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

[nedchester]

The kind of people who spend their careers permanently on Skype meetings, talking over PowerPoint presentations and never actually having to apply any thinking to the real world....

Absolutely. They don’t understand the actual practicalities of what they are proposing.

It obviously all works on the spreadsheet......

 

[underbank]

The debate about the detailed implementation of rail travel arrangements in the coming weeks and months is interesting, but I wonder if there is a bigger picture here to consider.

Personally, unless or until there has been some major advance in treatment or prevention of Covid 19, I will not be choosing to take the option of shared space and potential infection on public transport, if I have the option of travelling in my own personal guaranteed clean and isolated space - my car. I say that as a lifelong advocate for the use of public transport - people less inclined to be biased as I am, will, I think, be much more in favour of using their cars.

The cumulative impact on passenger numbers, possibly for years to come, may be very significant.

Yes, I do think people are getting unduly worried about public transport going back to being as busy as before. I can't see it happening for a long time. On the one hand, you have millions of people who are vulnerable who will be avoiding busy places for many months. On the other hand, people and workplaces have seen working from home can actually work to some degree, so even if there was a vaccine tomorrow, many people will continue working from home at least some of the time. Also, firms have seen the folly of concentrating their workforce in a small number of large workplaces, so will be looking to "spread the risk" by maybe opening regional or local offices which may well turn commuter routes the opposite direction for some. Finally, leisure & tourism is going to be the last thing to start up again (maybe not even this Summer at all), so all the people who work in/go to pubs, clubs, restaurants, tourist attractions aren't going to travel to do that.

More likely is a drip feeding of people back onto public transport over several weeks/months as shops and offices return to work, then as leisure/tourism start to return. People will see public transport start to get busier and can make their own decision as to risk (i.e. how vulnerable they are) and stop using it when it gets too busy for them. If that means buying a car, changing job, etc then they may have to take that kind of action to avoid busy public transport in the longer term.

 

[nedchester]

There was a student ranting on the Today programme this morning that university was a waste of her money because it was all about getting away from home rather than learning. Maybe she'd justified the fees by offsetting some of the cost with the expected savings on drinks in the student union's bar.

University was for me (a long time ago!) half education and half social. You learn to meet new friends and learn new things.

Young people, whether students or not, are social beings and there’s very little chance of stopping that. And yes then there’s the student drinking culture.

 

[underbank]

There was a student ranting on the Today programme this morning that university was a waste of her money because it was all about getting away from home rather than learning. Maybe she'd justified the fees by offsetting some of the cost with the expected savings on drinks in the student union's bar.

If it's going to be online tuition at Unis, then the students will be better to stay at home - at least save the stupidly high costs of uni accommodation. Students won't want to go and end up locked in their prison-cell like student accommodation whilst paying through the nose for it. I doubt my son will be going in September - for him, he was looking forward to new experiences and spreading his wings. If he can't do that, he's going to get a training-job instead to qualify in his chosen profession via the on-the-job training route instead of the Uni route.

 

[Bantamzen]

Absolutely. They don’t understand the actual practicalities of what they are proposing.

It obviously all works on the spreadsheet......

I can't say too much, but the building I usually work from was filled with just these kinds of people....

 

[NorthOxonian]

University was for me (a long time ago!) half education and half social. You learn to meet new friends and learn new things.

Young people, whether students or not, are social beings and there’s very little chance of stopping that. And yes then there’s the student drinking culture.

I couldn't imagine university without the social element - at least where I go the workload is tough and so blowing off steam is really important. I'm dreading going back, because I'll be facing all the difficulties of the work without much of what motivates me, and no doubt the quality of said work will suffer for it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the Unis are getting desperate and resorting to panic measures like bubbles. One of our neighbours works at our nearest uni and they're seeing VERY low firming of offers for the Autumn start, so they're scratting around trying to find ways of attracting students by persuading them they can make it safe without them being locked in their rooms.

I think they're getting that one wrong. Students aren't I suspect mostly interested in it being safe - it's pretty safe to them anyway, and being away from their parents they won't be able to spread it to more vulnerable family. What they want is the proper experience. If they wanted a virtual degree the OU is considerably cheaper than a "proper" university.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If it's going to be online tuition at Unis, then the students will be better to stay at home - at least save the stupidly high costs of uni accommodation. Students won't want to go and end up locked in their prison-cell like student accommodation whilst paying through the nose for it. I doubt my son will be going in September - for him, he was looking forward to new experiences and spreading his wings. If he can't do that, he's going to get a training-job instead to qualify in his chosen profession via the on-the-job training route instead of the Uni route.

Very true, student halls are not designed for comfort, they're designed for sleeping and eating in and not a lot else. Some are decidedly grim.

I'd be looking to defer if it was me.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, I do think people are getting unduly worried about public transport going back to being as busy as before.

When I started travelling on the railway in the 1980's it apparently had half the passengers of recent years and it seemed fine to me. That said, there were compartments if you wanted to avoid other potential carriers !

Very true, student halls are not designed for comfort, they're designed for sleeping and eating in and not a lot else. Some are decidedly grim.

I'd be looking to defer if it was me.

One of the blocks on my campus was purportedly the same design as a Swedish prison.

 

[LAX54]

2023? You mean 3023? And in Scotland and Wales maybe 4023

In all seriousness though I would imagine that come June 16th they’ll realise that things are getting busy and the distancing they’re asking of us is simply impracticable and unsustainable. Given the infection rate I don’t imagine they’ll release all seats yet, but I’d be very surprised if come August we weren’t running a near enough full timetable with most if not all seating available. As things ease up it will become more obvious that social distancing simply won’t work in this setting, so perhaps moving from that to a strategy of enforced mask wearing and compulsory reservations would suffice.

We also have to remember that Worldwide, there have been 6 million cases, and 370,000 deaths, out of a population of 7 Billion, and according to 'WHO'.... A recent study found that worldwide up to 650 000 people die of respiratory diseases linked to seasonal influenza each year,

 

[Killingworth]

I went for a walk on the fringes of the Peak District yesterday. My 79 year old friend was desperate to get out. We went in 2 cars and found somewhere quiet.

He knows he's vulnerable, so taking distancing seriously. He also knows he hasn't many years left and as an active man all his life wants to remain so as long as possible. We were planning a series of rail trips for this summer. They'll not happen.

His take on this is that the restrictions are far too blunt. He accepts he'll have to be careful but feels the population must be allowed to use commonsense. Healthy under 75s are not at high risk and it's they who do almost all the work to keep the nation running. They must be got back to work and normality. Provision to protect the more vulnerable needs to be refined.

We have to be more focused and stop being paralysed with an all embracing fear. It's that fear itself that is starting to cost lives. ICUs are busy but not overwhelmed by COVID.

After we'd finished our walk I drove up the Hope Valley. Like a Bank Holiday with cars parked everywhere, Edale and Mam Tor heaving. All the Hope Valley stations deserted, platforms recently extended to take 4 car trains that are now being provided all but empty. I'd have made the journey by train in complete safety but notices everywhere tell intending users to effectively go away, which they have!

A 60s film comes to mind, 'It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World'"

 

[yorksrob]

I went for a walk on the fringes of the Peak District yesterday. My 79 year old friend was desperate to get out. We went in 2 cars and found somewhere quiet.

He knows he's vulnerable, so taking distancing seriously. He also knows he hasn't many years left and as an active man all his life wants to remain so as long as possible. We were planning a series of rail trips for this summer. They'll not happen.

His take on this is that the restrictions are far too blunt. He accepts he'll have to be careful but feels the population must be allowed to use commonsense. Healthy under 75s are not at high risk and it's they who do almost all the work to keep the nation running. They must be got back to work and normality. Provision to protect the more vulnerable needs to be refined.

We have to be more focused and stop being paralysed with an all embracing fear. It's that fear itself that is starting to cost lives. ICUs are busy but not overwhelmed by COVID.

After we'd finished our walk I drove up the Hope Valley. Like a Bank Holiday with cars parked everywhere, Edale and Mam Tor heaving. All the Hope Valley stations deserted, platforms recently extended to take 4 car trains that are now being provided all but empty. I'd have made the journey by train in complete safety but notices everywhere tell intending users to effectively go away, which they have!

A 60s film comes to mind, 'It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World'"

Well, they need to change the messaging because it's out of sync with the Government guidance which is something along the lines of "Only use public transport if you have no other option".

 

[Huntergreed]

Well, they need to change the messaging because it's out of sync with the Government guidance which is something along the lines of "Only use public transport if you have no other option".

Exactly, but I fear that the public will still interpret this as “essential only” and actively shame those who choose to travel for leisure when it’s completely allowed.

I don’t even know what the public transport legislation or guidance is here in Scotland, but I do know that if you are found travelling and are not a key worker you risk being shamed on the Scotrail Twitter feed quite rudely, and that’s no way to encourage people back on the rails or encourage a mature interpretation of the guidance or legislation.

The current legislation that nobody seems to understand needs to be changed to something simple but effective, and sustainable enough to allow enough revenue for TOC’s to survive without cramming trains beyond belief.

 

[underbank]

I think they're getting that one wrong. Students aren't I suspect mostly interested in it being safe - it's pretty safe to them anyway, and being away from their parents they won't be able to spread it to more vulnerable family. What they want is the proper experience. If they wanted a virtual degree the OU is considerably cheaper than a "proper" university.

Trouble is, it's only safe for their "vulnerable family" if they never go back home, so students from such families will be basically going to Uni and not returning home for the foreseeable future - no weekends home, not home for Christmas, etc.

 

[Huntergreed]

I think they're getting that one wrong. Students aren't I suspect mostly interested in it being safe - it's pretty safe to them anyway, and being away from their parents they won't be able to spread it to more vulnerable family. What they want is the proper experience. If they wanted a virtual degree the OU is considerably cheaper than a "proper" university.

Indeed! If they think I’m going back to my university to stay locked in a cupboard doing online classes then they’re very deluded indeed. University teaches vital life skills, living independently (with the option of financial support where necessary), social skills, relationship skills. I would be extremely vocal if they decided to take this away from me for the 0.01% (or whatever it is) chance of this virus killing me.
No way would they even contemplate measures like this for the flu, and considering there’s 144 children flu deaths last year compared to 3 Covid deaths, the idea is simply ludicrous. Universities suggesting this are going to lose vast sums in declined offers and I can only hope that people start to see sense before deciding ridiculously over the top measures like this are even contemplated.

 

[yorksrob]

Exactly, but I fear that the public will still interpret this as “essential only” and actively shame those who choose to travel for leisure when it’s completely allowed.

I don’t even know what the public transport legislation or guidance is here in Scotland, but I do know that if you are found travelling and are not a key worker you risk being shamed on the Scotrail Twitter feed quite rudely, and that’s no way to encourage people back on the rails or encourage a mature interpretation of the guidance or legislation.

The current legislation that nobody seems to understand needs to be changed to something simple but effective, and sustainable enough to allow enough revenue for TOC’s to survive without cramming trains beyond belief.

Well, it will remain to be seen how the public react to the new guidance (presumably the more censurious ones wouldn't be on the train anyway), but I would have thought that Scotrail were on dodgy ground from a privacy point of view from shaming individuals on twitter regardless of the guidance (which I must admit, I haven't read in detail for Scotland)?

 

[underbank]

Provision to protect the more vulnerable needs to be refined.

Indeed, we need to do a lot better than basically "lock yourselves indoors and wash your food deliveries" which is what we have now.

What about all the millions of "vulnerable" who have jobs, including nurses, teachers, managers and other important/senior positions? What about the vulnerable who have school age children? What about the vulnerable who have caring responsibilities to the elderly or disabled? How do you provide healthcare to the vulnerable when GPs won't leave their surgeries and refuse to do home visits? How do you make it safe for the vulnerable to go to hospitals, dental surgeries, etc., for treatment or to go to the opticians?

The community as a whole needs to be "safe" enough for the vulnerable to be able to go about their business. And that means that the younger/fitter can't go about without a care ignoring personal space just because they know they're unlikely to die from it. Yes, let's work towards some kind of normality, but the young and healthy still need to respect the risk THEY pose to the vulnerable around them. Yes, the vulnerable probably would be wise to avoid pubs, clubs, Anfield and Cheltenham races, but if everyone respects personal space, complies with simple hygiene/hand washing guidelines, and doesn't spit/cough/sneeze randomly, then at least the vulnerable could go about doing necessary things like going to work, shopping, medical appointments, etc.

 

[underbank]

Indeed! If they think I’m going back to my university to stay locked in a cupboard doing online classes then they’re very deluded indeed. University teaches vital life skills, living independently (with the option of financial support where necessary), social skills, relationship skills. I would be extremely vocal if they decided to take this away from me for the 0.01% (or whatever it is) chance of this virus killing me.
No way would they even contemplate measures like this for the flu, and considering there’s 144 children flu deaths last year compared to 3 Covid deaths, the idea is simply ludicrous. Universities suggesting this are going to lose vast sums in declined offers and I can only hope that people start to see sense before deciding ridiculously over the top measures like this are even contemplated.

So how do you propose to protect the vulnerable staff who you expect to carry on as normal because YOU're low risk. I would imagine a proportion of staff including lecturers etc will be vulnerable, probably some will be shielding. Presumably you don't want students to be able to return home for the odd weekend, Christmas etc to families/households that have vulnerable/shielding members?

The "young and healthy" don't live in a bubble. There are millions of vulnerable who are instrumental to normal life for the "young and healthy" who deserve to be protected. What we need to do is find a way of getting back to some kind of normal without throwing the millions of vulnerable to the wolves.

 

[joncombe]

According to the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52539585) "a severely reduced number of passengers will will be allowed to use the Tube network in order to stick to strict social distancing rules".

I can't really see that being workable, at least not in central London. I can imagine many tube trains will reach their capacity with a 2-metre rule in place after the first couple of stops, unless we end up having to limit passengers boarding at every station along the route so there is still some capacity in the central area.

More worringly I think is the comment

"Our intention is to progressively build up service levels, but it is clear life simply won't be returning to what it was before. "

I'm not clear what is meant by the last sentence but I do hate hearing people talking of life not coming back and "new normal". Surely we can't be expecte to live with social distancing for ever more, which is what I think is being suggested?

 

[6862]

I'm not clear what is meant by the last sentence but I do hate hearing people talking of life not coming back and "new normal". Surely we can't be expecte to live with social distancing for ever more, which is what I think is being suggested?

I think increasingly that is what our leaders seem to want. Time will tell if people will comply.

 

[Huntergreed]

"Our intention is to progressively build up service levels, but it is clear life simply won't be returning to what it was before. "

I'm not clear what is meant by the last sentence but I do hate hearing people talking of life not coming back and "new normal". Surely we can't be expected to live with social distancing for ever more, which is what I think is being suggested?

I think, unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly clear that this is, currently, what the government are planning for. Whilst in my opinion from both an economic and social perspective, social distancing is simply unviable for more than the short term, I think it's clear that the government are planning to enforce it, using law if neccessary, for the medium to long term, and worse than that it seems they're planning on keeping it 2m throughout the crisis.

I'm honestly shocked beyond belief that the government actually think this is a viable way to live the next year or two of our lives, a socially distant society has so many cons which in my opinion completely outweigh the risk presented from the virus. It does appear however that, no matter how optimistic we may feel about the fact that it seems unviable for more than a few months, the government is planning on this being a year long (perhaps considerably longer) solution. The two outcomes are that either someone realises the vast economic damage this will cause and changes the direction that the government want to take, or, that we have enforced social distancing for over a year and the economy takes a very, very damaging hit indeed, and I'm beginning to worry that the latter is going to be what will happen.

 

[MikeWM]

I think, unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly clear that this is, currently, what the government are planning for. Whilst in my opinion from both an economic and social perspective, social distancing is simply unviable for more than the short term, I think it's clear that the government are planning to enforce it, using law if neccessary, for the medium to long term, and worse than that it seems they're planning on keeping it 2m throughout the crisis.

I'm honestly shocked beyond belief that the government actually think this is a viable way to live the next year or two of our lives, a socially distant society has so many cons which in my opinion completely outweigh the risk presented from the virus. It does appear however that, no matter how optimistic we may feel about the fact that it seems unviable for more than a few months, the government is planning on this being a year long (perhaps considerably longer) solution. The two outcomes are that either someone realises the vast economic damage this will cause and changes the direction that the government want to take, or, that we have enforced social distancing for over a year and the economy takes a very, very damaging hit indeed, and I'm beginning to worry that the latter is going to be what will happen.

Indeed so, I agree. And all this from a 'Conservative' government, run by a supposed 'libertarian'! (I suppose we may have been warned when our current PM said 'F*** business' - *not* a traditional Conservative attitude! - but this is another level of insanity entirely).

 

[joncombe]

I'm honestly shocked beyond belief that the government actually think this is a viable way to live the next year or two of our lives, a socially distant society has so many cons which in my opinion completely outweigh the risk presented from the virus.

I agree but they don't even seem to be talking about a year or two but that life as it was before will never come back which worries me even more. I can't see life being enjoyable living like that and it really really worries me some people seem to think it's the way forward.

 

[BJames]

Indeed! If they think I’m going back to my university to stay locked in a cupboard doing online classes then they’re very deluded indeed. University teaches vital life skills, living independently (with the option of financial support where necessary), social skills, relationship skills. I would be extremely vocal if they decided to take this away from me for the 0.01% (or whatever it is) chance of this virus killing me.
No way would they even contemplate measures like this for the flu, and considering there’s 144 children flu deaths last year compared to 3 Covid deaths, the idea is simply ludicrous. Universities suggesting this are going to lose vast sums in declined offers and I can only hope that people start to see sense before deciding ridiculously over the top measures like this are even contemplated.

My uni is one of the ones to announce (and has had this stance for a while) that they are going to hold as much in-person learning as physically possible in September. The amount of relief across the board, from all the groups and chats I'm in, was exceptionally high and something that proves to me that all the posts on here and my own preferences about unis being about the experience is still very much the case. I anticipate that despite the fact the government's saying that unis can take 5% extra students this year, the numbers will be very low and the lack of international student fees will put the finances of even the most financially stable institutions at risk.

"Our intention is to progressively build up service levels, but it is clear life simply won't be returning to what it was before. "

I'm not clear what is meant by the last sentence but I do hate hearing people talking of life not coming back and "new normal". Surely we can't be expecte to live with social distancing for ever more, which is what I think is being suggested?

This is another one of those comments from the government who are living in their own fantasy world and can't see that social distancing isn't even working now. How they propose to enforce it beyond a couple more months is beyond me. Fine people for it? People (especially my age) will give fake details or will just pay the fine and then continue ignoring the rules. Because you can't change human nature and social interaction.

FWIW I don't think the government sees this as a long term solution. Medium term maybe (and even that in itself is deluded). Don't forget their alert levels - Level 2 has minimal to no social distancing. I suspect what that comment is referring to (although it should have been phrased in a much better way) is that they can't see loads of people piling onto public transport again. The government's going to have a big task ahead of them once the pandemic's over, as reducing car use and encouraging public transport is going to be made considerably more difficult after this. I do think that people make stupid comments like that to the media and forget that for some people, the only thing getting them through this is that they know we will come out of the other side. Which we will.

 

[BJames]

I agree but they don't even seem to be talking about a year or two but that life as it was before will never come back which worries me even more. I can't see life being enjoyable living like that and it really really worries me some people seem to think it's the way forward.

Don't worry - we won't be living this way forever. You just have to look at the fact that countries like New Zealand are beginning to return to normal - the UK government is deluded if they think people will stay in this country when countries all over the world are going back to the way they were.

Also see Pakistan: the Prime Minister told his citizens they will just have to learn to "live with the virus" at the cost of deaths. Obviously this is not the best way to deal with the issue but he has accepted that his country and government simply cannot afford to keep funding citizens to do nothing. Which is why we will return to normality at some point - the government doesn't have an infinite pot of money, and as it is gradually becoming more and more depleted, ministers will slowly (hopefully not too slowly) start to realise that we need to start making progress back to normality.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree but they don't even seem to be talking about a year or two but that life as it was before will never come back which worries me even more. I can't see life being enjoyable living like that and it really really worries me some people seem to think it's the way forward.

They might be talking about the financial effects of a long term shift towards home working and less concentration of employment in cities, which could happen. Permanent social distancing will not become a thing, on the underground or anywhere else, that is for sure.

 

[joncombe]

FWIW I don't think the government sees this as a long term solution. Medium term maybe (and even that in itself is deluded). Don't forget their alert levels - Level 2 has minimal to no social distancing.

Correct and I believe level 3 had reduced social distancing. But we are supposdely now moving to level 3 and there is no sign of that happening in practice. I also hear rumours the Government have already silently abandonded that alert level (I think at least one of the newspaper was reporting it yesterday)?

 

[Huntergreed]

Correct and I believe level 3 had reduced social distancing. But we are supposedly now moving to level 3 and there is no sign of that happening in practice. I also hear rumours the Government have already silently abandoned that alert level (I think at least one of the newspaper was reporting it yesterday)?

Perhaps because if people realise that a reduced distance (1m) is sufficient, then they'll start to question why they were so very insistent on 2m throughout the lockdown, including yesterday in Scotland where Sturgeon said less than 2m would be dangerous and overwhelm the NHS.

The government seem scared to relax the lockdown out of fear of coming under criticism that some of their measures were too harsh and they've damaged their economy unnecessarily, so they seem to be either:

1) Vastly overestimating the risk of the virus themselves by only listening to medical scientists and analysing care home deaths as part of the death rate in the general population, meaning they are taking overly excessive measures to try and prevent the spread and deaths, causing significantly more damage to the economy than is necessary.

2) Fully understand the minimal risk of the virus, and that distancing is impractical, and are simply reluctant to announce this or even quietly change advice out of fear of being criticised for damaging the economy and being too harsh on the population.

 

[Skymonster]

The government seem scared to relax the lockdown out of fear of coming under criticism that some of their measures were too harsh and they've damaged their economy unnecessarily...

Boris as PM will be gone in four years time (or whenever the next election is) because the economy will still be wrecked (and/or higher taxes and austerity will be back) and voters will blame him for that, irrespective of what has transpired with COVID. He will slink away into a cozy well paid job in the private sector while the economic fallout from his actions now continue to adversely affect many normal people. So he is doing what makes him look good NOW, and not what is best for the long term future of the country.

 

[yorksrob]

To be fair to the Government, the relaxations announced so far have, to my mind, been modest and proportionate but heading in the right direction, however there has been a certain amount of concern about these, and there's always the question mark as to how they'll be interpreted by the public so it's not surprising that they haven't gone further. I think they would rather go further and will do so if the numbers allow.