All of which of course is (seemingly) advice not law.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Could we see a return to "essential travel only" messaging?
- Thread starter TheGrandWazoo
- Start date
- Status
All of which of course is (seemingly) advice not law.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Baxenden Bank
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 4,017
I assume so. The wording is 'advise', rather than 'must not' which appears elsewhere re social contact.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
On that basis, you’d not restrict anything at any time.
I am immensely sympathetic to anyone and their mental health but it cannot be used as justification for anything.
The guy who didn’t isolate in Bolton and then went on a pub crawl and infected god knows how many could say it would be awful not to for his mental health?
I mean, we had someone travelling INTO an area of increasing Covid rates where the guidance is “only to use public transport for essential purposes, such as travelling to school or work” to sample a rare train working. Hardly essential. It may be guidance rather than law but if folks ignore the guidance, it’s only more likely that this will be covered by the legislation.
I don’t think people should be driving around when it’s not needed so I don’t wish to discriminate on that basis.
Last edited:
Domestic travel per se doesn't seem to be regarded in the guidance as a high risk strategy, at least not in England yet.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
In certain areas, such as the North East, it is. Yet we see people deciding that they will ignore that guidance in pursuance of a leisure trip out.
Seems we’re in Waitrose Essentials territory; for some, sun dried tomatoes are essential and they won’t hear a word otherwise.
Apologies, I had trips to shopping centres in mind rather than food shopping.
Bantamzen
Established Member
Clearly you are not. Mental health is a key factor in a functioning society.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Clearly, you haven’t read my posts when I discussed my own mental health travails.
Bantamzen
Established Member
And yet you suggest that mental health "cannot be used as justification for anything". I strongly disagree.
So it is. It's a restriction I disgree with generally.
Yet in Lancashire, the restrictions specifically target public transport.
Whist going and seeing people is essential for mental health few need to see a lot of people.
For instance if we were advised to meet in groups of 6 but limit our social interactions to (say) a maximum of 16 people in any 4 week period, then the risk of spread would be lower.
Many would find 16 a reasonable size for social interactions (so it excludes at work and at school - but not going to the pub with work colleagues at lunchtime).
People may get upset when it's their birthday, but then if there's a few breaches of the guidelines for a limited period is unlikely to be too much of an issue.
Also whilst not seeing people for months on end is bad for us, as an example most should be able to cope with 2 weeks with limited face to face contact, even if they struggle then they could socially distance with a couple of people
That would also, by default then limit the amount people traveled very much.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Apologies - I meant it cannot be used as a justification for just anything and everything. Is it essential for people’s physical and mental well-being to be able to walk outside, exercise etc? I’d argue it is.
However, citing mental health concerns as a justification for anything and everything (e.g. if I don’t get a foreign holiday, think of my mental health) feels as if it’s convenient “out” for some.
The above post from TheHam explains it more eloquently than I. Do we need human contact? Yes and proportionality is also key.
Is anyone suggesting people who rely on public transport should have restrictions imposed on their freedom of movement over and above car drivers?
If so, make yourselves known and your reasons as I'm up for an argument.
Talk of going abroad or meeting on large groups is irrelevant for this thread.
If so, make yourselves known and your reasons as I'm up for an argument.
Talk of going abroad or meeting on large groups is irrelevant for this thread.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It does seem to be used more widely, I'm not sure if that is a good thing or not. The trouble is that if someone says "It will affect my mental health if I don't see my Nan this week", when they just mean it'll make them a bit sad, discredits people who have serious mental health problems e.g. leading to isolation and suicide. And that use of the phrase does seem to be more common than ever.
The thing is, there's a huge difference between "being sad" and a serious mental health problem. We will all be sad, bored, upset, frustrated, angry, whatever at various points in our life - we get both positive and negative emotions, and that is mentally healthy, it's how we're meant to work - humans have a wide range of emotions and through our lives we will experience all of them. It's when it goes beyond that, such as feelings of worthlessness and suicidal thoughts, that there is actually a problem.
So I'd say think twice before using the term in a "flippant" manner. And I'd agree with you that using it in terms of not being able to go for 2 weeks in the sun this year, as has been done on here, is really a total misuse of the term and seriously discredits the term in its proper use.
Last edited:
I think it might be worth considering this in the wider context of what's going on.
In ordinary times this would seem an odd thing to say.
But if this is someone who has been living on their own since March, not seeing anyone in person, I think it might well be a reasonable thing to say. Particularly if they've found themselves to be struggling.
Bantamzen
Established Member
There is no definition of what is good for anyone's mental health. For example for a key worker who has been bombarded with work since March, a holiday away from work & politics might just be what they need. Just being allowed outside for a walk may not be enough, and as someone who has played ball, worked from home & only gone locally walking wherever I can, I most certainly can vouch for this. The prospect of potentially another 6 months of this crap literally makes me angry.
And what if Gran is suffering through not seeing her family. For old people already potentially partially isolated by their circumstances, even more enforced isolation will not be good their or their family's health. So people travelling on a bus, or indeed a plane to help their family's collective well being is not a "misuse".
There really are some cold-hearted people on these forums.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
True but conversely, it doesn’t give a free pass to anything and everything. @Bletchleyite has encapsulated it better than I can.
Haven’t most of us, save Lord Cummings et al, played ball? Didn’t see my elderly mum for 7 months, wedding deferred (twice - hopefully 3rd time lucky in May), trip to Estonia cancelled, WFH since March 16th, no meeting my friends from running club til August.
None of us want to be back where we were. Am I angry... yeah, with Cummings (and this government), that bunch of idiots from South Wales to Doncaster Races, or the Bacup teachers or others who seek to justify ill advised jaunts.
Non essential travel is just that - irrespective of mode.
Dai Corner
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 6,351
The Welsh Government has this morning Tweeted advice to 'only travel when necessary'.
Welsh Givernment said:
bramling
Veteran Member
Interestingly that advice doesn’t seem to specifically refer to public transport (apologies if I’ve missed something). I may have picked up the wrong end of the stock but it seems he is more hinting for people to avoid travelling round Wales as some kind of containment measure.
To be fair a “please do things in moderation” advice wouldn’t actually be so inappropriate, along the same lines of the Van Tam tear the pants comment. It’s unfortunate the government encouraged precisely the opposite last month with the eat out scheme, it does seem that some people went on restaurant crawls.
Dai Corner
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 6,351
You're right, I haven't heard anything from WG about avoiding public transport this time round. Possibly the financial reality of subsidising empty buses and trains is beginning to bite?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I wonder how long before the dirty English are specifically told that Snowdonia is back off limits again, and what the Welsh tourist industry will think of that?
Indeed, if we need to travel then it doesn't matter how we do so (yes we may need to take steps to mitigate the risk for some modes, but that's a different discussion). If we need to limit our travel then that's by all modes.
If cases get too high then travel by car should be limited just as much as it is by rail.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
That makes no sense. Private car travel in your own car alone or with your household carries no outside spread risk. Public transport does carry a risk, albeit a fairly low one with distancing in place.
I would therefore suggest that "if you have access to a private car, or if cycling or walking is practical, you must use it for your journey; only if those are not possible should public transport be used" is probably a sensible measure if things get really bad.
Essan
Member
As one who does rely on public transport ...... I've only been out of town twice since March. I am now unlikely to do so again until next year. Because, whilst I might like or wish to do so, I don't need to. It's meant I have only had a 2 night holiday this year. But hey, that won't kill me (or anyone else).
However, if I had a car I would certainly have gone out many times over the summer and would continue to do so now. And I would have managed at least a week's holiday (because I'd have been able to travel much further).
The one brings me into contact with a large number of strangers for a prolonged period of time. The other would bring me in contact with no-one at all.
jnjkerbin
Member
Surely the key thing is how significant public transport is at spreading the disease. All the evidence I've seen seems to suggest that the number of cases where public transport has been to blame is tiny compared to those transmitted within families, in schools/universities and in places like pubs. Given trains and buses continue to be relatively empty and social distancing pretty much always possible, there seems to be no reason whatsoever to limit travelling as an act in itself.
If there's significant cases then people shouldn't be traveling.
It doesn't matter how they travel, because unless you are traveling to be somewhere where there's no one else the risk is mostly associated with you using facilities/visiting family/interacting with people from other areas which may have a different number of cases as you have. All of which increase the risk of infection from a high risk area to a low risk area.
If you were living in an area where there's 3/100,000 and someone comes from somewhere where there's 200/100,000 then you'll not really want then there. As there's a good chance that person has been in contact with one of the 200 diagnosed last week, the 200 from this week or the 200 from next week as that's statistically 1/167 people which they would have to meet before finding someone with the infection. That's assuming that everyone who has it gets a positive result and numbers of aren't increasing.
Increased case numbers (say weekly figures of actual infections of 200, 300 & 450 per 100,000) would increase the risk further as that would then be 100 people before coming in contact with an infectious person.
Whilst rail runs the risk of infection to those traveling with you (unless it's a metro service the churn of passengers is likely to be fairly low), whilst going by car risks infecting those who use the same motorway services or other facilities. Even with increased cleaning that's potentially a lot of people from lots of different areas coming into contact with you or a surface you've touched.
Where cases are low in number then the risk of transmission is low and so travel is fine.
Obviously if you're just going up to an hour away you're less likely to be stopping to use facilities or would be traveling for work/essential shopping/other needed travel. However, you're also more likely to traveling between areas with similar case numbers so limiting the spread from high to low risk areas.
birchesgreen
Established Member
I suspect "essential travel only" will only return if there is a general lockdown like there was in March.
squizzler
Established Member
The message needs to be "walk or cycle where possible"
It certainly makes sense to provide greater freedom to people using these two modes over those using others. The science behind doing so is clear - poor air quality and lack of exercise make people more vulnerable to Covid. Cycling and walking help in both these areas, and are the main transport choice to beat the virus.
Moving down the hierarchy, the next worse option is public transport. You don't get the same level of exercise and the transport produces fumes, but they will produce fumes running a skeleton service whether people are riding it or not, so people might as well get utility from what service is run. There is an argument that person to person transmission can happen here. But we have conducted a national scale experiment over the last six months of depressing transport use to less than half normal levels, yet the virus is running just as rampant again as in other countries. Clearly, the hypothesis that public transport is a vector of the virus has been tested and is shown to be disproven.
Bottom of the hierarchy needs to be motoring, which is sedentary and whose fumes affects everybody's air quality. We realised that in early summer when the pop-up bike routes and footway widening were being implemented. Unfortunately the vested interests were quick to bury that success story. Result: congestion has gone up, air quality and level of exercise has deteriorated, and - surprise, surprise - the virus has capitalised on this and is running rampant again.
There is little surprise that London, with its emission zones and excellent bicycle network and integrated transport has not suffered as badly as the Northern cities which are still motoring centric, and have had to go back into local lockdowns.
It certainly makes sense to provide greater freedom to people using these two modes over those using others. The science behind doing so is clear - poor air quality and lack of exercise make people more vulnerable to Covid. Cycling and walking help in both these areas, and are the main transport choice to beat the virus.
Moving down the hierarchy, the next worse option is public transport. You don't get the same level of exercise and the transport produces fumes, but they will produce fumes running a skeleton service whether people are riding it or not, so people might as well get utility from what service is run. There is an argument that person to person transmission can happen here. But we have conducted a national scale experiment over the last six months of depressing transport use to less than half normal levels, yet the virus is running just as rampant again as in other countries. Clearly, the hypothesis that public transport is a vector of the virus has been tested and is shown to be disproven.
Bottom of the hierarchy needs to be motoring, which is sedentary and whose fumes affects everybody's air quality. We realised that in early summer when the pop-up bike routes and footway widening were being implemented. Unfortunately the vested interests were quick to bury that success story. Result: congestion has gone up, air quality and level of exercise has deteriorated, and - surprise, surprise - the virus has capitalised on this and is running rampant again.
There is little surprise that London, with its emission zones and excellent bicycle network and integrated transport has not suffered as badly as the Northern cities which are still motoring centric, and have had to go back into local lockdowns.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
There is nowhere in the UK as motor-centric as Milton Keynes, and it has a very low rate and has had throughout. So I think you will have to rethink that.
Do northerners socialise more than southerners?
Instead of telling people to use public transport only when necessary, the Germans are advertising the fact that public transport is safe:
www.besserweiter.de
(in German).
Google Translate:
"WORLDWIDE STUDIES REFUTE THE RISK OF INFECTION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT"
Local public transport is much safer than many people think, even in Corona times. Worldwide analyzes suggest this. We take a look at other countries and see how security there is in public transport during Corona times.
The corona pandemic hit local public transport with full force - and not just in Germany, but around the world. From now on, the number of passengers has collapsed. Due to a suspected risk of infection with Covid-19, many people still avoid public buses and trains. However, several studies that have dealt precisely with the topic of security in public transport during Corona times show that these concerns are unfounded.
Instead of telling people to use public transport only when necessary, the Germans are advertising the fact that public transport is safe:
Busse und Bahnen sind sicherer als gedacht
Der öffentliche Nahverkehr ist auch in Coronazeiten sehr viel sicherer, als viele Menschen denken. Das legen weltweite Analysen nahe. Wir blicken auf andere Länder und schauen, wie es dort um die Sicherheit im ÖPNV zu Coronazeiten bestellt ist.
Google Translate:
"WORLDWIDE STUDIES REFUTE THE RISK OF INFECTION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT"
Local public transport is much safer than many people think, even in Corona times. Worldwide analyzes suggest this. We take a look at other countries and see how security there is in public transport during Corona times.
The corona pandemic hit local public transport with full force - and not just in Germany, but around the world. From now on, the number of passengers has collapsed. Due to a suspected risk of infection with Covid-19, many people still avoid public buses and trains. However, several studies that have dealt precisely with the topic of security in public transport during Corona times show that these concerns are unfounded.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status