Restrictions on large gatherings likely to be in place 'for next few years'

[vera99]

Gulp. This is pretty bleak if true.

Experts have warned that restrictions on large gatherings could remain in place for "the next few years" as the world learns to live with the coronavirus.

Tim Spector, a professor of genetic epidemiology at King's College London, told Times Radio that he "can't see us suddenly having another Cheltenham Festival with no regulations again".

"I can't see us having massive weddings with people coming from all over the world, I think for the next few years those days are gone," he added.

Prof Spector also suggested that basic infection control measures - including physical distancing, face masks and handwashing - should remain in place as they "don't cost really anything to do".

"I think we need to get used to that and that will allow us to do the things we really want to do more easily and more readily," he said.

On a more positive note Prof Spector, who created the Zoe Covid Symptom Study, said the infection survey indicates that coronavirus rates are "generally much lower everywhere" in the country, with around one in 170 people infected on average.

He suggested that reinstating the rule of six allowing people to meet outdoors should be "definitely encouraged" around the same time as primary schools begin to return.

Follow the latest updates below.

www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/coronavirus-news-uk-covid-vaccine-lockdown-end-latest-cases/

Yes, "some" businesses "may" have to close, but if there's demand, then other businesses will open to serve that demand. That's how it's always been, pre pandemic. When there's a new one way system, or a street is pedestrianised, or a car park is closed/prices increase, businesses that rely on customers with cars will suffer, and yes, some will close whilst others that rely on pedestrians will thrive. That's just the reality of business - nothing is guaranteed. Re restaurants, yes, it's possible some smaller ones or ones with physical limitations such as pillars/corners etc may not be viable, but there'll be opportunities to either relocate or for another business to set up in more suitable premises (especially given all the empty retail shops). Sad but that's life in any business.

It's not just 'life' that entire industries, including businesses that were doing well, have to shut overnight. And we're not just talking restaurants. We're talking pubs, cafes, salons, theatres, cinemas, aviation, tourism, gyms, leisure centres, hotels and many others. These employ millions of people and contribute billions to the state coffers. Social distancing means the majority if not vast majority are unviable. Ask yourself how you would survive with 50% - or even less - of your income, and 100% or more of your overheads. Short answer. You probably wouldn't.

Shrugging your shoulders and saying "C'est la vie!" and 'Businesses will have to adapt'' is simply denying the reality that long-term social distancing requirements means economic devastation for millions of people.

@RosieLemonade

October-April every year from now on will be total lockdown and from April/May-September would be Annoying for those of us (Me and poor DD) who will have lockdown birthdays for ever more.

I’d be the same and, if it got to that point, while I might not be able to go out, I’d see friends indoors

@MargosKaftan

Restrictions don't have to mean limited numbers either. It could mean more space per person allowed. More hand washing facilities /toilets per person. It could mean more entry and exit gates to avoid crowds, staggered ticket times. An obligation to avoid queues around moving to and from carparks.

Restrictions could mean pre ordered drinks / food. It could require more frequent cleaning of public areas/loos and stricter controls on kitchen / bar area cleaning.

New rules could mean avoiding funnelling people between areas or encouraging drinking at intervals.

Exactly this. We won't be going back to how things were in 2019. Hopefully 2022 will be pretty close to "normal" but with extra precautions/safeguards in place.

Another poster mentioned liquids in aircraft. That's an ideal case in point. At the time, people thought it was stupid and impossible to stop people taking liquids on board. But now it's the norm as equipment has been developed to spot it, security procedures tweaked, plenty of publicity, etc. That restriction is here to stay and no one really cares one way or another because it's almost seemlessly incorporated into the travel "experience".

So much could be done to improve hygiene and infection control, etc as you say, such as better washing facilities, one way systems, staggering entry/exit times, without too much cost/hassle in most places. All it needs is the will to do it, which will be there if it means the organisations can't run their events if they don't do it!

@1dayatatime

This is a really interesting post. I agree that certain organised events such as Cheltenham races or Glastonbury or even marathons will not resume for a few years before then facing restrictions on numbers. However imposing restrictions on personal events such as a birthday party or a wedding or attendance at local sports match is going to be slot harder to enforce with many people just saying bllx to it.

Prior to Covid 20 to 40 k people died every year from the flu so In the long run I think there will be a bitter divide between those that say let's take the risk, it's acceptable and get on with life and those that say we should put peoples lives first, for every Cheltenham race allowed that will mean people losing their parents or grand parents just so some people can have a nice day at the races.

This does worry me a bit too, and I don't think it's totally paranoid to see signs of this kind of mission creep (e.g. -www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/24/matt-hancock-wants-to-use-nhs-testing-system-to-fight-flu-after-covid) not least because if we decide that respiratory illnesses are an unacceptable way for old people to die (now that pneumonia, once seen as a relatively kind death, has been redesignated as 'drowning in your own lungs') we'll just condemn a lot more people to absolutely miserable, slow dementia deaths.

I think it would be better if they used terms like 'measures', or 'mitigations'

I do wonder whats the point in vaccines if they won't stop covid being something we have to worry about. Once we are all vaccinated, what will be the point in social distancing? If you can't catch it or spread it, surely it doesn't matter if you are 2m away from someone who also can't catch it or spread it?

Isn't that how it works? The few who won't have the jab can keep themselves locked away. No reason for the rest of us to suffer.

I thought the whole point of this lockdown was to protect the nhs from being overwhelmed until people could be vaccinated?

So is this suggesting that we will then be distancing long term to protect the rest of the world?

@IcedPurple

Yes, "some" businesses "may" have to close, but if there's demand, then other businesses will open to serve that demand. That's how it's always been, pre pandemic. When there's a new one way system, or a street is pedestrianised, or a car park is closed/prices increase, businesses that rely on customers with cars will suffer, and yes, some will close whilst others that rely on pedestrians will thrive. That's just the reality of business - nothing is guaranteed. Re restaurants, yes, it's possible some smaller ones or ones with physical limitations such as pillars/corners etc may not be viable, but there'll be opportunities to either relocate or for another business to set up in more suitable premises (especially given all the empty retail shops). Sad but that's life in any business.

It's not just 'life' that entire industries, including businesses that were doing well, have to shut overnight. And we're not just talking restaurants. We're talking pubs, cafes, salons, theatres, cinemas, aviation, tourism, gyms, leisure centres, hotels and many others. These employ millions of people and contribute billions to the state coffers. Social distancing means the majority if not vast majority are unviable. Ask yourself how you would survive with 50% - or even less - of your income, and 100% or more of your overheads. Short answer. You probably wouldn't.

Shrugging your shoulders and saying "C'est la vie!" and 'Businesses will have to adapt'' is simply denying the reality that long-term social distancing requirements means economic devastation for millions of people.

That has happened throughout history. There's been a succession of industries which have died a death, often pretty quickly, leaving huge numbers of people unemployed, etc. It's a fact of life. An important message from history is that you don't flog a dead horse.

Shrugging your shoulders and saying "C'est la vie!" and 'Businesses will have to adapt'' is simply denying the reality that long-term social distancing requirements means economic devastation for millions of people.

But the article talks about social distancing restrictions when primary schools go back, not for years and years.

In the longer term, it is likely that travel to some countries will be more restricted because of quarantine and vaccination rules, but that doesn't mean lock down forever.

whats the point in vaccines if they won't stop covid being something we have to worry about
seems like we are being prepped for a future where the virus is LESS of a problem, but still a problem
probably wealthy important people will be free to come and go but the plebs will have to cower indoors so that the important ones can carry on getting more richer and more important-er

@Kazzyhoward do you work in any of the affected industries, out of interest?

I dont accept the mass loss of our arts, entertainment and sports industries to mitigate what will presumably be flu type levels of death post vaccine rollout.

@MargosKaftan

I do wonder whats the point in vaccines if they won't stop covid being something we have to worry about. Once we are all vaccinated, what will be the point in social distancing? If you can't catch it or spread it, surely it doesn't matter if you are 2m away from someone who also can't catch it or spread it?

Isn't that how it works? The few who won't have the jab can keep themselves locked away. No reason for the rest of us to suffer.

"The few who won't have the jab can keep themselves locked away"

Except that they can't. Figures suggest that up to half of the deaths have been of people who were supposed to have been "cared for" (or locked away) in care homes, hospitals or their own homes being looked after by carers. They couldn't have been more "locked away". They caught covid from their carers or in "caring" places. Until we deal with that, we can't move forward. Many of those who can't have the jab will be vulnerable with medical conditions, etc., meaning they're reliant on care being provided to them. If that care isn't safe, then they're not safe. We really, really, need to address the huge numbers of people catching it in care settings.

So is this suggesting that we will then be distancing long term to protect the rest of the world?

No. The article does not mention long term social distancing. The long term measures are related to international travel and potential restrictions at very large events. It doesn't specify what those restrictions would be. It might just be more hand washing stations.

That has happened throughout history. There's been a succession of industries which have died a death, often pretty quickly, leaving huge numbers of people unemployed, etc. It's a fact of life. An important message from history is that you don't flog a dead horse.

When have as many industries as I mentioned above simultaneously collapsed, almost overnight? And not due to lack of demand, but due to restrictions imposed upon them?

I can't think of any examples.

In any case, while you might be happy to accept that the need for indefinite social distincing is so great that it's OK for millions to become unemployed as a result, I highly doubt the government or general public will feel the same way.

It blows my mind the many people on here who say “it’s up the politicians to decide” like it’s a preferable option. You’re totally right if course, it isn’t for experts to decide what happens.

And that’s why we have a world beating death rate, and an economy & health system at the brink.

We are fucked if we have to hope this gang of idiots have enough brain cells to make a decision that’s good for the majority.

We really, really, need to address the huge numbers of people catching it in care settings
oooh but imagine the huuuge mess of emerging worms if that can was properly looked at
no no no, kick that can down the road, under the carpet, anywhere outta sight!

Many of those who can't have the jab will be vulnerable with medical conditions, etc., meaning they're reliant on care being provided to them

These people would have a similar vulnerability to other respiratory illnesses. I'm sorry but we can't stop the world for this and people need to stop attempting to normalise long term a very abnormal situation.

I really think people need to read the article more carefully.

[quote MaxNormal]@Kazzyhoward do you work in any of the affected industries, out of interest?

I dont accept the mass loss of our arts, entertainment and sports industries to mitigate what will presumably be flu type levels of death post vaccine rollout.[/quote]
I've lost half my client base, from a wide variety of industries, in the past year due to clients ceasing to trade due to covid. I'm not expecting many of them back as most have moved on to new jobs/businesses, especially the ones who were weak anyway. Likewise, I'm moving on and concentrating on helping clients with more sustainable business models for the future with less reliance on person-to-person contact.

@merrymouse

Shrugging your shoulders and saying "C'est la vie!" and 'Businesses will have to adapt'' is simply denying the reality that long-term social distancing requirements means economic devastation for millions of people.

But the article talks about social distancing restrictions when primary schools go back, not for years and years.

In the longer term, it is likely that travel to some countries will be more restricted because of quarantine and vaccination rules, but that doesn't mean lock down forever.

The quotes jump around a fair bit.

Some mean atm rather than long term

I have no doubt we’ll not see destruction of some sectors as some pp seem to want

hardback yes indeed.
Pneumonia used to be called Old Man’s Friend. And I note it seems to be how Captain Tom went.
And it seems to me that at 100 with a life of love and family and service - that’s not a bad way to go.
I made a documentary a couple of years ago about care homes and it gave me endless sleepless nights at the sheer cruelty of keeping some residents going.

I think those saying that social distancing can go on for years need to be frank about what this means for the livelihoods of millions of people, rather than pretend that they 'can just adapt'. They can't

I could not agree more. If you make a judgment call that you’re willing to plunge hundreds of thousands into poverty because it will save lives then that’s fair enough, but own it and don’t try to wriggle out of it by saying they can adapt or weren’t viable anyway.

When have as many industries as I mentioned above simultaneously collapsed, almost overnight?

Things changed pretty rapidly and fundamentally during WW2.

Horse Racing with crowds will definitely start up again as soon as possible, as will other sports. Money.

@Kazzyhoward there have been some highly profitable sectors affected by lockdown, I see no reason why they can't continue to do so in the near future. I dont understand why you are so keen to see restrictions extended indefinitely.