Will social distancing be around for years

[frasersmummy]

Is this our life now.. Queues outside every shop. Kids no longer in full time education
Family gatherings banned
Theatres dark cinemas closed.

I don't think I could cope mentally if this goes on beyond the end of the summer with no end in sight.

Huge difference between lockdown measures and 'social distancing'.

The former will go, sooner rather than later, but the latter could well be the norm forever more. This is one of the significant changes I was alluding to in another thread. The best way to look at it is that we universally adopt new standards for 'hygiene' during social interactions. It's not restrictive as such, we just have to change our patterns of behaviour and forego some habits, which until now, have been societal norms. Small price to pay for protecting yourself from a potentially deadly communicable disease.

It reminds me of the changes in sexual habits in the wake of the HIV/Aids awareness campaigns in the late 80's and early 90's. People started using condoms far more frequently, and certain groups reduced the frequency with which they indulged in certain acts. It's not all that dissimilar really.

Very dissimilar. You can still have sex with a condom. You're still touching them. There have been potentially lethal communicable diseases throughout human history, there will be more, this one is far from the most lethal and 'social distancing' still isn't a normal part of human makeup. There's no such thing as safe. There's no such thing as total protection. That's part of being alive, unfortunately.

It’s very dissimilar

Teaching everyone, including little kids, that they can’t hug loved ones because there’s a huge risk they’ll die, is in no way comparable to “change your sex habits or you might get this disease”.

Telling people they can’t meet two parents in a garden because you’ll walk through their house and kill them is in no way comparable.

I disagree it has anything like the impact of AIDS. Permanently keeping small children metres apart from each other and closing everywhere fun they might go because they can’t “socially distance” at trampoline parks, swimming pools or even the playground, fundamentally changing (for the worse) education, adults routinely queuing to get into every shop, no big family meals, no weddings, no parties, no concerts, restricted public transport, wearing a hot uncomfortable mask every time we leave the house.... socially distancing feels like a much bigger deal to society than a minority of adults having to use condoms during sex or stop having unprotected sex with multiple partners.

Caring “ Without vaccine I will not be allowed out.”

How do you think life is for allogenic stem cell transplant patients (and other transplant patients), people with Fanconi anaemia, people with certain forms of cancer requiring certain treatments, with cystic fibrosis, etc etc etc all the time? All are 'allowed' out but they realise that it's a matter of risk assessment, there's no government restricting the entirety of society because of their conditions. Life goes on.

People appear to never have had or quickly given up all ability to think critically and assess their own personal risk when it comes to this, and there is unrestrained terror whipped up by the media and social media, which is odd when you consider how many merrily jump into cars, ride motobikes, swim in open water, eat in restaurants, ride horses, etc. without a second thought to the dangers involved.

Bubble thank you for putting that so much better than I did!

I should point out that my comparison to changes in sexual habits alludes to the change in personal mindset involved more than the actual acts themselves.

The comparison with HIV/Aids awareness is that prior to those campaigns it wasn't really commonplace to think of the safety of sex first and foremost, and although condoms were obviously used as a means to prevent pregnancy, they weren't really associated primarily with being a barrier to prevent transmission of STD's.

Certainly I recall vividly the change in attitude and outlook the campaigns prompted in me and my peer group. Everyone started questioning the risks associated with casual sex in a manner that they did not previously, most started carrying condoms as a matter of routine etc.

The jist of the comparison is that things that were previously inconceivable quickly become the norm, people adjust, and forget that things that are then taken for granted were once completely different.

I'm not suggesting children not be permitted to have touch contact with each other, or that people should continue to be prevented from meeting their parents, both of those are measures attributable to lockdown scenario. The 'social distancing' I'm referring to is more about unnecessary added risk on top of that already posed by simply interacting with relatives and loved ones. I think it could well become the norm to have things like shopping trolleys disinfected as a matter of course, set capacities for shops with regards to how many customers they can accommodate at any point, etc etc. Once these things have been around for a while, nobody will even notice anything out of the ordinary, hence the comparison with condom usage etc.

Also, it’s different because of who it protects. Covid is not really “potentially deadly” to me or anybody much under 45 without significant health conditions. At least, no more than driving my car, catching chickenpox, mountain biking or eating too much junk food is “potentially deadly”. AIDS in the 80s actually was deadly, to anyone that caught it. So using condoms protects me, social distancing helps reduce other people’s risk of death, a little bit, predominantly those over 75. That feels like a slightly different set of risks, costs and benefits.

@Wynona I believe the rationale is that children catch the virus at seemingly the same rate, they are just frequently asymptomatic or have mild symptoms.

Previously, it was thought that asymptomatic people (and so most children) did not shed the virus, but now there is a study (newer than the article LilacTree posted) showing that asymptomatic spreaders could account for up to 50% of transmissions. While the kids aren't really in any danger themselves, them mixing freely creates increased risk for their families and school staff along with their own families.

It was released fairly recently, by John Hopkins University (I think), but it's just too late for me to start googling now!

Ah, I think we differ in what we think prolonged “social distancing” is going to entail. Your version, where we clean stuff better and stop shaking hands with complete strangers, yes, I can see how that might just become a social norm. Interesting to think about.

@Bubbletwix

Ah, I think we differ in what we think prolonged “social distancing” is going to entail. Your version, where we clean stuff better and stop shaking hands with complete strangers, yes, I can see how that might just become a social norm. Interesting to think about.

Yes, this is pretty much all I'm alluding to really.

Tomorrow's 'remember when we all used to shake hands with total strangers??? Shudder....' won't be all that different to how people looked back at casual, unprotected sex prior to the 80's. Unthinkable now, but nobody really questioned it then.

To me, social distancing ongoing means

No leisure facilities allowed to open except tennis and badminton

Going for runs meaning the horrible dodging out of everyone’s way

Queuing for shops forever

No bars or restaurants or cinema in less you are very rich because they can only be very expensive to make money on about 30% occupancy and most will close

I’m the one who disinfects light switches and hand washes loads. That’s not social distancing.

Yes Lilac, that (plus a lot more, like school changes) version of distancing is certainly what I think is being implied by government. No way to live at all. Unless of course all the talk is just intended to show us the rock, having seen the hard place that is the death toll otherwise, so that we can make a more informed choice of how we might live and what kind of risks we might be willing to take....

won't be all that different to how people looked back at casual, unprotected sex prior to the 80's. Unthinkable now, but nobody really questioned it then.

You'd be surprised how many don't now.

My dad put it best: 'There are two things you can guarantee people will always be willing to risk their lives and do anything for - money and sex.' He was spot on.

Yes, rates of STD infections in the young are scary now.

I think if anything my generation benefited from a degree of over-caution, whereas the passage of time has served to reduce the continual concern with risk in young people's minds, hence the return to more dangerous behaviours that we pretty much gave up in the 90's.

I'd say 'maybe time for another AIDS scare' but that reminds me too much of the old fogeys who were adamant what me and my teenage pals needed to sort us out was another World War

Mere the shielding advice is advice, you don’t have to live that way if you can face life being shorter. Yes, suicide has always been a choice for people who find life unbearable.

We're talking about 1 in 30 pf the population having had shielding letters. And there's the people who live with them who are affected too.

I wonder whether antibody tests will change things. If say 1 in 20 or 1 in 10 are proven to have had it largely without symptoms and then tell their family and friends this will give others greater confidence to go out into the community more. I think we will reach a point where a minority are shielding themselves and a growing majority are prepared to take the risk.

Mere “ Yes, suicide has always been a choice for people who find life unbearable”

Yes, I nearly did that in lockdown.

Do you really trust the government that much that you think you’re guaranteed a shorter life if you don’t shield? Didn’t you initially say you were puzzled to get the letter?

As Tin pointed out, many people were highly at risk before this and wandering about. There are diseases out there we can’t even identify.

This government campaign has been spectacularly successful.

My shielding relative is having his first game of tennis as his local park have unlocked the courts, so that’s my bit of nice news for the day.

I'm happy for some aspects of social distancing to carry on. I don't like people touching me apart from my kids, so I'm more than happy with that.

Going to shops has become a complete PITA with people behaving badly, but it really makes me weigh up how much I need something before I go out. I'm not "popping" anywhere.

My work has been negatively impacted and I miss working with groups of people. But at the same time, it's forced people to be dragged into the realm of technology and they are learning to use it and in ways that will improve their lives.

Working remotely, I have more time because I'm not driving everywhere. It's now spent in my garden, learning to care for things organically.

It's not all bad.

“ Working remotely, I have more time because I'm not driving everywhere. It's now spent in my garden, learning to care for things organically.

It's not all bad.”

Yes, there are definitely benefits for those who are better off.

I really hope not..life without no concerts, theate or crowds cheering sports is a bleak and grey prospect.

Permanently keeping small children metres apart from each other and closing everywhere fun they might go because they can’t “socially distance” at trampoline parks, swimming pools or even the playground, fundamentally changing (for the worse) education, adults routinely queuing to get into every shop, no big family meals, no weddings, no parties, no concerts, restricted public transport, wearing a hot uncomfortable mask every time we leave the house

Indeed. It sounds ludicrous when you type it all out like that, but this seems to be what some people are advocating, and what I take the government’s ‘ongoing social distancing’ to mean. How can any of this be sustainable if we want the vast majority of the population, especially the younger generations, to have any kind of quality of life? And, of course, this kind of social distancing taken to its logical conclusion means no more new relationships - plummeting birth rate anyone?

The lack of critical thinking and informed risk assessment in this is astounding. Hand washing and disinfecting shopping trolleys I’m fully on board with, but not this!

XDownwiththissortofthingX The 'social distancing' I'm referring to is more about unnecessary added risk on top of that already posed by simply interacting with relatives and loved ones. I think it could well become the norm to have things like shopping trolleys disinfected as a matter of course, set capacities for shops with regards to how many customers they can accommodate at any point, etc etc.

Things as you suggest would be ok. However, what about the ability to make new "relatives and loved ones" if social events are off the cards? Are we basically freezing our family and friend situations in time - what you've got now is it? Are we supposed to date online and only once you've been a couple for six months would you do anything as risky as meet in person?

But as long as it's just generally sorting out the public's disgusting personal hygeine, I'm fine with it. Brilliant if we can make spitting totally socially unacceptable!

LilacTree1 They are finally starting to run suicide stories in the press, which is a step forward and I hope it will make people realise there’s no mental health service that can offer a reasonable substitute for loved ones or a future where you can put food on the table.

It actually really puzzles me that so many people consider death the worst possible outcome of anything.

Couldn't agree more.

I don't think so. For the majority of people who get this virus, they suffer no or very mild symptoms. Once perceived risk falls, people will soon go back to old ways. What we're doing now goes against human instinct so I can't see how it can be maintained.

Social distancing can't surely continue in such strict measures surely. It's one thing saying no to all "fun things" but not having a friend or family over for a drink, a BBQ with friends in the garden, family gatherings at Christmas at a relative's house indefinitely? Surely even the most unsociable of people would crack before too long? Even just the simplest thing like taking your child to the park to play on the swings, they should be able to enjoy their lives.

If they continue with social distancing measures for the fun things then what is the future? Places run on half capacity which means potentially higher prices and less staff. Lots of places close, the ones that continue to open can only be attended by those with a high income or someone who has saved for ages. Even just a drink in your local pub is pretty joyless if you have to pay a fortune and can't even meet a friend for a drink.

At the pub I work in we regularly have a group of older ladies in their 70s meet up for their birthdays or celebrations. There are usually 12 of them, most if not all have children and grandchildren, other relatives and other friends. If the current restrictions stay in place will they never be able to socialise as a group again because they don't live together and are classed as high risk? Doesn't seem right in my eyes.