So we are allowed to get on a packed tube but cant see family?

[Smithtylater]

Surely if they are testing at the rate they say they are and the family you want to see are not vulnerable/isolating it should be allowed?

Well, the poster just says "limit contact with other people"

I think he is giving people free rein to decide what that means.

You shouldn't get on the tube unless essential. That's what he said.

You visiting your family isn't vital to the economy, people going back to work is.

That's the difference.

Not saying I agree with it, but that's the reasoning.

Can sit on the park for as long as you like but not in someone else's garden 🤷🏻‍♀️ if socially distanced what is the difference?

Na bollocks to that. If I’m ok to mix with an untold amount of households in June, I will not stay away from my family who I haven’t seen since Christmas.

I'm Not really sure why people question this to be honest..... since the virus is most often caught by people in sustained and close contact like at family gatherings over several hours where the viral loading is much higher than sitting near someone on the tube for 20 minutes......

Probably more than ever not.to.mwet up.now. if more people are moving about there will naturally be an increase in spread. Keeping friends and relations away I suppose makes sense cos it's just another chance to transmit the virus you've picked up back at work or on the Tube getting back to work!!

You are not meant to be getting into a packed tube

Who said you should.sit on a packed.tube..get the facts right.

I would have thought viral loads would be higher on crowded public transport.

There’s a big problem with cost to the economy so it makes sense to restart this as much as possible whilst keeping R down everywhere else. It’s hard but better than keeping furlough going longer.

You are not meant to get on packed tube, but if if its the only way to get to work, what do you suggest, @attackedbycrittersand @HappyHammy

I think it’s going to be up to us who we see, but to be cautious. The question will be directly asked tmrw but it will be on us to decide. I think if they give a number on it (eg bubble of 10) some people will take the piss so they may think it’s best to just say the new slogan.

The only people we will see (if it’s ok) is my parents and the in laws. With them that’d keep me happy for months.

People seem to want every single scenario spelt out to them.

The new rules include:
Work from home if you can
Keep your distance if you go out (2 metres apart where possible)

"Where possible". Not possible if you work in London and your employer expects you to be in work usual hours, so you have to get on a tube train or bus with all the other people whose employers expect them in.

That's where the criteria of if social distancing can be maintained comes in

If you can't get to work whilst maintaining distance then you should not be going to work

It will be most interesting to see how this works in practise, it feels like they are putting responsibity into the hands of employees which is perhaps why the unions are asking for some clarity as to the extent of that responsibility...is it legally enforceable for example

If they said we could all go and see family (even social bubbles) that would cause infection rates to rise. Most lifting of restrictions will cause some rise. So they have to weigh them all up and decide which ones to implement.

Yes, they could have said we can all going an see a relative, but that would have had no benefit to the economy (not saying wouldn’t improve MH). If we go into a huge recession that will cause poverty and loss of life.

From what I understand the science says you catch it from being in close proximity to people for an extended period.

As such. It would be unlikely to catch it on the tube due to short journeys, but if you did, the viral load would be low, so you’d not be very ill, or have no symptoms, again because you’d not be close to someone long enough.

With family you’re likely to be close and for hours. Hence you have more chance of transmission, but also a heavy viral load due to the length of time and proximity and as such could be very ill.

So one is short and safer because of it, the other is longer and less safe.

Isn’t it more risky to be with your family who you haven’t seen for weeks for hours on end?

I will be getting on a bus, train and then tube to work from 1st June - it WILL be very busy

No option to drive (no way I'm driving across London)

There's is no changes to socializing with friends and family other than your household. Thought that was clear enough. Not much change really.

Every crossover of social groups increases the infection rate. So if DH and I are in work, and ds is in school, we are exposed to three large groups. If I then meet my brother and his wife, that's another two (and she's a nurse, so high risk). They are trying to minimise these crossovers whilst ensuring as a country we can afford food, healthcare etc. They could have released "go and visit family" or "go to work" and the latter is more essential for a functional country. Sadly.

I’m a Year 1 teacher so it looks like I’ll be getting on a packed tube then!

The point is that (according to the government) going to work for the economy is WORTH THE RISK statistically

But seeing your family is NOT

(There is obviously no ACTUAL difference but it's the governments call and we have a Tory govt, of course they're going to prioritise the economy over you seeing your family 🤷‍♀️)

Any government that doesn’t prioritise the economy over other elements is in for a rockier ride. As we all would be subsequently.

What utter crap. Yes, people may need to use public transport to get to work but surely people don’t need to go to the park! So if we are allowed to go and sit on a park bench being surrounded by complete strangers why are we not allowed to go and see our family members?