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

[MikeWM]

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.

Exactly as I said some posts back - the train companies are now actually creating confrontation situations and potential violence ('invite those people to do one') between passengers. They may be present anyway, but actions such as marking seats out of use aren't going to help things.

 

[Metal_gee_man]

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.




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.

Sadly the JSA will also include council tax benefit, rent paid for and tax credits to top everything up all in all this will result in similar payouts to some people equivalent to a furlough payment currently.
The reality is things aren't going to get sorted quickly or cheaply for any ruling government in the next XX years

 

[43066]

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.

If you’re a commuter, there won’t be a breaking point, and you’ll suck it up. Why? Because we’re heading into the worst recession for 300 years, and there won’t be any other jobs to go to.

How, exactly, will the conversation with your boss go?:

You: “Sorry boss, I’ll be an hour late for work (again), because someone has got within 2m of me on the train.”

Him: “That’s fine: take the rest of the day off. In fact, you take the rest of your life off.”

 

[yorkie]

Can we try to stay on topic please.

There are other threads that cover many of these topics. Thanks

 

[Bantamzen]

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.

You only have to look at the numbers to realise what's heading our way, 8.3 million people furloughed, 2.3 million self-employed people seeking government grants, 2.1 million new Universal Credit claims, an estimated £300-350 billion cost over just 3 months. And even now, albeit very much under the radar, tens, maybe even hundreds of thousands of jobs are teetering on the edge or have already gone over it. And we are not alone, in the US 40 million people have been made unemployed thus far, and they are looking to borrow a further $3 trillion. Globally the IMF is forecasting that as many as 500 million people could be thrown into poverty as a result of covid measures. It really makes you wonder if the cure is going to be far more devastating than then disease.

Basically the entire planet is hurtling towards a global recession which could be on an unprecedented level. But present these grim forecasts to some of the lockdown activists and you are greeted with apathy or uncomfortable silence, because from my experience these people don't want their extended holidays & forced distancing to be broken up by anything as inconvenient as reality.

 

[Antman]

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.

You couldn't be more wrong......... I haven't enjoyed it at all, I just despair at your flippant attitude.

 

[Antman]

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.



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.

I am well aware of the need to get the economy going.........my point was about somebody criticising a train operator for closing seats off for social distancing and suggesting people sit in the closed off seats as some sort of act of defiance.

 

[Andy Pacer]

I can see that latter step in particular causing issues where the bus reaches the "advisory capacity" after the first couple of stops and anyone else further along the route is left stranded. I also hope common sense will be applied to (say) the last bus of the day.

Arriva drivers have been encouraged to use their common sense, particularly in the last bus of the day scenario, but the guidelines are there for a reason.
Some depots are being proactive enough to have buses and drivers available to run dupes on an ad-hoc basis if the driver of the service car reports in that there are capacity issues.

 

[duncanp]

my point was about somebody criticising a train operator for closing seats off for social distancing and suggesting people sit in the closed off seats as some sort of act of defiance.

I think that, rather than closing off these seats completely, the message should change to "...please do not sit in one of these seats if there is a seat without a label free...". People shouldn't sit in a seat with a label just to be bloody minded, but neither should they be forced to wait ages for the next bus or train just because there are no seats without a label free. What are people supposed to do if the next bus or train that comes along also has no seats free? What about a rural train or bus service where the frequency is hourly or less?

The problem will only get worse as parts of the economy re-open, especially when the hospitality sector gets going again, and the summer holidays start? Already we have seen yesterday overcrowding on services to Bournemouth, and this won't be the only incident, especially if it is difficult or impossible to go abroad.

Rigid enforcement of the capacity rules will only make life unpleasant, for passengers and railway/bus workers alike.

 

[northernchris]

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.

I was thinking the same, there's a few independent coffee shops and restaurants a couple of minutes walk from me which I plan to start using once they reopen. There were suggestions that lockdown led to more people shopping locally with the possibility of that continuing long term, so it's possible some businesses could come out of this stronger

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

Completely agree with this. I think the estimates at the start were around two thirds of deaths would have likely occurred within the next 12 months, so it's important the vulnerable are protected as much as possible. Whilst a lockdown was probably required initially to get the R number down, I do now think the focus should be on supporting businesses and jobs along with those the NHS has neglected in the last 3 months. It really infuriates me how cancer patients in particular have been treated, many of these are likely to have made a good recovery and lived for many more years, but they have been bumped down the list so those near to the end of life can get a few extra weeks / months. With the pressure the NHS is under I really think the focus should have been to treat those with the best chance of recovery, and cancer treatment and diagnosis should have been mandated to continue as usual

 

[westv]

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

They also predicted a rapid bounce back next year if there is no second wave. Hopefully that will be correct.

 

[SuperNova]

I think that, rather than closing off these seats completely, the message should change to "...please do not sit in one of these seats if there is a seat without a label free...". People shouldn't sit in a seat with a label just to be bloody minded, but neither should they be forced to wait ages for the next bus or train just because there are no seats without a label free. What are people supposed to do if the next bus or train that comes along also has no seats free? What about a rural train or bus service where the frequency is hourly or less?

The problem will only get worse as parts of the economy re-open, especially when the hospitality sector gets going again, and the summer holidays start? Already we have seen yesterday overcrowding on services to Bournemouth, and this won't be the only incident, especially if it is difficult or impossible to go abroad.

Rigid enforcement of the capacity rules will only make life unpleasant, for passengers and railway/bus workers alike.

You do realise that all TOC's/DfT are aware of this and are working on what to do. It's possible that it may go down the route of reducing the distancing from 2m or like other countries - accept that it's hard to socially distance.

However, the message from the government on using public transport has been (surprisingly) clear throughout - avoid using unless it is for essential journeys. A trip to the seaside is NOT an essential journey.

 

[Huntergreed]

However, the message from the government on using public transport has been (surprisingly) clear throughout - avoid using unless it is for essential journeys. A trip to the seaside is NOT an essential journey.

I wouldn’t say the message has been clear at all, “essential only” doesn’t mean anything and is entirely open to interpretation.
The transport network (in England) is not essential only and is open for use by anyone for any purpose. This has not been advertised and instead TOC’s have been making up their own “essential only” rule, which has led many to think the network is exclusively for key workers only. We need to decide on a more clear message, either “key workers only” which at this stage seems a little harsh, or “we’re open, but be sensible and keep your distance” which seems to me to be most sensible. The wishy washy “essential only” nonsense has got to go.

 

[yorksrob]

You do realise that all TOC's/DfT are aware of this and are working on what to do. It's possible that it may go down the route of reducing the distancing from 2m or like other countries - accept that it's hard to socially distance.

However, the message from the government on using public transport has been (surprisingly) clear throughout - avoid using unless it is for essential journeys. A trip to the seaside is NOT an essential journey.

It would be lovely to see some evidence of all this from on high, because at the moment the silence is deafening.

 

[yorkie]

However, the message from the government on using public transport has been (surprisingly) clear throughout - avoid using unless it is for essential journeys. A trip to the seaside is NOT an essential journey.

For question of what is allowed by legislation, see https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/what-travel-is-currently-allowed-by-the-legislation.204411/

The only journeys that people should be making right now - using any transport mode - are those journeys which allowed by the legislation.

Any journey that is allowed by legislation CAN be made by train but people are asked to walk or cycle wherever possible; that's not always practicable and therefore people who are able to travel by car are requested to do so, but anyone whose journey is only practicable by train is allowed to do so.

Any journey that is NOT allowed by the legislation cannot be made by ANY transport mode whatsoever.

I wouldn’t say the message has been clear at all, “essential only” doesn’t mean anything and is entirely open to interpretation...

The term "essential" is a misnomer; what is allowed is any journey that is permitted by the legislation.

What is encouraged is for people to cycle or walk if at all possible for their journey; people making longer journeys or who have mobility issues will not be able to walk or cycle and they are encouraged to travel by car if possible. But if that's not possible, the use of public transport is permitted.

 

[Bantamzen]

They also predicted a rapid bounce back next year if there is no second wave. Hopefully that will be correct.

I'm not convinced there will be. After the 2008 crash we had almost a decade of austerity and are still probably not back to pre-2008 levels. A crash as predicted is going to leave a deep scar, and a huge amount of debt. A long, deep recession is probably just a likely as a bounce-back, possibly more so.

 

[45107]

I'm not convinced there will be. After the 2008 crash we had almost a decade of austerity and are still probably not back to pre-2008 levels. A crash as predicted is going to leave a deep scar, and a huge amount of debt. A long, deep recession is probably just a likely as a bounce-back, possibly more so.

And that is before the effects of (a potential no-deal) brexit are taken into account.

 

[Huntergreed]

I'm not convinced there will be. After the 2008 crash we had almost a decade of austerity and are still probably not back to pre-2008 levels. A crash as predicted is going to leave a deep scar, and a huge amount of debt. A long, deep recession is probably just a likely as a bounce-back, possibly more so.

Indeed, and I’m afraid that if we don’t act soon, it could well be many decades before levels return to anything resemblant of what they were before all this, and yet the government don’t seem to quite realise just how bad things will be.

A bounce back next year would be great, but given the billions that have been used to get us through this, combined with the fact that the lockdown and social distancing will prevent many industries from earning anything close to what they would normally need this year, it seems exceptionally unlikely that this will be possible.

I appreciate that we have to be cautious as we lift the lockdown, as the implications of another lockdown on the economy doesn’t even bear thinking about, but at the same time we need to take more steps than we are now to protect the economy, otherwise millions of low risk people will lose their livelihoods and the futures of countless young people will have been significantly hindered for the benefit of protecting around 1-2% of the vulnerable part of the population.

 

[Bikeman78]

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.

Smoking kills an estimated 78,000 people per year. That's 213 per day! Yet people still do it, including in their homes with their kids.

 

[Bikeman78]

Exactly as I said some posts back - the train companies are now actually creating confrontation situations and potential violence ('invite those people to do one') between passengers. They may be present anyway, but actions such as marking seats out of use aren't going to help things.

People naturally spread out on a train so marking seats out of use is utterly pointless. If you have a carriage with bays of four or six seats people tend to go for empty bays first. Only when every bay is occupied will people start to double up. There are exceptions of course but that's generally what I have observed over 25 years.

 

[edwin_m]

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.

That's why I'm not paying much attention to the infection rate. The death rate, while imperfect, seems to me to be a better predictor of the relative prevalence between countries. Various things, such as the recent antibody testing indicating 7% in the UK have been infected, tend to point towards the infection rate being somewhere around 50-100 times the death rate.

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.

There are many errors in estimating the infection rate based on the death rate, as there are with anything other than regular random testing with a reliable swab test. The time lag is just one of them. I think the issue of where the infection is concentrated is more to do with understanding the effect of different environments and restrictions on the R rate, not the total cases. That should remain approximately proportional to the total deaths, unless some sectors aren't getting the right treatment. Possible in the case of care homes etc but I still think this is the least bad method of estimating the case rate.

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

How long is "for now" though?

Hospital admissions may also be reasonably proportional to total cases. Numbers in hospital at any time are important for ensuring the case rate isn't threatening to overwhelm the NHS. However neither of these figures seem to be easily available to the armchair epidemiologist (unless a better one can point me to a source).

I agree the older and more vulnerable need to be more restricted than others, as it is in their self-interest and some (but by no means all) have less need to be out and about anyway. The issue is where to strike the balance between that and a more general lockdown.
[/QUOTE]

I'm not convinced there will be. After the 2008 crash we had almost a decade of austerity and are still probably not back to pre-2008 levels. A crash as predicted is going to leave a deep scar, and a huge amount of debt. A long, deep recession is probably just a likely as a bounce-back, possibly more so.

Austerity was a voluntary choice by governments, which just made things worse by destroying economic activity and tax revenue. I'm hoping this time round they will realise that an approach of stimulus is the necessary.

And that is before the effects of (a potential no-deal) brexit are taken into account.

Yes, in the case of the UK we have that unique injury, inflicted by those who went on to mismanage the pandemic and make us a global laughing stock.

Smoking kills an estimated 78,000 people per year. That's 213 per day! Yet people still do it, including in their homes with their kids.

And Covid is killing a similar number currently and could have killed nearly 10 times that many if it had been left to run through the population.

 

[Antman]

People naturally spread out on a train so marking seats out of use is utterly pointless. If you have a carriage with bays of four or six seats people tend to go for empty bays first. Only when every bay is occupied will people start to double up. There are exceptions of course but that's generally what I have observed over 25 years.

Why is it utterly pointless? Clearly people won't be able to double up when every bay is full.

 

[yorksrob]

I wonder whether it might be worth marking the table bays as "priority for household groups". Given limited space, it's probably best to encourage household groups to stick together.

 

[Domh245]

There are many errors in estimating the infection rate based on the death rate, as there are with anything other than regular random testing with a reliable swab test. The time lag is just one of them. I think the issue of where the infection is concentrated is more to do with understanding the effect of different environments and restrictions on the R rate, not the total cases. That should remain approximately proportional to the total deaths, unless some sectors aren't getting the right treatment. Possible in the case of care homes etc but I still think this is the least bad method of estimating the case rate.

I don't disagree that using the death rate is the least bad way of tracking the cases through the UK, particularly as we were so underprepared for testing and failed to keep up. It's certainly the most consistent way of tracking it, particularly if you can apply some sort of fudge factor to account for the different fatality rates at different age ranges. It's not very good for comparing between countries though because of the different reporting standards and populations!

Estimating case rate from does require plenty of nuance though - plotting the COVID deaths in each sector as percentage of total deaths registered you can see that care homes are lagging behind other settings by a couple of weeks - this will naturally inflate the figures as they are so vulnerable but I am sure that the people estimating case rates based on these will have accounted for that! The effect of different settings on R is important (it having the effect of inflating R if it's burning through care homes like wildfire!) but it's certainly going to be having an impact on the death rates presented - the last week of ONS data shows that care homes were only about 300 deaths/week behind hospitals, despite a peak gap of over 4100 between them, I wouldn't be surprised if subsequent data shows that there have been more care home deaths than hosptial deaths for a few weeks at least.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Sadly the JSA will also include council tax benefit, rent paid for and tax credits to top everything up all in all this will result in similar payouts to some people equivalent to a furlough payment currently.

Council tax benefit doesn't pay all the council tax; in some areas, it pays as little as 30%.

The Local Housing Allowance also doesn't pay all the rent for most people.

Tax credits have been abolished to new claimants.

Other than that!

 

[111-111-1]

For question of what is allowed by legislation, see https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/what-travel-is-currently-allowed-by-the-legislation.204411/

The only journeys that people should be making right now - using any transport mode - are those journeys which allowed by the legislation.

Any journey that is allowed by legislation CAN be made by train but people are asked to walk or cycle wherever possible; that's not always practicable and therefore people who are able to travel by car are requested to do so, but anyone whose journey is only practicable by train is allowed to do so.

Any journey that is NOT allowed by the legislation cannot be made by ANY transport mode whatsoever.


The term "essential" is a misnomer; what is allowed is any journey that is permitted by the legislation.

What is encouraged is for people to cycle or walk if at all possible for their journey; people making longer journeys or who have mobility issues will not be able to walk or cycle and they are encouraged to travel by car if possible. But if that's not possible, the use of public transport is permitted.

Whatever the law say public transport is at present for essential journeys that include work when no other way are possible.

I no that a trip to the beach or country is nice but it is not essential so public transport should not be used as the journey is not essential even if it is aloud.

To suggest that people make public transport busy for not essential journeys is wrong and will stop social distance being possible and spread the very horrible virus.

Misnomer is not true. Essential no other way possible aloud on public transport yes non essential no. simple.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Whatever the law say public transport is at present for essential journeys that include work when no other way are possible.

I no that a trip to the beach or country is nice but it is not essential so public transport should not be used as the journey is not essential even if it is aloud.

To suggest that people make public transport busy for not essential journeys is wrong and will stop social distance being possible and spread the very horrible virus.

Misnomer is not true. Essential no other way possible aloud on public transport yes non essential no. simple.

As others have explained, it depends on your definition of "essential". If an individual feels that it's essential for the sake of their mental or physical health to make a train journey to the country or the seaside then that is very much permitted and, in my opinion, should be encouraged.

 

[Enthusiast]

And that is before the effects of (a potential no-deal) brexit are taken into account.

Ah! Brexit. I remember Brexit!

 

[yorksrob]

Well, I've certainly written to my member of parliament to express my concern about the lack of provision for the needs of people who don't drive in the guidance (if not the law).

It's a good job that we have this forum to impart information. The official channels have been useless.

 

[yorksrob]

Essential no other way possible aloud on public transport yes non essential no. simple.

Given that many other countries are controlling transmission without this rule, this is clearly untrue.