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

[Richard Scott]

My personal opinion is that those who are happy to carry on with normal life and get/keep economy moving whilst those who need to shield do. Yes, the transmission rate will go up but as those people are unlikely to be at risk those who do, unfortunately, develop serious symptoms should be a low enough number that the NHS will cope. This does mean no social distancing, no facemasks etc. Otherwise how long is all this going on for, 1 year, 10 years, who knows? It's now all completely out of proportion.

 

[DB]

My personal opinion is that those who are happy to carry on with normal life and get/keep economy moving whilst those who need to shield do. Yes, the transmission rate will go up but as those people are unlikely to be at risk those who do, unfortunately, develop serious symptoms should be a low enough number that the NHS will cope. This does mean no social distancing, no facemasks etc. Otherwise how long is all this going on for, 1 year, 10 years, who knows? It's now all completely out of proportion.

I agree - and the government has recently given the NHS additional funding to keep the barely-used emergency hospitals open for the rest of the year, so the original reason given for the initial restriction - to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed - no longer applies.

Not that there seems to be any need for evidenced decisions now - it's more a case of pushing through secondary legislation to enforce whatever the Facebook Furloughs are currently demanding to keep them "safe".

 

[bramling]

My personal opinion is that those who are happy to carry on with normal life and get/keep economy moving whilst those who need to shield do. Yes, the transmission rate will go up but as those people are unlikely to be at risk those who do, unfortunately, develop serious symptoms should be a low enough number that the NHS will cope. This does mean no social distancing, no facemasks etc. Otherwise how long is all this going on for, 1 year, 10 years, who knows? It's now all completely out of proportion.

I don't mind social distancing, providing it's within reason. Unfortunately as you say it's gone out of all proportion thanks to the furlough brigade and maskophiles.

 

[DB]

I don't mind social distancing, providing it's within reason. Unfortunately as you say it's gone out of all proportion thanks to the furlough brigade and maskophiles.

If you remember it started out as 2m for at least 15 minutes. The 15 minutes bit is never mentioned now.

The whole '1m plus' fudge is ridiculous as well. It's either 1m or 2m - and given that the WHO recommendation is 1m, that's what it ought to be now.

 

[Richard Scott]

I don't mind social distancing, providing it's within reason. Unfortunately as you say it's gone out of all proportion thanks to the furlough brigade and maskophiles.

I think we naturally social distance anyway, hate it when people insist on sitting near me when there's lots of room and sure many are the same. Just don't think there's any need for politicians to direct us to do it now.

 

[BJames]

I think we naturally social distance anyway, hate it when people insist on sitting near me when there's lots of room and sure many are the same. Just don't think there's any need for politicians to direct us to do it now.

In some situations yes. I couldn't understand the other week when three people were in my carriage on the train and the next person that got on just had to sit directly behind me. As I've said before as well I much prefer cinema screenings which are half full, and I'm sure everyone prefers flights where the seat next to them (or even better the whole row) is empty. In others no - I look forward to being able to have a decent size gathering and going out without having to follow directions on the floor, one way systems, staff in masks etc and being able to meet up with multiple groups at the pub too.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The EMR I got from Ely to Norwich this afternoon had about 50% seats occupied! First time I’ve seen that on any train since March.

I can beat that; a 12 car 700 mid morning today ( Saturday 18th ) with every seat taken and a few standing once it left London Bridge.

 

[MikeWM]

In some situations yes. I couldn't understand the other week when three people were in my carriage on the train and the next person that got on just had to sit directly behind me.

That's irritated me for many years. In my experience, the person then usually starts shouting into a mobile phone, compounding the irritation!

I've often changed seats when this has happened, while trying to look as exasperated as possible (in a British sort of way).

 

[MikeWM]

I can beat that; a 12 car 700 mid morning today ( Saturday 18th ) with every seat taken and a few standing once it left London Bridge.

Crikey!

I wonder if the masses were waiting for Boris to give them permission to go on public transport, and now he's said to do so, they've emerged...

 

[LAX54]

If you remember it started out as 2m for at least 15 minutes. The 15 minutes bit is never mentioned now.

The whole '1m plus' fudge is ridiculous as well. It's either 1m or 2m - and given that the WHO recommendation is 1m, that's what it ought to be now.

The 'WHO' recommendation was '1m for more than 15 min' we 'chose' 2M as the Government throught most people would not be able to judge 1m, so quoting 2m would ensure the 1m recommendation was met. (the 15 mins bit was ignored)

 

[Bletchleyite]

The point is, you cannot expect those not at risk of serious consequences to hide themselves away or behave abnormally for a prolonged period to be altruistic to the people who may be at a greater risk.

And that's where we'll disagree. The whole basis of altruism is that you do things that will be to your disadvantage in order to cater for people less fortunate than you.

 

[DB]

And that's where we'll disagree. The whole basis of altruism is that you do things that will be to your disadvantage in order to cater for people less fortunate than you.

But you cannot expect large numbers of people to hide themselves away indefinitely to protect others from something which is probably not actually any great risk to most of them anyway. Society doesn't work like that - most people will judge the risk for themselves, and one of the big problems here is that government have overplayed the risk to such an extent that many now regard it as far higher than it actually is.

 

[Huntergreed]

The point is, you cannot expect those not at risk of serious consequences to hide themselves away or behave abnormally for a prolonged period to be altruistic to the people who may be at a greater risk. It's not fair on the people not at risk and it's not fair to the people who rely on the economy ticking over normally.

Just been out for our second Saturday night dinner. One of the bigger chains but a favourite pub/restaurant of ours and one where we are on particularly good terms with the the manageress and her staff. Was great to see her again after four months or thereabouts. The pub was a little more "spread out" than pre-lockdown but with more tables in the large patio garden. Only noticeable differences otherwise were serving staff wearing visors and cutlery delivered with meals instead of tables being pre-laid. Booking (even for just a drink) was recommended and I'm pleased to say the place was as full as it could be. Buses each way were lightly loaded but face coverings were near enough 100%. The fillet steak was superb!

This establishment will survive as it is at least so long as the weather holds (the garden provided a good few extra covers). What happens in the autumn is anybody's guess.

Exactly this. I understand making minor sacrifices for the greater good, but this is essentially destroying jobs, trashing the economy, depriving our children of education for the benefit of those at greater risk.

I don't mean to sound horrible, but there comes a point where we just have to stop. I appreciate that it's just human nature to want to look out for those who are vulnerable, but I don't think it's worth destroying our economy and the future prospects of an entire generation to do so (and yet this is what is happening).

Surely there comes a point where we have to ask, is all of this really worth it? We're practically committing economic suicide (a contraction of a fifth within a month, followed by nowhere near the amount of growth expected and/or needed in the months ahead, millions of jobs lost), and depriving millions of children to their fundamental right to education (4 months of lost education is a very significant amount of lost time indeed). My views are very utilitarian, and I believe that in the majority of cases the correct decision is the one which benefits the greatest majority, and right now I just don't feel like that is happening.

 

[yorkie]

And that's where we'll disagree. The whole basis of altruism is that you do things that will be to your disadvantage in order to cater for people less fortunate than you.

The idea that we should sacrifice many peoples livelihoods isn't really my idea of 'altruism'

 

[Bletchleyite]

The idea that we should sacrifice many peoples livelihoods isn't really my idea of 'altruism'

The ultimate altruism is giving your life so another may live. Therefore, I completely disagree.

 

[Socanxdis]

Survival of the fittest, quite literally then.

 

[yorkie]

Survival of the fittest, quite literally then.

That's what viruses do; you cannot completely change nature. That's not to say we should be doing nothing, but the reality is that the vast majority of the population are not harmed by this virus. Yes we should take some mitigations, but there has to be limits.

The ultimate altruism is giving your life so another may live. Therefore, I completely disagree.

The people who are losing out due to this so-called 'altruism' (!) tend to be more likely to be younger, more likely to be deprived or on lower incomes, and are far greater in number, than the people who are benefiting, which is mostly elderly people with underlying health conditions.

The people who tend to be more pro-lockdown are generally middle class, either retired or in jobs for which working at home is quite doable, etc. rather than people who are employed in jobs that are at risk of being lost.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that nothing should be done to protect vulnerable people, but if some people have their way, there will be millions of people at severe risk of having their livelihoods destroyed and the impacts for society have the potential to be far worse than the impact of this virus. We can't let that happen.

 

[Enthusiast]

The whole basis of altruism is that you do things that will be to your disadvantage in order to cater for people less fortunate than you.

That's all fine and dandy until the "cure" causes more damage than the disease. There is little doubt now that the continued stagnation of the economy is beginning to cause huge problems. The altruism that people are exhibiting to help their less fortunate friends will actually end up causing them more harm than good. This is because the Covid problem and the measures being taken to address it are looked at solely in terms of the number of deaths caused by the virus and, to a lesser degree the spread of infection. That view needs to be widened considerably because if the economy collapses the small matter of a nasty virus with an extremely low death rate among the young and healthy will be the least of the country's problems.

 

[DB]

This is because the Covid problem and the measures being taken to address it are looked at solely in terms of the number of deaths caused by the virus and, to a lesser degree the spread of infection.

It also doesn't take into consideration that many of these deaths are of people who are at or above the average life expectancy and are in declining health anyway - so would normally be expected to die fairly soon in any case, even without this particular virus. The excess deaths figure shows this to be the case.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

In some situations yes. I couldn't understand the other week when three people were in my carriage on the train and the next person that

That's irritated me for many years. In my experience, the person then usually starts shouting into a mobile phone, compounding the irritation!

I've often changed seats when this has happened, while trying to look as exasperated as possible (in a British sort of way).

During a long journey on a northbound Thameslink service this week, I was sat in a window seat in a bay of four. I settled down, mask on, and put on headphones to listen to some music. At some point, I fell asleep, and woke after the train left East Croydon. To my astonishment, I woke to find a middle-aged gent had plonked himself in the aisle seat of the pair facing me. OK, he had a mask on, but I just was incredulous that in an 8-car train with loads of available seats (I checked the in-car displays), he would choose to sit so close.
On reaching London Bridge, I asked him why, with a multitude of available seats, he felt it necessary to sit there. ‘I don’t like airline seats’ was his reply, followed by some other comments I didn’t hear, as I’d already decided to move further up the train.

 

[Scrotnig]

During a long journey on a northbound Thameslink service this week, I was sat in a window seat in a bay of four. I settled down, mask on, and put on headphones to listen to some music. At some point, I fell asleep, and woke after the train left East Croydon. To my astonishment, I woke to find a middle-aged gent had plonked himself in the aisle seat of the pair facing me. OK, he had a mask on, but I just was incredulous that in an 8-car train with loads of available seats (I checked the in-car displays), he would choose to sit so close.
On reaching London Bridge, I asked him why, with a multitude of available seats, he felt it necessary to sit there. ‘I don’t like airline seats’ was his reply, followed by some other comments I didn’t hear, as I’d already decided to move further up the train.

Long before this crisis, this type of thing used to really irritate me.

Why can't these people bugger off and leave me alone if there's tons of space elsewhere?

In the current crisis it's not just irritating, it's putting people at needless risk.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why can't these people bugger off and leave me alone if there's tons of space elsewhere?

In my case, because of legroom.

If it bothers you, the best way to avoid it is to choose a rear-facing non-priority airline seat, by the way.

 

[bramling]

And that's where we'll disagree. The whole basis of altruism is that you do things that will be to your disadvantage in order to cater for people less fortunate than you.

We can’t expect this forever. People have already lost half a year of their life to this, as well as in some cases losing their job. It’s not reasonable to expect people to keep sucking this up indefinitely, especially if their isn’t a definitive end-point in sight.

And in all honesty a lot of older (and thus more vulnerable) people won’t tolerate it either, taking the view that they don’t wish what could be the last years of their life to be stuck inside looking at four walls.

 

[Richard Scott]

We can’t expect this forever. People have already lost half a year of their life to this, as well as in some cases losing their job. It’s not reasonable to expect people to keep sucking this up indefinitely, especially if their isn’t a definitive end-point in sight.

And in all honesty a lot of older (and thus more vulnerable) people won’t tolerate it either, taking the view that they don’t wish what could be the last years of their life to be stuck inside looking at four walls.

Let's be honest, these decisions are being made by middle aged people who have had their childhood but are likely to have many years of life left. Yet their decisions are robbing children of some of the time of those few precious years of childhood and telling older people to stay in and stare at four walls when they want to make the most of the time they have left. Very unfair. Older people should be allowed to make their own decisions now on whether or not they go out, see family etc not be dictated to by politicians. It's their life, let them live it.

 

[Scrotnig]

In my case, because of legroom.

If it bothers you, the best way to avoid it is to choose a rear-facing non-priority airline seat, by the way.

But if there are loads of completely empty blocks of seats, why do they come and sit opposite someone? It’s inconsiderate at best.

 

[Richard Scott]

But if there are loads of completely empty blocks of seats, why do they come and sit opposite someone? It’s inconsiderate at best.

Agreed!

 

[LAX54]

Well, based on WHO recommendations, you only need a mask if you 'closer then 1m' so assume all SD will disappear on the 24th, as we all have to wear masks in shops and trains etc, oddly from same date shopworkers don't need to

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, based on WHO recommendations, you only need a mask if you 'closer then 1m' so assume all SD will disappear on the 24th, as we all have to wear masks in shops and trains etc, oddly from same date shopworkers don't need to

Shopworkers may not need to if they are (like bus drivers) behind screens.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Agreed!

Good to hear that I wasn’t overreacting when alarmed by this person’s actions. Personally, I don’t like wearing a mask, but I do it. I hate to think about my reaction had this selfish person NOT been wearing a mask!

 

[DB]

But if there are loads of completely empty blocks of seats, why do they come and sit opposite someone? It’s inconsiderate at best.

Uner normal circumstances, you will also get the odd one who comes and sits in the airline seat next to you, when there are plenty of empty pairs. Why?