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

[BJames]

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.

My apologies. I should have added that this was relating to the West Anglia and it was not based on actual travel but rather observations from my passings in the area. I have not had need to travel so cannot speak expertly on this and I am not really surpirsed to learn that the 17:03 was a busy service.

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.

Thank you, I quite agree... constructive ideas are the most important at the moment and I have been enjoying reading those from a wide range of forum members.

 

[fishquinn]

Looking at Avanti's coronavirus page there's a couple of things to note that may be of interest.

Help & Support | Avanti West Coast

We've got you covered with this handy support hub. For troubleshooting, more info on our services and much more, visit Avanti support online today.

www.avantiwestcoast.co.uk

If you’re travelling with other members of your household, you may sit together. But, please maintain a safe distance from others.

Tickets will be inspected visually, but not handled.

 

[Bantamzen]

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

Nobody is talking about opening floodgates, there will be a lot of people working for a long time or even permanently from home. And businesses do need to rethink working patterns, allowing for potentially longer hours of business instead of the traditional 9-5 so that they & their staff can plan their work best around their lives, as well as working around the need to reduce the crowds at the peaks. However, and I really can't stress this enough, if the cost of a lockdown potentially exceeds that of getting things moving then the risks to healthcare services, and therefore even greater risks to people with all manner of aliments. We cannot afford a long term lockdown, period. But don't take my word for it, ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Because he seems really rather rattled, and is publicly talking recession and a slower than expected recovery.

And quite frankly we don't need one. We are starting to understand in detail who is most at risk, and healthcare experts are starting to learn how best to protect and treat people in the most risky groups. What we should be doing, and should have done from the start, is getting help to those that need it most instead of trying to lock ourselves away from it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed (for once!) - in essence the lockdown was a "reset button" for the errors made earlier on, not a means of stopping it.

 

[Bantamzen]

Agreed (for once!) - in essence the lockdown was a "reset button" for the errors made earlier on, not a means of stopping it.

Cheers, I've just spat coffee all over my works lappy….

 

[LowLevel]

Got a first hand view of this on a train recently. Lightly loaded commuter service. 8 passengers on the whole train and 5 of them cyclist commuters travelling separately bunched around two adjacent tables to be near their bikes. Their funeral you might say. Except the bloke squashed in the corner who had boarded first woke up to find himself surrounded by strangers and kicked off. People are thick.

 

[nedchester]

Got a first hand view of this on a train recently. Lightly loaded commuter service. 8 passengers on the whole train and 5 of them cyclist commuters travelling separately bunched around two adjacent tables to be near their bikes. Their funeral you might say. Except the bloke squashed in the corner who had boarded first woke up to find himself surrounded by strangers and kicked off. People are thick.

Have we got to the stage whereby we consider that all people on trains are carrying Covid-19? The chances are in reality very small. Seems we have become a massively paranoid nation.

 

[underbank]

Got a first hand view of this on a train recently. Lightly loaded commuter service. 8 passengers on the whole train and 5 of them cyclist commuters travelling separately bunched around two adjacent tables to be near their bikes. Their funeral you might say. Except the bloke squashed in the corner who had boarded first woke up to find himself surrounded by strangers and kicked off. People are thick.

This is exactly the problem. We can only go so far to protect ourselves. Even with track/trace, you're relying on other people to report symptoms, self isolate, etc. We're relying on other people to wash their hands, to catch coughs/sneezes, not to spit, etc. That's the exact reason we have social distancing rules - they may not be perfect but at least they give a level of protection from the idiotic minority who just don't care.

We can't forget that in the weeks leading up to lockdown, people still weren't washing their hands or keeping their distance. People with symptoms have admitted they went to the Liverpool football match and Cheltenham Races. You simply can't cure selfishness and stupidity.

Yesterday I was walking on our canal footpath for a couple of miles. So many people weren't making any attempt at all to social distance - groups of people chatting away completely blocking the path, oblivious to others wanting to pass them and then getting uppity when asked to leave space between them for others. Then actually being brushed by passing joggers who weren't even 2 inches let alone 2 metres away, one of whom spat just after he passed.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Today I have worked a train into a big city arriving at 0740. It is, in normal times, 3 coaches long and absolutely rammed to bursting like a sardine tin. Today - 9 passengers.

Yesterday morning's journey into a different big city at a similar time, which is equally if not busier in normal circumstances, carried 16 passengers.

Both the stations concerned are Network Rail managed stations and, as NR have hired in a large army of yellow vested rent-a-goons to control the non-existent crowds, there have been far far more staff than passengers, even at "peak" times. One of the stations has also introduced a particularly circuitous one way crowd control system worthy of an olympic sporting event which turns a simple platform change between adjacent platforms into a 2 mile hike taking in all 4 corners of the station and 2 footbridges. Every stairway, lift, or platform is manned by a yellow vest at both ends and as the new system takes you in the opposite direction to the route everyone always takes after entering the ticket gates, and the opposite direction to most of the platforms, then what few passengers there are are getting barked at loudly by the yellow vests for daring to try and walk the wrong way around a deserted station, which nearly has tumbleweed blowing round it it is so quiet. I dread to think what all this is costing but perhaps the plan is to make travelling by train and using this station so utterly appalling and unpleasant that it will drive even more people away?

Off Peak trains I have worked this week have been quieter than during the lockdown proper and have carried so few people on any journey that you could count them all on the fingers of one hand. Some have carried precisely Zero passengers.

 

[yorksrob]

Sounds like an industry being progressively throttled to death.

Hopefully people will have more consent from Government to go about their business in June.

 

[LowLevel]

Have we got to the stage whereby we consider that all people on trains are carrying Covid-19? The chances are in reality very small. Seems we have become a massively paranoid nation.

Quite. Though I can understand the annoyance of the person in question, having a snooze to find two people sat practically on top of him despite the signage everywhere. I think that would irritate me regardless of COVID-19 on a train that was less than 10% full.

I know it is most unlikely in practice that anyone has it but still, instilling good social behaviour is no bad thing.

 

[LowLevel]

This is exactly the problem. We can only go so far to protect ourselves. Even with track/trace, you're relying on other people to report symptoms, self isolate, etc. We're relying on other people to wash their hands, to catch coughs/sneezes, not to spit, etc. That's the exact reason we have social distancing rules - they may not be perfect but at least they give a level of protection from the idiotic minority who just don't care.

We can't forget that in the weeks leading up to lockdown, people still weren't washing their hands or keeping their distance. People with symptoms have admitted they went to the Liverpool football match and Cheltenham Races. You simply can't cure selfishness and stupidity.

Yesterday I was walking on our canal footpath for a couple of miles. So many people weren't making any attempt at all to social distance - groups of people chatting away completely blocking the path, oblivious to others wanting to pass them and then getting uppity when asked to leave space between them for others. Then actually being brushed by passing joggers who weren't even 2 inches let alone 2 metres away, one of whom spat just after he passed.

To be fair if you're particularly fussed about maintaining the proper social distance you should probably choose somewhere else to undertake your walk than a canal towpath.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Today I have worked a train into a big city arriving at 0740. It is, in normal times, 3 coaches long and absolutely rammed to bursting like a sardine tin. Today - 9 passengers.

Yesterday morning's journey into a different big city at a similar time, which is equally if not busier in normal circumstances, carried 16 passengers.

Both the stations concerned are Network Rail managed stations and, as NR have hired in a large army of yellow vested rent-a-goons to control the non-existent crowds, there have been far far more staff than passengers, even at "peak" times. One of the stations has also introduced a particularly circuitous one way crowd control system worthy of an olympic sporting event which turns a simple platform change between adjacent platforms into a 2 mile hike taking in all 4 corners of the station and 2 footbridges. Every stairway, lift, or platform is manned by a yellow vest at both ends and as the new system takes you in the opposite direction to the route everyone always takes after entering the ticket gates, and the opposite direction to most of the platforms, then what few passengers there are are getting barked at loudly by the yellow vests for daring to try and walk the wrong way around a deserted station, which nearly has tumbleweed blowing round it it is so quiet. I dread to think what all this is costing but perhaps the plan is to make travelling by train and using this station so utterly appalling and unpleasant that it will drive even more people away?

Off Peak trains I have worked this week have been quieter than during the lockdown proper and have carried so few people on any journey that you could count them all on the fingers of one hand. Some have carried precisely Zero passengers.

I know it's unlikely given your username but could you be referring to Leeds? I experienced first-hand the ridiculously tortuous one-way system to get from the main entrance to platform 17 on Monday and it was just as ludicrous and pointless as you say!

 

[nedchester]

Quite. Though I can understand the annoyance of the person in question, having a snooze to find two people sat practically on top of him despite the signage everywhere. I think that would irritate me regardless of COVID-19 on a train that was less than 10% full.

I know it is most unlikely in practice that anyone has it but still, instilling good social behaviour is no bad thing.

The sleeping passenger was obviously not 'staying alert'...…..!

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair if you're particularly fussed about maintaining the proper social distance you should probably choose somewhere else to undertake your walk than a canal towpath.

The Canal and River Trust have specifically asked people not to use towpaths because it is impossible to distance properly, particularly from e.g. boat owners.

Because they are technically private property I'm not *quite* sure why they didn't do this more strongly, i.e. signal them as closed and treat use as trespass.

 

[yorkie]

I know it's unlikely given your username but could you be referring to Leeds? I experienced first-hand the ridiculously tortuous one-way system to get from the main entrance to platform 17 on Monday and it was just as ludicrous and pointless as you say!

I understand that to get from Platform 14 to Platform 17 you must not go up towards the footbridge adjacent to Platform 14 but instead walk along platforms 12/15 to the main footbridge, then turn right (not left!) and walk towards Platform 8, walk much of the length of Platform 8, then turn right to go on the eastern footbridge (back over 14 where you've just come from) and then the entire length of platform 16!

The Canal and River Trust have specifically asked people not to use towpaths because it is impossible to distance properly, particularly from e.g. boat owners.

Because they are technically private property I'm not *quite* sure why they didn't do this more strongly, i.e. signal them as closed and treat use as trespass.

Not a sensible idea; there isn't, and should not, be anything illegal about using a canal towpath. However if people are particularly keen to be distant from others it is prudent to avoid them.

On the wider subject of social distancing, I do not think it is viable beyond the end of August, for several reasons:

• Schools really must open in September but if you do so for large numbers it's not really possible to practise social distancing
• Many firms are not going to have any chance of surviving if social distancing is required in the very long term
• The economic damage of long term social distancing would be absolutely huge
• The current situation of encouraging people to use cars over public transport isn't going to be sustainable in the longer term either
• As we approach colder months fewer people are going to walk/cycle

While I think it's a good idea to see more home working for the remainder of 2020, and early 2021, there is no way we can allow our entire way of life to be disrupted for more than the next few months. It would not be viable and could destroy our society.

We need to get back to normal after a few months; those who are vulnerable should be taking extra precautions but it makes no sense for the rest of us to destroy the livelihoods of millions of people; it's not viable, sensible or proportionate to do so.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not a sensible idea; there isn't, and should not, be anything illegal about using a canal towpath. However if people are particularly keen to be distant from others it is prudent to avoid them.

I have mixed views here. I do see your point, but many people live in boats (that aren't 2m wide and have windows onto the towpath) and people want to fish, which can't be done on every other random footpath. Therefore I feel it is right to avoid them and so am doing.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

I know it's unlikely given your username but could you be referring to Leeds? I experienced first-hand the ridiculously tortuous one-way system to get from the main entrance to platform 17 on Monday and it was just as ludicrous and pointless as you say!

Leeds it is.

Imagine if you followed the rules and wanted to change from 16 to 13? Up from 16 to the west end bridge. All the way along to the main entrance (because you not allowed down to 13 from that bridge, only up), down the barrier line, round the end of the fencing past all the shouty yellow vest people, then all along platform 8 to the east end footbridge, up on the bridge, down on to platform 12 not forgetting those steps point east then turn around and double back on yourself then walk the full length of the station down platform 12, then you reach platform 13 underneath the west end bridge you were on about 10 minutes before.

They have even made the lifts one way by blanking off some of the call lift buttons!

 

[carlberry]

The Canal and River Trust have specifically asked people not to use towpaths because it is impossible to distance properly, particularly from e.g. boat owners.

Because they are technically private property I'm not *quite* sure why they didn't do this more strongly, i.e. signal them as closed and treat use as trespass.

Plenty of them are also public footpaths so would need legislation to allow closure.

 

[Bantamzen]

The Canal and River Trust have specifically asked people not to use towpaths because it is impossible to distance properly, particularly from e.g. boat owners.

Because they are technically private property I'm not *quite* sure why they didn't do this more strongly, i.e. signal them as closed and treat use as trespass.

Actually they were open, but they were asking that only local people use them for exercise & essential movement. But now they are opening the canals back up for navigation, so they are very much starting to fully reopen.

Safety on our waterways

Safety is very important to us at the Trust. Whatever the weather, our waterways are very popular with thousands of people visiting yearly. With every season we urge all of you to be careful and safe around water.

canalrivertrust.org.uk

Incidentally, I've been using the local stretch of canal since the lockdown for exercise because a) its only five minutes away from my front door, and b) it was extremely quiet with most people respecting the request that only locals use it. Since the relaxation it has got busier but mainly with more cyclists, which with it being part of the cycle network, and the shortest route between Shipley & beyond and Leeds is not surprising.

I have mixed views here. I do see your point, but many people live in boats (that aren't 2m wide and have windows onto the towpath) and people want to fish, which can't be done on every other random footpath. Therefore I feel it is right to avoid them and so am doing.

Very few people live in boats, and fishing has been discouraged for obvious reasons. However, and its worth making this point again, the risks of briefly passing someone with less than a 2m distance is minimal in the extreme. Along our stretch of the Leeds-Liverpool people have been making way, walking in single file when passing and dare I say it even daring to greet their fellow walkers / cyclists. Incidentally there has been no signage along any part of the canal here the entire time, I guess the Canal & River Trust well, trust us more up here!

Leeds it is.

Imagine if you followed the rules and wanted to change from 16 to 13? Up from 16 to the west end bridge. All the way along to the main entrance (because you not allowed down to 13 from that bridge, only up), down the barrier line, round the end of the fencing past all the shouty yellow vest people, then all along platform 8 to the east end footbridge, up on the bridge, down on to platform 12 not forgetting those steps point east then turn around and double back on yourself then walk the full length of the station down platform 12, then you reach platform 13 underneath the west end bridge you were on about 10 minutes before.

They have even made the lifts one way by blanking off some of the call lift buttons!

I am so glad I'm working from home right now, that just sounds like utter madness and the sort of stupid solutions committees come up with to give the impression of doing something. People following those paths will be interacting in more fellow passenger's spaces than if they just went directly there. Whoever came up with this idea wants their heads banging together!

 

[ainsworth74]

You know from the descriptions what they've done at Leeds is actually only workable when there's a handful of people using the station. If they tried that on with even 30% of the normal peak flow it's would fall apart very very rapidly. Well, unless the shouty yellow vest people start to act like bouncers and get physical anyway...

 

[Bletchleyite]

You know from the descriptions what they've done at Leeds is actually only workable when there's a handful of people using the station. If they tried that on with even 30% of the normal peak flow it's would fall apart very very rapidly. Well, unless the shouty yellow vest people start to act like bouncers and get physical anyway...

In normal situations the ones at Euston are an oppressive nuisance. They'd be better using Tensabarriers to manage flow.

 

[nedchester]

On the wider subject of social distancing, I do not think it is viable beyond the end of August, for several reasons:

• Schools really must open in September but if you do so for large numbers it's not really possible to practise social distancing
• Many firms are not going to have any chance of surviving if social distancing is required in the very long term
• The economic damage of long term social distancing would be absolutely huge
• The current situation of encouraging people to use cars over public transport isn't going to be sustainable in the longer term either
• As we approach colder months fewer people are going to walk/cycle

While I think it's a good idea to see more home working for the remainder of 2020, and early 2021, there is no way we can allow our entire way of life to be disrupted for more than the next few months. It would not be viable and could destroy our society.

We need to get back to normal after a few months; those who are vulnerable should be taking extra precautions but it makes no sense for the rest of us to destroy the livelihoods of millions of people; it's not viable, sensible or proportionate to do so.

Agree with this. To be honest I reckon things need to be near normal by early July with Test and Trace in place and whether we like it the most vulnerable advised to continue to isolate for their own protection. This may mean that some members of the population may not be able to work as normal and it is these people that will need the financial help from the Chancellor along with those told to isolate for other reasons (from Track and Trace for example).

 

[underbank]

I dread to think what all this is costing but perhaps the plan is to make travelling by train and using this station so utterly appalling and unpleasant that it will drive even more people away?

I think the point is more to hammer home social distancing will be the "norm" for many months to come. Like anything else, you have to "make a point" at first to get people to change their ways, and then once the "early adopters" i.e. the few who have to travel at the moment, are in the habit of one way systems, standing apart in queues, etc., then as numbers increase, the newcomers will tend to follow the crowd and do the same. Even if the 2m is reduced to 1m or "touching distance", you'll still need one way systems, queue management, etc, but once people are used to compliance, you can then relax the rules to be more realistic.

Sadly, even despite several weeks of lockdown, the message still isn't getting through to the thick selfish minority to keep away from other people in supermarkets, on footpaths, etc. If the answer to that is more security people, then bring it on. It has to become the new norm if there's any hope of getting back to somewhere near normality for people to go about their daily lives. And no, I'm not talking about 2m, I'm talking about actually touching other people, i.e. reaching for a tin of beans when there's already someone there doing the same, or joggers brushing/pushing past people.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Sadly, even despite several weeks of lockdown, the message still isn't getting through to the thick selfish minority to keep away from other people in supermarkets, on footpaths, etc. If the answer to that is more security people, then bring it on. It has to become the new norm if there's any hope of getting back to somewhere near normality for people to go about their daily lives. And no, I'm not talking about 2m, I'm talking about actually touching other people, i.e. reaching for a tin of beans when there's already someone there doing the same, or joggers brushing/pushing past people.

If what you say is true, the number of new daily infections would be rising as more people come out of lockdown and become more complacent about the 2 metre rule. But as it's the opposite and the number of new daily infections is falling significantly, you do have to question whether social distancing is really necessary or is just another measure that, like wearing a mask, gives the impression of making us safer but doesn't really have any effect.

 

[underbank]

If what you say is true, the number of new daily infections would be rising as more people come out of lockdown and become more complacent about the 2 metre rule. But as it's the opposite and the number of new daily infections is falling significantly, you do have to question whether social distancing is really necessary or is just another measure that, like wearing a mask, gives the impression of making us safer but doesn't really have any effect.

I think the reduction in cases is more a matter of them finally getting it under control in hospitals and care homes. Pretty sure I've seen statistics suggesting that cases in the community aren't falling and are actually rising in some areas.

Whether SD is directly contributing or not, it certainly hammers it home to people to be more careful generally - so maybe a kind of Placebo effect that's acting as a continual reminder to take other precautions.

 

[Bantamzen]

I think the reduction in cases is more a matter of them finally getting it under control in hospitals and care homes. Pretty sure I've seen statistics suggesting that cases in the community aren't falling and are actually rising in some areas.

Whether SD is directly contributing or not, it certainly hammers it home to people to be more careful generally - so maybe a kind of Placebo effect that's acting as a continual reminder to take other precautions.

Well as you say it is still open for debate as to whether or not it is effective, but what we do know is that it is having a serious negative effect both economically and socially. And for these reasons alone it should not be used as a long term, "just in case" measure.

 

[Huntergreed]

I genuinely am beginning to worry about the impact of the measures that we've taken. I really can't see how we can operate any form of functional society when social distancing restrictions are in place. It is going to be nigh on impossible to get certain industries through this crisis, including transport, tourism, hospitality etc, if we insist on enforcing social distancing for the next few years. Whilst I am aware that, initially, this was a necessary precaution required to not overwhelm the NHS during the peak of the crisis, now that we seem past that stage, it's time to consider how to get society running again and allow us to get back to a more sensible way of life than the draconian existence we are facing at present. The first logical step would be, on June 1st, easing the requirement down to 1m and stop the aggressive messaging which has over-inflated the risk that most people are perceiving. Beyond the next 2 months though, we need to look at alternatives to enforcing nationwide social distancing, as this will make the recovery of the economy and protecting our way of life much more difficult than it needs to be.

Whilst the last thing I would ever wish to impose would be discrimination on ableist grounds, we need to accept that, aside from the vulnerable and elderly, the risk this virus poses to the vast majority of the population is minimal. Of course it is necessary to ensure that we don't change in such a way that risks overwhelming the health board but, in my opinion, we need to advise the vulnerable and elderly that they are indeed at risk of serious illness and that the safest thing for them to do would be to socially distance themselves from others. Aside from advising this group of the risks they face if they choose to ignore this advice, I see it as almost inevitable that social distancing can't last into the long term for the rest of society, as the difficulties faced with reopening the economy and protecting our way of life would, how I see it, far outweigh the risks from the virus spreading amongst the healthy, younger portion of the population who are facing increasing worries over their futures, careers and mental health due to the current approach to the crisis.

 

[Jayden99]

I genuinely am beginning to worry about the impact of the measures that we've taken. I really can't see how we can operate any form of functional society when social distancing restrictions are in place. It is going to be nigh on impossible to get certain industries through this crisis, including transport, tourism, hospitality etc, if we insist on enforcing social distancing for the next few years. Whilst I am aware that, initially, this was a necessary precaution required to not overwhelm the NHS during the peak of the crisis, now that we seem past that stage, it's time to consider how to get society running again and allow us to get back to a more sensible way of life than the draconian existence we are facing at present. The first logical step would be, on June 1st, easing the requirement down to 1m and stop the aggressive messaging which has over-inflated the risk that most people are perceiving. Beyond the next 2 months though, we need to look at alternatives to enforcing nationwide social distancing, as this will make the recovery of the economy and protecting our way of life much more difficult than it needs to be.

Whilst the last thing I would ever wish to impose would be discrimination on ableist grounds, we need to accept that, aside from the vulnerable and elderly, the risk this virus poses to the vast majority of the population is minimal. Of course it is necessary to ensure that we don't change in such a way that risks overwhelming the health board but, in my opinion, we need to advise the vulnerable and elderly that they are indeed at risk of serious illness and that the safest thing for them to do would be to socially distance themselves from others. Aside from advising this group of the risks they face if they choose to ignore this advice, I see it as almost inevitable that social distancing can't last into the long term for the rest of society, as the difficulties faced with reopening the economy and protecting our way of life would, how I see it, far outweigh the risks from the virus spreading amongst the healthy, younger portion of the population who are facing increasing worries over their futures, careers and mental health due to the current approach to the crisis.

I really don't want to be seen as contrarian because it's very clear what the opinion of the forum is in general, but as a couple of people have pointed out 'just the elderly and vulnerable' is a lot more people than you might think, and quite a lot of them will be teachers/transport/sanitation staff etc etc and these industries would struggle to cope with the drop in staff numbers without stretching those still working pretty thin. Coupled with the fact that there's still so much to learn about the virus and the way it interacts with people, for instance causing otherwise perfectly young people to suffer strokes. I don't know what the solution is but I'm not convinced the 'advanced shielding' route is the right one

 

[Esker-pades]

I genuinely am beginning to worry about the impact of the measures that we've taken. I really can't see how we can operate any form of functional society when social distancing restrictions are in place. It is going to be nigh on impossible to get certain industries through this crisis, including transport, tourism, hospitality etc, if we insist on enforcing social distancing for the next few years. Whilst I am aware that, initially, this was a necessary precaution required to not overwhelm the NHS during the peak of the crisis, now that we seem past that stage, it's time to consider how to get society running again and allow us to get back to a more sensible way of life than the draconian existence we are facing at present. The first logical step would be, on June 1st, easing the requirement down to 1m and stop the aggressive messaging which has over-inflated the risk that most people are perceiving. Beyond the next 2 months though, we need to look at alternatives to enforcing nationwide social distancing, as this will make the recovery of the economy and protecting our way of life much more difficult than it needs to be.

Whilst the last thing I would ever wish to impose would be discrimination on ableist grounds, we need to accept that, aside from the vulnerable and elderly, the risk this virus poses to the vast majority of the population is minimal. Of course it is necessary to ensure that we don't change in such a way that risks overwhelming the health board but, in my opinion, we need to advise the vulnerable and elderly that they are indeed at risk of serious illness and that the safest thing for them to do would be to socially distance themselves from others. Aside from advising this group of the risks they face if they choose to ignore this advice, I see it as almost inevitable that social distancing can't last into the long term for the rest of society, as the difficulties faced with reopening the economy and protecting our way of life would, how I see it, far outweigh the risks from the virus spreading amongst the healthy, younger portion of the population who are facing increasing worries over their futures, careers and mental health due to the current approach to the crisis.

You've fallen into the trap of assuming that this will be the only peak. There will be further waves if we relax.

As for "[t]he first logical step" - get over yourself.