stick to the lockdown rules for their own safety would be a good approach to get the economy much more healthy and still prevent overall damage from this virus. In Scotland Sturgeon has strictly ruled out varying restrictions by age, but I do need to ask if there's a reason to be so quick as to dismiss the idea.

The point is that while you might not be very ill if you catch it, by being out and about you are adding to the risk of the virus spreading and infecting more vulnerable people.

 

[Huntergreed]

The point is that while you might not be very ill if you catch it, by being out and about you are adding to the risk of the virus spreading and infecting more vulnerable people.

Indeed, but if we minimise the risk of the vulnerable catching it through encouraging them to distance and the extremely vulnerable to shield, this shouldn't pose too big of a problem.

 

[317 forever]

It makes me wonder whether the government will ever formally change their guidance from 'essential travel only' or whether they will just let things gradually change. The problem with explicitly lifting that restriction is everyone jumping on the next bus or train they can!

They are already encouraging a little long-distance leisure travel through Advance fares with at least Avanti, Great Western and LNER.

 

[SuperNova]

It would be lovely to see some evidence of all this from on high, because at the moment the silence is deafening.

Why would any organisation say what they may do. It creates confusion. I know for a fact that this is happening and when it's planned and ready to go, will be announced.

 

[MikeWM]

There's nothing to prevent one staying out overnight. So long as you don't spend it in somebody else's house. You can kip on the beach, ride up and down on one of London's Night Buses, or simply roam around the streets. Not my idea of a nice night out but there's no time limit or curfew.

The new regulation 6, coming into force in about 10 minutes from now, says 'No person may, without reasonable excuse, stay overnight at any place other than the place they are living' (followed by a list of 'reasonable excuses').

But you're right, if you're not 'staying' in a place, that doesn't appear to apply

Of course this appears entirely unenforceable anyway (it reminds me somewhat of the rules in Oxbridge colleges, which have been equally unenforceable for decades...)

 

[yorkie]

Whatever the law say public transport is at present for essential journeys that include work when no other way are possible.

I no that a trip to the beach or country is nice but it is not essential so public transport should not be used as the journey is not essential even if it is aloud.

It's unclear what you are saying, but if you are admitting that passengers can use public transport if that's their only option to make the journey, then we are in agreement.

To suggest that people make public transport busy for not essential journeys is wrong and will stop social distance being possible and spread the very horrible virus.

I don't see how you can completely stop the spread of the virus, and let's not lose sight of the fact that for most people it is a mild illness with little or even no symptoms.

Misnomer is not true.

Yes it is true.

Essential no other way possible aloud on public transport yes non essential no. simple.

So you agree that the term "essential" in this context effectively means the person doesn't have access to a car, and nothing more than that?

I am finding your posts difficult to read and understand.

Exactly, and sooner or later the general public will realise this and I imagine won’t be too happy. They need to take action sooner rather than later otherwise it will be a case of financial discrimination against those who can’t afford a car or to learn to drive.

To be clear: such discrimination would not be lawful and the law doesn't allow for it.

 

[sheff1]

The key thing is - when hospitality reopens, it is our duty to make use of it in as safe a way as possible.

I agree, but many on here are advocating that perfectly healthy people (with disposable income they actively want to spend in the leisure sectors of the economy) should be in lockdown, or even shielding, for seemingly ever more.

I have seen no explanantion as to how stopping people spending money on activities which keep others in employment will benefit the economy.

 

[Huntergreed]

I agree, but many on here are advocating that perfectly healthy people (with disposable income they actively want to spend in the leisure sectors of the economy) should be in lockdown, or even shielding, for seemingly ever more.

I have seen no explanantion as to how stopping people spending money on activities which keep others in employment will benefit the economy.

There is, admittedly, a certain portion of the population who are benefitting, financially and mentally, from the lockdown as they’re better off and not having to work. These people I’ve found are the most vocal by far and they want to keep the lockdown going for as long as possible to prevent them having to go back to their more taxing working life.

These are, in my experiences, sometimes the same people who are flouting the rules on distancing and doing what they please anyway, with no understanding of the purpose or effects of the lockdown on physical and mental wellbeing as well as the state of the economy.

Reminds me of the old Icelandic saying, the empty barrel always makes the most noise

 

[43066]

My train in this morning was significantly busier than in recent weeks (albeit still very quiet by normal standards), and already at the point where social distancing was impossible at some points.

I agree with the above poster who stated the advice should be be: “social distancing, where possible”.

The idea we can maintain strict 2m distancing on public transport for months on end is a complete fallacy, especially in London.

 

[Andy Pacer]

My train in this morning was significantly busier than in recent weeks (albeit still very quiet by normal standards), and already at the point where social distancing was impossible at some points.

I agree with the above poster who stated the advice should be be: “social distancing, where possible”.

The idea we can maintain strict 2m distancing on public transport for months on end is a complete fallacy, especially in London.

Agreed. I am bus driving again for the first time since March and can already see why some services have had frequencies enhanced.

 

[underbank]

Indeed, but if we minimise the risk of the vulnerable catching it through encouraging them to distance and the extremely vulnerable to shield, this shouldn't pose too big of a problem.

You can't "social distance" on your own though. It requires people around you to respect the rules too. Say, if you're in a shop, you can't stop someone else coming right up behind you and rubbing shoulders to get something off a shelf you're stood in front of. Same in a queue - you can stay 2m from the person in front of you but what if the guy behind won't stay 2m from you? What about on a bus or train? When you get on, you can select a seat 2m from other people, but as it fills up, what happens when someone sits next to you?

Rather than "this shouldn't post too big of a problem" - it's going to be a massive problem as people can't police what those around them are doing.