Long term social distancing: Impact on public life & public transport?

[yorkie]

...On that score it may well be the case that the over-70s and other high-risk people will simply have to be locked up in their homes “until further notice” or play Russian roulette if they choose to venture out. That’s a very sad conclusion to come to, but as things are at this moment seems the most realistic.

I think you answered your earlier question. We have to be realistic. And they won't (and can't) be banned from going out but it is going to be a choice they will have to make. There is no other realistic alternative

 

[bramling]

One can't assume that there won't be. Then again, one can't assume that there wil be. There are various countries in Europe which will probably have had large numbers of people entering from China, Italy and Spain in March. They haven't all had large increases in infection like here. We need try and replicate that.



Indeed. I would hope that the Government are looking into what's going on elsewhere to try and give an insight into why hospitalisation is still comparatively high here.

This is the thing, as you say hospitalisation is still comparatively high. Someone posted elsewhere that there may be a time lag whilst social distancing measures were implemented (for example screens at checkouts have only appeared comparatively recently). However if the figures don’t start to drop very noticeably soon then something is wrong.

The death rate will presumably now be being squeezed by the virus having claimed the lives of those most accessible and susceptible, but that presumably still leaves a *lot* of potential victims who may well only have been protected so far by shielding or their own pro-active precautions. In that sense without a vaccine this whole thing unfortunately has quite clearly got some time to run yet, as Prof Whitty stated yesterday I believe.

 

[bramling]

I think you answered your earlier question. We have to be realistic. And they won't (and can't) be banned from going out but it is going to be a choice they will have to make. There is no other realistic alternative

It’s going to cause no end of difficulties though.

Unknowingly walk down a street where loads of over-70s live and get lynched? Spend a week in your second home and get blocked in by a tractor? Or how would someone feel if they visit an elderly relative, unknowingly pass C19 on and that relative then dies?

I reluctantly agree that this is probably going to be the only realistic option going forward, but it’s going to be a *very* rough ride for everyone.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

I think you answered your earlier question. We have to be realistic. And they won't (and can't) be banned from going out but it is going to be a choice they will have to make. There is no other realistic alternative

Speaking by phone to my 75 year old father this last week after Chris Whitty had made his latest comments about social distancing for the long term, he commented that he will do the 12 week shielding but if they think he is staying in after that and not going to start going out and doing stuff then they can stuff off. (His precise comment isn't appropriate for a family forum!). He said he would rather take his risk than sit at home for ever, something which he has so far dutifully done apart from a daily stroll round the village green type thing on the estate where he lives.

 

[yorkie]

It’s going to cause no end of difficulties though.

Unknowingly walk down a street where loads of over-70s live and get lynched? Spend a week in your second home and get blocked in by a tractor? Or how would someone feel if they visit an elderly relative, unknowingly pass C19 on and that relative then dies?

It's going to have to be down to those who deem themselves vulnerable to decide if they want to go out or not, and to have visitors or not. You cannot deny them that choice, but we cannot impose restrictions on others indefinitely.

I reluctantly agree that this is probably going to be the only realistic option going forward, but it’s going to be a *very* rough ride for everyone.

Agreed

Speaking by phone to my 75 year old father this last week after Chris Whitty had made his latest comments about social distancing for the long term, he commented that he will do the 12 week shielding but if they think he is staying in after that and not going to start going out and doing stuff then they can stuff off. (His precise comment isn't appropriate for a family forum!). He said he would rather take his risk than sit at home for ever, something which he has so far dutifully done apart from a daily stroll round the village green type thing on the estate where he lives.

A forum member said the same thing but I am struggling to find the exact post*. It really has to be down to the individual. Edit: I have now found it, I will quote from it

I have a relative in her 90s who is currently in hospital and expected to recover from the virus; it's truly great that we can achieve this, but if the only way to guarantee being able treat people in their 90s in the future is to ruin the well-being of an entire generation (and I truly hope we don't face that choice) then that just isn't a viable sustainable option, no matter how loudly some people will no doubt claim that it is.

* Edit: I have now found the post @Solent&Wessex; it was by @3141

Coming back to the ideas set out by the OP, I am 80 and my wife is 79. We're both in good health and I can walk for six or seven miles without a problem. But I don't want to get the virus because the statistics for males of my age are menacing. So I could be living a socially restricted life until there's a reliable and widely-available vaccine. Is that eighteen months ahead, two years, three years? Or, when most people are again living "normally" (whatever that may turn out to mean) I could visit my daughter and her family (including our granddaughters), friends, go to a restaurant, take a train trip, and every time I'd be risking getting the virus from someone who is asymptomatic or in the earlier stages before the symptoms develop. As the months pass and I get older the risk that it might be fatal will gradually increase. There's also the consideration that if I get it I'll pass it to my wife, and we'd be lucky if neither of us had it seriously. The only bright side to this prospect is that at least the NHS should have room for us in intensive care!

I can imagine that as time goes on I'll be tempted to take the risk, in much the same way that younger people may be apprehensive about going back to work in the earlier stages of the lifting of restrictions, but will probably get used to the situation quite quickly because the risk for them will be much smaller. We'll all have to make decisions, and accepting a level of risk will be part of the new "normality".

 

[bramling]

It's going to have to be down to those who deem themselves vulnerable to decide if they want to go out or not, and to have visitors or not. You cannot deny them that choice, but we cannot impose restrictions on others indefinitely.

I’m not disagreeing, but I can foresee massive social problems (especially in some areas - look at what we’ve already been seeing in Wales for example), and ultimately if the death rate starts creeping up again back to a point which becomes “unacceptable” (I put that in quotes as it’s a collective value judgement with no right or wrong answer) then we’re back to square one - actually worse as we’re further down the line and starting from a point where the public finances are already trashed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are some places where the whole community relies on travel, tourism and hospitality. The Lake District for example. In that and similar regions elsewhere it will be well more than 10%. Collapse of that sector could lead to whole communities basically closing down and becoming ghost regions.

With the prospects of international travel being poor for a much lengthier period than domestic travel, I wouldn't worry about the domestic travel industry provided it can weather this initial storm. It's likely to be boom time for "staycations".

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agree with both posts.

There is much talk from the various medical and scientific experts that we will have to stay in some sort of semi lockdown social distancing economic stasis for the foreseeable future until there is a successful vaccine or a treatment / cure. As there is no guarantee that we will ever get one of those at all, let alone quickly, what they expect us to do, stay inside for ever? Never meet up with family and friends? Never visit, hug and kiss your elderly parents? Never visit and hold your new nephew? Never have any form of intimate relations unless you already live with them? Never have any social interaction at all?

No. That is unrealistic to expect, even for much more than a few months let alone a year or so or longer.

Just had a thought. The cost of a COVID19 test privately is reducing, from over 300 quid initially to about 150 now. As this becomes more of a commodity and less scarce, this could reduce - for instance STI (sexually transmitted infection) swab tests with the sample collected at home cost about thirty quid. If the price goes that low, which I don't doubt it will, testing can be used by individuals to reduce the risk of them giving it to their Nan. And if you get a cold you could just order a test to confirm it is just a cold.

 

[6862]

It is a truly awful conundrum - let the economy collapse or subject healthcare professionals (and anyone else they can recruit to help them) to eighteen months of something they didn't sign up for.

Without wanting to minimise the incredible work the NHS are doing, I would argue that they did sign up for this. Perhaps not specifically, but the duty of these brave people is to treat people and save lives, and such is the nature of our NHS that anyone can go and receive the best care possible, regardless of who they are. And this includes during a pandemic. So I would say that working in the NHS during this pandemic is in a sense 'what they signed up for' - and they should be thanked for it! (Perhaps not by clapping though!).

 

[yorkie]

tLet's try to avoid too much duplication where multiple threads are discussing the same topics.

Here are some other relevant threads which discuss some of the matters that have cropped up in recent posts:

• Could the Coronavirus 'burn out' in the UK?
• Is the current aim to reduce or eliminate exposure to the virus?
• Exit strategy predictions
• Clapping for the NHS

 

[6862]

My fault on that last one - got confused which thread I was commenting on!

 

[yorkie]

My fault on that last one - got confused which thread I was commenting on!

No worries! It's easily done

 

[Meerkat]

A lot of tourist areas must be at high risk due to age profiles, due to incoming retirees and the young folk leaving for better opportunities.
Does shielding over 70s have to include isolation? If properly organised they could still meet up (particular morning at a church hall/cafe/pub, invite only, shielded only, tested/protected staff or over 70s volunteering to do the work). It might give them a reason to shield from other groups.

 

[yorkie]

A lot of tourist areas must be at high risk due to age profiles, due to incoming retirees and the young folk leaving for better opportunities.
Does shielding over 70s have to include isolation? If properly organised they could still meet up (particular morning at a church hall/cafe/pub, invite only, shielded only, tested/protected staff or over 70s volunteering to do the work). It might give them a reason to shield from other groups.

I think it's going to have to be down to each individual to decide. You can't force over 70s to isolate. In practise many will do if that is what they are recommended to do.

 

[AM9]

A lot of tourist areas must be at high risk due to age profiles, due to incoming retirees and the young folk leaving for better opportunities.
Does shielding over 70s have to include isolation? If properly organised they could still meet up (particular morning at a church hall/cafe/pub, invite only, shielded only, tested/protected staff or over 70s volunteering to do the work). It might give them a reason to shield from other groups.

In connection with your comment, would it be reasonable to proceed with the premise that 'vulnerable' people should be taking respionsibility for they own health by very contolled separation practice within their normal community yet allow those without those restrictions to flood into the area just because it was a tourist spot, thereby driving the vulnerables back into their housebound state. Tractors across the entrances would seem pretty mild compared with what locals in those areas might do to dissuade 'townies' from a business as normal behaviour.

 

[Meerkat]

In connection with your comment, would it be reasonable to proceed with the premise that 'vulnerable' people should be taking respionsibility for they own health by very contolled separation practice within their normal community yet allow those without those restrictions to flood into the area just because it was a tourist spot, thereby driving the vulnerables back into their housebound state. Tractors across the entrances would seem pretty mild compared with what locals in those areas might do to dissuade 'townies' from a business as normal behaviour.

That would depend on how reliant their community was on those tourists. They can’t expect the government to bail them out if they aren't going to make any sacrifices themselves

 

[Smidster]

A lot of tourist areas must be at high risk due to age profiles, due to incoming retirees and the young folk leaving for better opportunities.
Does shielding over 70s have to include isolation? If properly organised they could still meet up (particular morning at a church hall/cafe/pub, invite only, shielded only, tested/protected staff or over 70s volunteering to do the work). It might give them a reason to shield from other groups.

That sounds risky- You only need one member of the group to have it, and perhaps not know it, and suddenly you spread it to a group of more vulnerable people.

You wouldn't have the "viral load" which might be a factor be in Care Homes but even so.

I think shielding probably does mean isolation - although it would be "strongly advised" rather than legally enforced. Like we have at the moment with the 12 week group

 

[bramling]

With the prospects of international travel being poor for a much lengthier period than domestic travel, I wouldn't worry about the domestic travel industry provided it can weather this initial storm. It's likely to be boom time for "staycations".

Not if someone travels to, for example, Wales and gets a “frosty” reception from locals. By frosty I mean hounded out of places on the basis of being a virus-spreader. I can see this sort of thing being an issue for a while to come in places.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not if someone travels to, for example, Wales and gets a “frosty” reception from locals. By frosty I mean hounded out of places on the basis of being a virus-spreader. I can see this sort of thing being an issue for a while to come in places.

True. There's long been a strong anti-tourist sentiment in the Welsh farming community which doesn't exist to the same extent in say the Westcountry, the Lakes or the Peak where it's more symbiotic. If that is going to make a comeback, Wales could lose big.

 

[bramling]

In connection with your comment, would it be reasonable to proceed with the premise that 'vulnerable' people should be taking respionsibility for they own health by very contolled separation practice within their normal community yet allow those without those restrictions to flood into the area just because it was a tourist spot, thereby driving the vulnerables back into their housebound state. Tractors across the entrances would seem pretty mild compared with what locals in those areas might do to dissuade 'townies' from a business as normal behaviour.

Unfortunately this is something I can well see happening - we’ve already seen issues in places, and this is not going to go away just because the lockdown ends. This could also pitch locals against locals if a hotel is taking guests, for example.

Reality is unfortunately the furlough scheme can’t last forever, the cost is already eye-watering, so once it ends businesses are going to be straining at the leash to open in some form. It is going to prove extremely hard to reconcile this with the shielded groups, especially if there’s no defined end-point on the horizon.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Won't work in every business, but do we perhaps need to strengthen Universal Credit so those who want to shield can claim that and the unemployed who don't want to shield can take the jobs, even if only short term? Won't work with every job, but at the "simpler" end of the jobs market it would.

 

[AM9]

That would depend on how reliant their community was on those tourists. They can’t expect the government to bail them out if they aren't going to make any sacrifices themselves

But having had it impressed that they are vulnerable and should as far as possible keep safe distances for the previous three months, should that sacrifice entail either another three months housebound, of if they venture out for their necessary exercise and shopping, an enhanced risk of making the ultimate sacrifice, just because a townie* went to the village for a change of view and decided to visit the local store to get an ice cream because the sun was shining?
I might add that I am a townie, so this isn't an 'us and them' argument, - more a discussion about unforseen consequences of a partial release from quarantine. Just like face masks, quarantine is not there just to protect the individual, it protects others.

 

[bramling]

True. There's long been a strong anti-tourist sentiment in the Welsh farming community which doesn't exist to the same extent in say the Westcountry, the Lakes or the Peak where it's more symbiotic. If that is going to make a comeback, Wales could lose big.

To be fair, I’ve never found Wales anything other than friendly, mutually respectful and welcoming - with the exception of non-touristy parts of South Wales where there seems to be an element of suspicion towards outsiders.

However, having seen how some of the “weekend-break brigade“ behave in honeypots like Betws-y-coed or Llangollen I can to some extent understand why issues might arise.

Realistically however rural areas aren’t going to be able to put down the portcullis and close themselves off for the foreseeable future, or the local economy will in many cases grind to a complete halt. It will be a case of having to live with social distancing, and welcoming outsiders who follow that rigorously.

 

[yorksrob]

Unfortunately this is something I can we’ll see happening - we’ve already seen issues in places, and this is not going to go away just because the lockdown ends. This could also pitch locals against locals if a hotel is taking guests, for example.

I'm not convinced how long that can last.

For starters, some people in those areas are going to travel to the cities at some stage. Then what about when their relatives come to visit etc. And people who travel to the cities for deliveries.

In reality, except for some very remote areas, it's simply not possible to separate the rural from the urban economy.

 

[Meerkat]

That sounds risky- You only need one member of the group to have it, and perhaps not know it, and suddenly you spread it to a group of more vulnerable people.

You wouldn't have the "viral load" which might be a factor be in Care Homes but even so.

I think shielding probably does mean isolation - although it would be "strongly advised" rather than legally enforced. Like we have at the moment with the 12 week group

It is a risk, but a reduced risk of Covid compared to wider mixing, and a reduced risk of issues related to isolation. Big guess, but is it less likely that older folk are asymptomatic- is that a sign of strong health or just luck?
The users would have an incentive to be careful - breaking isolation by having visitors currently only risks the person them self, not their friends too.

 

[yorkie]

At the end of the day we can't stop living our lives; if someone is in a high risk category they have to make the choice whether to isolate or not.

It cannot be imposed on high risk people but equally high risk people cannot prevent people coming into their village, whether they like it or not.

 

[bramling]

I'm not convinced how long that can last.

For starters, some people in those areas are going to travel to the cities at some stage. Then what about when their relatives come to visit etc. And people who travel to the cities for deliveries.

In reality, except for some very remote areas, it's simply not possible to separate the rural from the urban economy.

I agree in theory, however I think it’s inevitable elements of the rural community are going to take this line for some time to come. It would only take a small vocal number in an area to kick things off.

A difficulty is we’re probably likely to see a relaxation of lockdown by August, even if it gets extended next month there’s no way we can still be in this state by August. By that time it will be the summer school holiday, and therefore what would normally be peak holiday time. A trickle of people taking holidays is one thing, but a normal peak-summer influx is something else.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But having had it impressed that they are vulnerable and should as far as possible keep safe distances for the previous three months, should that sacrifice entail either another three months housebound, of if they venture out for their necessary exercise and shopping, an enhanced risk of making the ultimate sacrifice, just because a townie* went to the village for a change of view and decided to visit the local store to get an ice cream because the sun was shining?

To some extent, with regard to the "local shop", as they are often strongly community-supported there might be a case for such shops only serving the local community (i.e. people who can prove they live in that area), and putting signs up to that extent. I wouldn't overly have a problem with that, as it's up to a business who they serve provided it's not racist, sexist etc, and tourists can always get an ice cream in a tourist-oriented ice cream parlour and the shopping from Asda.

 

[Bantamzen]

Well, how long can the UK government borrow to fund the NHS?

I dread to think about how high taxes will be if it will take a year for everything to be back to normal.

Funding the NHS isn't the big ticket item. It's the business support.

Let's also not forget that tax revenue will be way down, adding to an already very expensive situation that will be counted in tens, maybe even hundreds of billions.

Exactly.

In much the same way that those who think the virus will just go away are deluding themselves, so are the people who think that the whole country and economy can exist in a semi lockdown / social distancing state for years on end until a vaccine is found - if one is ever found at all.

Aside from that social distancing physically can't be practised in some small retail and food related outlets, nor in some other jobs and industries, it would render a vast swathe, if not all, of the tourism and leisure and hospitality industries uneconomic and unviable.

All the talk over the last two pages of reduced numbers in pubs, doormen, table reservation systems, table service etc. Who exactly is going to pay for all this? Most pubs work on wafer thin margins so are not flush with spare cash to pay for these things.

Travel and tourism alone accounts for nearly 10% of this nation's economy and accounts for some 3.5million jobs. This no doubt does not fully cover everything in pubs, clubs, cafes - so add more on top.

If this substantial sector of the economy completely collapses, which is very likely, that is a huge economic hit which will decimate livelihoods, whole regions of the country and send the benefits bill soaring through the roof.

Quite simply the economy and society cannot afford a prolonged lockdown or the effects of prolonged social distancing.

And if there is no effective vaccine for say 3 years, does that mean no weddings, no gatherings, no meeting new partners, no socialising with people outside your house, no holidays, nothing apart from work and staring at your computer screen as means of contact with others for that length of time? Well if so there'll be no need for this forum as there will be no rail industry left as the government would have run out of money to keep subsidising it to cart around socially distanced fresh air.

Is the right answer!

For all the social distancing ideas, people seem to forget that many people's livelihoods are at stake here. Social distancing was a tool to slow the spread of the virus until the NHS had extra capacity, which it is starting to see. It is completely inconceivable that social distancing will be in force for any length of time, because if it is many people will end up in poverty, with worse health, adding even more pressure to the NHS. Industrialised nations like ours have built economies that heavily rely on the activities that many people here seem to want to curb or heavily regulate for an indefinite period of time. Put simply a prolonged lockdown will be far more devastating, far more damaging to the economy, far more damaging socially, and far more damaging for our collective wellbeing.

 

[yorkie]

Put simply a prolonged lockdown will be far more devastating, far more damaging to the economy, far more damaging socially, and far more damaging for our collective wellbeing.

Absolutely.

Shield the vulnerable but the rest of us have to be able to get on with our lives.

People who want extended (and/or harsher) lockdowns are deluded.

See also discussion here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/could-the-coronavirus-burn-out-in-the-uk.203758/#post-4551674