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

[carlberry]

This social distancing rubbish is for Covid and Covid only. Some of us who enjoy our freedom aren't going to tolerate it being casually left in place in case it possibly helps with flu!

I was replying to a post about Covid, not suggesting it stays in place for Flu. However if a Pandemic flu arrives then I predict it will be used for Flu.

 

[talldave]

We're rapidly approaching the point, if we haven't already reached it, where social distancing is not practised in most situations by most people.

And that's because it effectively is asking us to not be human.

Some people need to accept facts: We are human after all.

Could you remind the government?!!!

 

[MikeWM]

It was at least November. There was no commitment, more of a commitment that there's basically no chance of it being before that.

But why? On current trends, we could hit effectively zero community transmission by say the start of September (we're not far off it now). Maybe we won't, but why rule it out?

 

[MontyMinerWA]

The R rate will need to come down substantially from where it is at the moment before I stop socially distancing.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The R rate will need to come down substantially from where it is at the moment before I stop socially distancing.

PM quoted that its still 0.7 to 0.9 and given all the measures in place and reducing number of cases its surprising its not moved from this range into a lower one by now.

 

[BJames]

We're rapidly approaching the point, if we haven't already reached it, where social distancing is not practised in most situations by most people.

And that's because it effectively is asking us to not be human.

Some people need to accept facts: We are human after all.

This is my experience too. Really haven't seen many people actively trying to keep away from each other anymore, even the "social distanced" queues outside supermarkets are just normal queues now - lots and lots more groups out and about than even a few weeks ago. The vast majority of people are ready to get back out and about into society.

 

[MikeWM]

PM quoted that its still 0.7 to 0.9 and given all the measures in place and reducing number of cases its surprising its not moved from this range into a lower one by now.

Apparently R tends to 1 as an epidemic ends. I'm not sure why (doesn't seem intuitive) but I'm seen a number of people - who know rather more than I do about this - that have said so.

 

[MontyMinerWA]

PM quoted that its still 0.7 to 0.9 and given all the measures in place and reducing number of cases its surprising its not moved from this range into a lower one by now.

Well exactly. It's still well too high for me to give my elderly parents a hug which at the moment is the only thing on my mind. In fact they still do not feel safe enough to go into a shop let alone do anything else.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But why? On current trends, we could hit effectively zero community transmission by say the start of September (we're not far off it now). Maybe we won't, but why rule it out?

Because there's still a risk of a winter resurgence.

Apparently R tends to 1 as an epidemic ends. I'm not sure why (doesn't seem intuitive) but I'm seen a number of people - who know rather more than I do about this - that have said so.

The very final transmission as the disease dies out, if it does, will be from one person to one person - R=1.

I guess it could end with R=6 or something if all 6 were a transmission dead end, but this is unlikely.

 

[MikeWM]

Because there's still a risk of a winter resurgence.

But November will be too early to tell for sure that there *isn't* going to be, so why say November?

Either remove it soon (and consider putting it back if there is another outbreak in winter), or keep it throughout until February or March. November as a potential date is nonsense, whatever scenario happens.

 

[Yew]

Well exactly. It's still well too high for me to give my elderly parents a hug which at the moment is the only thing on my mind. In fact they still do not feel safe enough to go into a shop let alone do anything else.

Really? The only thing on your mind?

 

[Richard Scott]

Apparently R tends to 1 as an epidemic ends. I'm not sure why (doesn't seem intuitive) but I'm seen a number of people - who know rather more than I do about this - that have said so.

The reason is with smaller numbers R becomes unreliable. If you have one person who transfers it to another R is 1. With larger numbers you'll get a better indication of R. As an example if I throw one dice and get a 6, my conclusion is a dice always throws a 6. If I throw 60,000 dice I'd expect about 10,000 to throw a 6 but a few either way makes little difference unlike the example with one or a small number of dice. Statistics don't work with small numbers

 

[carlberry]

PM quoted that its still 0.7 to 0.9 and given all the measures in place and reducing number of cases its surprising its not moved from this range into a lower one by now.

The reality is it's that it's not going to change that much. It was a useful figure for the government to chuck into the mix (possibly to distract from whatever their ministers/advisers were up to at the time) however as the infection rates slow down, but the number of people moving around go up, it can only really stabilise or change for the worse. However, as long as the number of infections keeps going down, and it stays below 1, then everything will eventually end up with a last infection and (as others have said) an R rate of 1. Then a pause, somebody comes in from America somewhere, then infect 4 others and it's suddenly 4 again.

 

[MontyMinerWA]

Really? The only thing on your mind?

Yes. Covid 19 has stopped me doing a lot of things this year but the only thing on my mind is giving my parents a hug.

 

[Bantamzen]

We're rapidly approaching the point, if we haven't already reached it, where social distancing is not practised in most situations by most people.

And that's because it effectively is asking us to not be human.

Some people need to accept facts: We are human after all.

Agreed, and I would go one step further, we need to start treating people like humans again, not infection vectors. Goodness knows how much damage has been done socially & psychologically over the last few months, but people need to start finding a way to get back to normal.

 

[Yew]

Agreed, and I would go one step further, we need to start treating people like humans again, not infection vectors. Goodness knows how much damage has been done socially & psychologically over the last few months, but people need to start finding a way to get back to normal.

Whenever I've tried to espouse such sensible views, I get hounded down by the "If it saves one life" brigade. I used to think the most dangerous part of "Stay at Home > Protect The NHS > Save Lives" was the Stay at home part, but now I'm starting to think that Save lives, and the lack of context when we discuss death rates, it the real menace in this.

 

[Skymonster]

But why? On current trends, we could hit effectively zero community transmission by say the start of September (we're not far off it now). Maybe we won't, but why rule it out?

Because there's still a risk of a winter resurgence.

Oh do us a favour - get the story straight. At one time it was said that once the transmission rates goes to zero we can all get on with our lives as normal. Now it appears that some folks want to say even if its zero it could come back in the winter, and they are presumably advocating continuing restrictions after we reach zero. On that basis perhaps everyone should be locked up indefinitely, or at least until a 100% reliable vaccine is found. Sorry but restricting people until there is a vaccine is untenable.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The reality is it's that it's not going to change that much. It was a useful figure for the government to chuck into the mix (possibly to distract from whatever their ministers/advisers were up to at the time) however as the infection rates slow down, but the number of people moving around go up, it can only really stabilise or change for the worse. However, as long as the number of infections keeps going down, and it stays below 1, then everything will eventually end up with a last infection and (as others have said) an R rate of 1. Then a pause, somebody comes in from America somewhere, then infect 4 others and it's suddenly 4 again.

They pushed R heavily in early days and made it a key measure to inform relaxing measures but have seen Valence say its becoming unreliable. What would appear to be more useful is to publish localised information but that data isn't readily available in terms of real time data. Yes they publish cumulative rates by areas but that data is of no use and especially in high case areas as its gives no measure of how much risk am i if i go out today. We should have some local traffic light warning like the French had so people can judge for themselves what measures they need to take.

 

[talldave]

We should have some local traffic light warning like the French had so people can judge for themselves what measures they need to take.

Sadly we've had the right to make our own judgements taken away from us by the nanny state pandering to the whining from the Facebook Furlough brigade.

 

[MontyMinerWA]

Sadly we've had the right to make our own judgements taken away from us by the nanny state pandering to the whining from the Facebook Furlough brigade.

There's a simple solution to that; don't use social media.

 

[talldave]

There's a simple solution to that; don't use social media.

I don't use Facebook but it looks to me as if the government is using it to determine policy.

 

[carlberry]

I don't use Facebook but it looks to me as if the government is using it to determine policy.

I'm sure Mr Cummings looks at other social media as well before telling Boris what to do!
Now, who was it that said we shouldn't be run by unelected bureaucrats?

 

[Bantamzen]

Whenever I've tried to espouse such sensible views, I get hounded down by the "If it saves one life" brigade. I used to think the most dangerous part of "Stay at Home > Protect The NHS > Save Lives" was the Stay at home part, but now I'm starting to think that Save lives, and the lack of context when we discuss death rates, it the real menace in this.

I now ask them if they'd be happy for nurses to take a pay cut to fund them staying at home.

 

[Jonny]

It won't be completely scrapped this year, and anyone that thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

It depends on when a vaccine emerges; any restrictions after that date will at least look like collective punishment on those of us who refuse to be vaccinated. Bear in mind that it needs an outright Act of Parliament to change the position that mandated vaccination is actually illegal, the government will be in a bind.

What I'd be interested to know is why has Boris stated, I guess with optimism, that social distancing could be scrapped by November at the earliest?

Yes it's a few months away but I and so many others can at least feel the slightest bit relieved at last!

Preliminary data from the vaccine trials (edit: not yet public)?

 

[Bishopstone]

We're rapidly approaching the point, if we haven't already reached it, where social distancing is not practised in most situations by most people.

Exactly. The official guidance to socially distance, with certain compliance obligations placed upon businesses etc, may stretch into late Q4.

In practice, behaviours started to change in May when people sensed (correctly) that the worst was over, and I believe there will be a tipping-point when schools and colleges return. These establishments will not - cannot - enforce social distancing, and nor can the public transport that serves them. A great number of white collar staff will return to their offices at around the same time, and after a fortnight of performance to 'the rules', I'm pretty sure that watercooler gossip and barely-distanced meetings will resume.

By October, in going about their daily lives most people will have forgotten the guidance exists, and exactly what it says that's relevant to the particular environments they encounter.

I think there are some customs which won't return for the forseeable, such as shaking hands by way of greeting and 'air kissing' female acquaintances. Ditching these is cost-free and, frankly, desirable for a great many. I reckon those stand-up business receptions where you juggle a drink, finger food and networking conversation at close quarters will also be banished until 2022: thank goodness!

In the exit phase, people will do what they're comfortable with and the official guidance will fade in significance.

 

[MikeWM]

It depends on when a vaccine emerges; any restrictions after that date will at least look like collective punishment on those of us who refuse to be vaccinated. Bear in mind that it needs an outright Act of Parliament to change the position that mandated vaccination is actually illegal, the government will be in a bind.

And very rightly so. Requiring a healthy person to undergo a medical treatment mandated by the government - that for some people will have bad side-effects - would be a dark path indeed.

In any event, from what we've heard so far, it looks likely that any vaccine will help to reduce/eliminate the symptoms of the virus, but not stop people catching it and not stop vaccinated people from spreading it. Given that, I suppose you could just about argue - if you were feeling sufficiently fascist that day - that someone refusing the vaccine shouldn't be eligable for NHS treatment for covid, but any other restrictions would be illogical and indeed just be collective punishment.

 

[carlberry]

It depends on when a vaccine emerges; any restrictions after that date will at least look like collective punishment on those of us who refuse to be vaccinated. Bear in mind that it needs an outright Act of Parliament to change the position that mandated vaccination is actually illegal, the government will be in a bind.



Preliminary data from the vaccine trials (edit: not yet public)?

An effective treatment is an easier end point, the availability of a vaccine will still require a large enough take up and enough time to actually perform that. Even if you target the high risk population that could easily be 10-15 million appointments to deal with. I cant see any government wanting to go down the road of mandated vaccination; as long as there is a decent level of take up you can reduce the overall risks associated with it to the seasonal Flu level which people appear quite happy with each year.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And very rightly so. Requiring a healthy person to undergo a medical treatment mandated by the government - that for some people will have bad side-effects - would be a dark path indeed.

I doubt it will be compulsory for peopley living in the UK and that likely they are hoping enough people will take it to give the magic herd immunity, but I can certainly see it being compulsory to enter some countries, in the manner Yellow Fever vaccine is in relation to countries affected by that. Yellow fever seems to be very similar to COVID in terms of the impact it has (though it's spread by mozzies, not breathing), i.e. most people will get mild illness but some will get it very, very bad.

I wonder if initially it will involve widespread antibody testing and if you don't have antibodies you'll be asked (but not forced) to have it. It may also well be incorporated into the flu vaccine in future years.

Yellow fever

WHO fact sheet about yellow fever, an acute viral haemorrhagic disease transmitted by infected mosquitoes. It provides key facts and information on signs and symptoms, populations at risk, transmission, treatment, prevention, WHO response.

www.who.int

 

[bramling]

Anyone here have any confidence that social distancing WILL be scrapped completely by the end of this year?

I think it might wither away naturally, but we’ve a bumpy road to traverse first, not least with the numbers of terrified types still about who continue to think we’re just one step away from returning a full and unfettered lockdown.

 

[bramling]

We can't afford it - economically and socially. And quite frankly I'm not prepared to be paying for people's furlough if preventative measures (shielding the elderly and vulnerable, protections in care homes, etc.) can be put in place to mitigate the "winter resurgence" as far as possible.

I think there would be a lot of kick-back to any idea of a repeat furlough. There’s been a marked change in opinions towards it over time, in places the word is akin to a swear word. I for one would not be prepared to work again whilst others are being paid furlough.

I suspect shielding won’t be that popular either, though of course that is effectively voluntary, even if it might be strongly advised.

Against these factors as a backdrop it will be severe social distancing if things head the wrong way again, in England at least. Needless to say it would be utterly catastrophic for the economy, even more so than first time round.