If people that survive the virus become immune, then there will be progressively less need for social distancing as time goes by. I guess the key is keeping the number of critical cases at a level that hospitals can manage.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Long term social distancing: Impact on public life & public transport?
- Thread starter Cardiff123
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Sort of. But more scenic and more rural. Even in Auckland you can see Victorian houses complete with garden and picket fence between two skycrapers, really weird juxtaposition.
Offer stuff that Wales doesn't like skiing. There's loads of space, 5 million population spread over an area about the size of the UK, but mostly in a few large towns and cities. Some really lovely small towns.
Not many trains.
Life inside the country may be semi-back but it's not exactly fully back to normal by any means. You certainly won't be getting in any time soon
New Zealand PM: No open borders for 'a long time'
But Jacinda Ardern said "a safe zone of travel" between Australia and her country may be possible.
www.bbc.co.uk
That is what should drive future policy in a nutshell in my opinion.
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
From what I see, most people are getting fed up and restless now whilst a few are scared to go to the local shops
And in my neigbourhood, the traffic these last few weekdays has got to almost near-normal levels
And in my neigbourhood, the traffic these last few weekdays has got to almost near-normal levels
To be completely honest, it is my opinion that if we still need to social distance this time next year, or in 12-18 months, people won't. Or at least most of them won't. It's not natural.
Example: my friend works at a primary school. 12 kids went in the other day. Despite the best efforts of staff, they are gravitating towards each other because they don't understand that they can't be in close proximity to one another. Hence why I wish good luck to politicians trying to get primary schools to social distance - the reluctance from headteachers says it all, for this reason. If this is only 12 of them, two year groups will become almost impossible.
Once levels of the disease decrease, people won't see the point. As has been noted above it's already starting to fray in some places. If this country does want to keep up this act I shall also attempt to relocate and I am more than happy to sit in quarantine to do so, so that I don't have to spend my time avoiding close contact with as many people as possible.
Example: my friend works at a primary school. 12 kids went in the other day. Despite the best efforts of staff, they are gravitating towards each other because they don't understand that they can't be in close proximity to one another. Hence why I wish good luck to politicians trying to get primary schools to social distance - the reluctance from headteachers says it all, for this reason. If this is only 12 of them, two year groups will become almost impossible.
Once levels of the disease decrease, people won't see the point. As has been noted above it's already starting to fray in some places. If this country does want to keep up this act I shall also attempt to relocate and I am more than happy to sit in quarantine to do so, so that I don't have to spend my time avoiding close contact with as many people as possible.
I didn't say it was any of those things. I said it's what is likely to happen. Which I think makes it one of the rare posts on topic.
The first sentence correct. The second wrong; the DfT are not geared up to implement Williams.
nedchester
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,093
12-18 months? I give it 6 and yes it’s not what the human race find natural.
I was trying to be conservative I suppose.. but yes, I do concede that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes. There is cautious optimism for hoping the virus just 'dies out' if it cannot mutate very fast. The population gradually acquiring immunity should naturally reduce the transmission rate in the medium term. But for now it's still a new illness and hope for the best, prepare for the worst is the reasonable course of action.
3141
Established Member
It's not only the unnaturalness of trying to keep six feet away from everyone else, but also the fact that our society is not set up to operate in that way. People need to work and not everyone can work from home. They want to go to a shop at a convenient time, visit friends, go to places of entertainment. To do those things they have to travel. If even one quarter of those who used public transport till a few weeks ago start to do so again, they won't be able to socially distance. If social distancing was enforced on public transport, it would be uneconomic to run and anything like normal life would remain impossible for many.
But will the end of social distancing matter? There is evidence which suggests that the overall death rate from covid-19 is between 0.1% and 0.2%, which is one or two per thousand. If that's combined with vaccines and acquired immunity - even if those are less than 100% effective - it will be a level of risk that most people will be prepared to live with, rather than the alternative of living with long-term social distancing and other restrictions.
That will leave the oldest age-groups (where I belong) and those with underlying health issues in a difficult position, having to accept a higher level of risk or continuing restrictions. But some will accept the higher risk, especially if treatments for covid-19 improve as they are certain to do.
My parents (including my mother who is one of the 1.5m advised to totally shield) have already told me that at some point they will have to make their own decisions and weigh up the risk of seeing us and their grandchildren against remaining at home.
For now they aren't leaving their own property, despite living in rural Wiltshire. There'd be absolutely no risk in them going for a walk in the local woods but they are doing it to the letter at the moment. However, they know it's no way to live and at some point they will decide to change what they are doing.
They have no particular fear of succumbing to COVID. They are both cancer survivors and both view every day of health as "bonus time" to be used wisely.
In my experience whilst quite a number of takeaways did shut altogether, others have remained open throughout lockdown but you wait outside, whilst others do just delivery only
Last edited:
An interesting piece buried on the BBC this morning about how different forms have adapated to the lockdown, which shows how some of the more agile firms are coping with the lockdown.
This gives a few clues about why things are getting a bit busier and why things will change going forward.
This gives a few clues about why things are getting a bit busier and why things will change going forward.
Last edited:
Here's an update from Scouts about the impact the lockdown is having on the organisation. It's worth a read through to see the impact the lockdown is having and the consequences of this for just one organisation.
News | 05 May 2020
Scouts and COVID-19: How we're facing challenging times together
Six weeks on since we suspended face to face meetings and activities, Chief Executive, Matt Hyde, and UK Chief Commissioner, Tim Kidd, talk frankly about the pressures facing the movement, locally and nationally.
They highlight the actions and difficult decisions we’re taking to protect our future, how we’re supporting members, while celebrating your great generosity, resilience and spirit in adversity.
These are extraordinary times. COVID-19 has triggered a national and global emergency that has affected every single one us. We first need to acknowledge our fantastic NHS and the key workers doing such incredible work on the front line. But we’d like to look here, specifically, at how this crisis has affected our movement.
As Scouts we’re naturally optimistic. You’ve proved this in your incredible response to this crisis, continuing to deliver meetings virtually and in your generosity - fundraising for Hike to the Moon. You have raised an astonishing £320,000 for BBC Children in Need and Comic Relief, which will be match funded by the government, supporting the communities that need it most. You’ve truly proved that Scouts are among our country’s shining lights – living our promise to help other people.
Unprecedented challenges
But we cannot deny that these are incredibly challenging times for our movement – financially, logistically and, indeed, in terms of the impact on our members’ wellbeing. We must therefore be realistic and practical too. We will not sugar coat the challenging situation we find ourselves in. Without a clear end to the situation in sight, the future of our movement is at stake.
Keeping perspective
We know that many families across the UK are facing very difficult times too – either losing loved ones, coping with illness or employment uncertainty. Let’s keep that in our minds, and keep everything in perspective. Nothing is more important than the safety and wellbeing of our families and friends.
Let’s be frank. We must take action now to protect our movement. We need to adapt the way we work, change our thinking and reprioritise. Why? Because Scouting is simply too important to risk. Doing nothing or carrying on as before, is not an option.
Supporting those most in need
Our primary focus now is protecting the parts of the movement most affected by the current crisis. We’ve opened 1,280 new sections in our most deprived communities in the past five years. These very groups, and others who have unexpectedly found themselves in a difficult situation due to the impact of COVID-19, are now under threat. Thank you to the 1,900 volunteer managers who completed the survey last week, giving us a clear picture of where there is the greatest need.
Lobbying government, trusts and funds for new income
We are committed to finding ways to support local Scouting, particularly in areas of deprivation or where there are communities made vulnerable by this crisis. However, there’s no existing pool of money at Headquarters to distribute. That’s why we’re working round the clock to identity new sources of income. We’re in active conversation with Government, the National Lottery Community Fund, trusts, foundations and other funding bodies around the UK to identify new sources of income to support you. We’ll share details as soon as we know more.
What support is available now?
If your Scout Group is registered for business rates (often these are Groups that have sole ownership of a property) then up to £10,000 may be available to you from a scheme called the Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant Fund. You can find out how to apply for this here. Please do seek this help. This money has been specifically set aside for supporting local community services, including Scouts.
We also encourage you to claim Gift Aid. Only 2,500 Groups have claimed Gift Aid on donations. This is a valuable source of income, especially at a time like this. Find out how you can claim for donations made over the last four years. The average claim per year is £2,360, so the benefit is significant.
How we’re supporting the movement in different ways
Just as you’ve had to adapt locally, we’ve had to rethink how we deliver services and support Scouts centrally. We’ve paused many of our programmes of work and are now concentrating on delivering services that have the biggest impact and benefit at this time.
Finally, we’re regularly updating our FAQs on all the questions you have about how COVID-19 is impacting Scouts and our response scouts.org.uk/coronavirus
- We launched The Great Indoors to support Scouts and families at home with over 150 fun, free activities. This has attracted huge, nationwide interest and our campaign has been seen by millions of people around the UK.
- We’ve created Scouts at Home to support you in delivering Scouting and many of our ambassadors have taken part in live broadcasts to our members on Facebook
- We launched Hike to the Moon as a fundraising appeal to support local communities in troubled times.
- Our Insurance broker, Unity, has supported Scouts impacted by cancelled events
- We’ve created advice and support to stay safe and ways to safely help others.
- To support Groups offering Scouts virtually (and thank you for this) we’re in discussions to make software available to you. We’ll share more on this as soon as it’s confirmed.
Increased pressures – even before the crisis hit
Even before the crisis hit, it was clear that the demands made on Headquarters were outstripping our income. We receive £12 million from membership fees, but we need to spend £9m more than that to cover the cost of delivering our services. The shortfall is met by generating income from Scout Store, World Scout Shop, our six Scout Adventures centres, Unity insurance, Conference Centres, fundraising and investments – all now severely impacted by the crisis.
We’re also committed to continuing to invest in our safeguarding services and safety support to keep young people safe. This is fundamental to what we do and we will not compromise in this area.
Our legal costs also continue to mount. In these litigious times we’ve seen a dramatic increase in the cost of claims. What’s unique to Scouts (and very few other national charities) is that these substantial claims are being met at the centre (Headquarters) even if an incident has taken place locally.
We’ve also seen a rise in the number of complaints. When something has gone badly wrong locally, we are now increasingly seeing the complaint come to Headquarters to be resolved. These are complex and often involve significant legal costs. We simply cannot meet the increased costs without reviewing our membership fee. To give you a comparison, The Boy Scouts of America have had to double their membership fee to meet their costs recently (from $30 to $60) and Scouting Ireland last year increased their membership fee from (45 to 65 Euros).
Let’s remember that for many families, but we know not all, Scouts is affordable.
Let’s also remember that Scouts represents outstanding value for money for many families, helping young people gain skills to succeed, make lifelong friends – and to live life more brightly. However, it is never forgotten that it is not affordable for all and we continue to look at ways to support areas of deprivation where cost may be barrier to young people joining.
This is a breakdown of the core services provided by UK Headquarters on behalf of the movement:
The UK Headquarters membership fee
Action we’d already taken to reduce costs
- £29 per youth member, per year (prompt payment discount to £28.50)
- 60% of this fee in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is retained by the Nation Headquarters (40% goes to UK Headquarters)
- UK Headquarters spends c. £21m each year on core activities
- The membership fee contributes c. £12m
- Commercial and fundraising income contributes c. £9m
Even in the face of these mounting pressures, we knew we had to cut our costs. As a reminder, many of the costs carried by UK Headquarters are fixed, including insurance for the movement, or unavoidable costs like legal services or the cost of safeguarding.
Before COVID-19 struck, we’d just completed a review of our staff, resulting in a number of redundancies. We believe we‘ve now cut as far as we can to support the movement while continuing to meet our legal and regulatory responsibilities. We have fewer people doing more. You’ll know as well as we do how dedicated our staff team is, and how much they care for the movement.
When the crisis hit, and face to face meetings ended, we saw a dramatic drop in income. Scout Store’s sales are down and our adventure centres and conference centres, including the hostel, at Baden-Powell House naturally have had to close their doors to keep people safe. The income that we rely on from these activities is simply no longer coming in at anywhere near the same level.
What action we’ve taken
We took immediate action to cut our costs. Some 56% of our 337 staff are now furloughed on 80% of their salary, and we’re utilising the Government grant to cover most of these staff costs. We’ve kept on staff from our Safeguarding and Vetting, Finance, Legal, Communications Teams and other key team members.
We’ve stopped all but essential spending and recruitment and inevitably this means we’ve had to take difficult decisions – not least stopping the production of Scouting magazine (with July being the last edition) which will lead to a saving of £400,000 a year. While the magazine has a proud tradition, the reality is that we have diversified our communications, with social media, targeted email and webinars proving highly effective. Just on the 29 April all members call alone, we had 14,000 people. One volunteer who joined us said ‘they had never felt so connected to Headquarters.’
Financial impact of Covid-19 on UK Headquarters
In spite of the action we have taken above, we ended last year with a c. £2.5m deficit and are likely facing a minimum of a £3.5m deficit for 2020-21 principally as a result of COVID-19, and it could be a lot more. So even though we started 2019-20 with our reserves at six months operating costs (£10.5m) these reserves could well be eroded by the end of the 2020-21 financial year without government investment or other external funding support.
Positive action for a brighter future
At this stage nothing is certain. We don’t know when we can return to face to face meetings and activities. We therefore need to plan as best we can in the face of this uncertainty. We will need to review our costs again and it’s likely we’ll need to sell assets – not an attractive prospect when the market is low, and so we will need to borrow more in the short term. But we will do what we have to for the good of our movement.
For the reasons explained above, membership fees will go up in the coming years. However, we’re looking carefully at how we can minimise the impact on local Scouting in the immediate term, protect those parts of the movement hardest hit by COVID-19 while making sure UK Headquarters can survive to provide vital services to the movement. We’ll continue to update and engage you, our members, throughout our deliberations. There will be further webinars for counties/areas/regions, districts and volunteers at group level in June and we’ll formally consult our Council before decisions are made about the next few years’ membership fees and any sale of assets.
We’ve faced challenging times in the past. Scouting has had to adapt and change before – during the two world wars, for example, while we pulled together for the national effort. We’re showing that great spirit again. By being open, honest and transparent, and acting with humility, we can confront these challenges together. We will work together as a movement, do things differently if we need to, and support each other, because that is the strength of a movement.
One thing’s incredibly clear. We’ve got to find a way through this for the good of Scouting, for the good of the movement and most of all for the good of the young people of this country. Thank you for everything you’re doing. We know everyone will have different pressures and priorities in these challenging times which may impact your volunteer time, but you should be so proud of your courage, pragmatism and kindness. That’s what makes us all Scouts.
Belperpete
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 1,650
Agreed. It is unlikely that someone who has had the virus will have no immunity, they must surely have gained some level of immunity in order to fight the virus off. The big question is how long will that immunity last? Hopefully long enough until we have got the virus under control.
I have seen mention on the news that those who have only had a very mild case of the virus may not have gained much immunity, which I could understand. Of course, some who think they have had a mild case, may not have had it at all, but rather flu.
Belperpete
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 1,650
On of my local Indian restaurants is open on just such a basis. Whether they are actually making any money by doing so is another matter - I have yet to see anybody come to collect anything whenever I have passed.
I think this is going to be a big problem. If a business is likely to make more of a loss by reopening, they will likely decide it is better to stay shut and keep the staff furloughed. However, if a significant number of businesses do this, then it will be a self-fulfilling prophesy, and the economy will never pick up.
That will be solved when the furlough scheme ends. No doubt some businesses will fold, the rest will have to go back to work.
Can't save them all.
Belperpete
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 1,650
I think we need to remember that there is no vaccine for SARS, yet the whole world hasn't been in permanent lockdown. Like SARS, C19 will never be eradicted. The important thing is to contain the virus. First we need to get the number of new infections down to a level where track and trace will be effective - unfortunately the number of new infections each day is still really much too high. Once track and trace is in place, then numbers should hopefully really start to drop, and eventually we will have the virus under control like they have in NZ. At that point, most if not all restrictions can be lifted and life will get back to normal, just like it did in Asia after SARS.
The important thing is that the longer it takes for the numbers to fall, the longer it will take to get to that end point. Easing up on restrictions now will inevitably cause the numbers to rise by some degree, meaning that it will take longer to get to the point where all restrictions can be lifted.
My personal opinion is that if we had imposed a harder lockdown, and sooner, like many other countries did, then we would currently be in a much better situation, and much closer to lifting restrictions. Whether it would have been accepted by the public at large at that stage is another matter. Remember that the government first tried applying a Swedish-style advisory lockdown, and when that was widely flouted, a week later had to apply a mandatory lockdown.
The important thing is that the longer it takes for the numbers to fall, the longer it will take to get to that end point. Easing up on restrictions now will inevitably cause the numbers to rise by some degree, meaning that it will take longer to get to the point where all restrictions can be lifted.
My personal opinion is that if we had imposed a harder lockdown, and sooner, like many other countries did, then we would currently be in a much better situation, and much closer to lifting restrictions. Whether it would have been accepted by the public at large at that stage is another matter. Remember that the government first tried applying a Swedish-style advisory lockdown, and when that was widely flouted, a week later had to apply a mandatory lockdown.
I don't think these things go together but surely this is best discussed in a different thread?
Surely not true; the measures were too late and not enough; there is a time delay of several weeks between infections and hospitalisation, but this isn't relevant to this thread so if you want to go into it in more detail please do create a new thread if there isn't a suitable one already.
bramling
Veteran Member
I think this is the problem - there’s still too many potentially infectious people in circulation, so the only thing stopping the infection rate soaring again is social distancing, and stopping the death rate soaring again is shielding. We really needed to be starting again from a low base so measures like tracing could gain a foothold.
Meanwhile I hear from a reliable source that, as if there was ever really any doubt, we’re going to be going down the road of heavily reduced capacity and essential journeys only, with planning now going on behind the scenes on that basis.
Last edited:
I get the non essential travel bit (although I'd rather that was not the case) but I do find the idea of "heavily reduced capacity" rather worrying given that more people not less are going to be using public transport again. Capacity should be being increased not reduced.
We really need to adopt the WHO 1 metre guideline as 2 metres is impractical
bramling
Veteran Member
They mean heavily reduced capacity taking into account distancing.
The objective is to run as many services as possible, I don’t think anyone is working on any basis different to that, but as mentioned before shielding guarantees that the allocation of essential staff necessary to achieve a full timetable service simply doesn’t exist for the foreseeable future.
I’m sure there will be attempts to lengthen train formations where possible to try to compensate for distancing, but as we all know this isn’t always practicable. There may not be sufficient trains available in the right places to do that, or there may not be the platform lengths to fit them in. And something like London Underground is already effectively (under normal circumstances!) completely maxed out in the peaks, and not far short on some lines during the off-peak.
There may well have to be some debate as to whether it might prove wise to focus resources on particular places and/or times, even if this leaves some places without a service.
Ultimately the industry ideally needs to be presenting the government with a menu of options from which to choose those elements best fitting the bill. Naturally this would require operators to have a good handle on what they think they can actually operate - ironically much-maligned GTR seem well placed in this respect having generally delivered a solid performance through all of this, whilst at the other end of the spectrum LU’s top brass seem to have no grasp at all, and have only been bailed out thanks to historic expertise of certain staff on the ground.
Last edited:
Pakenhamtrain
Member
Eradication isn't going to happen in Victoria and New South Wales. We are on stage 3 restrictions.
philosopher
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Sep 2015
- Messages
- 1,351
Australia and New Zealand have clearly done very well in containing COVID-19 so far, but they are both heading into their Winter. I do wonder if they will be able to continue to contain or even in eradicate it over the winter months, or whether there will be a resurgence.
nlogax
Established Member
We also need to remember that SARS-CoV was a very different beast from the current virus. While it was more aggressive in terms of symptoms and increased mortality rates (over Covid-19) for those unfortunate enough to have caught it, it was also far, far harder to catch in the first place. Social distancing and contract tracing pretty much eradicated it without the need to develop a vaccine.
underbank
Established Member
The furlough scheme will come to an end for all the businesses that don't have to stay closed. No doubt it will continue for "prohibited" businesses such as pubs, cafes, sporting venues, until they're allowed to re-open. When the scheme stops for all the businesses that aren't prohibited from opening, then they'll have to make decisions - either re-open under social distancing or stay closed and make staff redundant. Furlough can't be open-ended especially for businesses that didn't need to close in the first place. Business owners are going to have to make tough decisions - open and aim for break even or manageable losses until people get back to normal, or close for the duration (maybe forever).
- Status