No mention of families again

[Thewheelsonthebus23]

Non essential shops opening, schools opening and car dealerships, but no mention of seeing family again. I thought we would be able to at least ‘link up’ with one other household

[1Pinkfluffyelephant]

Yes I just don’t understand the logic in this. Why would I go out to primark and send my eldest back to school to mix with children who I have no idea where they have been or who they have been in contact with. Yet my DD can’t hug her grandparents (who arent old or at high risk) nor have they met or cuddled our 9 week old despite the fact we know they have been isolating.

[GlacindaTheTroll]

Just use your instincts ....

[Bol87]

I’m no Boris defender but there is more info to follow. He just needed to give shops etc a heads up so they can prepare distancing measure & staffing etc..

The official move to the next stage was meant to be announced on Thursday as per whether schools can open etc but king of the coverups has pushed this out early - distract, distract, distract 🙄

[StatisticalSense]

Each relaxation will have some effect on the R value so it is important to choose those that have the smallest effect on the R value for the greatest return to society. Reopening non essential shops in a controlled manner with social distancing in place and limited numbers of people permitted in the shop at any one time is likely to have relatively little effect on the R value, while bringing large benefits in allowing people back to work, restarting the economy and consumer spending, and in allowing people to obtain things which whilst not immediately a matter of life and death are actually quite important in living a comfortable life. Many people are in pretty desperate need of new clothing, either because many of their current clothes are worn out or because they have changed in size. On the other hand allowing people to see one other household may well have a larger effect on the R value due to the likely hood of prolonged levels of close contact, whilst not being of universal benefit and of no economic benefit meaning the overall benefit of such a change would be low. Any wider relaxation that allows multiple households to meet in close contact, either directly at the same time, or indirectly by allowing household A to meet both households B and C (who have also met D and E respectively), would be disastrous for the R level but the only way in which many would be able to gain any advantage from such an easing. This combination of factors make it pretty clear that there is more benefit on a societal level to allow shops to reopen than there is in allowing more contact between households, even if on an individual level the reverse may be true for some groups.

[Ilikefresias]

Pretty sure this was announced tonight knowing it would be controversial but it maybe takes some heat off Cummings

[Hazelnutlatteplease]

They've relaxed the things that cost the govenment money to lockdown

It's all about the bottom line

[TorysSuckRevokeArticle50]

Wait till Thursday, I suspect that family/friends will be mentioned then.

He only confirmed schools yesterday and shops today to try to deflect attention from the Cummings Catastrophe and give the press and us something else to think about. It was not in his plan to mention those at all till the lockdown review on 28th.

[StatisticalSense]

@Hazelnutlatteplease
It's not just about the bottom line, but of course that is a major consideration as maintaining the economy to the greatest possible extent is essential if we as a country are to recover from the virus.
But there is also the fact that the proposed 2 household bubbles are of little use to many households, because in many cases their simply isn't two households who will mutually wish to exclusively see each other. Asking people to choose one other household asks many to choose between their grown up children, between theirs and their partners parents (or even their parents if the parents are divorced), or even between which person in a house share can see a relative, which clearly won't be possible for the vast majority. This means the benefits of such social bubbles are minuscule on a societal level, and are also unenforceable and likely to be broken (which would see an exponential rise in cases), and therefore are not actually a very good idea.

[Hazelnutlatteplease]

Right. Because not locking down construction wasnt about the bottom line either....

We're not recovering as a country together either.

Every thing is opening back up, but those most vulnerable are not allowed past their front door.

People have to go back to work, including those with no childcare.

People on lower wages with no option to work from home will have to go to work regardless of the personal risk or even shielding. Especially those on zero hpur contracts who run the risk of losing their jobs if they dont. Higher wage professionals will continue to be able to work.

We are not recovering together. The economy is being reconstructed regardless of the personal cost or death toll.

[Hazelnutlatteplease]

Higher wage professionals will continue to be able to work from home

[Hazelnutlatteplease]

Everything single thing they have done is about £

[ACautionaryTale]

The economy is more important than hugging a granny

Might not be fuzzy and nice but long term its the truth

Hence go to work but don’t hit your gran

[ACautionaryTale]

By u the way - agree with that

Love and hugs don’t pay the bills

[FourTeaFallOut]

Hence go to work but don’t hit your gran

Not even with a 2m bat?

[Heartonsleeve23]

What about people’s mental health though? Does that not get a consideration?

[GenerateUsername]

Not even with a 2m bat?

In a public place is ok but not in your garden. She might want to go in to use the loo.

[PicsInRed]

Short answer, you'll hug mum but not the john lewis staffer.

[ACautionaryTale]

It does not pay the bills

If there’s no money in then coffers were all screwed

[GenerateUsername]

What about people’s mental health though? Does that not get a consideration?

This is Britain!

[PicsInRed]

No promises though. I mean, I've really missed john lewis...

[Bumpandus]

I think it’s gonna be mentioned after the review on Thursday

Boris has confirmed we are going into phase 2 from the 1st June and if you read the actual rebuilding document it states that phase 2 includes changing social interaction rules and that they are discussing but haven’t confirmed a household bubble system to allow a small number to mix. I guess one each first?

[Hazelnutlatteplease]

Short answer, you'll hug mum but not the john lewis staffer.

But youll touch the door to go in and the door to go out. You'll type your pin into the pin machine. You'll touch the handrail on the stairs or escalator.

My mum's been isolating for two-three months. So have we. Which do you think carries more risk, hugging my mum or not hugging a John Lewis staffer

[Redolent]

@StatisticalSense

Isn’t the solution being able to see one different household every two weeks? That gives enough time for self isolation should you develop symptoms in between seeing a different household. That’s how my sister and I are thinking of spacing out our visits to my mum…leaving two weeks in between.

[Hazelnutlatteplease]

What about people’s mental health though? Does that not get a consideration?

DD has to see pictures of all her friends meeting up whilst not being able to do so herself cos if she bought it home to DS and killed him she couldn't leave with herself. Lockdown isnt the only thing causing mental distress.

[Redolent]

@Hazelnutlatteplease

Research suggests that the risks of transmission through surface contact is fairly low (though not non-existent). The highest risk is through virus laden droplets which circulate in confined, close quarters. Families are primed for the kind of transmission.