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/

@amicissimma

"Yes, but people want more from their lives than an endless socially distanced trudge. That’s why humans have gone back to normal after every other pandemic."

If people think that the point of having a life is just not to die they are going to be sorely disappointed at some point.

So much this. Once the majority are vaccinated I think they will struggle to persuade people that they cant get married or have friends over. Life is for living.

People may not be able to go to what isn't open but telling people that this is indefinate, and that vaccines won't help, is a surefire way to both trash your vaccine uptake and ensure that people quietly stop abiding by the rules that are within their power to break - namely seeing family indoors.

So then we'll have a disease back out of control and a completely trashed economy.

@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.

The government have to balance health versus the economy. We’d be in a worse mess if the country went bankrupt.

Whatever your view on Boris, you can’t deny he’s got a pretty thankless job.

Whatever your view on Boris, you can’t deny he’s got a pretty thankless job.

A job he wanted! Be careful what you wish for.

There’s no justification to continue restrictions once most are vaccinated. So I wouldn’t be getting upset about one scientist’s opinion.

@Hettia

That is very depressing. I expect the mental health of the nation will be entirely screwed by then. It's already heading that way.

Totally agree

Cheltenham and Aintree are jumping crown jewels. Watching Cheltenham on TV this year with empty stands is heartbreaking

but but but, cases are dropping & deaths are dropping, surely we are on course to start mixing again very soon??
obvs overseas travel is a different matter, or is the govt going to keep letter people in with new mutations so that we never get on top of things here?

Restrictions on large gatherings does not mean none at all. It may mean restricted capacity. I am sure that almost all of the venues with over 10,000 capacity could survive with a reduced one, and cope with things such as detailed advanced booking, entry and exit points being a circle etc.

@CaveMum as for racing, the number of meetings that were full pre-Covid were probably small and so it would not stop some people from ever seeing horse racing. Cheltenham has several meetings per year I would expect, for example.

This makes me so sad. My brother’s wedding has been pushed back twice and now cancelled. Looks like it will be several years before it can take place 🙁

@peak2021

Restrictions on large gatherings does not mean none at all. It may mean restricted capacity. I am sure that almost all of the venues with over 10,000 capacity could survive with a reduced one, and cope with things such as detailed advanced booking, entry and exit points being a circle etc.

@CaveMum as for racing, the number of meetings that were full pre-Covid were probably small and so it would not stop some people from ever seeing horse racing. Cheltenham has several meetings per year I would expect, for example.

Yes all racecourses have numerous meetings per year, but for many of them their annual income hinges on their “main meeting”, that meeting will effectively supplement the lesser attended fixtures. If they lose their feature meeting then the whole business suffers.

For example Newmarket run the popular “Newmarket Nights” fixtures during the summer which is a series of 6 or 7 Friday evening race meeting followed by an hour or so long set by a headline artist (I’ve seen a variety from Kylie to the Sugababes to Tom Jones to The Feeling over the years). These meetings are nearly always 20,000 crowd sell-outs and the revenue gained allows them to supplement the small mid-week meetings that might be lucky to attract 4,000 people.

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.

If we get our case numbers and deaths under control why not?
These events are happening now around the world.

can't see us suddenly having another Cheltenham Festival with no regulations again

But that means there is a possibility of a Cheltenham Festival with regulations. Remember after 9-11 the regulations for flying changed, but people still flew.

"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,"

Most people don't have weddings where people fly from all over the world. I suspect the issue is that as a PP said, if you want to travel you will need to obey quarantine/vaccine regulations. That restricts some but not most weddings.

I think people are perhaps over reacting. We have had to change our attitudes to lots of things over the years - seat belts, smoking, carrying liquid on planes. People adapt.

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.

[quote IcedPurple]@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.[/quote]
Trouble is that without it being controlled, there may be a shortage of healthcare workers at a time you need it, i.e. if you have a car accident or a serious medical condition. The NHS can't provide services as normal if they have too many staff off with covid at the same time. It's not just how it affects you personally, but everyone around you that you may depend on.

@Kazzyhoward every single person I know who works for the NHS has been vaccinated. Some of them already have had two doses. If they are sick with a new strain, it's likely to be mild. We can't shut down forever to protect the NHS, it will have to adapt.

Trouble is that without it being controlled, there may be a shortage of healthcare workers at a time you need it, i.e. if you have a car accident or a serious medical condition. The NHS can't provide services as normal if they have too many staff off with covid at the same time. It's not just how it affects you personally, but everyone around you that you may depend on.

Okay fine and we've done all that for a year, but then what's the point of the vaccines exactly? For more of the same shit?

@IcedPurple

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.

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.

But why would it need to be controlled if most over 50s have been vaccinated and the risk of serious illness and death is low?

It will just be lumped in with other respiratory viruses that circulate every year and yes people will die but nothing in the numbers seen this year.

@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.

The Cheltenham Festival is going ahead this year, just without spectators. The only people present will be those deemed essential for the running of the race day - jockeys, trainers, stewards, starter, medical staff, commentator, judge, weighing room staff, etc. No owners and no general public.

Racing shut down in mid March like everything else but has been running again since 1st June with almost all its regular fixtures in place since July.

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.

@MaxNormal

Trouble is that without it being controlled, there may be a shortage of healthcare workers at a time you need it, i.e. if you have a car accident or a serious medical condition. The NHS can't provide services as normal if they have too many staff off with covid at the same time. It's not just how it affects you personally, but everyone around you that you may depend on.

Okay fine and we've done all that for a year, but then what's the point of the vaccines exactly? For more of the same shit?

Vaccines are, arguably, a better way to keep control of the numbers of infections, hospitalisations and deaths, than lockdowns. Quite simply, once we have enough people vaccinated, we may never need another Covid lockdown. That doesn't mean we can live with no restrictions at all, it means we may be able to keep a lid on it so that lots of other things (currently restricted) can go ahead in some form. It is the stark reality that we may not need to lockdown again next Winter if the vaccine does it's job to keep numbers low. The extent to which other restrictions are needed is anyone's guess. Hopefully very few restrictions should be needed, again thanks to the vaccine. It was never going to be some magic bullet that makes covid go away - it's always been just another tool in the toolbox to keep covid under control.

There is no way this would be acceptable.

So many have made huge sacrifices in the last year. That was absolutely right under the circumstances and hopefully the steps people have taken have genuinely saved thousands of lives. But it's come at a huge personal cost to many and past a certain point it's not rational. Death is a part of life. Even a year from now we will have more treatment options, the vaccine looks like it's going to be really effective. I am not prepared to live a half-life for years and I would say that even if a slightly higher proportion of elderly end up dying.

I was watching a video online today of a woman who swims with sharks. I know this is a really bizarre tangent but she was saying sharks are crucial to humanity. A huge amount of the air we breathe comes from the ocean and sharks do a lot to contribute to the air quality because they pick off weak/sick fish and make the whole ecosystem healthier. The weakest being picked off matters for lots of reasons and ultimately if we're being really blunt, that is the case for people too, as horrible a pandemic can be on a personal level. We have spent a long time fighting against nature and keeping people alive as long as possible. It isn't actually natural. Pandemics are. I'm not saying we should do nothing and let it rip - I'm saying past a certain point it's just nonsensical and unhealthy to shut things down. Socialising and celebrating and gathering together are all vitally important. If that's not the case, we all need to stop drinking alcohol and driving now to save the lives they take too.