How much longer will social distancing go on for in the UK?

[6862]

he said we will need some restrictions in place for some time possibly throughout the entire summer as even when the most vulnerable are vaccinated this virus is a risk to the younger working age population and the number of younger people in ICU is increasing - what do you thing of that attitude?

I think he is wrong. I believe that we should be lifting all restrictions ASAP. But there is a difference between what I want to see happen, and what I think the government wil ldo.

So you actually believe we will never be allowed to socialise, or even see family? I don't agree because, and I say this frankly, I will be one of millions who will ultimately take to the streets to wrestle back our freedoms. And heaven help the politician or expert that stands in my way.

Yes, I actually believe that it is likely that socialising will remain illegal either permanently, or for a very long time. As another poster has said, the long term effect of this may be the redevelopment of society into one where people don't socialise. I actually think we are seeing this already. It's been almost a year and we're yet to see any sort of large scale rebellion against the socialising laws. Yes more and more people are breaking them, but they are still a minority. I really hope that they remove bans on socialising and seeing family as soon as possible (i.e. now!), but I don't think they will. Personally, I expect that the best we will get is one day a year (Christmas Day) to spend with one group of people (probably in practice immediate family gatherings). While some would probably choose to ignore such rules long term, at the current rate of progress I can't see a majority going against such a rule for a very very long time.

 

[Tezza1978]

I think he is wrong. I believe that we should be lifting all restrictions ASAP. But there is a difference between what I want to see happen, and what I think the government wil ldo.



Yes, I actually believe that it is likely that socialising will remain illegal either permanently, or for a very long time. As another poster has said, the long term effect of this may be the redevelopment of society into one where people don't socialise. I actually think we are seeing this already. It's been almost a year and we're yet to see any sort of large scale rebellion against the socialising laws. Yes more and more people are breaking them, but they are still a minority. I really hope that they remove bans on socialising and seeing family as soon as possible (i.e. now!), but I don't think they will. Personally, I expect that the best we will get is one day a year (Christmas Day) to spend with one group of people (probably in practice immediate family gatherings). While some would probably choose to ignore such rules long term, at the current rate of progress I can't see a majority going against such a rule for a very very long time.

Sorry - much as I want these restrictions to go as quickly as possible I simply don't believe there is an agenda to ban socialising. The government, the Conservative party and the economy wpuld be utterly destroyed by this and mass civil unrest would ensue. 0% chance people would accept it, millions would take to the streets.

 

[6862]

Sorry - much as I want these restrictions to go as quickly as possible I simply don't believe there is an agenda to ban socialising. The government, the Conservative party and the economy wpuld be utterly destroyed by this and mass civil unrest would ensue. 0% chance people would accept it, millions would take to the streets.

Again, I don't think they will ever come out and permanently ban socialising. I just don't think they'll lift the restrictions (or many other restrictions, such as face masks, social distancing, isolation and the power to threaten us with lockdowns). There is a massive difference between introducing a new law, and keeping a law which has already been made!

 

[brad465]

Certainly by the end of April now, the stats for the hospital numbers should be incredibly low. By then there will be no further valid reasons as to why this dreaded social distancing still has to continue on. If Downing Street News Conferences are still going then, the likes of Whitty and Vallance won't be able to stand there with their charts and graphs showing an upward trend in infections/hospital numbers/deaths and saying "Things are very much going in the wrong direction." and "Things are at a critical point right now. So we need to make sure we keep to these restrictions for a long time yet.".

Certainly by the time we go into the summer, It'll be ridiculous beyond belief if by then we've still got social distancing, all these silly black and yellow(or whatever colour) hazzard tapes in shops, on buses/trains/coaches, etc, limits on numbers in shops, silly one way systems, etc. By then all this nonsense really should be scrapped for good, so we can start repairing all the huge damage this has done to the economy and many people's mental health. There really is a hell of a lot more implications to social distancing than just making sure we're 2 metres away from passing people in the street or in queues or whatever. Some people seem to think that's all there is to it! It is HUGELY damaging to many many businesses and millions of people in this country. It needs to finally go sooner rather than later now.

Yes Press conferences virtually stopped during the summer last year as there was little need for them. The less politicians talk about it, the less of an issue Covid becomes, and if they do keep talking in a fearful manner while all stats are good, it would be a very difficult sell and if anything might increase the risk of civil unrest because restrictions being unnecessary is being laid bare to the population.

 

[bramling]

Sorry - much as I want these restrictions to go as quickly as possible I simply don't believe there is an agenda to ban socialising. The government, the Conservative party and the economy wpuld be utterly destroyed by this and mass civil unrest would ensue. 0% chance people would accept it, millions would take to the streets.

I don’t think there’s an agenda to ban socialising (and indeed many people are still doing it on a clandestine basis, including many who claim to support restrictions).

What is more of a risk is that we end up with longer term restrictions. There *are* people living in a fantasy world that enjoys the fact that they are taking home their salary without having to do the work which goes with it, and so what if there’s restrictions, as these sorts of people can quite happily find something basic to do which satisfies their demands on life like a day out on the beach.

I don’t think these people will win out, but I certainly think they’re going to make a lot of noise - they already are.

 

[philosopher]

I think he is wrong. I believe that we should be lifting all restrictions ASAP. But there is a difference between what I want to see happen, and what I think the government wil ldo.



Yes, I actually believe that it is likely that socialising will remain illegal either permanently, or for a very long time. As another poster has said, the long term effect of this may be the redevelopment of society into one where people don't socialise. I actually think we are seeing this already. It's been almost a year and we're yet to see any sort of large scale rebellion against the socialising laws. Yes more and more people are breaking them, but they are still a minority. I really hope that they remove bans on socialising and seeing family as soon as possible (i.e. now!), but I don't think they will. Personally, I expect that the best we will get is one day a year (Christmas Day) to spend with one group of people (probably in practice immediate family gatherings). While some would probably choose to ignore such rules long term, at the current rate of progress I can't see a majority going against such a rule for a very very long time.

I think this is unlikely. First humans are social creatures by their nature. I know it is possible for people to adapt to changes in their life situation, but I am not so sure they can adapt long term to something which goes against fundamental human nature.

Second it relies on online socialising being as good as in person socialising. This again I do not think the case. If it was, people would have been already been replacing most in person with online socialising frequently pre Covid, which in general I do not think they were. Pre Covid online socialising was used to supplement not replace in person socialising.

If restrictions on socialising remain permanent I think they would increasingly be ignored to the point where they become meaningless.

 

[Carlisle]

Question is, will anyone be listening to them by then ?

Will we have any choice, if government again orders all business to close as they are now & again restricts public transport use possibly with additional enforcement measures ?

 

[NorthOxonian]

I think he is wrong. I believe that we should be lifting all restrictions ASAP. But there is a difference between what I want to see happen, and what I think the government wil ldo.



Yes, I actually believe that it is likely that socialising will remain illegal either permanently, or for a very long time. As another poster has said, the long term effect of this may be the redevelopment of society into one where people don't socialise. I actually think we are seeing this already. It's been almost a year and we're yet to see any sort of large scale rebellion against the socialising laws. Yes more and more people are breaking them, but they are still a minority. I really hope that they remove bans on socialising and seeing family as soon as possible (i.e. now!), but I don't think they will. Personally, I expect that the best we will get is one day a year (Christmas Day) to spend with one group of people (probably in practice immediate family gatherings). While some would probably choose to ignore such rules long term, at the current rate of progress I can't see a majority going against such a rule for a very very long time.

Let's look at this logically.

Getting coronavirus isn't pleasant, and people do die from it fairly often, especially if they're older. The pandemic seems to have reduced life expectancy by a year or two all in all.

But loneliness and isolation are far worse. In old age you can pretty much predict whether someone will decline physically and mentally by looking at how much social contact they get. According to some sources, loneliness can knock fifteen years off your life (I don't personally think it's quite that much, but probably not far off). In addition, for most people, living without social interaction is virtually impossible and removes everything which makes life worth living. And that's to say nothing about the long term effects - without young people meeting up and forming relationships, humanity will literally go extinct.

 

[Bantamzen]

They will never announce "no more socialising ever".

The timeframe "to normality" will just keep getting longer and longer and longer until our society rebuilds itself into one where in-person socialisation simply doesn't happen commonly.
Whitty and Valance have already let slip they want "restrictions" (code for lockdowns) next winter to, and probably for every winter from now on.

Well the likes of Whitty & Valance can go do one. Put simply, the more they call for more restrictions, the more they punish the poor. And the poor will not forget.

I don’t think they will last forever, however I think there is going to be a core of people who push for that sort of thing, and who are going to need to be forced back in their box. They’re not going to retreat there voluntarily.

Oh for sure, there's always going to be a subset of people calling for more. Usually (though not exclusively) white, middle class, living in suburbia, mortgage paid off, working from home, boring, beige folk happy to sit at home in front of Netflix throwing their lives away.

I think he is wrong. I believe that we should be lifting all restrictions ASAP. But there is a difference between what I want to see happen, and what I think the government wil ldo.



Yes, I actually believe that it is likely that socialising will remain illegal either permanently, or for a very long time. As another poster has said, the long term effect of this may be the redevelopment of society into one where people don't socialise. I actually think we are seeing this already. It's been almost a year and we're yet to see any sort of large scale rebellion against the socialising laws. Yes more and more people are breaking them, but they are still a minority. I really hope that they remove bans on socialising and seeing family as soon as possible (i.e. now!), but I don't think they will. Personally, I expect that the best we will get is one day a year (Christmas Day) to spend with one group of people (probably in practice immediate family gatherings). While some would probably choose to ignore such rules long term, at the current rate of progress I can't see a majority going against such a rule for a very very long time.

As I said before, socialising is at the heart of humanity. Without it we don't meet potential partners, we don't breed, and we die our as a species very quickly. Are you really sure people will sit back and let that happen?

 

[Luke McDonnell]

I think he is wrong. I believe that we should be lifting all restrictions ASAP. But there is a difference between what I want to see happen, and what I think the government wil ldo.



Yes, I actually believe that it is likely that socialising will remain illegal either permanently, or for a very long time. As another poster has said, the long term effect of this may be the redevelopment of society into one where people don't socialise. I actually think we are seeing this already. It's been almost a year and we're yet to see any sort of large scale rebellion against the socialising laws. Yes more and more people are breaking them, but they are still a minority. I really hope that they remove bans on socialising and seeing family as soon as possible (i.e. now!), but I don't think they will. Personally, I expect that the best we will get is one day a year (Christmas Day) to spend with one group of people (probably in practice immediate family gatherings). While some would probably choose to ignore such rules long term, at the current rate of progress I can't see a majority going against such a rule for a very very long time.

If that is the case wouldn't we see legal challenges in the courts that the restrictions are a violation of the Human Rights Act - in which case there would be a strong case for quashing these restrictions - remember the Human Rights Act and international treaties do allow restrictions on some human rights in the event of public health emergencies but quoting an example from a document called the Siracusa Principles which deal with derogations from human rights for public health purposes the restrictions have to be in line with the least restrictive and intrusive means in proportionate to the threat, subject to regular review (i.e. there cannot be any permanent non reviewable restrictions) and 'strictly necessary' and 'according to the law' - I would imagine that this would be similar to the criteria the courts would use in deciding if the measure was proportionate to the threat recently I could see the courts upholding the regulations in compliance with the above criteria due to the material pressure on the NHS but once mass vaccination is rolled out widely, deaths and hospitalisations drop I can see no way from a legal point of view that bans on socialising could be seen as 'strictly necessary' or 'least restrictive' especially when highly effective vaccines are deployed if the courts continue to uphold such restrictions permanently IMO the judiciary will no longer be doing there job of protecting our rights against arbitrary executive action which in my opinion is essential in a democratic society so I think that if our government tried to hang on to making socialising illegal for a long time they would be on very shaky legal ground.

 

[brad465]

I think he is wrong. I believe that we should be lifting all restrictions ASAP. But there is a difference between what I want to see happen, and what I think the government wil ldo.



Yes, I actually believe that it is likely that socialising will remain illegal either permanently, or for a very long time. As another poster has said, the long term effect of this may be the redevelopment of society into one where people don't socialise. I actually think we are seeing this already. It's been almost a year and we're yet to see any sort of large scale rebellion against the socialising laws. Yes more and more people are breaking them, but they are still a minority. I really hope that they remove bans on socialising and seeing family as soon as possible (i.e. now!), but I don't think they will. Personally, I expect that the best we will get is one day a year (Christmas Day) to spend with one group of people (probably in practice immediate family gatherings). While some would probably choose to ignore such rules long term, at the current rate of progress I can't see a majority going against such a rule for a very very long time.

Let's look at this logically.

Getting coronavirus isn't pleasant, and people do die from it fairly often, especially if they're older. The pandemic seems to have reduced life expectancy by a year or two all in all.

But loneliness and isolation are far worse. In old age you can pretty much predict whether someone will decline physically and mentally by looking at how much social contact they get. According to some sources, loneliness can knock fifteen years off your life (I don't personally think it's quite that much, but probably not far off). In addition, for most people, living without social interaction is virtually impossible and removes everything which makes life worth living. And that's to say nothing about the long term effects - without young people meeting up and forming relationships, humanity will literally go extinct.

I'm 25 and have a number of similarly aged friends from past and present walks of life on social media, particularly FB and Instagram who have shared old memories when anniversaries of them come around, and on friends' birthdays do the same for other social occasions they used to do. Often all these include messages about missing those times and/or looking forward to doing those again one day. It's therefore clear to me that socialising is still important to them all and not being forgotten anytime soon.

 

[6862]

If that is the case wouldn't we see legal challenges in the courts that the restrictions are a violation of the Human Rights Act -

I hope we do see such legal challenges, and soon!

As I said before, socialising is at the heart of humanity. Without it we don't meet potential partners, we don't breed, and we die our as a species very quickly. Are you really sure people will sit back and let that happen?

For the forseeable future, yes I think the majority will sit by and let it happen. I probably will, as breaking the law doesn't come naturally to me. Over time I think more and more people will ignore the rules, but I don't think it would be a majority for a very long time.

We're probably not going to get anywhere by discussing this further. I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but only time will tell!

 

[XAM2175]

Well the likes of Whitty & Valance can go do one. Put simply, the more they call for more restrictions, the more they punish the poor. And the poor will not forget.

Whitty and Valance and all manner of other people can call for as many restrictions as they like, but it's the government that chooses whether to implement them or ignore them. Scapegoating the advisory panels absolves the government of their responsibility.

 

[brad465]

Whitty and Valance and all manner of other people can call for as many restrictions as they like, but it's the government that chooses whether to implement them or ignore them. Scapegoating the advisory panels absolves the government of their responsibility.

Not just this, but I imagine the Government can gain support if the vaccine rollout continuing well allows them to bring all restrictions to an end much sooner than SAGE would like them to continue for. They will not gain any further support by allowing them to continue, as the opposition supporters calling for them to continue or be even tougher won't ever support the Government, and as parts of the Tory base don't like these restrictions at all, they will be doing more harm to themselves keeping them going.

 

[Mag_seven]

beige folk happy to sit at home in front of Netflix throwing their lives away

Until of course there's nothing left to watch on "Netflix" because nothing new has been made!

 

[northernchris]

Let's look at this logically.

Getting coronavirus isn't pleasant, and people do die from it fairly often, especially if they're older. The pandemic seems to have reduced life expectancy by a year or two all in all.

But loneliness and isolation are far worse. In old age you can pretty much predict whether someone will decline physically and mentally by looking at how much social contact they get. According to some sources, loneliness can knock fifteen years off your life (I don't personally think it's quite that much, but probably not far off). In addition, for most people, living without social interaction is virtually impossible and removes everything which makes life worth living. And that's to say nothing about the long term effects - without young people meeting up and forming relationships, humanity will literally go extinct.

Agree with this. I was talking to a work colleague last week who I haven't seen since last March, and she was saying her father's health has taken a turn since the summer. He's in his 70s, was previously part of a walking group, played golf and went out for lunch once a week with friends. He's now waiting the outcome of tests as he has suspected Alzheimer's which is likely in part due to the change in lifestyle. Keeping people locked down might reduce cases of the virus, but causes many other problems that the NHS will need to deal with

 

[Jamesrob637]

Pre Covid online socialising was used to supplement not replace in person socialising.

You win the forum with this comment alone

 

[Skimpot flyer]

We seem to be forgetting that a vaccine for a respiratory virus with 80-90% efficacy is the exception, not the norm. The flu vaccine only usually has around 40-60% efficacy.


0.85*0.9 = 0.765
1-0.7525 = 0.235

Thus 23.5% of people could still die from it. That's where the numbers come from, but the theory is far from correct.

I do get annoyed at statistics always being used in a negative way by SAGE and the media.
They almost imply that getting the virus = certain death, which we all know is not true in over 99% of infections.
If you live in an area where there are currently 200 cases per 100,000 and case rates drop by 75% with vaccinations, 50 cases per 100,000 means if you interact with 2,000 people, then, statistically, only 1 of those people is likely to be infected.
Factor-in the high percentage survival rate, and I make it that your chance of contracting and dying from the virus under those circumstances is equivalent to 0.00015%.
Unless my grasp of maths is flawed...

 

[Bantamzen]

I hope we do see such legal challenges, and soon!



For the forseeable future, yes I think the majority will sit by and let it happen. I probably will, as breaking the law doesn't come naturally to me. Over time I think more and more people will ignore the rules, but I don't think it would be a majority for a very long time.

We're probably not going to get anywhere by discussing this further. I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but only time will tell!

Trust me when I say this, any attempt to curtail socialising in the long term will not end well for the decision makers.

Whitty and Valance and all manner of other people can call for as many restrictions as they like, but it's the government that chooses whether to implement them or ignore them. Scapegoating the advisory panels absolves the government of their responsibility.

Don't get me wrong, I wholeheartedly blame the government for all this. But SAGE are not exactly covering themselves in glory, especially with their rather dubious modelling.

Until of course there's nothing left to watch on "Netflix" because nothing new has been made!

Over the course of the various lockdowns I've been subscribing to more and more streaming channels. And yet my better half & I have all but exhausted all the content.

 

[duncanp]

he said we will need some restrictions in place for some time possibly throughout the entire summer as even when the most vulnerable are vaccinated this virus is a risk to the younger working age population and the number of younger people in ICU is increasing - what do you thing of that attitude?

But at current rates of vaccination, the entire adult population of the UK should be vaccinated by the end of June.

This is the point when all restrictions should be lifted, as every adult, including those in their 20s and 30s, will have at least some level of immunity via vaccination.

Vaccination won't stop people catching COVID any more than it stops people catching flu. But it will get the number of people with the disease as well as the severity of the disease down to a manageable level.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Until of course there's nothing left to watch on "Netflix" because nothing new has been made!

Funny, I saw a cartoon in Private Eye during lockdown 1.0, where a family on a sofa looked shocked as a voice from the tv announced ‘sorry, you have reached the end of Netflix. Goodnight’

Agree with this. I was talking to a work colleague last week who I haven't seen since last March, and she was saying her father's health has taken a turn since the summer. He's in his 70s, was previously part of a walking group, played golf and went out for lunch once a week with friends. He's now waiting the outcome of tests as he has suspected Alzheimer's which is likely in part due to the change in lifestyle. Keeping people locked down might reduce cases of the virus, but causes many other problems that the NHS will need to deal with

He will likely have been deprived of Vitamin D by being cooped up indoors, too. Unless he takes supplements

 

[Class 33]

Greens across the board again today with the Coronavirus stats. People tested positive down 32.5%, deaths down 5.3%, and patients admitted to hospital down 19.6%. Things are very very much heading in the right direction now. Certainly by the time we go into early summer(June), all these stats will be extremely low by then, and there really will be no justification atall for keeping this social distancing and face mask wearing nonsense going any longer. High time by then to start getting our country back to normal again.

 

[APT618S]

Getting coronavirus isn't pleasant, and people do die from it fairly often, especially if they're older. The pandemic seems to have reduced life expectancy by a year or two all in all.

This seems very high to me. A back of an envelope calculation based on a worst case scenario of 1% of the population dying 10 years (3650 days) prematurely is equivalent to 100% dying 36.5 days prematurely or a reduction in average* life expectancy of approx 5 weeks.
* I would imagine that the decrease in average (mean) or median life expectancy to be approx the same.
To put this drop into context it would only take it back to what it was a year or two ago.
Life expectancy has increased by 10 years over the past 50 years:

U.K. Life Expectancy 1960-2025 | MacroTrends

Life expectancy at birth indicates the number of years a newborn infant would live if prevailing patterns of mortality at the time of its birth were to stay the same throughout its life.

www.macrotrends.net

 

[NorthOxonian]

This seems very high to me. A back of an envelope calculation based on a worst case scenario of 1% of the population dying 10 years (3650 days) prematurely is equivalent to 100% dying 36.5 days prematurely or a reduction in average* life expectancy of approx 5 weeks.
* I would imagine that the decrease in average (mean) or median life expectancy to be approx the same.
To put this drop into context it would only take it back to what it was a year or two ago.
Life expectancy has increased by 10 years over the past 50 years:

U.K. Life Expectancy 1960-2025 | MacroTrends

Life expectancy at birth indicates the number of years a newborn infant would live if prevailing patterns of mortality at the time of its birth were to stay the same throughout its life.

www.macrotrends.net

I believe the actual worst situation is worse than your worst case - to give one example the virus tends to kill over 10% of over 80s - who tend to live a few more years. We won't ever reach this worst case because it relies on everyone getting the virus, and there being no protection whether innate or from vaccines.

The key fact is that the chances of you dying from the virus are pretty much the same as the chances of you dying in a year of anything.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The hyperbole about banning socialising in this thread is unhelpful at best, and downright spreading fud at worst (for what purpose I'm not sure).

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Greens across the board again today with the Coronavirus stats. People tested positive down 32.5%, deaths down 5.3%, and patients admitted to hospital down 19.6%. Things are very very much heading in the right direction now. Certainly by the time we go into early summer(June), all these stats will be extremely low by then, and there really will be no justification atall for keeping this social distancing and face mask wearing nonsense going any longer. High time by then to start getting our country back to normal again.

Other positives are the fall off in age of hospital admission since late December. These are reported >85, then 65-84 but then 18-64.

In the eldest age group they are down 30-40% off Jan peak, the next group is 20-30% and last group is pretty static. Is this an early sign that vaccination programme is beginning to bare fruit?

 

[bramling]

The hyperbole about banning socialising in this thread is unhelpful at best, and downright spreading fud at worst (for what purpose I'm not sure).

I don’t think it is hyperbole. I don’t think it will happen, but there’s going to be some who can’t let their fear of all this go, or in some cases who would be prepared to trade restrictions for not having to go to work. I don’t think these people will win the day, but they are going to try, and they need to be resisted.

I am getting a definite feeling of “cool off” on things. A friend at work has recently suffered a C19 loss, with seemingly another to follow. Two elderly parents - one (unvaccinated) aged 93 picked up C19 in hospital as a result of a routine treatment for an elbow injury, subsequently passed away, gave C19 to her husband aged 98 (vaccinated) at the bedside and who subsequently tested positive for C19 but never displayed any symptoms at all and continues to be fine. However he returned home and is believed to have passed it on to the daughter (unvaccinated early 60s) who has underlying conditions (cancer) and is now in a severe condition in hospital and is regarded as being unlikely to pull through. If the sequence of events is as described then this would suggest the vaccine (presumably Pfizer) has not prevented transmission in this case. In fact in this tragic case it seems the vaccine might have given false sense of security, though something clearly went wrong with shielding arrangements in this case. It’s also a reminder that many Covid cases have their roots in hospitals.

 

[Mintona]

I’m with 6862. Now they’ve locked the population in and made them scared to go out, why would they ever let us out?

 

[VauxhallandI]

Right now I am watching BBC breakfast as there is a woman who has a mother in a care home.

She is extremely unhappy that she is. It allowed to see her after almost a year despite all the tests available to hand and the fact her mother has had her first vaccine.

She states it’s a postcode lottery if you can see a loved one in this situation.

She also gave the background that pre Covid her mother was walking and talking but now she can no longer walk. She raised the question of risk vs reward.

A small step to let the sanctimonious BBC staff to hear the reality of their propaganda

 

[Class 33]

I’m with 6862. Now they’ve locked the population in and made them scared to go out, why would they ever let us out?

With all these millions of vaccinations now and all the Coronavirus stats falling week on week now, they just won't be able to keep social distancing going for too much longer. Certainly by a few months from now, there is just going to be no valid justification to keep this nonsense going much longer. Social distancing alone is just absolutely killing many businesses in the hospitality, leisure and travel industry. I think many business leaders in those sectors are going to pressure on Johnson to scrap social distancing over the coming months, so that their businesses can get back to normal. The government have got to help these businesses now.

Some conflict with what two government ministers said yesterday though. Liz Truss saying "It's far too early to say when restrictions can be lifted.". Whilst Matt Hancock said "We can look forward to a great British carefree summer in 6 months time.". Hancock is right in that by 6 months time we should certainly be able to look forward to a great British carefree summer in 6 months. In fact with the way things are going, it should be by about 4 months really, that all restrictions are lifted including this ridiculous social distancing and face mask wearing nonsense we've had to put up with for far too long now. Although whether the government will have scrapped all this nonsense by 6 months from now we'll have to see. All these so called "experts" saying social distancing will have to continue until the end of the year, are absolutely appalling, and I wish they'd just bog off.