• 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?

Status
Not open for further replies.

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,228
Location
London
You could try using a bit of common sense like most other people do....... and there is no effort to encourage people onto public transport, quite the opposite in fact........ social distancing....... surely it's self explanatory?

There’s also an effort to encourage people to go back to work (as there needs to be). Many of those commuters will be reliant on public transport to get to work. And social distancing most likely won’t be possible on public transport once non essential retail businesses open up.

Seriously...... it's people with your attitude that will cause another wave of Covid-19.

Are you happy to lose your job to prevent another peak? Because that’s what might happen to you, and will certainly happen to millions of other people, unless we get the economy going again ASAP.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,828
Location
Yorks
Two things that particularly concern me (and apologies if I'm repeating stuff from the preceding 45 pages as I haven't been through them):

Firstly the countries that appear to have handled this best are only releasing lockdown significantly when they have got down into the hundreds of new cases per day, which is more likely to be within the ability of the contact tracers to keep a lid on. Best estimate is that we still have somewhere around 10000 new cases per day. If relaxing lockdown sends the R number out of control then it may not be obvious for a week or so, by which time the number of infections per day may have doubled or trebled. If a number in the hundreds doubles or trebles then that's still manageable by re-imposing lockdown measures as they have had to in South Korea. A doubling or trebling of 10000 cases sends us back into the territory of overwhelming the NHS, not to mention the degree of extra economic damage from the many weeks of lockdown it will take to get the numbers back down again.

Secondly I believe any sort of social distancing separation makes normal economic life impossible. Most of the businesses that can't operate currently will be on drastically reduced numbers of customers and thus profit margins, and with reduced transport capacity and constant reminders of the disease many people won't want to go out for discretionary activity anyway.

Putting these two together I wonder if the best solution is to endure the lockdown for a longer period to get the casualties per day low enough, but then move quite quickly to a situation where little or no social distancing is necessary, perhaps by measures such as requiring masks in public transport. This is roughly where some Far Eastern countries are at the moment, with crowding on their metros not much below normal, and the South Korea re-lockdown seems to have been in response to a specific outbreak in a distribution depot rather than general social contact. How feasible is this situation in advance of a vaccine?

One point to remember (and I don't claim to know an answer).

The larger number of cases quoted for this country is, I believe, extrapolated from the actual number of reported, tested cases.

Are the figures from the other countries those tested and reported, or are they extrapolated expected infections ?
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,495
Two things that particularly concern me (and apologies if I'm repeating stuff from the preceding 45 pages as I haven't been through them):

Firstly the countries that appear to have handled this best are only releasing lockdown significantly when they have got down into the hundreds of new cases per day, which is more likely to be within the ability of the contact tracers to keep a lid on. Best estimate is that we still have somewhere around 10000 new cases per day. If relaxing lockdown sends the R number out of control then it may not be obvious for a week or so, by which time the number of infections per day may have doubled or trebled. If a number in the hundreds doubles or trebles then that's still manageable by re-imposing lockdown measures as they have had to in South Korea. A doubling or trebling of 10000 cases sends us back into the territory of overwhelming the NHS, not to mention the degree of extra economic damage from the many weeks of lockdown it will take to get the numbers back down again.

Secondly I believe any sort of social distancing separation makes normal economic life impossible. Most of the businesses that can't operate currently will be on drastically reduced numbers of customers and thus profit margins, and with reduced transport capacity and constant reminders of the disease many people won't want to go out for discretionary activity anyway.

Putting these two together I wonder if the best solution is to endure the lockdown for a longer period to get the casualties per day low enough, but then move quite quickly to a situation where little or no social distancing is necessary, perhaps by measures such as requiring masks in public transport. This is roughly where some Far Eastern countries are at the moment, with crowding on their metros not much below normal, and the South Korea re-lockdown seems to have been in response to a specific outbreak in a distribution depot rather than general social contact. How feasible is this situation in advance of a vaccine?
I agree. Either we have a lockdown or we go back to normal. We cannot expect business to operate at 25% capacity for at least 18 months. Judging by the number of people blatantly hanging around in groups on my street, the lockdown is starting to fall by the wayside.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
One point to remember (and I don't claim to know an answer).

The larger number of cases quoted for this country is, I believe, extrapolated from the actual number of reported, tested cases.

Are the figures from the other countries those tested and reported, or are they extrapolated expected infections ?
I don't know the detail but I'd expect the number of cases to be roughly proportional to the number of deaths, with the constant of proportionality roughly the same in countries where the health system is working reasonably well. This is obviously very approximate, as there are differences in how deaths are counted, but at least it is less affected by the level of testing than case rates are.

A quick check shows there were 16 deaths in Germany yesterday and there don't appear to be major variations at weekends, suggesting their infection rate is somewhere around 5% of ours.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,828
Location
Yorks
I don't know the detail but I'd expect the number of cases to be roughly proportional to the number of deaths, with the constant of proportionality roughly the same in countries where the health system is working reasonably well. This is obviously very approximate, as there are differences in how deaths are counted, but at least it is less affected by the level of testing than case rates are.

A quick check shows there were 16 deaths in Germany yesterday and there don't appear to be major variations at weekends, suggesting their infection rate is somewhere around 5% of ours.

I guess my question is, is that infection rate the number of confirmed infections, or the number of infections thought to be in the country, including asymptomatic cases and those who don't get tested.
 

CaptainHaddock

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,206
Seriously...... it's people with your attitude that will cause another wave of Covid-19.

I don't mean to be rude but I suspect you're one of those people who are rather enjoying the lockdown a bit too much! There are many lockdown enthusiasts who've actually found that being paid 80 per cent of your salary to sit around at home all day watching box sets is actually quite pleasurable and are terrified at the thought of the lockdown ending and life getting back to normal. Thus they will seize on every negative news story they can find in an effort to delay the inevitable easing of said lockdown as long as possible.

With the rate of new infections plummeting despite the ongoing easing of the restrictions, it would appear that the only way to catch the virus now would be to actively seek it out! In the extremely unlikely event that there were to be a second wave of the virus, chances are it wouldn't return until the autumn or winter, by which time it's likely we will have a vaccine.
 

northernchris

Established Member
Joined
24 Jul 2011
Messages
1,509
Putting these two together I wonder if the best solution is to endure the lockdown for a longer period to get the casualties per day low enough, but then move quite quickly to a situation where little or no social distancing is necessary, perhaps by measures such as requiring masks in public transport. This is roughly where some Far Eastern countries are at the moment, with crowding on their metros not much below normal, and the South Korea re-lockdown seems to have been in response to a specific outbreak in a distribution depot rather than general social contact. How feasible is this situation in advance of a vaccine?

I do think that the industries most affected by social distancing should be able to have 1m distancing so long as other measures are in place such as face masks and enhanced cleaning. With trains it could also include leaving the interior doors between carriages open to reduce the buttons passengers come in to contact with.

We're constantly reminded that there may never be a vaccine, so it's probably best it's assumed there won't be and plan for the future on that basis. harsh r
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
With trains it could also include leaving the interior doors between carriages open to reduce the buttons passengers come in to contact with.

Or you could use your elbow. Or carry a big stick around with you.

It is entirely unfeasible to even try to live in a world where we don't touch things other people may have already touched, and we shouldn't pretend that it ever will be.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,228
Location
London
There are many lockdown enthusiasts who've actually found that being paid 80 per cent of your salary to sit around at home all day watching box sets is actually quite pleasurable and are terrified at the thought of the lockdown ending and life getting back to normal. Thus they will seize on every negative news story they can find in an effort to delay the inevitable easing of said lockdown as long as possible.

There a surprising number of people in this camp, who seem oblivious to the stark reality they may soon be facing.

What they don’t seem to realise is that the furlough scheme is completely unsustainable and, very soon, businesses are going to be asked to start contributing more. At that point, those businesses will start making tough decisions about whether they can afford to pay people to sit around doing nothing.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,228
Location
London
In the extremely unlikely event that there were to be a second wave of the virus, chances are it wouldn't return until the autumn or winter, by which time it's likely we will have a vaccine.

We might have a vaccine, then again we we might not. We might never have one. At some point we will need to get back to normal.

This virus will probably never be eradicated and we may just to live with a few thousand deaths from it every year, just as we do with seasonal flu.
 

Clayton

On Moderation
Joined
15 Apr 2018
Messages
259
I don't mean to be rude but I suspect you're one of those people who are rather enjoying the lockdown a bit too much! There are many lockdown enthusiasts who've actually found that being paid 80 per cent of your salary to sit around at home all day watching box sets is actually quite pleasurable and are terrified at the thought of the lockdown ending and life getting back to normal. Thus they will seize on every negative news story they can find in an effort to delay the inevitable easing of said lockdown as long as possible.

With the rate of new infections plummeting despite the ongoing easing of the restrictions, it would appear that the only way to catch the virus now would be to actively seek it out! In the extremely unlikely event that there were to be a second wave of the virus, chances are it wouldn't return until the autumn or winter, by which time it's likely we will have a vaccine.
I’m not sure why you are so gung ho. The rate of new infections isn’t plummeting and 2400 tested positive today. In the longer term it would be better for the economy to carry on the lockdown longer and get the virus right down rather than risk a second lockdown in the autumn
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
I’m not sure why you are so gung ho. The rate of new infections isn’t plummeting and 2400 tested positive today. In the longer term it would be better for the economy to carry on the lockdown longer and get the virus right down rather than risk a second lockdown in the autumn

Yes but no. If you are going for an eradication strategy, then continuing with the lockdown in it's current form is a frankly terrible idea - with such a high R reducing the number of cases to whatever target you're aiming for will take far too long. Either you double down on eradication with some sort of 'ultra' lockdown for 2 weeks and then lift, or you decide that you can deal with the higher numbers whilst easing it. Continuing with a weak/ineffective lockdown for an indeterminate length of time is the worst of both worlds.

I don't know the detail but I'd expect the number of cases to be roughly proportional to the number of deaths, with the constant of proportionality roughly the same in countries where the health system is working reasonably well. This is obviously very approximate, as there are differences in how deaths are counted, but at least it is less affected by the level of testing than case rates are.

A quick check shows there were 16 deaths in Germany yesterday and there don't appear to be major variations at weekends, suggesting their infection rate is somewhere around 5% of ours.

The other thing to bear in mind is that the number of deaths today represents the number of infections some 2+ weeks previously. The other thing to bear in mind is that it very much depends on where the virus has spread. If in both countries it is spread to the wider population (or at least, comparable population) then yes, it is comparable, but if for example in one country the virus has infiltrated and is spreading around a particularly vulnerable section of the population, that'll grossly inflate their figures compared to the other country who've managed to not let it spread there.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,813
Location
Sheffield
I agree. Either we have a lockdown or we go back to normal. We cannot expect business to operate at 25% capacity for at least 18 months. Judging by the number of people blatantly hanging around in groups on my street, the lockdown is starting to fall by the wayside.

We must not go back to what was normal in January. KYD must be the rule as far as it's possible to do so.

The more who continue to work from home the better, for now.

The more who avoid public transport the better, for now.

The more we avoid enclosed public spaces of any sort, be it work or pleasure the better, for now.

The more the most vulnerable do all these things the better for them in particular.

Hospital admissions and the numbers currently in hospital with COVID are probably the key figures to watch.

Deaths may filter through many weeks, or even months, after hospital admission. That maybe two or three weeks after the original contact that passed on the virus.

Being in the wrong age group and sex I have a very personal interest! However, I can't see the lockdown working for much longer for everyone. As Bikeman says it's breaking down across the land, and was before DC found the spotlight. We have to get more selective as to who is most likely to be at risk and who isn't and act accordingly. Getting the virus is clearly unpleasant, but for most fully fit people under 60 that's all it is, but it's still best avoided. I will go out to walk and drive, but avoid shops, people - and trains. Home deliveries are working well here.

The lockdown has shut long established businesses for good and more will go that way over the next few months. It's already too late for many of them, and a lot more will emerge severely slimmed down. We must get as many fit people back to work as soon as is safely possible.

KEEP YOUR DISTANCE - Wash your hands! KYD
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,228
Location
London
Yes but no. If you are going for an eradication strategy, then continuing with the lockdown in it's current form is a frankly terrible idea - with such a high R reducing the number of cases to whatever target you're aiming for will take far too long. Either you double down on eradication with some sort of 'ultra' lockdown for 2 weeks and then lift, or you decide that you can deal with the higher numbers whilst easing it.

It’s clear that we can’t go for an eradication strategy: that ship sailed in Wuhan in December/Jan. This virus is way too contagious, spreads like the common cold, and has swept around the entire planet in a matter of months.

Until a vaccine is developed it’s here to stay - and from what I understand any vaccine is likely to be relatively ineffective - along the lines of a flu vaccine. So it may well be here to stay anyway.

The initial goal of not overwhelming the NHS has been achieved - so we now need to get the economic going again. Exactly as you say, the current approach is neither one thing nor the other.


The other thing to bear in mind is that the number of deaths today represents the number of infections some 2+ weeks previously. The other thing to bear in mind is that it very much depends on where the virus has spread. If in both countries it is spread to the wider population (or at least, comparable population) then yes, it is comparable, but if for example in one country the virus has infiltrated and is spreading around a particularly vulnerable section of the population, that'll grossly inflate their figures compared to the other country who've managed to not let it spread there.

Indeed. AIUI 50%+ of deaths in the UK currently are amongst care home residents who represent a very small % of the overall numbers infected. Isolating care homes properly would hugely improve the figures.
 

northernchris

Established Member
Joined
24 Jul 2011
Messages
1,509
It is entirely unfeasible to even try to live in a world where we don't touch things other people may have already touched, and we shouldn't pretend that it ever will be.

Oh I agree with you, was just trying to point out if actions were taken to mitigate the risks it may make it more likely to reduce the distance to 1m which makes public transport a little more viable

There a surprising number of people in this camp, who seem oblivious to the stark reality they may soon be facing.

What they don’t seem to realise is that the furlough scheme is completely unsustainable and, very soon, businesses are going to be asked to start contributing more. At that point, those businesses will start making tough decisions about whether they can afford to pay people to sit around doing nothing.

I think the ending of furlough will make more people realise the importance of protecting the economy. I do wonder how many in this camp are frequenting beaches or visiting others' homes
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
I don't mean to be rude but I suspect you're one of those people who are rather enjoying the lockdown a bit too much! There are many lockdown enthusiasts who've actually found that being paid 80 per cent of your salary to sit around at home all day watching box sets is actually quite pleasurable and are terrified at the thought of the lockdown ending and life getting back to normal.

I think people are understandably frightened. It's not so much whether I'd catch it, but whether I'd pass it on to anyone else.

The government ramped up the fear to get people to support the lockdown. It is therefore inevitable that the fear will last for longer than the lockdown.

But you make a good point about the furlough scheme. It isn't sustainable. There will come a point- fairly imminently- where the choice will be go back to work, or take sick leave, or have no job. Statutory sick pay is £93 a week, JSA is as low as £53 a week if you're under 25. I think you are right to say that people will reassess the risk at that point. But how the government manage the political fallout from frightened people being forced back to work will be...interesting.

But as someone who is working and having to look after a toddler at the same time, I do rather resent struggling on for only 25% more than I'd get for sitting on my arse watching This Morning.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,228
Location
London
I think the ending of furlough will make more people realise the importance of protecting the economy. I do wonder how many in this camp are frequenting beaches or visiting others' homes


I’m afraid I think you’re exactly right. There’s clearly a lot of people who are as happy as Larry, enjoying the sunshine, enjoying being paid not to work, virtue signalling about observing lockdown. I hope they enjoy it while it lasts.

What’s thundering down the road towards us?!

Earlier this month the BoE forecast the deepest recession for three hundred years.

Just think about what that means, for a second.

Worse than the 2009 financial crisis, worse than 9/11, worse than the Great Depression, possibly worse than all of them combined.
 

Skimpot flyer

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2012
Messages
1,610
I’m not sure why you are so gung ho. The rate of new infections isn’t plummeting and 2400 tested positive today. In the longer term it would be better for the economy to carry on the lockdown longer and get the virus right down rather than risk a second lockdown in the autumn
The only reason we didn't see '2400 tested positive today' comments several weeks ago is because there was not nearly enough testing being done. How anyone can claim to know whether the rate of infections is rising or falling is beyond me. It should be obvious that if many more people are being tested, of course the absolute numbers of infections reported is going to jump!
 

xc170

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2008
Messages
815
I’m afraid I think you’re exactly right. There’s clearly a lot of people who are as happy as Larry, enjoying the sunshine, enjoying being paid not to work, virtue signalling about observing lockdown. I hope they enjoy it while it lasts.

What’s thundering down the road towards us?!

Earlier this month the BoE forecast the deepest recession for three hundred years.

Just think about what that means, for a second.

Worse than the 2009 financial crisis, worse than 9/11, worse than the Great Depression, possibly worse than all of them combined.

Yes, this! This is exactly why a lockdown was never the right approach to take!
 

Clayton

On Moderation
Joined
15 Apr 2018
Messages
259
The only reason we didn't see '2400 tested positive today' comments several weeks ago is because there was not nearly enough testing being done. How anyone can claim to know whether the rate of infections is rising or falling is beyond me. It should be obvious that if many more people are being tested, of course the absolute numbers of infections reported is going to jump!
Yes, that’s right, but the new cases haven’t really been declining in the last couple of weeks. It feels too early to be relaxing. However I grant that the government have an incredibly difficult job in balancing the nation’s health and the economy
 

northernchris

Established Member
Joined
24 Jul 2011
Messages
1,509
I’m afraid I think you’re exactly right. There’s clearly a lot of people who are as happy as Larry, enjoying the sunshine, enjoying being paid not to work, virtue signalling about observing lockdown. I hope they enjoy it while it lasts.

What’s thundering down the road towards us?!

Earlier this month the BoE forecast the deepest recession for three hundred years.

Just think about what that means, for a second.

Worse than the 2009 financial crisis, worse than 9/11, worse than the Great Depression, possibly worse than all of them combined.

Absolutely, the next few months are going to see unemployment levels rocket. There will most likely be some industries that can bounce back pretty quickly whilst others will be destroyed. The longer lockdown lasts and people adjust their habits the harder it is for businesses to claw back their lost custom. There needs to be a balance of keeping R no higher than 1 whilst encouraging a good percentage of the population to revert to pre-Covid activities albeit in a slightly different way
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,228
Location
London
There will come a point- fairly imminently- where the choice will be go back to work, or take sick leave, or have no job. Statutory sick pay is £93 a week, JSA is as low as £53 a week if you're under 25. I think you are right to say that people will reassess the risk at that point.

For many there will come a point, fairly imminently, when there is no work to go back to, and no prospect of any sensibly paid work in the short to to medium term.


Yes, this! This is exactly why a lockdown was never the right approach to take!

It’s almost laughable. This obsession with reducing a death rate of a few hundred people per day, in a population of 65m. Deaths from a virus which poses negligible risk to the VAST majority of people who contract it.

Priorities will soon change when jobs vanish, savings are burned through in a few months, and people suddenly realise they have to make 65 quid a week JSA cover the £1000+ mortgage/rent payment, car payment, feed themselves, feed their kids etc.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,828
Location
Yorks
The key thing is - when hospitality reopens, it is our duty to make use of it in as safe a way as possible.

There are a couple of guesthouses I have drank in, in the past. I'm thinking of staying in them for a change.
 

xc170

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2008
Messages
815
It’s almost laughable. This obsession with reducing a death rate of a few hundred people per day, in a population of 65m. Deaths from a virus which poses negligible risk to the VAST majority of people who contract it.

Priorities will soon change when jobs vanish, savings are burned through in a few months, and people suddenly realise they have to make 65 quid a week JSA cover the £1000+ mortgage/rent payment, car payment, feed themselves, feed their kids etc.

Reducing the death rate could have been achieved just as well by asking the elderly and vulnerable to shield... There was and is no need for millions of low risk people to be locked up at home!
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,754
We might have a vaccine, then again we we might not. We might never have one. At some point we will need to get back to normal.

This virus will probably never be eradicated and we may just to live with a few thousand deaths from it every year, just as we do with seasonal flu.

Is it mass hysteria brought on by Facebook posts, and 24/7/365 news channels with nothing better to fill the hours with ? as you say, even seasonal flu on a bad year, globally can claim from 300,000 to 650,000 deaths.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,828
Location
Yorks
Reducing the death rate could have been achieved just as well by asking the elderly and vulnerable to shield... There was and is no need for millions of low risk people to be locked up at home!
Is it mass hysteria brought on by Facebook posts, and 24/7/365 news channels with nothing better to fill the hours with ? as you say, even seasonal flu on a bad year, globally can claim from 300,000 to 650,000 deaths.

I don't agree. If that were the case, no country would have had issues with hospitals getting overwhelmed.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,228
Location
London
Reducing the death rate could have been achieved just as well by asking the elderly and vulnerable to shield... There was and is no need for millions of low risk people to be locked up at home!

Yes indeed.

Nobody wanted this virus to develop, but sadly it has done, so we have to deal with it. It seems to me we are going about it entirely the wrong way.

This will no doubt be a controversial thing to say but the vast majority of people who succumb to this virus are sadly already very close to the end of their lives. Many are in care homes and would pass away within a few months to a year anyway.

To preserve their lives for a few more weeks or months we are destroying the lives of millions of hard working people who have families to raise and will lose their jobs, and will be unable to find others. We are also wrecking the prospects of a generation of young people.

This lockdown is also causing untold deaths of cancer patients whose diagnosis/treatment is delayed, heart patients whose operations have been cancelled etc. Many of whom could have had many more years of meaningful life.

I feel like the world has, quite literally, gone mad over the last few months
 
Last edited:

xc170

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2008
Messages
815
I don't agree. If that were the case, no country would have had issues with hospitals getting overwhelmed.

Overwhelmed with the elderly and vulnerable mostly, the people who should have been told to isolate from day 1...

Low risk people should never have been told to stay at home, if the economy crashes, the NHS goes with it, then we won't have a health care system to get overwhelmed.
 

Metal_gee_man

Member
Joined
28 Oct 2017
Messages
669
I went to my local Urgent Care for something unrelated to Covid. I can tell you that they had placed 2m social distancing crosses on a lot of the seats in the waiting room. People ignored it. This was in a hospital's waiting room. If people are ignoring it in a hospital they will ignore it on a train (I know this won't be the same everywhere but this is from my personal experience). While I understand the reasons behind it on the train, it is ultimately not going to work as anything more than a short term solution for about a week or two at the most.
So as train travel becomes more prevalent and more time sensitive users (commuters who couldn't possibly catch a later train) start using busier trains, where will everyone's breaking point be where you get off at the next stop or invite those people who are space invaders to do one?

Mine will be when people are sat in the out of use seats either between window seats or next to me because there are no other seats or they might be standing / congregating in a vestibule or aisle.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,828
Location
Yorks
Overwhelmed with the elderly and vulnerable mostly, the people who should have been told to isolate from day 1...

Low risk people should never have been told to stay at home, if the economy crashes, the NHS goes with it, then we won't have a health care system to get overwhelmed.

Realistically the virus is so contagious that it would have found its way to the shielders without extra measures. The people in the hospitals with it weren't just the "vulnerable" There had to be some sort of lockdown at the time.

I agree we have to get things open again - carefully though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top