Social distancing to be the norm "until there is a vaccine"

[Frompcat]

So this is what Neil Ferguson has said today and seems to be being backed up by government distancing. But what does it actually mean, does anyone know? How can social distancing be maintained if schools open again? Will we be able to visit small groups of family? Or are they literally talking about things continuing as they are for 18 months.

I think people badly need some clarity about this. I don't believe the government don't have any ideas of what their options are.

Surely isn't it all common sense.

If someone is shielding due to being part of the highest risk category, then they'll stay shielded until there's a vaccine. Members of their households will either stay shielded indoors too for the duration (inc kids who won't be going to school) or they move elsewhere if they want to go to school/work etc. Of course, the person being shielded will have the choice to "risk" going out - it's their choice.

Everyone else will be semi-free to go about their business, but social distancing will remain the norm, i.e. no large gatherings, leaving plenty of space between people etc. Shops, cafes, pubs etc will open again, but it will be up to the individual whether to risk going to them.

Re schools, there'll be two streams. Kids who go in and risk them/their families catching covid. And kids from shielding households who'll be taught remotely until the shielding person has been vaccinated.

If we are sacrificing more lives than we are saving then it becomes highly morally questionable to prioritise saving the minority of corona patients who need hospital care and will survive if they receive it.

This is what you said @Snog (along with some questionable figures) so perhaps you will understand why I took it to mean that in your view those patients should not be saved. So please don’t try to deflect it by accusing me of a personal attack.

Chris Whitty may well be looking at all cause mortality but these figures aren't being discussed or widely shared with people with other areas of expertise.

And you still haven’t answered my question - how do you know these figures are not being discussed or shared?

Thing is im only vulnerable and i dont fancy risking it. As in reality it's a coin toss a shielded person could survive or have 0 symptoms and a vulnerable or well person die.
These are statistics based on trends. Something like 1/4 had no preexisting.

I think it relies on a lot of trust that te gov will time things correctly and i dont trust them. The only reason we have capacity is due to so many deaths. If those people were in hospital along with the care home people there certainly wouldnt be. And i dont trust nhs or 111 to not leave me lying collapsed at home getting more blue.

But neither do i want my kids to miss school. Its truly rubbish.
Tbh i think the gov could be glad if some people dont send them back as it will allow more distancing at school and slow spread.

If there are 5-6 waves so maybe 4 more. The schools may well open and shut throughout the year.
Masks and opening up a few non essential shops. Advising against public transport. Increasing food delivery capacity further.

Maybe we could set up a mask making factory etc. Companies could sponsor them and sell them.

Definitely more could be open for deliery and click and collect.

@MrsFezziwig I'm not saying I know the answers I'm saying we need to asking the right questions and having public debates
As to "how do I know" my point is that this is not being discussed widely or not in the news or media

Germany is now allowing small non essential shops to open. And pupils in exam years and in the final year of primary will go back to school soon. Social distancing of 1.5 metres will continue.

@snog I agree with you too.

I think there’s a weird culture just now of “No one must die!” But it relates only to Virus deaths. Peculiar.

I think longer term social distancing but not quite lock down would help reduce transmission in some areas but in others it's a lot more difficult.

For my own life I am happy to wear a mask to shop , if we returned to work I could still wfh part of the time and wear a mask when I had to go in. I would like to be able to walk dog more than once per day and to be able to travel to walk outside in other areas. I see know reason why you cannot visit family members and sit outside in the garden to chat. Obviously only works in the nice weather but could do for next 5 months.

Non-essential shops could reopen with the same distancing rules as supermarkets and people wearing masks. Places like theatres may be possible with about 1/5 of the normal capacity. I'm not sure how you would do cafes / pubs / restaurants in terms of people sitting together on a table even if you spaced the tables out and people can't eat and drink with a face mask on !!

I imagine a lot of people would think twice about going out anyway.

It would be very difficult to keep safe in a busy city and on public transport even with a mask, yet these are probably the places people are suffering most from the lock down.

I think there’s a weird culture just now of “No one must die!” But it relates only to Virus deaths.

I don't think it's that at all. I think it's more, 'as few people as possible should die earlier than they ought to'. And also 'as few years of life overall should be lost as possible'.

I don't think it's that at all. I think it's more, 'as few people as possible should die earlier than they ought to'. And also 'as few years of life overall should be lost as possible'.

How does that translate to young people not being treated for treatable cancers???

I think that's an example where the wrong decision has been made - although it was more of a response to the reality of the situation than a strategy. Hopefully before too long (I think it's starting to happen) there will be 'clean' hospitals or parts thereof in which such treatments can proceed, though obviously with extra care needed during and after chemo.

Treating for cancer but being infected with CV while immunocompromised would have been worse than delay in most cases, I suppose that's the thinking?

Re cancer treatment, in yesterday's select committee hearing with Matt Hancock he was describing policy and to roughly summarise saying that cancer treatment was going ahead unless non urgent or so extreme in damage to immune system that would raise risk of death from Covid to an extent where may be less risky to life to delay treatment. The MPs questioning him did raise the fact that there seems to be a big disconnect between what he is saying there and what is happening on the ground and have prompted him to investigate this further. Pressure must be kept up on that.

Hancock did say that he is concerned by the drop in people presenting with initial suspected cancer symptoms and that people should not hesitate to contact doctors about those.

Maybe there needs to be designated clinics for cancer treatments physically away from sites where covid 19 patients are being treated? This would make it easier to treat patients without the risk of them catching this virus and dying.
I know anyone with my condition has had check ups with consultants postponed as we are at greater risk of catching the virus and dying than the amount of extra deaths that would be caused by a delay in appointments. It is shit, but it is about what is most risky.