Did you not read exactly what I posted: " Apart from those whose living is derived directly from pubs and alcoholic consumption, nobody is actually harmed by a 3-6 month absence." So if you claim that 465k,000 or so then, (I assume that you mean 465,000 people whose living is derived directly from pubs and alcoholic consumption), plus whatever number you might add as you presumably were only quoting for pubs, then it might be a bigger number. So apart from them, whatever number it is, it is relatively small compared with the just over 30 million total in work in the UK (before March 2020).
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
Is it time to relax the 2m social distancing guideline? (WHO guidance is 1m)
- Thread starter yorksrob
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
A huge number of people are impacted; it's not just the direct impact as the economy doesn't work like that. But if we are to discuss that further, there are other threads which are more suited to that discussion.
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,671
Firstly, a visit from uniformed police officers when they found him still 'open' a few days after lockdown began, in the sense that he was still in his shop with the door closed with a notice he was no longer open, but working on computers that he'd had in prior to lockdown and was going to deliver to their owners by van as previously arranged, and, secondly, an official letter delivered by hand from the local authority informing him that, if he reopened tomorrow without the necessary notices and screen, he could be forced to close again until they were in place.Now he has an 'official' notice on his window stating that only one person is allowed in his shop at a time, flanked by two notices requiring customers to keep a social distance of six feet from each other, so logic seems to dictate you must keep six feet from yourself, as the sole permitted occupant!
Enthusiast
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,226
I wonder what legislation supports that. All I can find is this "guidance":
Notably it says this:
I understand he will have obligations under HASAW legislation to protect his employees (if he has any). Perhaps his LA is considering action under H&S legislation and will expect him to carry out a risk assessment to assess the danger to his customers. Since the governments advisors initially said that remaining within two metres of another person was only a danger if it was for a period of fifteen minutes or longer, I wonder how he (or anybody else) is supposed to undertake that RA?
Last edited by a moderator:
From another thread; we need to continue the discussion here:
The only occasions where I've come across anyone being really desperate to keep 2m apart at all times in the past week or two is not in shops or on suburban streets or at stations or anything like that, but purely and simply in rural locations when going for a walk. That's literally it.
I can test this by walking next to the wall and seeing if the other person passes me on the pavement or walks into the road. Hardly anyone walks into the road now (which is good as that was getting dangerous; I have had some near misses!)
I used to walk on the right hand side of the road so that I could see oncoming traffic to give people a wide berth, but I've stopped doing that now, and see how other people react when on the left hand side of the road, and I can see a huge, huge difference.
The 2m guideline is a huge problem for the entertainment sector and a huge threat to jobs and our livelihoods but in the real world hardly anyone is bothered about being only 1m from someone else nowadays.
I understand and share your concerns but believe me the tide has well and truly turned : the vast majority of people I've come across no longer mind being within 2m of others, at least not briefly passing someone.
The only occasions where I've come across anyone being really desperate to keep 2m apart at all times in the past week or two is not in shops or on suburban streets or at stations or anything like that, but purely and simply in rural locations when going for a walk. That's literally it.
I can test this by walking next to the wall and seeing if the other person passes me on the pavement or walks into the road. Hardly anyone walks into the road now (which is good as that was getting dangerous; I have had some near misses!)
I used to walk on the right hand side of the road so that I could see oncoming traffic to give people a wide berth, but I've stopped doing that now, and see how other people react when on the left hand side of the road, and I can see a huge, huge difference.
The 2m guideline is a huge problem for the entertainment sector and a huge threat to jobs and our livelihoods but in the real world hardly anyone is bothered about being only 1m from someone else nowadays.
The problem is that the guideline remains in place for official purposes. That means that even though most people are willing to ignore it, business can't. To avoid large scale unemployment in hospitality, we really need to make sure the rule is abolished de jure, not just de facto.
2 meters seems to have all but broken down where I live. No-one seems to be specifically keeping that distance when they pass each other in the street, although they were doing so a few weeks ago when this all first started.
As for jobs in the leisure industry don't under estimate the jobs at risk in the supply chain - manufacturers and their suppliers, logistics and warehousing, even the money customers spend getting to and from these leisure activities (car parking, taxis, rail and bus etc).
As for jobs in the leisure industry don't under estimate the jobs at risk in the supply chain - manufacturers and their suppliers, logistics and warehousing, even the money customers spend getting to and from these leisure activities (car parking, taxis, rail and bus etc).
The West End will really struggle, which I’m very sad to say. A lot of the theatres are very old, and some of the Andrew Lloyd Webber theatres have had extensive, multi-million pound restorations recently. I fear some of the smaller shows may not make it out the other side, which is a huge shame.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
They seem to have got fixated on bogs, when the ones in motorway services and on stations are open as normal (subject to every other cubicle/urinal being blocked off, and urinal etiquette dictates that only every other one is used anyway!
)Well the public toilet in Verulamium park was open today, so hopefully people who visited the park who don't care how they relieve themselves didn't just do what animals do.They seem to have got fixated on bogs, when the ones in motorway services and on stations are open as normal (subject to every other cubicle/urinal being blocked off, and urinal etiquette dictates that only every other one is used anyway!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
FWIW I went to the Peak District with a friend for some hiking today, and social distancing was not being practiced by anyone other than a masked and gloved old woman bizarrely wandering around Hathersage declaring herself to be recovering from having had it and that the end was nigh (or something). At least one pub and the chippy were open for takeaway, and people were happily sat around on walls etc drinking beer not 2m (or even 1m) from each other.
If this doesn't cause a massive spike (though I know cases seem to have flattened which suggests R pretty much is 1), this is evidence that beer gardens could reopen without any form of distancing at all.
If this doesn't cause a massive spike (though I know cases seem to have flattened which suggests R pretty much is 1), this is evidence that beer gardens could reopen without any form of distancing at all.
CaptainHaddock
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 2,476
Good to hear many people ( but sadly not all) are realising that there's nothing to fear from going out and enjoying life as normal again.
There really is no good reason why the pubs are still closed. If you can buy beer from them and drink it in a nearby park why on earth can't you do so in a beer garden?
Boris Johnson really needs to grow a pair and reduce the two metre rule to one metre as soon as possible.
A lot of the indecision is based upon the fear of what might happen if we do reduce the distance to 1 metre, (a possible rise in infections) as opposed to what will happen if we don't reduce the distance to 1 metre (a definite increase in store and pub closures and a steep rise in unemployment)
When you look at it like that, it is actually quite a simple decision to make. The 2 metre rule may have been justified when the infection, death and R rates were higher, but now that they have come down considerably, there is the justification for reducing the distance to 1 metre, especially as there are mitigating measures that can be put in place. (eg, for pubs, maybe extending the hours slightly, or having a happy hour at less busy times to encourage more people to come then)
A lot of the indecision is based upon the fear of what might happen if we do reduce the distance to 1 metre, (a possible rise in infections) as opposed to what will happen if we don't reduce the distance to 1 metre (a definite increase in store and pub closures and a steep rise in unemployment)
When you look at it like that, it is actually quite a simple decision to make. The 2 metre rule may have been justified when the infection, death and R rates were higher, but now that they have come down considerably, there is the justification for reducing the distance to 1 metre, especially as there are mitigating measures that can be put in place. (eg, for pubs, maybe extending the hours slightly, or having a happy hour at less busy times to encourage more people to come then)
nlogax
Established Member
I'm going to take full advantage of the relative quiet in restaurants, bars and planes while other people stay at home worried about whether to step outside the front door. We should be out there as soon as our local businesses reopen, supporting our crippled economy as much as possible.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Yes, I think this is utterly bizarre. To work with regard to enforcing distancing, a blanket public drinking ban would be needed to ensure people did take takeaways home. If that's not needed, open beer gardens.
There's now a report in The Guardian that the Lancet report, subsequently reported in The Times, shouldn't be used as "evidence" for relaxing the distancing advice down from 2m to 1m (https://www.theguardian.com/science...rt-flaws-in-who-study-on-two-metre-distancing).
I agree, it confused me from the start ( #259 ) that the study was only looking at "distance" and not "time at distance" and that I wasn't sure how useful the inferences that were being drawn actually were.
The only real value of a study would be if its findings were able to lead to substantive and justifiable interpretations, which they're clearly not, other than "1m good, 2m better" which really doesn't need a study to determine.
I sense the government's scientific advisors are positioning themselves in a "final decision is a matter for politicians" stance, which is understandable, and the politicians are looking for a form of words which won't then lead to resignations from the scientists, and I sense that this is a position that both parties will be able to finesse.
I agree, it confused me from the start ( #259 ) that the study was only looking at "distance" and not "time at distance" and that I wasn't sure how useful the inferences that were being drawn actually were.
The only real value of a study would be if its findings were able to lead to substantive and justifiable interpretations, which they're clearly not, other than "1m good, 2m better" which really doesn't need a study to determine.
I sense the government's scientific advisors are positioning themselves in a "final decision is a matter for politicians" stance, which is understandable, and the politicians are looking for a form of words which won't then lead to resignations from the scientists, and I sense that this is a position that both parties will be able to finesse.
Isn't the study concerned a "study of studies", in which case it should be a representation of the collective findings from a number of different peer reviewed studies anyway ?
There are some people who think even you walk briskly past someone in the street, and aren’t 2m apart, you will catch the virus. I had someone mutter something at me yesterday even by walking past them right on the curb. They weren’t happy that I didn’t hang right back in a side road for them to get past.
Regarding the 2m rule, there is quite a lot of pressure in the government to reduce the measure, and the media are lining up reports saying that it should be reduced and saying that many countries have reduced it.
Does anyone think that when Boris does reduce it, Sturgeon will immediately come out and say Scotland is sticking to 2m, as will other opposition leaders, unions, commentators and suddenly the media coverage and public opinion will change?
Regarding the 2m rule, there is quite a lot of pressure in the government to reduce the measure, and the media are lining up reports saying that it should be reduced and saying that many countries have reduced it.
Does anyone think that when Boris does reduce it, Sturgeon will immediately come out and say Scotland is sticking to 2m, as will other opposition leaders, unions, commentators and suddenly the media coverage and public opinion will change?
She’ll increase it to 3m!
I’m willing to bet that the media is currently
“2m distancing making it difficult to reopen economy”
“Businesses struggle to get by with 2m distancing in place”
But if (and when) it changes it’ll switch quickly to:
“Social distancing reduced to 1m, but is this really safe?”
“England poses danger to public health and reduces to 1m”
And I’m also willing to bet that our firm favourite Ms. Nicola Sturgeon will either stick to 2m, or be even more awkward (which she quite possibly will), and insist on 1.5m, stating “the PM is entitled to decide for England, but this is neccessary in Scotland”, which is her reply to any challenge about her wanting to appear different, and it’s starting to get old.
I suspect, given the reports recently, that there'll be an update in the guidance.
Inside buildings:
- when moving about, unless wearing face coverings, you should try and maintain 2m
- when sat next to, or back to back with, people keep at least 1m apart
- when sat facing someone keep 2m apart unless wearing a face covering
- air condition should be kept off during peak demand and open windows used to provide good ventilation
Outside:
- when moving about, unless wearing face coverings, you should try and maintain 2m
- however, when walking past someone (i.e. brief contact time) road safely takes priority (i.e. don't jump into the road), however please try to avert you face from the other person when within 1m
That would enable people to walk into a pub (wearing a face covering) and:
- sit back to back at tables with only slightly more of a gap than would have been the case before.
- sit side by side with a walkway between, again not imposing on spacing much from before
There's likely to be some reduction in the number of tables, but in the main it would enable the majority of pubs/restaurants to survive. If they continue to offer takeaway (especially pre booked) as well then overall their business may be better (thinking a takeaway burger from a pub for lunch on a wet day is likely to be much more attractive than a cold pasty from a corner shop).
Inside buildings:
- when moving about, unless wearing face coverings, you should try and maintain 2m
- when sat next to, or back to back with, people keep at least 1m apart
- when sat facing someone keep 2m apart unless wearing a face covering
- air condition should be kept off during peak demand and open windows used to provide good ventilation
Outside:
- when moving about, unless wearing face coverings, you should try and maintain 2m
- however, when walking past someone (i.e. brief contact time) road safely takes priority (i.e. don't jump into the road), however please try to avert you face from the other person when within 1m
That would enable people to walk into a pub (wearing a face covering) and:
- sit back to back at tables with only slightly more of a gap than would have been the case before.
- sit side by side with a walkway between, again not imposing on spacing much from before
There's likely to be some reduction in the number of tables, but in the main it would enable the majority of pubs/restaurants to survive. If they continue to offer takeaway (especially pre booked) as well then overall their business may be better (thinking a takeaway burger from a pub for lunch on a wet day is likely to be much more attractive than a cold pasty from a corner shop).
Reported in The Guardian, from The Telegraph, "Two metre rule has no basis in science, say scientists".
I think this is pretty accurate; I suspect that my experience of walking out and about is shared by many in that most people we encounter are attempting to distance themselves from us, where possible. As in the quote, it's become the norm. And that action and its significant adoption is what matters more than the actual distance each time.
I think this is pretty accurate; I suspect that my experience of walking out and about is shared by many in that most people we encounter are attempting to distance themselves from us, where possible. As in the quote, it's become the norm. And that action and its significant adoption is what matters more than the actual distance each time.
Bantamzen
Established Member
I suspect that an increasing number of scientists who advise politicians are getting increasingly fed up with the "informed by science" excuse given by the politicians, meaning that politicians are seeking to blame scientific advice for unpopular policies. I see increasing numbers of statements from scientists along the lines of "we advise, politicians decide" seeking to differentiate between the two roles. Two of the senior scientists (Whitty and Vallance) are supposed to be on "resignation watch" these days, in other words that although neither has explicitly threatened to resign at any point there's a feeling that one or both of them might do if they feel themselves to be unfairly misrepresented by the government they're advising.
CaptainHaddock
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 2,476
The problem with the "following the science" argument is that scientists rarely agree on anything. Ask 50 different scientists the same question and you'll get 50 different answers!
That said, I'm not surprised they've finally admitted the two metre rule has no basis in science. But then neither have the recommended weekly alcohol limits but still many people treat them as absolute rules rather than vague guidelines.
Yes, indeed, and politicians don't, as a rule, understand science.
That's not necessarily bad, and indeed my experience of working with scientists is that they don't understand politics, they think it's all about scoring points against their competitors in order to get ahead.
The problem with politicians is not that they don't understand science, but they think they do.
Things are getting critical now. It has to be relaxed from the end of this month at the very latest.
The consequences will be dire if this is not done.
Nearly 80% of forum members who voted in the poll agree that this guideline should either have already been relaxed already, or be relaxed at the end of this month.
Those who vote against it are quite possibly isolating anyway or don't understand the importance of the economy and livelihoods.
The consequences will be dire if this is not done.
Nearly 80% of forum members who voted in the poll agree that this guideline should either have already been relaxed already, or be relaxed at the end of this month.
Those who vote against it are quite possibly isolating anyway or don't understand the importance of the economy and livelihoods.
Even if they all did agree, while we should weigh the advice of scientists heavily in such matters, they shouldn't be the *only* people that should be taken into account by the politicians. We need to listen to sociologists, economists, businesses, etc. etc. as well.
Just listening to the scientists on matters such as this, strikes me as similar to only listening to railway enthusiasts when setting transport policy. What we would think is ideal doesn't necessarily correlate with what is possible, sensible or desirable!
I think Shapps said this morning that 4th July is the earliest it will be reduced. Although that said, u-turns aren't exactly unheard of in this government so we can still hope. I'm in complete agreement with you though, we really need to reduce it now if we have any hope of saving the economy. I do think more people are starting to realise this after having tried to go shopping yesterday and keep 2 metres apart at all times, and realising it's incredibly impractical.
- Status