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/

@Hardbackwriter

I'd be happy to stay 2m back from someone at a cash machine or a supermarket, and sit further away than tables are usually set out in a cafe or restaurant.

And presumably you're cool with paying 2-3 times the price you're used to every time you go to a restaurant or cafe?

Why would it be 2-3 times the price though? That suggests there'd only be a third of the usual customers. That doesn't have to be the case. Of course, in some places, it would be, due to size/layout, especially in older/quirky buildings, but in a large, square/rectangular building, pretty simple re-layout could facilitate being more spread out. Perhaps the ones in weird old places will need to relocate?? Perhaps have more flexible layouts so that larger/family groups can be put together where they take up less floor space leaving more space for other customers. Perhaps use bookings to spread the same number of customers over a longer time period instead of having so many peaks & troughs of customer numbers. Lots of ways to adapt if they have to. Just look at how so many businesses have adapted over the last year - even in the good times, no business can stand still.

I take absolutely zero notice of all these " could be " negative future scenarios. .Probably as accurate as a Crystal ball.
Fear sells papers, that's all.

I have full faith everything will work out ok.

Going racing is me, it's my hobby, I have a syndicate horse I can't even go and watch him run

Perhaps the "outdoors" part of large gatherings will be allowed, but there will be restrictions on the "indoors" bits, such as the hospitality, bars, restaurants, etc? Surely it will be down to risk assessments. I can foresee new rules re the numbers of people allowed in all buildings, i.e. "x" square metres per person, to allow people to social distance, whether it's an office, shop, restaurant, conference hall, or whatever.

Is he eyeing up his luxury penthouse in an old London theatre, since if this is true, that's all the West End theatres will be good for; being sold off as luxury apartments for the super rich?

It's all very well for Saint Boris to grovel about 100,000 dead, but when is he going to start grovelling about the total destruction of the performing arts, if this is true? Or is he going to resign before any of that is known?

His can distancing not cost anything?

Many sectors struggle to survive with them in place

I find that blasé statement irritating

Cabbage, love and best wishes to you and your son.

Why would it be 2-3 times the price though? That suggests there'd only be a third of the usual customers. That doesn't have to be the case. Of course, in some places, it would be, due to size/layout, especially in older/quirky buildings, but in a large, square/rectangular building, pretty simple re-layout could facilitate being more spread out. Perhaps the ones in weird old places will need to relocate?? Perhaps have more flexible layouts so that larger/family groups can be put together where they take up less floor space leaving more space for other customers. Perhaps use bookings to spread the same number of customers over a longer time period instead of having so many peaks & troughs of customer numbers. Lots of ways to adapt if they have to. Just look at how so many businesses have adapted over the last year - even in the good times, no business can stand still.

Do you often visit rstaurants or cafes? Or cinemas, theatres, gyms, salons, etc? The vast majority could not accommodate social distancing without cutting down significantly on the number of people they can host. There simply aren't 'lots of ways to adapt' while remaining profitable. Many of these establishments already have a slim profit margin, so if they have to cut their profits while retaining the same if not higher overheads, they simply will not survive.

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.

When people throw in SD with face masks and hand washing it shows hey’re not thinking it through

Shouldn’t get airtime if not

But when most of the population have been vaccinated, and the virus is not a huge threat any more, why would people willingly sign up to higher prices and tanked business to allow for social distancing in places like cafes? What would that achieve?

We did that for a short-term emergency. We aren't going to sign up to do it for a long-term status quo, as can be proved by looking at how we've handled every other infectious disease ever.

If they mean very large with hundreds or thousands of people, I don't think I care.
What's important for me is being able to go back to having parties such as house parties of 20 or 30 people, being able to go to the pub in groups, being able to make new friends. We don't need to be around thousands of people do we?
With weddings and the like, couldn't we have a situation where you could have up to say 100 people, but in a space that could normally hold 200, with social distancing?

I can envisage a similar system for a lot of performing arts. A small socially distanced audience at the venue, and a larger audience paying a smaller amount to watch the live stream, either (socially distanced) in a cinema screen, or even cheaper at home.

That might work for big prestige productions that people would be willing to pay to watch at home. But that's a small minority of productions.

couldn't we have a situation where you could have up to say 100 people, but in a space that could normally hold 200, with social distancing?

Well we probably could, but realistically people are not going to socially distance at weddings for the next five years.

One issue for large scale seems to be insurance

But I hope this will pass sooner as restrictions lift

@compulsiveliar2019

No *@cabbagepots* they won't have to live under them! At some point governments will listen to the will of the people or common sense and allow them. If they don't yes I would expect protests. Your perfectly entitled to shut yourself in a little bubble if you like but the rest of us want life to move on!!!

I don't want to be in a bubble any more than the next person but I doubt that this government, now that they are finally doing something, will listen to what we are saying.

@StealthPolarBear

Cabbage, love and best wishes to you and your son.

Thank you. I so want to get to the point where I am not scared to open his bedroom door. I want so much more for him than this.

@Frenchdressing

Aww come on. I think some people have legitimate concerns and some people are less risk verse than others. I hate this idea of there being ‘lockdown enthusiasts’ as If people see restrictions as enjoyable.

Just because someone’s risk tolerance is different to yours it doesn’t make one of you right and another wrong,

Tolerance of which risks though?

Long-term restrictions pose a very serious risk to people's livliehoods, mental and physical health, and children's education. Not to mention the implications of depriving people of their civil liberties in a democracy. The virus is not the only risk, and for many people, it's not a very significant one.

With weddings and the like, couldn't we have a situation where you could have up to say 100 people, but in a space that could normally hold 200, with social distancing?

People don't want to go to a wedding or have a wedding where the guests have to shout at each from 2m away, and they won't do it unless you strictly enforce it (and who would do that?). If you put 100 people in a 200 person space they might be more spread out for a sit-down meal, where they're specifically sat in a place, but for the rest of it they'll just end up using half the space.

This has pretty much broken me today to be honest. I know its 1st world problems in the great scheme of things but two concerts i have really been looking forward to have already been postponed twice and we now have new dates, one in oct and one in nov 2021. I been holding on and holding on that finally these will go ahead and now that hope has been taken away and i feel bereft. Just had a pity party for one watching youtube videos of past concerts and weeping for what we may never have again.

Ugh I miss gigs.

Whenever I read threads like this I realise how many people don't know how fucked the economy is right now, and what the long-term consequences of this will be. So many people who think that public services can just keep running no matter how long we shut down revenue-raising activities. It's going to be a huge shock to a lot of people when the scale of what we've done becomes apparent.

I think this doom mongering may end up being detrimental to the vaccine programme. Most people are having the vaccine so they can get some semblance of normal life back. If they are being told that despite the vaccine they won’t then why bother.

Completely agree. I think they're being really stupid actually, not only are people going to wonder why on earth they need to have a vaccine if they're still not allowed to live but I also think the constant negativity means that people are giving up following the rules. If we were being told that this was a short last bit of crap before we can spend a lovely summer with our families I think people could just hold on. As it is I think lots of people have just thought 'stuff it' and gone to see family.

Fine by me buy as a family of five they'd better allow us to at least see family and relax the rule of six to exclude children. Otherwise my kids will never see their grandparents again.

@IcedPurple this was also intriguing me. What risks when the majority of adults in this country have been vaccinated ? Admittedly I've been worried and super careful when the virus is out of control but that is unlikely to be the case in the summer. I've already contracted Covid from my nursery aged children, I imagine a lot of people in their 20's,30's, 40's are in a similar position given the numbers involved in the Kent strain.

@Hardbackwriter

With weddings and the like, couldn't we have a situation where you could have up to say 100 people, but in a space that could normally hold 200, with social distancing?

People don't want to go to a wedding or have a wedding where the guests have to shout at each from 2m away, and they won't do it unless you strictly enforce it (and who would do that?). If you put 100 people in a 200 person space they might be more spread out for a sit-down meal, where they're specifically sat in a place, but for the rest of it they'll just end up using half the space.

Who would enforce it? Whoever works at the venue, just as happened over the summer.

The virus is not the only risk, and for many people, it's not a very significant one.

I cannot for the life of me understand why, if the government are talking about being able to vaccinate all adults by May, we aren't going to be back to some sort of normal by then, even if it's the sort of normal we had last summer! And yet they're talking about restrictions for ages. I feel very angry that we were told we were locking down to stop the NHS being overwhelmed and now it's morphed into some sort of long term solution to a virus that mostly affects those who are already well on the way to being vaccinated.