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

Status
Not open for further replies.

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
1,312
The problem is that there is no allinclusive solution at present. If you're vulnerable there's a serious chance you'll die of it; no treatment and no cure. The current most serious intevention (ventilation) often leaves people with more long term issues than they started with.
The only 'correct' answer is a complete lock down for enough weeks to remove the virus from the UK which is impossible given the level of spreed that the UK had. The current plans are the least worse that allow some return of society, this dosent mean the vulnerable have to stay at home however they have to accept that there's risks. You have to remember that it's only fairly recently that society decided it wasnt acceptable that disabled people were unable to travel where they want to (i.e. it actually admitted there was a problem and started doing something about it, it's still nowhere near cured of course).
Because some are more vulnerable then sadly they ARE going to have to follow different rules both for their good and the greater good of the economics and general health of the nation.

If we say we cannot go to normal because some vulnerable folk may be adversely affected is bonkers and will cause massive damage to wider society. Of course the Government could 'advise' the vulnerable to stay locked down with no compulsion...……...
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

carlberry

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2014
Messages
2,311
Because some are more vulnerable then sadly they ARE going to have to follow different rules both for their good and the greater good of the economics and general health of the nation.

If we say we cannot go to normal because some vulnerable folk may be adversely affected is bonkers and will cause massive damage to wider society. Of course the Government could 'advise' the vulnerable to stay locked down with no compulsion...……...
The Government advised the vulnerable to stay locked down, however there has never been the compulsion. i.e. they were and are only subject to the same laws as everybody else.
 

BC

Guest
Joined
4 Feb 2019
Messages
104
Because some are more vulnerable then sadly they ARE going to have to follow different rules both for their good and the greater good of the economics and general health of the nation.

If we say we cannot go to normal because some vulnerable folk may be adversely affected is bonkers and will cause massive damage to wider society. Of course the Government could 'advise' the vulnerable to stay locked down with no compulsion...……...
Really?

Think you might find that would be blatantly illegal if you tried.

Also I note that I never said we couldn't go back to some normal. Thats been spun up from whole cloth by people wanting to apologise for their conduct on here.
 

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
1,312
Really?

Think you might find that would be blatantly illegal if you tried.

Also I note that I never said we couldn't go back to some normal. Thats been spun up from whole cloth by people wanting to apologise for their conduct on here.
I really doubt whether legality will come into it when the options are:

1. Lock down 100% of the population and watch the economy, health of others, livelihoods of millions go down the pan

or

2. Keep a minority of the population in lockdown and save most of the economy, health of the majority and livelihoods of millions going. It's a no brainer.

Remember many disabled people may not be classed as vulnerable as well so could work, travel as normal.
 
Last edited:

BC

Guest
Joined
4 Feb 2019
Messages
104
and so the abelism keeps on rolling...

Like it or not that many people are not just going to accept society binning them off. You might find they are needed as well to run stuff.
 

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
1,312
and so the abelism keeps on rolling...

Like it or not that many people are not just going to accept society binning them off. You might find they are needed as well to run stuff.
No-one is binning a section of society off but just advising them to shield themselves from harm as they are most likely to be adversely effected by this virus.
 

BC

Guest
Joined
4 Feb 2019
Messages
104
No-one is binning a section of society off
No of course they are not....
nedchester said:
2. Keep a minority of the population in lockdown and save most of the economy,
nedchester said:
Because some are more vulnerable then sadly they ARE going to have to follow different rules both for their good and the greater good of the economics and general health of the nation.
Except they are. I'm just gagging to sacrifice my liberty, career, and everything just so others can enjoy it.
 

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
1,312
No of course they are not....

Except they are. I'm just gagging to sacrifice my liberty, career, and everything just so others can enjoy it.
So what is your suggestion to get everything back to normal?

Remember that if we ALL stayed locked down for much longer the suffering for ALL including the vulnerable would be intolerable.

Sadly some very difficult choices are going to have to be made in the coming months unless someone magically comes up with a vaccine / cure?
 

PG

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
1,176
Location
at the end of the high and low roads
No of course they are not....

Except they are.
I'm wondering if those who are more vulnerable are willing or able to take measures that allow them not to remain in lockdown?

I don't know if suggesting that they could wear some form of PPE would be an acceptable solution so that they regain some/most of the freedom that they previously had.
 

BC

Guest
Joined
4 Feb 2019
Messages
104
Very good nedchester. You are back to requiring me to solve the problem and if I can't then I have to accept it.

I'm not going to discuss this with you further until you sort out and apologise for your appaling abelism.
 

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
1,312
Very good nedchester. You are back to requiring me to solve the problem and if I can't then I have to accept it.

I'm not going to discuss this with you further until you sort out and apologise for your appaling abelism.
I'm not going to apologise for realism.
 
Last edited:

carlberry

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2014
Messages
2,311
No of course they are not....



Except they are. I'm just gagging to sacrifice my liberty, career, and everything just so others can enjoy it.
As the lock down rolls back people are going to have various freedoms returned. I've yet to hear a serious suggestion that at the same time some freedoms will be curtailed so the advice, at the most restrictive end, could be something like social distance and vulnerable groups are advised to stay at home. No compulsion and certainly no laws involved (Obviously I cant predict the future, especially when it involves speeches from Boris!). Meanwhile vast sums of money are and will be spent to deal with the reason for that advice, i.e. to find a viable cure or vaccine.
Nothing in that prevents people doing whatever they want. The fact that some are in a higher risk group is the same now, and the same as it was previously with some people and flu. Nobody is stopping anybody from that group doing anything they want and the majority of people will be doing all they can to keep everybody safe.
 

BC

Guest
Joined
4 Feb 2019
Messages
104
As the lock down rolls back people are going to have various freedoms returned. I've yet to hear a serious suggestion that at the same time some freedoms will be curtailed so the advice, at the most restrictive end, could be something like social distance and vulnerable groups are advised to stay at home. No compulsion and certainly no laws involved (Obviously I cant predict the future, especially when it involves speeches from Boris!). Meanwhile vast sums of money are and will be spent to deal with the reason for that advice, i.e. to find a viable cure or vaccine.
Nothing in that prevents people doing whatever they want. The fact that some are in a higher risk group is the same now, and the same as it was previously with some people and flu. Nobody is stopping anybody from that group doing anything they want and the majority of people will be doing all they can to keep everybody safe.
You would hope so wouldnt you although I'm not sure Bojo is the best we have to manage this - however that is who we have. At least it's not Trump.....

Sadly though as typified by a poster or two on here there are is a small subset of society that thinks otherwise. I've ahd comments ranged from we should just suck it up..be grateful for the help the Govt give you (which in my case is nothing) to it's our fault things are going to get so expensive, and if we get Covid we shouldnt expect to get ventilators because it's our fault for not staying inside.

It's abelism pure and simple and it needs challenging wherever it raises it's head.
 

BJames

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2018
Messages
401
You would hope so wouldnt you although I'm not sure Bojo is the best we have to manage this - however that is who we have. At least it's not Trump.....

Sadly though as typified by a poster or two on here there are is a small subset of society that thinks otherwise. I've ahd comments ranged from we should just suck it up..be grateful for the help the Govt give you (which in my case is nothing) to it's our fault things are going to get so expensive, and if we get Covid we shouldnt expect to get ventilators because it's our fault for not staying inside.

It's abelism pure and simple and it needs challenging wherever it raises it's head.
Sorry, but I was not being discriminatory and I resent the suggestion, and I don't think that any of the posters above were being discriminatory either. The reason people keep requesting that you propose an alternative course of action is that the only realistic way of dealing with this is to ensure that the most vulnerable are shielded until the risk for them reduces (this may not take as long as some thing but we really do not know). Social distancing just may not be enough for them. Or maybe there's another way? Which is what you are being asked, and as you have not been able to come up with a suggestion, but rather have just cried "discrimination" each time, I personally cannot see an alternative route forward, other than to ensure that those who need to be protected are protected. It's not discriminating, it's protecting - a clear distinction needs to be made.

As you yourself are involved directly as you have mentioned, I would have thought that you would be aware that this whole situation is unfair and unusual in itself. Nobody said that the disease would treat everyone the same, and it's clear that the opposite is in fact true. When you have a much higher risk for a certain proportion of the population it makes sense to treat them as if they are in more danger. Which they are. As it will not be illegal for those in the vulnerable groups to go out if they accept the risk, if some of these people feel they are being discriminated against and want to go back into society, they can do so, accepting their increased risk.

I would argue that by making the distinction between those who the risk is low for and those who the risk is high for, we are not discriminating against older or more vulnerable but we are allowing parts of society that can function to start up again. Say we continued with the lockdown until a vaccine was available (please refer to the multiple articles about how this may never be possible), what about those people that staying inside for longer will lead to a considerable deterioration of both their physical and mental health, but are not in the vulnerable category? They're firmly making their way into the vulnerable category and then we have a larger part of society at risk from all manners of illness, not just Covid-19. My point is that you can't just say we're discriminating against one section of society, this is such a complicated issue and it is being treated as such. If you have any other suggestions for how this could be managed more effectively then I am genuinely happy to hear it, but if you're just going to question why it's up to you again then I'm not really sure what else any of us can say...
 

Jamesrob637

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2016
Messages
1,840
Today's briefing implied that public transport use is still at an all-time-low with only marginal increases if anything - this being predominately in London where driving is not feasible to the more central parts.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
4,733
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
No. At the moment it is entirely necessary sadly. Hopefully there will be a situation soon when it can be less strict that it is.
You seem to be ignoring the central point here. Allow me to refresh it, current estimates for the initial 3 months from March are coming in at £300-350 billion for the covid response. A longer lockdown will cost more, and generate even less tax revenue. For context, the 2019-20 NHS budget was £141 billion.

So at what point does the solution become the problem? The response is already costing more than twice as much as the entire budget for the NHS last year, so at what point do we conclude that the risk to the NHS is too great to keep losing so much more money? I'd say we are already past that point, and I suspect those holding the purse strings agree. Indeed the Chancellor this very afternoon has been very downbeat about the economic situation. That should ring a lot of alarm bells because Chancellors are very, very rarely that downbeat.
 

BC

Guest
Joined
4 Feb 2019
Messages
104
So what do you want to do - open the floodgates again and kill off possibly a half million people? There are no easy options I'm afraid on this one. We need to make money as a country but we need to stay safe. Thats a balancing act and if we slip it's a long way down
 
Last edited:

BC

Guest
Joined
4 Feb 2019
Messages
104
So, once again, what do you propose we should do and how should it be funded? Rubbishing all options available doesn't really work.
OK once more - making it out that somehow it's my issue to come up with solutions doesn't help. At all. I'm pointing out the inherent abelism that some posters on here are adopting. Thats perfectly reasonable to do. The solution is to stop being abelist but apparantly thats beyond the intelligence or compassion of people.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
53,191
Location
Up and down the south WCML (mostly)
OK once more - making it out that somehow it's my issue to come up with solutions doesn't help. At all. I'm pointing out the inherent abelism that some posters on here are adopting. Thats perfectly reasonable to do. The solution is to stop being abelist but apparantly thats beyond the intelligence or compassion of people.
"Stopping being ableist" is not a solution, it's a concept. What do you believe to be a workable solution? What aspects would you like it to include?
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
2,152
Location
Sheffield
I'm more than a little concerned that our situation is being over simplified. Lock down is not a viable policy for so many for so long. It's very clear to anyone with any knowledge of economics and accountancy that we cannot sustain the present level of public expenditure. To do so would, indeed will, put at risk many government funded projects and inevitably require extra taxes and charges.

The longer it goes on the worse it will get. Those in most need of support are likely to be hurt more than anyone.

It is in all our interests to get as many back to work as possible, and as safely as possible.

That requires an immense effort to identify risk in a very focused way and act accordingly. As I've seen someone say elsewhere, a high infection rate in Newcastle shouldn't cause a lock down in Newquay. The death rate in London has been the highest yet trains in London now appear to be busier than anywhere.

A friend's business restarted yesterday, taking appropriate measures. Customers are wanting their delayed work done, now! He's getting abuse when he tries to explain 7 weeks work can't be done that fast, even in normal times.

A local ladies hairdressers is selling garden plants and fruit off her forecourt.

We have to find ways to preserve some degree of normality. Paying a very large proportion of the population to do nothing when they need organising to work, safely, will knock on to the most vulnerable more than anyone.

2 passengers in a 4 car Northern service again tonight. Normally there'd be 200+ parked for the station but only 4 cars in the car park, 2 in the same place as yesterday suggesting their owners had been away overnight. It's going to be a long haul.
 
Last edited:

farleigh

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
650
YOU can stop being ableist. It's entirely your choice to though.
I don't think you understand the meaning of ableist and it is a bit of a cheap thing to throw around at people. Nobody is proposing discrimination as far as I can see but rather different advice for different groups based on their situation in order to keep them safe. That is not ableist.
 

baz962

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2017
Messages
1,791
Agreed on O'Leary. He's trying to be realistic about the fact that many many organisations will fold if social distancing continues to be applied... for example restaurants whose staff are furloughed... bring them back with social distancing applied and many businesses will fold.

Transport wise, just my observations from passing by my local London Overground station: the service was restored on Monday to a standard Saturday service which is excellent, and I have seen a very slight increase in the number of people going to the station but it's certainly not to the extent that it will be overcrowded just yet, so for now, social distancing is working on this line. This will not be possible once people start to return to work in a much larger capacity.


This is why I'm actually to an extent in favour of the new messaging - ok it might be a bit vague and confusing but it's taken away the stay at home message for a reason - because this is increasingly not the best thing to do. And yes we can't do everything as before at this stage but some progress is better than nothing.
You are not quite right about social distancing working on the Overground. On the emptier train's maybe. People were standing on the 17.03 from Richmond and was very busy , by the time it got to Stratford.
 

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
1,312
Sorry, but I was not being discriminatory and I resent the suggestion, and I don't think that any of the posters above were being discriminatory either. The reason people keep requesting that you propose an alternative course of action is that the only realistic way of dealing with this is to ensure that the most vulnerable are shielded until the risk for them reduces (this may not take as long as some thing but we really do not know). Social distancing just may not be enough for them. Or maybe there's another way? Which is what you are being asked, and as you have not been able to come up with a suggestion, but rather have just cried "discrimination" each time, I personally cannot see an alternative route forward, other than to ensure that those who need to be protected are protected. It's not discriminating, it's protecting - a clear distinction needs to be made.

As you yourself are involved directly as you have mentioned, I would have thought that you would be aware that this whole situation is unfair and unusual in itself. Nobody said that the disease would treat everyone the same, and it's clear that the opposite is in fact true. When you have a much higher risk for a certain proportion of the population it makes sense to treat them as if they are in more danger. Which they are. As it will not be illegal for those in the vulnerable groups to go out if they accept the risk, if some of these people feel they are being discriminated against and want to go back into society, they can do so, accepting their increased risk.

I would argue that by making the distinction between those who the risk is low for and those who the risk is high for, we are not discriminating against older or more vulnerable but we are allowing parts of society that can function to start up again. Say we continued with the lockdown until a vaccine was available (please refer to the multiple articles about how this may never be possible), what about those people that staying inside for longer will lead to a considerable deterioration of both their physical and mental health, but are not in the vulnerable category? They're firmly making their way into the vulnerable category and then we have a larger part of society at risk from all manners of illness, not just Covid-19. My point is that you can't just say we're discriminating against one section of society, this is such a complicated issue and it is being treated as such. If you have any other suggestions for how this could be managed more effectively then I am genuinely happy to hear it, but if you're just going to question why it's up to you again then I'm not really sure what else any of us can say...
Thank you for saying what I was trying to get at but unfortunately was willing to play the victim card and spread around unfounded allegations.

I was trying to offer a constructive situation to help matters move forward as regards both public transport and society as a whole but one person seemed to think otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top