What do they mean ‘social distancing in some form until the end of the year’?

[BuffaloCauliflower]

Just that really? What sort of level are they actually talking about? Surely the country will crumble, hospitality industry for one won’t survive if people can’t go out normally all summer and then Christmas time as well? The fallout will be far greater than the virus and the country will be bankrupt.

Anyone more knowledgeable than me able to contribute?

Until we have a vaccine accessible to us our only option to keep the death rate low is ongoing social distancing.

This.

It doesn't matter how difficult, inconvenient or unpleasant. This global pandemic will continue to dictate our lives whether we find that palatable or not.

@Friendsofmine I do too and it’s terrifying

I also think that perhaps they're implying that the country can't afford the generous financial support a second time, so we must get it right the first time.

@MyHipsDontLieUnfortunately it’s not about being palatable, if it leads to mass unemployment and poverty that’s no better than dying of the virus. Saving virus lives will mean other lives are lost through poverty and recession, surely that not palatable either?

You're asking what they mean, whoever they are, no one knows.

Obviously people can guess but how is that helpful? Unless the government are making policy based on most popular guesses on mumsnet all of this endless speculation is just that, what practical use is it to anyone?

Schools will need a lead time to work out how they can deliver education when
a) they have to work around frequent 7/14 day isolation absences for both teachers and pupils - likely to be quite challenging in the A/W cold/flu season
b) work out how to deal with lengthy absences for those who have the disease (even mild cases can require several weeks convalescence)
c) what to do about the exceptionally vulnerable and formally shielded in their community (teachers and pupils)

I'm wondering this this means we won't be able to meet up with friends and family for the foreseeable. I have a friend who has just had a baby. I can't imagine what it would potentially be like for no one to meet the little one properly until the end of the year.

I'm really not looking forward to paying for this for the next 50 years tbh

@CorianderLord me either. DH and I were finally going to be in a position to buy next year and that looks like it’ll go out the window. We’re in our early 30s already, the longer we leave it the harder it’ll get. And we’re in a better position than most (at the moment at least)

My take on it is the largest social gatherings will be banned - theatre, cinema, sporting events, concerts, trade shows, conferences, music festivals, clubs. Anywhere that you have a lot of people all crammed in together.

I think a lot of other places - restaurants, shops, museums - will be able to reopen but will be asked to keep people apart or limit numbers.

Saving virus lives will mean other lives are lost through poverty and recession, surely that not palatable either

This is my concern OP. Consider the number of cancer investigations and treatments that have been indefinitely postponed. I wouldn't be surprised if the subsequent deaths from that decision already outnumber the CV deaths prevented.

Social distancing currently means that our NHS system has gone from being healthcare to being CV-care only. I can't imagine the consequences of that being a long term change.

they dont want to use the phrase exit strategy just yet.

If it leads to mass unemployment and poverty that’s no better than dying of the virus. Saving virus lives will mean other lives are lost through poverty and recession, surely that not palatable either?

Correct - but the socio-economic collapse would be just as bad, if not worse, if there were an uncontrolled peak. I think the predicted effects of that kind of collapse are not always fully considered. And they would be both more drastic and harder to recover from - and of course bring the risk of excess death from both poverty (as we face anyhow, possibly worse given more chaotic collapse) and excess death from health services being overwhelmed

It’s a case of looking for the scenarios which being the fewest excess deaths and the most repairable economy.

The government was roundly condemned less than a month ago for caring about the economy. Now it’s that they’re not caring enough about the economy.

When a body is bashed from both sides, it might perhaps mean they’re actually on the right middle course when all options are pretty shitty

Completely agree with you Cauliflower. People keep saying "oh but we'll just do social distancing for a long time, and keep all leisure closed" they only seem to care about schools....

People don't seem to care how much of GDP is generated by leisure activities or care about those
people who work in them. When all those people are on UC and homeless, the councils and housing will be overwhelmed, never mind the NHS.

There so SO MANY job that that can't really exist with social distancing. It's mind boggling.

I don't know what the answer is either. But I'm quite afraid.

if it leads to mass unemployment and poverty that’s no better than dying of the virus

A false premise, if restrictions are lifted, who would want to go to pubs etc busy parks, beaches? even your local shopping Mall?
Who would go on a flight or busy ferry?

What about folk who work in these places and have no choice?

Any chance encounter meaning either you are ill or you pass it onto to someone you love who might die.

Until there is treatment or a vaccine, i don't believe we will go back to our former lives.

@MoltenLasagne this is it. None of the options are good. But we see here nurses saying their hospitals are so quiet, nurses redeployed to ITU with nothing to do (great news, we’re better prepared and not needing it than needing it and not being prepared) can we at least get back to some normal service now? Covid is not the only medical issue, let alone the only issue?

We were chatting about this yesterday and while you could social distance at work, on the tube it would be packed.

Mass unemployment and poverty will lead to deaths of course, but COVID related deaths are not just the figures we are seeing published daily, there are other deaths related to that, for example those who cannot receive treatment because the NHS is dealing with COVID rates when high, and here is a risk of those being even more likely if the NHS is overwhelmed and cannot treat everyone whether that’s COVID or all the other things that usually strategy our NHS. If COVID spirals out of control then treatment for anything is restricted. Therefore stopping lockdown and allowing this to spread widely isn’t a good move either. The challenge is calculating which will cause more deaths and greater consequences

Buffalocauliflower, yes, maybe even more deaths. , but they won’t happen all at once and be laid out on the front page daily. The gvt. Won’t be held to account in the same way, so it “matters less”

I fear we’ll never go back to “normal”

The old days are gone

We’ll be intermittently in lockdown, social distancing the new norm, face masks the new norm, not visiting elderly relatives the new norm. Poverty the new norm. No/less travel, no eating out, no concerts, no sports events. Distance learning.

This virus will possibly mutate, like flu it will be slightly different each year. Or else there will be a new virus.

I am mentally preparing myself for things never going back to how they were.

In fact it is a miracle we lasted as long as we did, without a virus like this, considering overpopulation and international travel, ageing populations etc.

@iVampire I agree neither option is good. It’s such an extreme ‘rock and hard place’ situation. I certainly don’t pretend to have the knowledge of how that balance is found, I like and trust Chris Whitty and I know armchair scientists are not helpful. But this just feels like a pit with no bottom at the moment

The unemployment won’t be forever and neither will the poverty caused by this, death is forever and I would rather be poor and have my loved ones that be without them

@twinnywinny14 well lots of that other treatment has been stopped because hospitals have been prepped to be overloaded with CV cases, but it doesn’t actually seem to be the case in many places and we have nurses here saying they’re quiet. So it seems like a lot of that cancelled treatment could actually be going ahead but isn’t?

I wonder if this is going to be like The Sweating Sickness - went through the population every year or so killing to a greater or lesser degree for about 40 years (brought over by the usurper Henry 7th in 1485 and Anne Boleyn survived it around 1527)

Perhaps we should go back to hanging something at our door to warn people that the household has it and stay home for 40 days.............

I am not sure what the point of furlough money was which presumably we can only afford for a few months then as it might have been easier to get all those airline staff, restaurant staff etc redundant sooner rather than bankrupt the nation instead with a pointless interim step.

if we’d been told it wouldn’t be necessary to speculate

But we can't be told because 'they' DON'T KNOW YET what exactly will be done. I'm no fan of the government but they will have to judge as things go.