Is it time to relax the 2m social distancing guideline? (WHO guidance is 1m)

[Bletchleyite]

It works both ways though - if (as I'm optimistic might be the case) there's no increase in cases over the next few weeks despite the protests, it could lead to a quicker ultimate easing of lockdown than we would have had without the protests this last weekend happening at all.

It's certainly a useful experiment as to whether 2m matters outdoors. If it transpires that it doesn't, chuck the beer gardens, zoos etc open without any distancing, and tell people to pack in walking 2m circles around people outdoors (which my observation is that people have pretty much stopped doing now, at most they will walk at the opposite side of the path).

It's possible, I suppose, that the spread that occurred at the likes of Cheltenham and that footy match in Liverpool in fact all occurred in pubs, bars etc (i.e. indoors) at and ancillary to the events.

 

[C J Snarzell]

It will be very interesting if the racial protests have made no difference to the level of new cases - this would be a deal breaker for Boris Johnson to cut the reins for most (not necessarily all) outdoor social activities with no restrictions.

I remember Jenny Harries, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer commenting weeks ago that she believed the virus was an issue in confined indoor spaces and encouraged people to keep their homes well ventilated with open windows allowing fresh air in.

My major concern is that if the UK public does get told we can socialise outdoors, we are bound to see sheer acts of stupidity from small sections of the population who will celebrate with street & garden parties that our already over stretched emergency services will have to deal with.

CJ

 

[LAX54]

The worst case scenario would be a compromise fudge where the government reduce it to 1.5 metres. This wouldn't make a blind bit of difference in practice but would mean all the retail outlets would have to tear up their exisitng floor markers and start from scratch.

The World Health Organization says a distance of 1m is safe, and that rule is also in place in China, Denmark, France, Hong Kong, Lithuania and Singapore.

The rule is 1.5m in Australia, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal. 1.8m USA

Apart from the UK, the 2m rule is in place in Canada and Spain.

wee seem to be in a minority

 

[sheff1]

He was telling me he is already preparing measures of safeguarding customers which include a 'one in, one out' scenario, no magazines to be used by customers & anyone turning up early for an appointment will simply have to wait outside (even if they are older gents not good on their feet). He said he will not be able to allow anyone in the shop who is just booking an appointment - this will only be done via telephone.

My point is that clearly to put barbers/hairdressers through this hard shift from early next month indicates the 2m social distancing rule will be around for sometime to come!!!

Sounds like that barber is happy to lose business and I am not sure how he intends to cut someone's hair whilst standing 2m away from them !

 

[Enthusiast]

I am not sure how he intends to cut someone's hair whilst standing 2m away from them !

If he stretches his arms and uses these

 

[Bikeman78]

“only when it’s completely safe”,

That means never. Nothing is completely safe.

 

[nlogax]

Evidence suggests that a fortnight on from Memorial Day where much of the US let its social distancing hair down and partied like it's 2019, cases are again firmly on the rise in certain states. I'm sure this is being watched closely at by all UK governments (possibly too closely);

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/06/09/coronavirus-hospitalizations-rising/

As the number of new coronavirus cases continues to increase worldwide, and more than a dozen states and Puerto Rico are recording their highest averages of new cases since the pandemic began, hospitalizations in at least nine states have been on the rise since Memorial Day.

In Texas, North and South Carolina, California, Oregon, Arkansas, Mississippi, Utah and Arizona, there are an increasing number of patients under supervised care since the holiday weekend because of coronavirus infections. The spikes generally began in the past couple weeks and in most states are trending higher.
Data from states that are reporting some of their highest seven-day averages of new cases is disproving the notion that the country is seeing such a spike in cases solely because of the continued increase in testing, according to data tracked by The Washington Post.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Evidence suggests that a fortnight on from Memorial Day where much of the US let its social distancing hair down and partied like it's 2019, cases are again firmly on the rise in certain states. I'm sure this is being watched closely at by all UK governments (possibly too closely);

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/06/09/coronavirus-hospitalizations-rising/

Our figures from the late-May bank holiday will reflect this week and possibly next. Yesterday was the lowest Tuesday since March albeit a smaller decrease percentage-wise than last Tuesday had been compared to the previous Wednesday (Tuesday that week being Bank Holiday Monday figures so akin to a normal Monday's figure)

 

[C J Snarzell]

Tuesday is always the key day for the collation of figures from the weekend which is why Tuesday's toll is always higher than Monday's.

As I said the full accurate picture of the racial protests will not become clear for maybe a week or two yet - this being a new spike of cases/deaths.

 

[greyman42]

My major concern is that if the UK public does get told we can socialise outdoors, we are bound to see sheer acts of stupidity from small sections of the population who will celebrate with street & garden parties that our already over stretched emergency services will have to deal with.

I dare say street and garden parties will be on the agenda. It's called having a good time and we have not been able to do it for months.

 

[yorkie]

Good news: a change looks to be imminent:

A decision over the two-metre rule looms

There is growing hope among ministers that the rule will be relaxed.

www.bbc.co.uk

One minister today seemed confident the rule would be changed, and told me "very soon".

After all, other countries are asking their citizens to keep apart, but with smaller gaps, as my colleague David Shukman's explained here.

More and more MPs believe that relaxing the rule would be the crucial piece of the jigsaw.

Schools would find it easier to reopen to many more children, bars, pubs, cafes and restaurants that simply won't be able to function as businesses might have a chance again; using public transport if you only have to be say one metre apart seems a different prospect, and the transformation of workplaces becomes less dramatic.

And if one metre is deemed safe in Denmark, France, or Hong Kong, then why not here?

 

[yorksrob]

Good news: a change looks to be imminent:

A decision over the two-metre rule looms

There is growing hope among ministers that the rule will be relaxed.

www.bbc.co.uk

That's certainly good news.

The opposition needs to start focusing on this issue now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's certainly good news.

The opposition needs to start focusing on this issue now.

But make sure it's 1m, as 1.5m is going to make very little practical difference.

1m is easy to tell people what it is, as it's basically both peoples' arms length (unless they are particularly tall). "If you can touch the other person's outstretched arm, you're too close". Schoolkids in particular are well trained in that - or at least they were - through the classic PE "find a space".

 

[nedchester]

But make sure it's 1m, as 1.5m is going to make very little practical difference.

1m is easy to tell people what it is, as it's basically both peoples' arms length. "If you can touch the other person's outstretched arm, you're too close".

And it’s easy to change all those 2 m distance lines to 1 m by just putting another one in between the 2 m one. 1.5 m will cause chaos!

 

[Bletchleyite]

And it’s easy to change all those 2 m distance lines to 1 m by just putting another one in between the 2 m one. 1.5 m will cause chaos!

Though of course there's no need to change them, and it might actually be quite sensible to say "2m if you can, but definitely not less than 1m". It would help if they stopped being absolutist and instead explained the risk spectrum.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, it needs to be 1m.

 

[Mag_seven]

The government needs to stop dithering and scrap the guideline (note that it is a guideline not a rule) to save the economy.

 

[Ffcsteve14]

Read one article yesterday evening that said he will change it but won’t come into affect until July 4th when pubs, restaurants etc open

read another article that said it will change but mid July to see how pubs and restaurants work within the boundaries

and then at yesterday’s briefing both PM and one of the advisors said while infection rates are still to high as they are it will not be changed.

the WHO recommended face coverings and took us months to adopt them. I think the answer is nobody knows when the social distancing may change

 

[yorksrob]

The problem is a lack of understanding of what's generating the continued infection rate.

In my layman's view, if other countries are able to operate with one meter without causing a substantial rise in infections, it strongly suggests to me that we will. The risk of transmission at 1m as opposed to 2m doesn't change whether you have 5, 50 or 500 infected people.

 

[Ffcsteve14]

The problem is a lack of understanding of what's generating the continued infection rate.

In my layman's view, if other countries are able to operate with one meter without causing a substantial rise in infections, it strongly suggests to me that we will. The risk of transmission at 1m as opposed to 2m doesn't change whether you have 5, 50 or 500 infected people.

your top sentence is a great point. While they don’t understand they may not change the distance. Understand why and it will change. Hence why at the briefing they said why is currently high it will not be altered.

 

[yorksrob]

your top sentence is a great point. While they don’t understand they may not change the distance. Understand why and it will change. Hence why at the briefing they said why is currently high it will not be altered.

well, yes and no. We know that it's the same virus as in France for example, and we know that 1m hasn't driven a significant increase in cases there, so we can safely assume that it won't do so here.

But it would help to know what is generating the 5000 or so cases a day here. Track and trace should be making inroads in this.

 

[nedchester]

well, yes and no. We know that it's the same virus as in France for example, and we know that 1m hasn't driven a significant increase in cases there, so we can safely assume that it won't do so here.

But it would help to know what is generating the 5000 or so cases a day here. Track and trace should be making inroads in this.

Exactly. I did read somewhere in the last few days that the main sources of infection are still care homes and healthcare settings with little transmission in the community. If that's the case there should be no reason to reduce the distance to 1m.

 

[nlogax]

But it would help to know what is generating the 5000 or so cases a day here. Track and trace should be making inroads in this.

I agree.

Exactly. I did read somewhere in the last few days that the main sources of infection are still care homes and healthcare settings with little transmission in the community. If that's the case there should be no reason to reduce the distance to 1m.

If that is indeed the case, how about reducing to 1m *outside* of care homes and healthcare facilities? Let's target where great protection is needed.

 

[yorksrob]

Exactly. I did read somewhere in the last few days that the main sources of infection are still care homes and healthcare settings with little transmission in the community. If that's the case there should be no reason to reduce the distance to 1m.

Indeed. Whilst it's still worth being cautious about community transmission, we shouldn't be over-cautious to the extent of causing unneccessary damage to the economy - which 2m is.

 

[nedchester]

If that is indeed the case, how about reducing to 1m *outside* of care homes and healthcare facilities? Let's target where great protection is needed.

There probably isn't a social distancing rule in care homes due to the nature of the work they do?

 

[nlogax]

There probably isn't a social distancing rule in care homes due to the nature of the work they do?

Ah ok, yes fair point.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Exactly. I did read somewhere in the last few days that the main sources of infection are still care homes and healthcare settings with little transmission in the community. If that's the case there should be no reason to reduce the distance to 1m.

Actually if that's the case, why not scrap social distancing altogether outside of care homes and hospitals?

 

[Bantamzen]

Read one article yesterday evening that said he will change it but won’t come into affect until July 4th when pubs, restaurants etc open

read another article that said it will change but mid July to see how pubs and restaurants work within the boundaries

and then at yesterday’s briefing both PM and one of the advisors said while infection rates are still to high as they are it will not be changed.

the WHO recommended face coverings and took us months to adopt them. I think the answer is nobody knows when the social distancing may change

Actually the WHO have only very recently changed their advice on face masks in public, and even then they advise that governments encourage, not mandate them. So it really hasn't taken months to adopt, although with the virus in retreat and masks still relatively unproven (the phrase "they might help" is used way more than "they will help") the jury is very much out on this.

However its clear now that decision making in the UK has moved from semi-scientific to far more politically driven, and so the government is just throwing any ideas at the problem and seeing who objects the loudest. Frankly at this stage I would say that perhaps we just need to ramp down to the minimum, and throw the resources currently used to try to mandate the current measures on everyone to getting those most at risk (elderly, particularly those in the care and health systems) to control future significant spread.

well, yes and no. We know that it's the same virus as in France for example, and we know that 1m hasn't driven a significant increase in cases there, so we can safely assume that it won't do so here.

But it would help to know what is generating the 5000 or so cases a day here. Track and trace should be making inroads in this.

Just out of curiosity, where does that 5K figure come from? I've seen number from that to 10K banded about, but whenever I look at the official stats the numbers of lab tested positive results seems to be around the 1K mark.

 

[DannyMich2018]

Basically as long as the social distancing remains at 2 metres economically the country is literally wrecked -many business cannot profit and survive with this limit and even places which are open such a shops cannot have all staff in at the same time due to the same reasons so will still be millions on Furlough, both rail and bus operators will need support for as long as this continues because they will still have the same costs but a fraction of the revenue due to social distancing reducing capacity, schools will never have all children in until this is reduced, let's get casedsand deaths down first then we need to reduce this to a metre or one a half.

 

[leightonbd]

Actually the WHO have only very recently changed their advice on face masks in public, and even then they advise that governments encourage, not mandate them. So it really hasn't taken months to adopt, although with the virus in retreat and masks still relatively unproven (the phrase "they might help" is used way more than "they will help") the jury is very much out on this.

However its clear now that decision making in the UK has moved from semi-scientific to far more politically driven, and so the government is just throwing any ideas at the problem and seeing who objects the loudest. Frankly at this stage I would say that perhaps we just need to ramp down to the minimum, and throw the resources currently used to try to mandate the current measures on everyone to getting those most at risk (elderly, particularly those in the care and health systems) to control future significant spread.



Just out of curiosity, where does that 5K figure come from? I've seen number from that to 10K banded about, but whenever I look at the official stats the numbers of lab tested positive results seems to be around the 1K mark.

It is the ONS work, I think - e.g. see the link below which mentions ‘There were an estimated 39,000 new COVID-19 cases per week in England between 26 April and 30 May 2020’.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) latest insights - Office for National Statistics

The latest data and trends about the coronavirus (COVID-18) pandemic from the Office for National Statistics and other sources.

www.ons.gov.uk