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/

@IrishMamaMia The problem is the only game in town is the virus. Even other health risks don't seem to matter. Obviously the virus is a serious problem on a population scale, but for most people it isn't. Surely this one risk has to be balanced with the risks which lockdown poses to society and the economy in general? For me, for example, the risk to my livelihood is much greater than the risk of having what would very likely be a relatively mild illness.

I mean it’s a genuine question. When all over 50s have been vaccinated and therefore the risk of severe disease and death is minimal. What will we need restrictions for?

The scientists are already tweaking the virus so surely it won’t be to do with new strains. We tweak the flu vaccine every year.

Tweaking the vaccine

hard some of us do so little in normal times that some restrictions aren't a problem.

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

It's not the job of waiters or other low-wage staff to enforce social distancing. And if they have to employ special 'distancing stewards', well there's another expense to add while your profits are a fraction of what they would be with a full venue.

As I said above, people need to be frank about the fact that long-term social distancing requirements mean that many businesses will have to close, and many will be out of work.

This makes no logical sense, other countries are already do it. Someone needs to inform the good prof he’s talking shit,,,😂

Isn't there a risk that if the virus can run amok amongst those not vaccinated it can mutate into something more sinister

If you're imagining that wedding venues could survive by hosting weddings where people get told off every time they get close enough to properly hear each other then, again, I think you've lost touch with reality.

@megletthesecond

hard some of us do so little in normal times that some restrictions aren't a problem.

Good for you, but I bet you still rely on services that are paid for by the tax revenues of those businesses, whether or not you personally use them.

@Hardbackwriter

If you're imagining that wedding venues could survive by hosting weddings where people get told off every time they get close enough to properly hear each other then, again, I think you've lost touch with reality.

Many churches have been at least 3/4 empty for about 50 years! Hotels have other work if holidays are allowed again.

Easy everyone, this is just one scientists opinion.

"It's not the job of waiters or other low-wage staff to enforce social distancing."

It's not normally the job of shop employees either, but these are strange times. If it's either do that or have no business at all, they would do it.

It’s bonkers. What about sporting events? Football matches, olympics, athletics, concerts? These industries are going to go under if they are paused indefinitely. Fgs, once all over 50s are vaccinated, let’s get back to normal. Some people will die, just like they die from other stuff, but I’m afraid that does not warrant all these restrictions remaining.

@IcedPurple I hope your business can re-start soon. What a worry to have on top of all these limitations.

@Gwenhwyfar

"It's not the job of waiters or other low-wage staff to enforce social distancing."

It's not normally the job of shop employees either, but these are strange times. If it's either do that or have no business at all, they would do it.

From what I've seen, shop employees do very little enforcing of social distancing. There might be someone standing at the door to ask you to sanitise your hands, wear a mask and limiting the numbers, but that's a very different thing to expecting waiters, who are already working very hard for a low wage, to hover around telling guests at a wedding, with loud music playing, to keep 2 metres apart from each other for hours on end.

That's not a reasonable thing to ask. Social distancing long-term means large numbers of business closures and lost jobs. Those advocating it need to stop pretending otherwise.

Erm, do you know how churches (I'm guessing you mean Church of England ones) are funded and so why they aren't really comparable to private businesses? I'm sure any wedding venue with an endowment of £8.9bn will indeed be fine. (And anyway, the church does indeed have 'non-viable' churches and a long-term funding issue - because even with that endowment you can't run half-empty forever)

Again, the level of total economic ignorance from the people who think this is viable long-term is actually really scary.

I just cannot see this being in any way likely.

Unless it turns out that the disease morphs to evade vaccines or we learn that it has serious long term effects we dont know about.

Not sustainable. Not a life. And economically unfeasible.

[quote IrishMamaMia]@IcedPurple I hope your business can re-start soon. What a worry to have on top of all these limitations.[/quote]
Thanks. I don't have a business, but my line of work is very much challenged by lockdown and social distancing. It bothers me a lot more than the possibility of catching the virus, and the same is true for millions of others.

The scientists give the scientific opinion, but it is not their job point out that we have a government that consistently puts maintaining wealth above public health, so irrespective of what the right thing to do as regards the virus, it will be EOTHO or some other permutation of this and foreign travel to anywhere that will take visitors from the UK as soon as possible.

When deaths are low and hospitals fine I can’t see MPs voting for it nor people willing to go along with it

we have a government that consistently puts maintaining wealth above public health

Surely the clue is in the name. It's public health. Paid by the public, ie, by taxes. If economic activity is significantly reduced indefinitely, who is going to fund public health?

Well that would be inconsistent with other countries...but it makes headlines! Let's just see.

This news had literally made me cry I fking sick of it like everyone 2 of my friends own wedding and travel business that are about to fold so another few years is 3 years of this shit my mental health is steadily getting worse

@WhichStep

The scientists give the scientific opinion, but it is not their job point out that we have a government that consistently puts maintaining wealth above public health, so irrespective of what the right thing to do as regards the virus, it will be EOTHO or some other permutation of this and foreign travel to anywhere that will take visitors from the UK as soon as possible.

How would you combat high debt, unemployment and lost livelihoods?

[quote ancientgran]**@Beaniecats* Going racing is me, it's my hobby, I have a syndicate horse I can't even go and watch him run* Not all race meetings are like the Cheltenham Festival though, again it will vary and maybe we can't have the Cheltenham Festival but you can go to a smaller race meeting. Cheltenham is huge and lots of travelling (lots coming from Ireland for example) and lots of socialising and alcohol.[/quote]
The problem is restricting footfall within a racecourse has a knock on effect - if you reduce ticket sakes the course has less income to invest in facilities and prize money for the races themselves. If the facilities are poor spectators will be less likely to want to come and if prize money drops you get fewer of the top horses coming to compete. If the top horses aren’t there then fewer racing fans want to come. It’s a self-perpetuating circle.

Not to mention the knock on economic effects that the big Festivals like Cheltenham, Royal Ascot, Glorious Goodwood, York Ebor, etc have for their local economies in terms of hotels, restaurants, etc.