As interesting as this all is, there seems little realism or pragmatism evident. Except perhaps this:
And that will be the view of increasing numbers of people as time goes on. Initially the lockdown was a novelty. Now it is becoming a bind. There is no way that sixty-odd million people are going to remain locked down for any prolonged period and there’s no way the authorities will prevent them from breaking out. This will become increasingly evident as the summer progresses. Many people, especially in large towns and cities, do not have gardens. They will be going out and it won’t be solely with a “reasonable excuse.” There is also no way that owners of businesses – especially the smaller ones - will watch the fruits of the labours disappear up the Swanee. They will begin to resume work. Most of all, the government cannot continue to pay people’s wages indefinitely. A couple of months is about as much as the economy will stand, and that’s a stretch.
Yes, they can keep licensed premises and those subject to Local Authority control closed. They can forbid gatherings for sporting and social events. But they won’t stop people going out in the summer. Talk of the current circumstances becoming the “new norm” is fanciful. This is especially so when there are reports of 60 or more aircraft a day landing at Heathrow, many of them containing visitors and businessmen. I can’t visit my neighbour a few doors along the road but people from Iran, Iraq and elsewhere continue to arrive, with no checks, to “visit family.”
Talk of a vaccine being developed in short order are hopelessly optimistic. Ditto a cure. To suggest that people will remain locked down until one or the other is developed is ludicrous. It ain’t gonna happen and the government needs to develop a strategy to end this farcical situation. If it’s not ended with agreement it will end without. At present most people are compliant. But that’s not going to last and I believe that by about the end of May their patience will be exhausted. People who want to remain locked down will be perfectly free to do so. Those who don’t won’t.
I don't know the answer, I only know the question. And the question is, what does the government do when people become tired of being locked down? Because they will as sure as eggs is eggs. Best the question is addressed now rather than in a month's time because to simply assume that everybody will continue as they are now with no "end game" forthcoming is simply naive.
I think this is a great post and hits the nail on the head.
The current restrictions cannot continue for long.
I don't even think "Social Distancing" can continue for long either, despite what some are saying. Most pavements are not 2 metres wide. Most footpaths are not 2 metres wide. Population density in many areas is too high to make it practical to be able to keep 2 metres away from everyone. Maybe if a road has a pavement on both sides you could make each side one-way but that means if someone stops or is walking slowly, everyone has to. It's impractical to tell people to keep 2 metres away from anyone they don't live with for years or more.
Public transport for example doesn't really work with everyone having to keep 2 metres apart. Capacity would be massively reduced. It's not going to be economical to operate a single-decker bus with say, a maximum of 15 passengers, which is probably the maximum you could achieve with 2 metre separation and perhaps 25 on a double decker (which can't be used on many routes, e.g. those with low bridges). So that would mean many people would either be told they cannot travel or they've have to reserve month in advance and once the maximum capacity to maintain distancing is achieved no more tickets are sold. Again that would make it un-economical without massively hiking the fares. Not everyone lives walking distance to a shop either so many have to use public transport to get to shops, hospitals and so on. It would make walk-up travel impossible in many cases.
Many jobs are also impossible without close contact with other people.
The same applies for so many other things, like cinemas, theatres, concerts, sporting events, restaurants, pubs etc. Most couldn't operator economically at perhaps a maximum of 30% the capacity they are currently operating at and make money.
Even if it was decided that closer contact would be permitted if face masks were mandatory (for example on public transport), it would obviously be impossible in a restaurant or pub since it would make it impossible to eat or drink with a mask on! If undertaking a long train journey (say 3 or more hours) wearing a mask would become very uncomfortable and unpleasant. It would also make it impossible to eat or drink and on a train journey several hours long people are going to want to (and in some cases need to) do that. Who would want to undertake a long train journey with a mask on the whole time, not able to eat or drink?
There are also serious social implications. If you are not already in a relationship and living with someone it would be impossible to start a relationship (or at least a physical one) by keeping 2 metres apart from anyone you don't already live with. That would I'm sure have human rights implications if it was continued for long. Similarly applying much more stringent restrictions on over 70s for examples would also likely fall foul of discrimination laws at some point. Recommendations probably wouldn't, but making it mandatory would.