Enforcement of the new rules on social distancing, unnecessary journeys etc.

[JonathanP]

And some on this forum want a greater reliance on rail travel for the future....... Yeah, right.

Erm, we are kind of in the middle of a global health emergency.

Seriously, I don’t think the railway industry needs to justify itself at all in this, on the contrary it can hold its head high in the knowledge that it has stepped up to the task required of it. Despite working under considerable operational pressure, the industry has delivered the service needed to get key workers where they needed to be. Many colleagues have gone above and beyond to ensure this, at some personal risk to themselves and family.

Whilst a good proportion of the rest of the population did what exactly to contribute?

This is missing the point. It is not about whether the railway industry has "done it's bit" or not, it's about whether public transport its still suitable as a transportation solution for the general public.

We are not in the middle of a global health emergency, we are at the first stage of the beginning of a global health emergency. Social distancing is going to be with us for a very long time, and as others have said, it's just not good enough to say "no car?, then unless you are an essential worker you won't be going any further than you can walk for the next 2 years". I for one would be reaching for a stepladder and length of strong rope if I was told that.

If a magic fairy had come to me year ago and warned me what was going to happen, my first prority would have been to learn to drive and buy a car.

 

[duncanp]

It is worth pointing out that the measure for social distancing used in France is 1 metre, not 2.5 metres as used in the UK.

COVID-19 : Rester chez soi pour freiner la propagation de l'épidémie – Ministère des Solidarités et de la Santé

Nous sommes à présent en phase épidémique qui correspond à une circulation active du virus sur le territoire. L'ensemble du système sanitaire hospitalier et de ville, ainsi que les établissements…

solidarites-sante.gouv.fr

The key phrase is "je respecte une distance de 1 mètre avec toute autre personne" which means "..I will keep a distance of 1 metre from every other person..."

So why is it 1 metre in France and 2.5 metres in the UK? I can't think that the French government would be reckless and take unecessary risks with public health.

This could possibly give the UK government a means of relaxing the restrictions, and allowing pubs, restaurants, gyms, swimming pools etc. to reopen, as well as allowing twice as many people into the supermarket at any one time, thus shortening the queues.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

It is worth pointing out that the measure for social distancing used in France is 1 metre, not 2.5 metres as used in the UK.

COVID-19 : Rester chez soi pour freiner la propagation de l'épidémie – Ministère des Solidarités et de la Santé

Nous sommes à présent en phase épidémique qui correspond à une circulation active du virus sur le territoire. L'ensemble du système sanitaire hospitalier et de ville, ainsi que les établissements…

solidarites-sante.gouv.fr

The key phrase is "je respecte une distance de 1 mètre avec toute autre personne" which means "..I will keep a distance of 1 metre from every other person..."

So why is it 1 metre in France and 2.5 metres in the UK? I can't think that the French government would be reckless and take unecessary risks with public health.

This could possibly give the UK government a means of relaxing the restrictions, and allowing pubs, restaurants, gyms, swimming pools etc. to reopen, as well as allowing twice as many people into the supermarket at any one time, thus shortening the queues.

2.5 metres in the UK? I thought it was 2 metres!

Either way it does raise an interesting point; why is the recommended social distancing figure a nice round number like 2 metres? Why isn't it, say 1.87 metres or 2.12 metres? It does suggest an arbitrary figure made up on the spot, rather than one based on scientific analysis.

I think that when the lockdown ends, then the social distancing rule should be relaxed as well (remember, like most emergency measures, it's a guideline and not a law). We'll just have to accept, like we did before all this started, that any form of human contact runs the risk of catching a virus. Whilst those most at risk may wish to keep their distance, the rest of us need to be able to get on with our lives as we did before.

 

[Domh245]

I've only heard it being 2m.

Either way it does raise an interesting point; why is the recommended social distancing figure a nice round number like 2 metres? Why isn't it, say 1.87 metres or 2.12 metres? It does suggest an arbitrary figure made up on the spot, rather than one based on scientific analysis.

Because asking people to stay 2m (or 6ft) apart is a lot easier than saying that you should stay 1.87m apart. It isn't a particularly scientific approach in the sense of if you're more than 2m apart you won't catch it, but 1.99m and you will, the idea is to make sure people aren't getting too close that it could spread through droplets. Indeed, arriving at a specific distance is going to be difficult as the distance that droplets can travel from a person will vary massively based on ambient conditions, the individual themselves, how much time is spent in proximity, etc. Giving them an easy length to visualise, that is on the higher end of the range means it's a lot more effective than some complicated system with a minimum distance and various rules to have to try and remember.

I think that when the lockdown ends, then the social distancing rule should be relaxed as well (remember, like most emergency measures, it's a guideline and not a law). We'll just have to accept, like we did before all this started, that any form of human contact runs the risk of catching a virus. Whilst those most at risk may wish to keep their distance, the rest of us need to be able to get on with our lives as we did before.

Disagree - lockdown needs to be brought to an end as soon as reasonably possible, which means that social distancing will have to continue for a while after that. We can't just "accept that any form of human contact runs the risk of catching a virus" as that's how you end up overwhelming the healthcare system again. Lockdown ends and we go into a period of social distancing and contact tracing until the "endgame" of a vaccination or immunity is achieved, although that's probably better suited to the exit strategy thread!

 

[oldman]

There is no perfect safe distance. The chosen round number is 2 meters in Britain; Germany goes for 1.5 meters, the USA seems to use 6 feet and 2 meters interchangably.

The infection risk is greater in enclosed spaces such as the pubs etc that you mention, rather than in the open air. I'm trying to imagine even a 1 meter seperation to get to the loos in my local (up the stair, turn left, along a passage, and back afterwards) - you'd have to book a slot in advance.

(Though really in these post-Brexit times it ought to be 2 proud, sturdy British imperial yards, and not those nasty foreign meter thingies.)

 

[AM9]

2.5 metres in the UK? I thought it was 2 metres!

Either way it does raise an interesting point; why is the recommended social distancing figure a nice round number like 2 metres? Why isn't it, say 1.87 metres or 2.12 metres? It does suggest an arbitrary figure made up on the spot, rather than one based on scientific analysis.

2m is near enough to 6ft so almost anybody knows how much that is and it's easy to estimate, e.g. it's around the height of most adults.

... I think that when the lockdown ends, then the social distancing rule should be relaxed as well (remember, like most emergency measures, it's a guideline and not a law). We'll just have to accept, like we did before all this started, that any form of human contact runs the risk of catching a virus. Whilst those most at risk may wish to keep their distance, the rest of us need to be able to get on with our lives as we did before. ...

That would be the biggest trigger for the rapid return to runaway infection. It's nice to think that families and close friends can embrace each other but just imagine how a bar full of drinkers embracing the end of the rsetriction would be falling into the arms of anyone within reach. A relaxation of movement might work if social distancing was still constrained as most compliant people have learnt to be careful. Expert commentators* have been predicting that it may take as long as a few years for most people to return to pre epidemic levels of close contact.
* no I don't have any links to specific instances but there have been several psychologists in Radio 4 programmes on the subject commenting along those lines.

 

[AM9]

(Though really in these post-Brexit times it ought to be 2 proud, sturdy British imperial yards, and not those nasty foreign meter thingies.)

No emoticon there so you must believe that!

 

[scotrail158713]

How does that work? The fine is for non-essential travel, only one instance of that has been committed because a key part of the offence is leaving your home.

Some forces really are being quite stupid. It does seem mostly to be the rural ones...

To me it reads as if he was told to return home immediately - but he “decided not to return straight back on the next available train”. Sounds like he got to Lincoln, was fined for unnecessary travel, was told to go home, but decided to unnecessarily visit Lincoln before returning home, so was fined again. It doesn’t seem entirely unreasonable to me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To me it reads as if he was told to return home immediately - but he “decided not to return straight back on the next available train”. Sounds like he got to Lincoln, was fined for unnecessary travel, was told to go home, but decided to unnecessarily visit Lincoln before returning home, so was fined again. It doesn’t seem entirely unreasonable to me.

It doesn't sound in principle wrong however I don't believe it was lawful to issue two fines for one offence (of leaving the home without good reason). I suspect if he challenged the second one in Court he'd win, though over the sum involved it's probably not worth it.

It sounds similar to speeding offences, where people have I believe successfully argued (to avoid a ban from 12 points) that only one offence was committed because between two cameras that caught them they never dropped below the speed limit, therefore they only went above it once.

 

[Meerkat]

It doesn't sound in principle wrong however I don't believe it was lawful to issue two fines for one offence. I suspect if he challenged the second one in Court he'd win, though over the sum involved it's probably not worth it.

Challenging it would be admitting that he had ignored the directions of a police officer, which would end up in the same position or worse??

 

[island]

It doesn't sound in principle wrong however I don't believe it was lawful to issue two fines for one offence. I suspect if he challenged the second one in Court he'd win, though over the sum involved it's probably not worth it.

Two separate offences. 1) leaving home without reasonable excuse contrary to regulation 6(1) of the Health Protection Etc. Regulations 2020 and 2) failing to obey the direction of a police officer to return home Contrary to regulation 8 (3) (a) of the said Regulations.

Perhaps not likely to appeal to the peanut gallery, but police were operating within the letter of the law, which is what this forum seems to want them to do.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Two separate offences. 1) leaving home without reasonable excuse contrary to regulation 6(1) of the Health Protection Etc. Regulations 2020 and 2) failing to obey the direction of a police officer to return home Contrary to regulation 8 (3) (a) of the said Regulations.

Perhaps not likely to appeal to the peanut gallery, but police were operating within the letter of the law, which is what this forum seems to want them to do.

Ah, I see. Not two the same as was being implied.

 

[Enthusiast]

Two separate offences. 1) leaving home without reasonable excuse contrary to regulation 6(1) of the Health Protection Etc. Regulations 2020 and 2) failing to obey the direction of a police officer to return home Contrary to regulation 8 (3) (a) of the said Regulations.

So long as the two fixed penalties were issued for the two different contraventions. Some reports of the way the police have behaved over the last week or so suggest some officers are not as well acquainted with the legislation as they should be.

 

[Mogster]

There is no perfect safe distance. The chosen round number is 2 meters in Britain; Germany goes for 1.5 meters, the USA seems to use 6 feet and 2 meters interchangably.

The infection risk is greater in enclosed spaces such as the pubs etc that you mention, rather than in the open air. I'm trying to imagine even a 1 meter seperation to get to the loos in my local (up the stair, turn left, along a passage, and back afterwards) - you'd have to book a slot in advance.

(Though really in these post-Brexit times it ought to be 2 proud, sturdy British imperial yards, and not those nasty foreign meter thingies.)

I thought the scientific evidence for transmission was for 1m and that was 1m indoors in lab conditions. 2m is a simple doubling of that for ultimate safety. As I understand it there’s no evidence of the virus being spread outdoors, certainly not by the sort of contact that you’d have by walking past someone in the street. This makes the reaction of the police to lone sunbathers even more ridiculous.

The ONS stats today (to 3rd April) show 16300 deaths, 6000 above 5 year average. The most troubling part is that only 60% of these 6000 are attributed to Covid, so what’s causing the other 40%, the lockdown?People not going to the doctor when they should? depression leading to suicide?

Incidentally what is the highest weekly deaths figure prior to this? From the available spreadsheets since 2010 I’ve spotted 15100?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The sunbathing thing isn't about the risk posed by sunbathing on its own, which as you say is near nil. It (like the once a day thing which isn't part of English law) is about reducing the number of people on the streets/in the parks at once, as if everyone spends all day out things get too busy and spread does occur.

 

[Belperpete]

There is no perfect safe distance. The chosen round number is 2 meters in Britain; Germany goes for 1.5 meters, the USA seems to use 6 feet and 2 meters interchangably.

Studies have shown that sneezes and coughes can spread much further than 2m, particularly in enclosed spaces. I seem to recall one study showing 6m in a supermarket. However, requiring a separation distance of 6m would be impractical. So each country is implementing a distance that they consider a reasonable compromise. There is no absolute red-line - you are not safe just because you keep 2m away, just as you are not automatically going to die if you accidentally stray 1mm too close. The closer you get, the more the risk increases, and the further away, the less the risk. 2m/6ft, 1.5m, 1m are purely arbitary lines in the middle.

Different countries are using different separation distances in the same way as they have different lock-down strategies.

 

[jellybaby]

I'm trying to imagine even a 1 meter seperation to get to the loos in my local (up the stair, turn left, along a passage, and back afterwards) - you'd have to book a slot in advance.

Perhaps some kind of fixed block signalling with a token you collect at the bottom of the stairs?

 

[Meerkat]

Studies have shown that sneezes and coughes can spread much further than 2m, particularly in enclosed spaces. I seem to recall one study showing 6m in a supermarket.

I assume the general principle is that no one with Covid who is coughing/sneezing should be outside their own home.

 

[westv]

Studies have shown that sneezes and coughes can spread much further than 2m, particularly in enclosed spaces. I seem to recall one study showing 6m in a supermarket.

Do these studies assume a (hopefully!) unrealistic sneeze or cough directly into the open air?

 

[yorksrob]

I assume the general principle is that no one with Covid who is coughing/sneezing should be outside their own home.

I think it's that no one showing the main symptoms of Coronavirus should be outside of their home - a long continuous cough, a fever or possibly loss of taste (I'm not sure the last one's official).

There's scope for the odd cough and sniffle.

 

[joncombe]

I think it's that no one showing the main symptoms of Coronavirus should be outside of their home - a long continuous cough, a fever or possibly loss of taste (I'm not sure the last one's official).

There's scope for the odd cough and sniffle.

Hasn't it been said that a fair percentage of people that have had it have had NO symptoms at all? So they may not even be aware.

 

[kieron]

My cousin, who is autistic phoned me this afternoon to say he had been fined by the police for driving to a remote beauty spot in the adjacent county to where he lived as he lives in a high-rise flat. He was also asked for his mobile phone number and email address. My cousin, who is very passive, complied with the policeman but was surprised at being given a fine straight away.

I can't help with how the police may use this information. The police themselves would be able to tell your cousin, but they may not do so quickly.

With regard to the "fine" itself, According to the official Coronavirus FAQ, you can leave your home for "any medical need".

Following some correspondence with lawyers, a paragraph was added to the guidance last week which includes:

You can leave your home for medical need. If you (or a person in your care) have a specific health condition that requires you to leave the home to maintain your health - including if that involves travel beyond your local area - then you can do so.

I'm not a lawyer, but this makes me think that, if someone has a history of going to a specific place to deal with (say) stress, leaving the home to visit that place may be permitted by the legislation.

 

[Meerkat]

I'm not a lawyer, but this makes me think that, if someone has a history of going to a specific place to deal with (say) stress, leaving the home to visit that place may be permitted by the legislation.

Not buying that - a massive can of worms. How would they define how stressed I need to be for it to be essential that I go to the beach or the mountains?!
Surely that paragraph refers to medical treatment?

 

[tony_mac]

Not buying that - a massive can of worms. How would they define how stressed I need to be for it to be essential that I go to the beach or the mountains?!
Surely that paragraph refers to medical treatment?

I think the rest of it makes that clearer.

This could, for example, include where individuals with learning disabilities or autism require specific exercise in an open space two or three times each day - ideally in line with a care plan agreed with a medical professional

 

[Meerkat]

I think the rest of it makes that clearer.

Ah. Fair enough. But that should require at least a diagnosis letter, otherwise it puts coppers in an impossible situation.

 

[Greybeard33]

Studies have shown that sneezes and coughes can spread much further than 2m, particularly in enclosed spaces. I seem to recall one study showing 6m in a supermarket. However, requiring a separation distance of 6m would be impractical. So each country is implementing a distance that they consider a reasonable compromise. There is no absolute red-line - you are not safe just because you keep 2m away, just as you are not automatically going to die if you accidentally stray 1mm too close. The closer you get, the more the risk increases, and the further away, the less the risk. 2m/6ft, 1.5m, 1m are purely arbitary lines in the middle.

Different countries are using different separation distances in the same way as they have different lock-down strategies.

The probability of airborne transmission depends on the length of time two people spend in proximity, as well as the separation distance. An hour long conversation with someone 2m away is riskier than walking past someone 1m away. However, outside the science and engineering community, many people struggle with the concept of probabilistic risk. Hence the need for a simple social distancing rule that is easy to enforce.

 

[bramling]

I assume the general principle is that no one with Covid who is coughing/sneezing should be outside their own home.

Trouble with that is without testing this could knock out a substantial proportion of the population thanks to hayfever.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Trouble with that is without testing this could knock out a substantial proportion of the population thanks to hayfever.

If we continue on the basis that the COVID symptoms to isolate for are a new persistent cough or a temperature, that's not going to catch anyone with hay fever, as that does neither of those things. Vigilantes might, but there should be NO vigilanteism of any kind here.

 

[Darandio]

If we continue on the basis that the COVID symptoms to isolate for are a new persistent cough or a temperature, that's not going to catch anyone with hay fever, as that does neither of those things. Vigilantes might, but there should be NO vigilanteism of any kind here.

Hayfever can give a persistent cough and a very annoying tickly one at that. I know because I get the damn thing every year.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hayfever can give a persistent cough and a very annoying tickly one at that. I know because I get the damn thing every year.

I'm not sure I'd call it a new persistent cough, though, rather one relating to an existing condition.