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

[farleigh]

Overall, I think enforcement has worked rather well. I think the govt has kept an eye on the police and reined them in when necessary. In general, the police have been superfluous as most people have listened to the measures and respected them.

 

[yorkie]

Overall, I think enforcement has worked rather well. I think the govt has kept an eye on the police and reined them in when necessary. In general, the police have been superfluous as most people have listened to the measures and respected them.

This is very true. The vast majority of the public are acting within the new laws and the vast majority of the police are being sensible.

Of course, the ones that aren't are going to be more newsworthy, but it's very much a minority.

 

[Greybeard33]

Overall, I think enforcement has worked rather well. I think the govt has kept an eye on the police and reined them in when necessary. In general, the police have been superfluous as most people have listened to the measures and respected them.

I think an important factor in the public compliance with the social distancing measures has been fear. Not fear of enforcement or of shaming, but fear of catching the virus yourself (particularly amongst older people) or of inadvertently transmitting it to family, friends, and colleagues (particularly amongst younger people).

This fear factor means that, as long as the incidence of the infection remains high, many people would continue with social distancing voluntarily even if the government were to lift the lockdown restrictions immediately. This is why "social distancing versus the economy" is not a real choice as some try to suggest. Crowds will not flock back into pubs, clubs, trains and holiday resorts if they believe that those places will become infested with SARS-cov-2. Indeed, premature relaxation could be economically counter-productive if it led to a second, bigger peak of infections. Not only the NHS but other essential services too might collapse if key workers stayed at home because they perceived that the risk to themelves and their families had become too great.

 

[jellybaby]

I think an important factor in the public compliance with the social distancing measures has been fear. Not fear of enforcement or of shaming, but fear of catching the virus yourself (particularly amongst older people) or of inadvertently transmitting it to family, friends, and colleagues (particularly amongst younger people).

This fear factor means that, as long as the incidence of the infection remains high, many people would continue with social distancing voluntarily even if the government were to lift the lockdown restrictions immediately. This is why "social distancing versus the economy" is not a real choice as some try to suggest. Crowds will not flock back into pubs, clubs, trains and holiday resorts if they believe that those places will become infested with SARS-cov-2.

Enough people didn't feel enough fear for the pubs to be busy on the last night they were allowed to be open. Not as busy as usual but far from empty.

 

[111-111-1]

Enough people didn't feel enough fear for the pubs to be busy on the last night they were allowed to be open. Not as busy as usual but far from empty.

Until that Friday the advice had been avoid rather than don't go to. The following Monday the current lockdown proper began.

I had fancied a beer early that Friday evening but not seen the news so walked to the only pub in town that does interesting Real Ale, it was packed so I decided not to bother.

It is unfortunate that until that point we were still being spun the yarn that it would be like a dose of the flu. (unless you dug deeper into the news)

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is unfortunate that until that point we were still being spun the yarn that it would be like a dose of the flu. (unless you dug deeper into the news)

It's not a yarn, it's actually true for the vast majority of people and remains so. The reason to take care, unless you're in a vulnerable group, is so as not to spread it to others. The need is actually for altruism, not fear.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Enough people didn't feel enough fear for the pubs to be busy on the last night they were allowed to be open. Not as busy as usual but far from empty.

I'm not sure that'd be the same now. I think the closure of schools was the first "oh, this is actually serious" - and now we have reports of death and suffering.

 

[Bantamzen]

There is likely going to be a growing debate on the lockdown, it's effectiveness and it's effects in the coming weeks, but there is some concern that ours may have been too late & not thought through enough. One such opinion came up today:

'Damage done by lockdown could outweigh that of coronavirus', warns professor

Damage done by lockdown could outweigh that of coronavirus', warns professor

The effects of a long term lockdown could do more damage than coronavirus itself, an Oxford professor has warned.
Professor Carl Heneghan, director of the centre for evidence-based medicine at Oxford University, told Radio 4’s Today programme: “In fact, the damaging effect now of lockdown is going to outweigh the damaging effect of coronavirus.”
Heneghan argued that not enough testing has been done so the government cannot understand how many people have actually had COVID-19, and that lockdown was preventing people seeking help for potentially life-threatening issues.
“The key is no-one has really understood how many people actually have the infection,” he said.
“You could do that really quickly with random sampling of a thousand people in London who thought they had the symptoms.
“You could do that in the next couple of days and get a really key handle on that problem and we’d be able to then understand coming out of lockdown much quicker.”
But the academic argued that the government had no plan for what happens next.
“You go into a lockdown - you should have a clear exit strategy,” he said on Monday. “You should understand the advantages and disadvantages of what you’re doing.”
Heneghan suggested the coronavirus peak may actually have taken place the week before Boris Johnson imposed the lockdown.
“We have failed to look at the data and see when the lockdown actually occurred,” he added.
He later told Mail Online: “The peak of deaths occurred on April 8, and if you understand that then you work backwards to find the peak of infections. That would be 21 days before then, right before the point of lockdown.”
This is based on the delay in the time it takes for an infected person to fall seriously ill and die - three weeks on average.
Heneghan claims that if the Government accepts that deaths peaked on April 8, then it must mean that infections were at their highest around three weeks prior.
He said: “We should be reopening society. We need to get a plan in place rapidly, we can’t wait three weeks then slowly open up.
“As well as major economic issues, austerity will impact people's physical and mental health.
“The second issue of lockdown is that it's making the public scared to engage with healthcare. People are avoiding going to GPs and hospitals because they believe there is so much infection there that they might catch it [coronavirus]. That’s really damaging.”
Figures show that more than 80 extra deaths are occurring every day in London alone before paramedics reach the victims because patients are reluctant to phone for an ambulance in case they catch the virus in hospital.
Professor Heneghan said the decision to abandon mass-testing and contact tracing had “completely failed” elderly people.
“The shielding has failed - 70 per cent of all the deaths are in the over-75s. Forty per cent of all the nursing homes have the infection.
“So whatever we have done it has completely failed in terms of shielding.”

Whether he is right or wrong remains to be seen, but he does raise some interesting questions especially around testing and the use of the statistics.

 

[WelshBluebird]

There is likely going to be a growing debate on the lockdown, it's effectiveness and it's effects in the coming weeks, but there is some concern that ours may have been too late & not thought through enough. One such opinion came up today:

'Damage done by lockdown could outweigh that of coronavirus', warns professor

Whether he is right or wrong remains to be seen, but he does raise some interesting questions especially around testing and the use of the statistics.

I am a bit confused about what the guy is trying to claim tbh.
He says that "the peak of deaths occurred on April 8, and if you understand that then you work backwards to find the peak of infections. That would be 21 days before then, right before the point of lockdown" - but surely that is somewhat obvious and somewhat the point of lockdown - to try to reduce the rate of new infections? And if we didn't lock down then the new infections would have carried on increasing and the peak would have been hit later and at a higher point?

 

[yorkie]

I am a bit confused about what the guy is trying to claim tbh.
He says that "the peak of deaths occurred on April 8, and if you understand that then you work backwards to find the peak of infections. That would be 21 days before then, right before the point of lockdown" - but surely that is somewhat obvious and somewhat the point of lockdown - to try to reduce the rate of new infections? And if we didn't lock down then the new infections would have carried on increasing and the peak would have been hit later and at a higher point?

The rest of the article is clear; I agree that part is unclear.

However I think he is saying that the peak occured in the week before the lockdown. Three weeks before the 8th of April, I was still running football clubs, playing football, schools were still open, and I wasn't working from home. However many other people were working from home, and pubs and restaurants were much quieter than normal (but still open).

Perhaps his point is that the week before the lockdown saw a significant enough drop to have been deemed 'effective' and that a total lockdown that we have now is more than is necessary? But I agree it's unclear on that point.

My theory is that we don't need to be in total lockdown right now but we are unsure on the best method to unlock so if we wait a bit longer, we should start to get an idea of what methods do and don't work, by seeing what other countries are successful and which aren't, and take those experiences into account.

If we are aiming to manage the virus and not to elimimate it (as discussed in another thread) then arguably the current 'R' value is almost certainly far lower than it needs to be.

 

[Mogster]

The rest of the article is clear; I agree that part is unclear.

However I think he is saying that the peak occured in the week before the lockdown. Three weeks before the 8th of April, I was still running football clubs, playing football, schools were still open, and I wasn't working from home. However many other people were working from home, and pubs and restaurants were much quieter than normal (but still open).

Perhaps his point is that the week before the lockdown saw a significant enough drop to have been deemed 'effective' and that a total lockdown that we have now is more than is necessary? But I agree it's unclear on that point.

My theory is that we don't need to be in total lockdown right now but we are unsure on the best method to unlock so if we wait a bit longer, we should start to get an idea of what methods do and don't work, by seeing what other countries are successful and which aren't, and take those experiences into account.

If we are aiming to manage the virus and not to elimimate it (as discussed in another thread) then arguably the current 'R' value is almost certainly far lower than it needs to be.

He suggests that it was the early measures of distancing and hand washing that had the largest effect. That was what the governments preparedness plan said, distancing and hand washing were most effective, lockdowns less so. The governments hand appears to have been forced by Prof Neil Ferguson, WHO, media and other nations which brought immense pressure to do more. Sweden seem to have been less of a target and have quietly got along with doing their own thing almost under the radar. The reports on this whole situation will make very interesting reading.

I agree I don’t think the government knows how to end the lockdown now, it wasn’t in the plan... As you say I think they are waiting for other countries to do so so they can point at them and shout away you go...

 

[Bletchleyite]

He suggests that it was the early measures of distancing and hand washing that had the largest effect.

If people had followed them. The thing was they weren't doing, either because they weren't willing (and packed into pubs etc as if nothing had happened) or because they couldn't (because of overcrowded trains and Tubes).

I still reckon it took school closures to give people a virtual clout round the face and go "oi, this is actually serious". It was only after that that people seem to have by and large been complying with the lockdown. Though it would explain why a slightly "porous" lockdown is seen as acceptable.

 

[Domh245]

If people had followed them. The thing was they weren't doing, either because they weren't willing (and packed into pubs etc as if nothing had happened) or because they couldn't (because of overcrowded trains and Tubes).

Some...

Looking at Google's mobility report for the UK, there's a clear drop off in the week prior to lockdown, for Retail & Recreational, Transit stations, and workplaces - Parks stayed about the same, whilst residential and Grocery & pharmacy visits went up.

And that's not forgetting the whole hygiene aspect of the strategy as well.

 

[Enthusiast]

I don't know what he's saying either. The peak of deaths (thusfar) did not occur on April 8th, it occurred on April 10th. However, as far as the effectiveness or otherwise of the lockdown goes the number of deaths is not the important thing. In fact nobody is counting the really important thing which is the total number of new infections. All we have is the number of infections resulting in hospitalisation. We would have to make the assumption that the total number of infections follows the number requiring hospitalisation. The pubs closed on March 20th and the formal lockdown begun on March 23rd. With a supposed incubation period of 14 days one would suspect that the number of new cases might begin to drop off after around April 6th. But it didn't. The number of new cases was 3,802 that day having averaged 4,210 for the previous seven days (nullifying the "weekend effect" where counting appears to be a problem). They continued to rise to a seven day average of 5,519 on April 14th. They have fallen slightly over the last week but are still averaging over 5,100 a day over a seven day period.

Of course the claim will be that, without the lockdown, the numbers would have been far higher. To consider that, it's interesting that Sweden has been mentioned. That country has embarked on virtually no lockdown measures. The schools (apart from the higher education establishments), bars, restaurants and shops are all open by and large. The epidemic in Sweden began around the same time as in the UK. At the end of February the UK had 23 cases and Sweden had 13. Up to the middle of March the numbers remained reasonably similar (797:814 on 13/3). After that though, the story changed. By the end of March the numbers were 25,150:4,435. Today they stand at 124,743:14,777. It's true that Sweden has only one sixth of the UK's population and a far lower population density. However, they have a number of large cities and towns and I would have suspected that with no lockdown Sweden would have fared far worse than it has (in proportion to its population it has fared better than the UK). It does seem obvious that a disease that thrives on personal contact would be restricted if personal contact is reduced. But that does not seem to have happened here to any degree and where contact has gone on largely unrestricted such as in Sweden the massive increase in infections we are threatened with here with no lockdown does not seem to have materialised.

The continued claims that numbers are "levelling off" are not all they are cracked up to be. Yes, new cases have eased. But they are still running at an average of well over 5,000 per day. I hope that today's figure of 4,676 is the beginning of a new trend. But it's Monday and the NHS has trouble counting at weekends. I wonder whether it's really worth worrying whether you pass within 1m or 2m of your fellow shoppers.

 

[Busaholic]

He suggests that it was the early measures of distancing and hand washing that had the largest effect. That was what the governments preparedness plan said, distancing and hand washing were most effective, lockdowns less so. The governments hand appears to have been forced by Prof Neil Ferguson, WHO, media and other nations which brought immense pressure to do more. Sweden seem to have been less of a target and have quietly got along with doing their own thing almost under the radar. The reports on this whole situation will make very interesting reading.

I agree I don’t think the government knows how to end the lockdown now, it wasn’t in the plan... As you say I think they are waiting for other countries to do so so they can point at them and shout away you go...

The government's hand was forced by the lamentable lack of preparedness for a supervirus, be it Covid-19 or any other, then certainly totally wasting two weeks (the charitable view, mostly made by pro-Tories) or five weeks (more uncharitably, but the argument is backed up with so much evidence) during which the absence of mass testing (totally contrary to WHO pleas and from a doctor working in North Italy who'd spent 28 years working in London hospitals) and the lack of PPE became more than a national embarassment, but a national scandal. Blair and Iraq will be as nothing compared to any unbiased report/inquiry to come, both because of the unnecessary deaths, especially in care homes, but also the huge economic damage being caused by every week of continuing whole or partial lockdown. For those who like to compare with WW2, perhaps it's Angela Merkel who's the Churchillian figure, with Johnson the Austen Chamberlain.

 

[bramling]

I don't know what he's saying either. The peak of deaths (thusfar) did not occur on April 8th, it occurred on April 10th. However, as far as the effectiveness or otherwise of the lockdown goes the number of deaths is not the important thing. In fact nobody is counting the really important thing which is the total number of new infections. All we have is the number of infections resulting in hospitalisation. We would have to make the assumption that the total number of infections follows the number requiring hospitalisation. The pubs closed on March 20th and the formal lockdown begun on March 23rd. With a supposed incubation period of 14 days one would suspect that the number of new cases might begin to drop off after around April 6th. But it didn't. The number of new cases was 3,802 that day having averaged 4,210 for the previous seven days (nullifying the "weekend effect" where counting appears to be a problem). They continued to rise to a seven day average of 5,519 on April 14th. They have fallen slightly over the last week but are still averaging over 5,100 a day over a seven day period.

Of course the claim will be that, without the lockdown, the numbers would have been far higher. To consider that, it's interesting that Sweden has been mentioned. That country has embarked on virtually no lockdown measures. The schools (apart from the higher education establishments), bars, restaurants and shops are all open by and large. The epidemic in Sweden began around the same time as in the UK. At the end of February the UK had 23 cases and Sweden had 13. Up to the middle of March the numbers remained reasonably similar (797:814 on 13/3). After that though, the story changed. By the end of March the numbers were 25,150:4,435. Today they stand at 124,743:14,777. It's true that Sweden has only one sixth of the UK's population and a far lower population density. However, they have a number of large cities and towns and I would have suspected that with no lockdown Sweden would have fared far worse than it has (in proportion to its population it has fared better than the UK). It does seem obvious that a disease that thrives on personal contact would be restricted if personal contact is reduced. But that does not seem to have happened here to any degree and where contact has gone on largely unrestricted such as in Sweden the massive increase in infections we are threatened with here with no lockdown does not seem to have materialised.

The continued claims that numbers are "levelling off" are not all they are cracked up to be. Yes, new cases have eased. But they are still running at an average of well over 5,000 per day. I hope that today's figure of 4,676 is the beginning of a new trend. But it's Monday and the NHS has trouble counting at weekends. I wonder whether it's really worth worrying whether you pass within 1m or 2m of your fellow shoppers.

Very interesting post, although it raises more questions than it answers.

I had twigged that the number of new cases in this country seems stubbornly high still, as if the incubation period is 14 days then should new hospital admissions now be rather lower than it’s currently running it?

So what do we think Sweden is doing differently? Did they take social distancing more seriously from an earlier point, or is it the population density thing?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Very interesting post, although it raises more questions than it answers.

I had twigged that the number of new cases in this country seems stubbornly high still, as if the incubation period is 14 days then should new hospital admissions now be rather lower than it’s currently running it?

Not necessarily. Remember, the social distancing thing didn't happen completely overnight. The current rules came into force 4 weeks ago, but there was still a gradual process after that of workplaces adapting. For example, as I recall, it took most supermarkets another week or two to implement queuing schemes to limit numbers in the shops. TfL buses adapting by closing front doors came a bit later. And I imagine many other workplaces would have had similar experiences. And on a personal level it would have taken time for some people to get the rules into their heads - I'm sure compliance is higher and the system is working more effectively now compared to - say - 3 weeks ago. All those things would have caused a delay in cases coming down.

There's also a thing of.... how much have we slowed transmission. Some stuff I read suggests expert opinion is that the restrictions reduced the transmission rate from each person with the virus on average infecting 2-3 others to each person infecting one other (sorry I can't recall the link). If that's true than that's not yet good enough - it would imply the rate of new cases would be stable rather than going down. Hopefully that might change though as more workplaces figure out how to implement social distancing correctly, and more people get used to following the restrictions.

 

[bramling]

Not necessarily. Remember, the social distancing thing didn't happen completely overnight. The current rules came into force 4 weeks ago, but there was still a gradual process after that of workplaces adapting. For example, as I recall, it took most supermarkets another week or two to implement queuing schemes to limit numbers in the shops. TfL buses adapting by closing front doors came a bit later. And I imagine many other workplaces would have had similar experiences. And on a personal level it would have taken time for some people to get the rules into their heads - I'm sure compliance is higher and the system is working more effectively now compared to - say - 3 weeks ago. All those things would have caused a delay in cases coming down.

There's also a thing of.... how much have we slowed transmission. Some stuff I read suggests expert opinion is that the restrictions reduced the transmission rate from each person with the virus on average infecting 2-3 others to each person infecting one other (sorry I can't recall the link). If that's true than that's not yet good enough - it would imply the rate of new cases would be stable rather than going down. Hopefully that might change though as more workplaces figure out how to implement social distancing correctly, and more people get used to following the restrictions.

Some good points there, however if the above is all true then it does seem to point to the virus transmitting *very* readily, which possibly won’t bode well for what might happen if the lockdown is released too quickly, especially if immunity isn’t building up.

 

[chris11256]

But surely immunity isn't building up as we're all in lockdown.

 

[yorkie]

just a gentle reminder that this thread is about enforcement; there are already other threads to discuss things like lockdown predictions.

Edit: the following threads may be of interest

• Exit strategy predictions
• Reliance on this Covid-19 vaccine
• Is the current aim to reduce or eliminate exposure to the virus?
  

 

[krus_aragon]

I just went in a smallish Sainsbury's Local (after popping over to Buckingham to drop off a spare bike outside a friend's house so he can use it for his daily exercise, which I figured was OK as bike shops are allowed to be open and to deliver, and I didn't go in).

On a similar note, last Friday I was in my in-laws' garden, servicing their adult-size tricycle, so my mother-in-law can use it to ease her arthritis (given that all leisure centre gyms are closed). Nothing too technical, just a lube job, top up of air pressure, and adjustment of cable tensions.

That was technically non-essential on my part, but while our local bike shop is open, getting a full-size tricycle there and back would have either meant me collecting and delivering it (if I could even fit it in my car without disassembling it!), or walking the tricycle four miles to get there! While nobody "got on my case" about this, I hope any local enforcers would have been pragmatic about the situation.

 

[Meerkat]

Quite reasonable pushback against the bizarre police guidelines
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52368538

Rural groups say police guidance that people can drive to the countryside to exercise will cause "untold anxieties".

The National Rural Crime Network and other groups said it risks spreading the virus through unnecessary journeys.

They have written to Justice Secretary Robert Buckland demanding a change to the pandemic advice.

 

[ainsworth74]

They, of course, should be writing for a change in the law if they actually want the advice to have any legal weight for the police to enforce. Otherwise there's not much that they can do beyond ask/beg/beseech people to not do it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite reasonable pushback against the bizarre police guidelines
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52368538

The Police guidelines are fine, they should never have been published as that is not what they are for. Publishing them was like publishing "you can drive at 35mph in a 30mph zone" just because of the well-known but not published 10% + 2mph guideline.

 

[Meerkat]

The Police guidelines are fine, they should never have been published as that is not what they are for. Publishing them was like publishing "you can drive at 35mph in a 30mph zone" just because of the well-known but not published 10% + 2mph guideline.

I don’t think they are fine as i Don’t think we should be taking the car to exercise!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don’t think they are fine as i Don’t think we should be taking the car to exercise!

I think there are cases where it is justified, myself. I'm not doing personally because I have plenty of opportunities locally, but people living in unsafe or very busy areas or fronting onto a main road with no pavement (for example), plus disabled people, are in my view justified in doing so.

 

[Meerkat]

I think there are cases where it is justified, myself. I'm not doing personally because I have plenty of opportunities locally, but people living in unsafe or very busy areas or fronting onto a main road with no pavement (for example), plus disabled people, are in my view justified in doing so.

Then they would be better treated as exceptions, it really must be very few people.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Quite reasonable pushback against the bizarre police guidelines
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52368538

That doesn't sound reasonable at all, it just sounds like a bunch of rural NIMBYs thinking only of themselves. How on earth having some people walking through a field just outside their village can cause "untold anxieties" is beyond me.

Members of my family live in suburban Sheffield and, if they want to exercise, have a choice of either a crowded urban park or taking a 15 minute drive out to the Peak District where they'll have the moors pretty much to themselves. In which environment do you think the virus is more likely to spread - crowded park or deserted moor?

 

[lyndhurst25]

Round where I am, there are reports of farmers and residents of well-to-do country villages putting up signs telling townie "outsiders" in no uncertain terms to stay away, along with illegally blocking up footpaths and other rights-of-way. I'd have more sympathy with the country dwellers if they'd reciprocate and community isolate in their villages, Eyam in the bubonic plague style, rather than venturing into towns to use the shops, etc. Seriously though, there's a minuscule risk of passing on the virus by walking down a country lane or path, and people should be more tolerant of one another.

 

[krus_aragon]

Round where I am, there are reports of farmers and residents of well-to-do country villages putting up signs telling townie "outsiders" in no uncertain terms to stay away, along with illegally blocking up footpaths and other rights-of-way.

In my corner of the world, the rural, agricultural areas are also cornerstones of the tourist trade. Most of the "go home" signs I've heard of popped up in the week or so after Everyone and his Dog decided to drive to the foothills of Snowdon to go for a walk, just before the lockdown. The situation has reopened some old wounds on the topic of inward migration, holiday homes, and linguistic dilution in rural areas of Wales.

On a different angle, here's a story from Ruthun where the council agreed that two footpaths through a farm could be closed, because a child living there is in the at-risk category: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52374420