Ideas to reopen the leisure & tourism sectors if social distancing is to continue

[Qwerty133]

So on top of all the other rules we are now to have popcorn thrust on us and compulsory booze.

I'm sure the small print will allow the included 'booze' to instead be used on a diet coke, but I do expect that portions of the hospitality industry will try and sell things bundled in with the ticket in order to push the guaranteed revenue up. One local venue has previously been known to 'give away' tickets for poorly selling events by reducing the price to that of a pint of beer and including the pint in the admission price in order to get drinkers in.

 

[nidave]

Depends. Probably not at the moment, but eventually I'll want to resume a degree of normality in my life. If I'm expected to live a spartan existence until a vaccine comes (which could be years away), it'll have a big impact on my mentality and productivity, and a lot of people feel the same.

If the government have all leisure shut until the end of the year, they could well become the most hated government in history - most people are only approving of the current measures because they feel they are temporary and so are looking forward to the end of it. Ultimately (most) humans are deeply social and any long term social distancing is going to cause real problems for their wellbeing.

I don't even think the government will keep these places shut, just that people will be so afraid to go to any leisure events or destinations that it's not worth anyone's while opening up.

 

[NorthOxonian]

I don't even think the government will keep these places shut, just that people will be so afraid to go to any leisure events or destinations that it's not worth anyone's while opening up.

Some people will be too afraid, and that's partly because there's some evidence to show our messaging was most aggressive. Polls show that people in this country are the most afraid of the virus, and that seems to ring true - a lot of those who haven't been following the story closely think that the death rates of 20%+ apply to everyone and not just the extremely vulnerable. A lot of people are afraid of the virus but are also beginning to feel the negative effects of lockdown, and this will increase as time goes on - social distancing really isn't a sustainable course of action for more than a few months.

The difficulty is how to ensure people have confidence to leave their homes, while at the same time not encouraging it so much that the virus runs completely rampant. Maybe more of a focus on how the virus is unlikely to kill you, but will be very unpleasant for a good few weeks? That way people won't be quaking in fear, but might reduce their activities a little.

 

[nidave]

Some people will be too afraid, and that's partly because there's some evidence to show our messaging was most aggressive. Polls show that people in this country are the most afraid of the virus, and that seems to ring true - a lot of those who haven't been following the story closely think that the death rates of 20%+ apply to everyone and not just the extremely vulnerable. A lot of people are afraid of the virus but are also beginning to feel the negative effects of lockdown, and this will increase as time goes on - social distancing really isn't a sustainable course of action for more than a few months.

The difficulty is how to ensure people have confidence to leave their homes, while at the same time not encouraging it so much that the virus runs completely rampant. Maybe more of a focus on how the virus is unlikely to kill you, but will be very unpleasant for a good few weeks? That way people won't be quaking in fear, but might reduce their activities a little.

The damage has already been done, no one who believes that the virus has such a high death rate will believe a word the government says. Unfortunately I think it's too late for most venues, I don't see cinemas surviving for example, Universal are already releasing movies straight to video on demand, Disney will be following them shortly and I can see every other studio doing the same.

 

[johnnychips]

Some people will be too afraid, and that's partly because there's some evidence to show our messaging was most aggressive. Polls show that people in this country are the most afraid of the virus, and that seems to ring true - a lot of those who haven't been following the story closely think that the death rates of 20%+ apply to everyone and not just the extremely vulnerable. A lot of people are afraid of the virus but are also beginning to feel the negative effects of lockdown, and this will increase as time goes on - social distancing really isn't a sustainable course of action for more than a few months.

The difficulty is how to ensure people have confidence to leave their homes, while at the same time not encouraging it so much that the virus runs completely rampant. Maybe more of a focus on how the virus is unlikely to kill you, but will be very unpleasant for a good few weeks? That way people won't be quaking in fear, but might reduce their activities a little.

Give it a few weeks and I do think the British attitude of ‘Sod it, these things happen, if I get it I get it’ will appear, hopefully with ‘but I’d better not go too near grandma’.

 

[NorthOxonian]

The damage has already been done, no one who believes that the virus has such a high death rate will believe a word the government says. Unfortunately I think it's too late for most venues, I don't see cinemas surviving for example, Universal are already releasing movies straight to video on demand, Disney will be following them shortly and I can see every other studio doing the same.

I can't see mass market cinemas surviving, at least not at the same scale. However, smaller cinemas might be able to survive, as well as specialist cinemas (something like the Tyneside Cinema in Newcastle). But then again, a lot of the demand for cinemas isn't actually people wanting to see films, it's just people wanting some sort of entertainment activity - for example to get the kids out the house or to go on a terrible first date as a teenager, so we might be surprised at how resilient they are. And most people don't have huge home cinemas, so anyone wanting the full movie experience will still need to go to the pictures.

 

[185143]

Hopefully that wouldn’t have to apply to the smaller pubs or working men’s type clubs I visit occasionally as it doesn’t sound at all viable in those locations

True. I was thinking more for larger places where food is being served rather than just drinking establishments.

 

[Bantamzen]

I've got a feeling we won't be seeing cinemas, pubs and restaurants opening before 2021 despite what the government says. Let's be honest, do you really want to be sitting in a crowded pub, full to the brim with people with smokers cough?

Well that would be the death knell for the entire leisure industry, something I'm afraid must not be allowed to happen. Other countries are already planning to restart theirs, albeit with some capacity reductions, so why does the UK have to kill it's off. Pubs and restaurants are not filled to the brim with smokers coughs, expect perhaps in the pages of the comic Viz, so there is no need for such an industry killing closure.

I can quite easily manage without pubs etc. Transport is a different matter I have various health problems so can not drive,but public transport is a big concern, people in my position are getting no advice at all Political parties just bicker with each other to score points, the press tv media is just as useles. Are the elderly and vulnerable just supposed to vanish from society

You may be able to manage, but what about the 18% of the employed people in this country who rely on it for their living? The government has made it clear that they want as few companies as possible to continue with furloughing beyond June, so what just toss these people away? You may not be planning on going back for some time, but that doesn't mean that others aren't as well. I for one will be back in my local pubs & socialising as best as I can when they reopen.

 

[Ianno87]

Touting is easy to stop - names on tickets and check ID. The music industry only doesn't stop it because it suits them to have it.

Which means extra queuing to enter and/or staff in close proximity to check.

Perhaps online sales only 24 hours in advance (so no time to get them on eBay) and new anti-touting rules created and strictly enforced in the local area.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which means extra queuing to enter and/or staff in close proximity to check.

It would mean slightly slower admission, but in reality you could get away with random checks and lots of publicity. Most people wouldn't take the risk of buying a touted ticket if you had say a 25% risk of non-admission.

 

[Bantamzen]

Which means extra queuing to enter and/or staff in close proximity to check.

Perhaps online sales only 24 hours in advance (so no time to get them on eBay) and new anti-touting rules created and strictly enforced in the local area.

Selling just 24 hours in advance wouldn't work I'm afraid. Notwithstanding the risk of servers crashing due to high demand, many events see people travelling from afar, booking transport, hotels etc.

 

[Ianno87]

Selling just 24 hours in advance wouldn't work I'm afraid. Notwithstanding the risk of servers crashing due to high demand, many events see people travelling from afar, booking transport, hotels etc.

I'm talking about Zoos (that people like to have some guarantee of half decent weather for anyway) and assuming public transport, hotels etc are still off limits

 

[Belperpete]

Some people will be too afraid, and that's partly because there's some evidence to show our messaging was most aggressive. Polls show that people in this country are the most afraid of the virus, and that seems to ring true - a lot of those who haven't been following the story closely think that the death rates of 20%+ apply to everyone and not just the extremely vulnerable. A lot of people are afraid of the virus but are also beginning to feel the negative effects of lockdown, and this will increase as time goes on - social distancing really isn't a sustainable course of action for more than a few months.

The difficulty is how to ensure people have confidence to leave their homes, while at the same time not encouraging it so much that the virus runs completely rampant. Maybe more of a focus on how the virus is unlikely to kill you, but will be very unpleasant for a good few weeks? That way people won't be quaking in fear, but might reduce their activities a little.

Totally agree. We have to get out of the mind-set that social distancing is a given. Other countries are doing it, there is no reason that we can't. As you say, the message seems to have been particularly effective in the UK, and it might take awhile to reverse that.

Social distancing can only be released once we have the infection rate under control. If the government were to relax social distancing too early, and had to re-impose it, that would only make people even more reluctant to give it up.

 

[underbank]

Give it a few weeks and I do think the British attitude of ‘Sod it, these things happen, if I get it I get it’ will appear, hopefully with ‘but I’d better not go too near grandma’.

But it's not just "grandma" is it? There are millions of people with underlying medical conditions at high risk - these people include nurses, teachers, doctors, etc etc. Not only will they struggle to return to work until there's a vaccine, they also have families. Those family members are going to be very reluctant to go out and socialise etc with the fear of bringing the virus back into the house they share with vulnerable people, their parents, their partners, their children, their siblings. My OH has cancer and is on the "most vulnerable" list - it's a very treatable cancer and long term prognosis is good, but her treatment has been stopped due to the local oncology dept having gone awol - she's middle aged, otherwise healthy, etc., so not elderly nor any other medical conditions. We had already stopped our son going to school in the week before lockdown as we couldn't risk him bringing it into the house. He's due to go to Uni in September. He knows that if he goes, he won't be coming back home on a whim and understands/accepts the reasons for that. It's impossible for him to return home and for us still to protect my OH - we'd have to share the bathroom, kitchen, etc so coming home for a weekend is out of the question and if he came home for Christmas, he'd be quarantined in his room for two weeks, and need to clean the bathroom and kitchen properly after every time he used them. I run my own business - likewise we've operated behind closed doors, no meeting clients, etc since early March and I won't be changing that any time soon either, until OH is vaccinated - it's meant we've lost some existing clients and not been able to sign on some new clients so has hit us financially. The idea of my son and I going to our usual footie matches (we;re season ticket holders) is out of the question, as is going on holiday, or even for a day out. I know we're not the only ones. "Social" style events/attractions etc are really going to suffer huge drops in attendances if and when they re-open and they really have to consider whether they have a long term viability. Glibly saying "Stay away from granny" is a pretty superficial way of looking at the real problems facing huge numbers of people,

 

[underbank]

Social distancing can only be released once we have the infection rate under control. If the government were to relax social distancing too early, and had to re-impose it, that would only make people even more reluctant to give it up.

Some elements of social distancing can be given up pretty quickly/easily. Such as the arbitrary 2 metre rule. You're pretty safe walking past someone coming in the opposite direction at less than 2 metres, as long as they don't cough, sneeze or spit as they pass. But if they did that, even if you were more than 2 metres, you'd be at risk. We need to keep with a mindset of simply NOT coughing, sneezing, spitting near others at all and to catch it in a tissue/hankie or arm if you can't help it. People need to stop going to work, going shopping, etc if they have symptoms of flu/colds/covid etc rather than playing the martyr and going about sneezing over everyone and everything. Same with hand washing - we should have been doing it regularly throughout the day, before eating, after using the loo, anyway - and we need to continue doing that, Covid or not. I think we need to move to a new model of respecting people's personal space, i.e. a "new normal" of not automatically shaking hands, not hugging/kissing people you hardly know, not almost touching others in queues, not touching on public transport etc. None of that will ruin peoples' lives and will enable social gatherings etc to re-open again. A premier league football match, or Aintree Races, or Glastonbury simply can't happen with existing 2m social distancing in place. BUT, they could happen if people behaved in a more respectable, more hygenic, manner. Remember before the lockdown, Cheltenham Races and Liverpool football went ahead because it was assumed that people would respect the guidance re self-isolation with symptoms, more hand washing, etc etc - sadly people didn't and that's what led to the lockdown and the extreme measures. To get back to any kind of normality, people need to behave responsibly and take personal precautions - the more people who do it, the more socially unacceptable it will become to not wash your hands after the loo or to open a bag of crisps without washing your hands, or to go to work sneezing everywhere, or make you out to be weird if you don't want to shake someone's hand!

 

[WelshBluebird]

People need to stop going to work, going shopping, etc if they have symptoms of flu/colds/covid etc rather than playing the martyr and going about sneezing over everyone and everything.

I am really hoping this is one of the things that does happen after this.
Thankfully I work in a place that was already sensible when it comes to people being ill, but far too many places still see taking time off for being ill as something that needs to be punished. You only just have to see how many places still have "3 strikes and you are out" or similar policies when it comes to sick days.

 

[3rd rail land]

I am really hoping this is one of the things that does happen after this.
Thankfully I work in a place that was already sensible when it comes to people being ill, but far too many places still see taking time off for being ill as something that needs to be punished. You only just have to see how many places still have "3 strikes and you are out" or similar policies when it comes to sick days.

True, if an employers policy negatively impacts on the employee for taking sick days they will simply come to work ill unless of course the illness is so serious they are physically unable to work.
Companies that don't pay employees who have to take time off sick or require a doctor's note for all sick leave aren't helping themselves. These people will work through the illness and probably cause others to become ill making the problem even worse for the employer.

Fortunately my employer is very fair when it comes to illness. In fact I've worked through a cold/manflu before and have been ordered to leave the office and work from home until I am fully recovered. If I had to take a day off with illness they wouldn't dock any of my pay.

 

[Belperpete]

Some elements of social distancing can be given up pretty quickly/easily. Such as the arbitrary 2 metre rule. You're pretty safe walking past someone coming in the opposite direction at less than 2 metres, as long as they don't cough, sneeze or spit as they pass. But if they did that, even if you were more than 2 metres, you'd be at risk. We need to keep with a mindset of simply NOT coughing, sneezing, spitting near others at all and to catch it in a tissue/hankie or arm if you can't help it. People need to stop going to work, going shopping, etc if they have symptoms of flu/colds/covid etc rather than playing the martyr and going about sneezing over everyone and everything. Same with hand washing - we should have been doing it regularly throughout the day, before eating, after using the loo, anyway - and we need to continue doing that, Covid or not. I think we need to move to a new model of respecting people's personal space, i.e. a "new normal" of not automatically shaking hands, not hugging/kissing people you hardly know, not almost touching others in queues, not touching on public transport etc. None of that will ruin peoples' lives and will enable social gatherings etc to re-open again. A premier league football match, or Aintree Races, or Glastonbury simply can't happen with existing 2m social distancing in place. BUT, they could happen if people behaved in a more respectable, more hygenic, manner. Remember before the lockdown, Cheltenham Races and Liverpool football went ahead because it was assumed that people would respect the guidance re self-isolation with symptoms, more hand washing, etc etc - sadly people didn't and that's what led to the lockdown and the extreme measures. To get back to any kind of normality, people need to behave responsibly and take personal precautions - the more people who do it, the more socially unacceptable it will become to not wash your hands after the loo or to open a bag of crisps without washing your hands, or to go to work sneezing everywhere, or make you out to be weird if you don't want to shake someone's hand!

I totally agree. Touching of noses might be out as well.

 

[Butts]

The minute they let people back on Aeroplanes for Holidays without social distancing (as will happen) is it's credibility going to be fatally tarnished ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The minute they let people back on Aeroplanes without social distancing (as will happen) is it's credibility going to be fatally tarnished ?

Not if masks are used.

 

[underbank]

I am really hoping this is one of the things that does happen after this.
Thankfully I work in a place that was already sensible when it comes to people being ill, but far too many places still see taking time off for being ill as something that needs to be punished. You only just have to see how many places still have "3 strikes and you are out" or similar policies when it comes to sick days.

It's one of those "blunt instruments" used rather than properly managing a situation. It makes life easier for a HR manager to use a "3 strikes and you're out" rule rather than them properly managing their staff. It's definitely one of the things that has to change after all this. The HR managers need to actually do their job and properly manage the staff. If they think there is a malingerer who calls in sick when they just want a day off, then it's their job to deal with that, with disciplinary proceedings etc if necessary. Just lazily using "3 and you're out" is no longer acceptable for a HR professional.

 

[underbank]

The minute they let people back on Aeroplanes for Holidays without social distancing (as will happen) is it's credibility going to be fatally tarnished ?

Depends on how we get back to that. Some airlines are talking about banning food/drink sales on board which would help reduce the number of "interactions" and reduce loo use. Some are suggesting going further and banning "carry on" food for short flights where meals/snack simply aren't needed to reduce the risk of someone infecting themselves after touching surfaces - basically just allowing a bottle of water to drink. I've seen where queuing for toilets may be limited/banned along with the rows near toilets being left empty. At the end of the day, flying isn't going to be "risk free" so anyone wanting to fly will have to take the risk, all they can do is minimise risk. Different airlines will be trying different models of risk reduction. Obvious things like proper cleaning of all tables and other surfaces at turnaround are inevitable, as is the regular cleaning of the loos etc throughout the flight. Hopefully, people will also be sensible enough to take a pack on anti-bac wipes with them to clean their own tables, loo handle etc before use for added protection.

But the aircraft itself is only part of the bigger picture. Can they "social distance" the check in desks, security scanning, passport control, baggage reclaim, departure gates, tunnels, coaches to/from gate, shops, cafes, airport toilets, airport buses/trains, etc., etc when passenger numbers start to rise.

 

[Qwerty133]

Not if masks are used.

Masks are not a replacement for social distancing. Comments like this are exactly why the guidence on them is a mistake.

 

[Bantamzen]

Masks are not a replacement for social distancing. Comments like this are exactly why the guidence on them is a mistake.

Social distancing is not a viable solution beyond the very short term.

 

[Qwerty133]

Social distancing is not a viable solution beyond the very short term.

Not in every situation but its been working fine in supermarkets until people in masks have suddenly decided they don't have to stick to it.

 

[Belperpete]

Re: 3 strikes and you're out:

It's one of those "blunt instruments" used rather than properly managing a situation. It makes life easier for a HR manager to use a "3 strikes and you're out" rule rather than them properly managing their staff. It's definitely one of the things that has to change after all this. The HR managers need to actually do their job and properly manage the staff. If they think there is a malingerer who calls in sick when they just want a day off, then it's their job to deal with that, with disciplinary proceedings etc if necessary. Just lazily using "3 and you're out" is no longer acceptable for a HR professional.

It shouldn't be an HR manager who uses it, it should be your manager who uses it, and with appropriate discretion. Unfortunately some weak managers just seem to "apply the rule". My manager wrote to our HR department saying that my medical condition meant I was exempt, and he wasn't going to carry out any further reviews. They insisted that he had to, so each time I was off he just sent the form back with NO ACTION written on it. I think HR gave up eventually.

 

[Belperpete]

Social distancing is not a viable solution beyond the very short term.

Agreed, we have got to end this 2m hysteria. Social distancing is a necessary tool, until such time as we get the numbers of infections down to a manageable number. Other countries that are fortunate enough to be in that situation are now effectively ending social distancing. If masks are a psychological sop to achieve that end, then so be it.

 

[Bantamzen]

Not in every situation but its been working fine in supermarkets until people in masks have suddenly decided they don't have to stick to it.

Has it? Yes there's been the 2 metre queuing, but wandering around the isles? Not so much so, masks or no masks.

Agreed, we have got to end this 2m hysteria. Social distancing is a necessary tool, until such time as we get the numbers of infections down to a manageable number. Other countries that are fortunate enough to be in that situation are now effectively ending social distancing. If masks are a psychological sop to achieve that end, then so be it.

At the very least it needs to be reduced to 1 metre fairly soon, otherwise large swathes of businesses will struggle to ever open. But quite honestly it all comes back to the same problem, is social distancing actually the answer? It has already inflicted a huge amount of damage to leisure industry, and a lengthy period of it could cost literally millions of jobs. Masks are little more than a psychological placebo, and this has been all but admitted by the government. A better solution is to get the track & trace application out there so that we can properly understand where it is, and how it might spread as well as giving help to those that might need it. Then rather than using a stick, use a carrot. The government could help the industry by subsidising an incentive scheme whereby you get a discount for having the app active, and where you might be booking in advance get priority. Job done, I guarantee millions would have that app downloaded in no time.

 

[Butts]

Agreed, we have got to end this 2m hysteria. Social distancing is a necessary tool, until such time as we get the numbers of infections down to a manageable number. Other countries that are fortunate enough to be in that situation are now effectively ending social distancing. If masks are a psychological sop to achieve that end, then so be it.

Is the WHO guidline not 1m for social distancing ?

 

[underbank]

At the very least it needs to be reduced to 1 metre fairly soon, otherwise large swathes of businesses will struggle to ever open. But quite honestly it all comes back to the same problem, is social distancing actually the answer? It has already inflicted a huge amount of damage to leisure industry, and a lengthy period of it could cost literally millions of jobs. Masks are little more than a psychological placebo, and this has been all but admitted by the government. A better solution is to get the track & trace application out there so that we can properly understand where it is, and how it might spread as well as giving help to those that might need it. Then rather than using a stick, use a carrot. The government could help the industry by subsidising an incentive scheme whereby you get a discount for having the app active, and where you might be booking in advance get priority. Job done, I guarantee millions would have that app downloaded in no time.

But track and trace doesn't stop you getting it - you just know earlier that you may have got it. It's all about reducing your infecting others by getting you to self isolate sooner rather than waiting for symptoms. It "may" help you survuve if if you know sooner and can get medical help sooner. So, for society as a whole it obviously helps and is necessary. But, it won't stop a vulnerable person getting it if it's still out there - it will hopefully reduce the risk by reducing the number of people walking around with it. I don't really see it ending the lockdown for the vulnerable in the short to medium term at all. There are a lot of people with, say, diabetes, heart conditions, and some cancers who would normally be going to work, going to football matches, concerts, theatres, festivals, pubs, cafes, etc that won't be for many months. To some extent that fits in with lower numbers of customers for those businesses/events so that will improve social distancing by default, but it also means far lower incomes for them too which begs the question are they viable to re-open?