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

[corfield]

For a large business to execute this nationally would obviously be something that requires some planning and preparation. Same would go for the decision to remove it all. It's all tied up with the wider strategy which includes the questions over the number of people are allowed in at any time and what staff do what role where, and other things. And fundamentally it would need to be answered what the benefits are?

Your view might be that they should abandon it all and do nothing, but unless you're running a large firm...?

I don't think this is true at all.

As it happens I do run a large organisation - I delegate. A 2m to 1m change does not require powerpoint presentations and reports or even meetings.

You tell your people to go and put markers halfway between the existing ones. Nothing else changes!

Trying to make something so simple, so complicated is symptomatic of both the railways issues with costs and the mess the country has made of covid.

You use the word “strategy”. That is your misconception. Strategy is carefully thought through based on an underlying concept. Not made on the hoof on poor data - that is seat of the pants management. Whet we have in social distancing is window dressing, but exceptionally self damaging one - as the stats bear out, it is not actually doing anything but is devastating 10s of millions of lives.

 

[yorksrob]

The problem there is that the majority who have been obeying the rules at least have some safety when approached by somebody ignoring the rules (no point in starting the argument about how much difference in tranmission it makes again). If the priniciple of 'let's just change the law because some are ignoring it anyway' is used, then those who are concerned about their safety (maybe because they are vulnerable) would have no protection if others just invaded their space.

Clearly that's not a good basis to change the guidance. The reason to do so would be because:

1) it has a disproportionately negative effect on economic life for a relatively minor benefit (as opposed to social distancing at 1m)
2) it's an international outlier which hasn't been shown to have a significant effect in comparison to those countries that have less than 2m.

 

[corfield]

Except that most people absolutely don't want a wholesale return to the way things were, which is what the "old normal" is generally understood to mean.

Of course they do - ask anyone and normal daily life is exactly what everyone wants! Shops, cinemas, houses, work all as usual. Everyone I speak to is climbing the walls awaiting that, or ignoring the rules and just doing it.

 

[AM9]

Of course they do - ask anyone and normal daily life is exactly what everyone wants! Shops, cinemas, houses, work all as usual. Everyone I speak to is climbing the walls awaiting that, or ignoring the rules and just doing it.

Not in my experience, especially at the expense of increased cases. Those shouting about want 'old normal' back irrespective of the infection rate should be careful of what they wish for because if a second spike comes, it will be much more painful than the original restrictions, - and damaging to the economy. If the government wants to avoid that it is the infection rate that need to be driving it. A few days ago it was higher than when the restrictions were imposed in March.

 

[MikeWM]

Of course they do - ask anyone and normal daily life is exactly what everyone wants! Shops, cinemas, houses, work all as usual. Everyone I speak to is climbing the walls awaiting that, or ignoring the rules and just doing it.

There were certainly issues with the 'old' normal, but in pretty much every way it was better than this 'new' normal nonsense.

There are a number of people - seemingly mostly of the Left-ish persuasion [1] - who seem to think we should leverage this crisis to try to solve what they perceive to be the problems with the 'old' normal. But this isn't the way to do it, and they are going to be very disappointed when inequality, unemployment and poverty inevitably rise dramatically in the coming years.


[1] where, until recently, I would have (mostly) included myself. Now I feel very politically homeless :-/

 

[corfield]

Not in my experience, especially at the expense of increased cases. Those shouting about want 'old normal' back irrespective of the infection rate should be careful of what they wish for because if a second spike comes, it will be much more painful than the original restrictions, - and damaging to the economy. If the government wants to avoid that it is the infection rate that need to be driving it. A few days ago it was higher than when the restrictions were imposed in March.

You’ve conflated two seperate things there to hide that my point is clearly true.

People want normality back, nearly everyone wants that.

Only you now link that to “at any cost” and talk about infection rates although these stats are meaningless vs actual deaths due to the lack of testing and reporting (if you get symptoms, isolate). Which is not the point (although it is closer to my personal view).

The underlying point is absolutely true, overwhelmingly people want normality back.

 

[corfield]

There were certainly issues with the 'old' normal, but in pretty much every way it was better than this 'new' normal nonsense.

There are a number of people - seemingly mostly of the Left-ish persuasion [1] - who seem to think we should leverage this crisis to try to solve what they perceive to be the problems with the 'old' normal. But this isn't the way to do it, and they are going to be very disappointed when inequality, unemployment and poverty inevitably rise dramatically in the coming years.


[1] where, until recently, I would have (mostly) included myself. Now I feel very politically homeless :-/

There will always be people who see opportunity in a crisis and a way to push their agenda. The left, being out of power and based on democratic opinion not even very close to it, naturally sees this as “manna from heaven” as a chance to use it to push the same old agendas albeit with a quick lick of the latest paint colour fad.

I used to read the Guardian as I felt it was important to be challenged and to understand multiple sides of things and see different versions/perspectives. I stopped after an article a few months back complaining that the crisis was “anti vulnerable people” because of all the vulnerable people language being used and the sick/ill/health challenged people should not be singled out.

At the time I was getting medication & stuff for an elderly neighbour whose op had been cancelled and was in severe pain. It didn’t seem safe to ask her if me singling her out for some minor help (vs the couple on the other side and the family next but one) was inappropriate or offensive or meant I was an evil fascist Trump supporting Bors worshipping racist homo/transphobe, beyond all rehabilitation - because although she is something of a hippie, she’d have thumped me for being a complete idiot.
I realised then the Guardian was a lost cause and have’t gone back. Although to be fair the “below the line” was savage on that piece and they pulled the comments (possibly entire article) fairly soon so perhaps they realised that was an inanity too far even for them. Sadly my brother is completely in tune with the G’s mindset and after polluting the family whatsapp with twitter variants of the same, has led to an unfortunate falling out. So far that is by far the biggest personal cost from this crisis for me.

 

[Skymonster]

Not in my experience, especially at the expense of increased cases. Those shouting about want 'old normal' back irrespective of the infection rate should be careful of what they wish for because if a second spike comes, it will be much more painful than the original restrictions, - and damaging to the economy.

Why? A second spike - if there even is a spike of proportions similar to the previous one - will be less damaging than the first because many people are more cautious now (even if they are not 2m social distancing), track and trace is in place (to some extent), additional/rapid testing is available, and local lockdowns are on the agenda if linked cases emerge. All the doom-mongers / corona-moaners seem to think that an uptick would be a disaster greater than we've already had, but evidence and experience in other countries suggests not.

 

[corfield]

Plus we now have greatly expanded treatment capacity and experience.

We should be gettign most people back to full normality ASAP and focussing our efforts on those who need protection and shiedling. 1 or 2 or 10 is unlikely to make any differenfr - I know 4 people in higher risk categories and they just will not go out no matter what as it could well kill them so any chance isn’t worth it. I’d do likewise. They are the people we need to support, not paying young (or middle!) and healthy people to do nothing having destroyed their jobs and companies. That is insane.

 

[Silverlinky]

We've had the VE celebrations, we've had people going en mass to the beaches, we've had people returning to work, we've had protests on the street with minimal or no social distancing, we've had partial and now full reopening of shops.....no second wave, no spike, nothing.

Death figures are down to below the figures before lockdown was imposed, new cases are down to three figures, again not seen since before lockdown was imposed.

The one thing that may cause a second spike, and lets face it the same thing caused the 1st outbreak, is mass travel, imported cases (as seen in many countries such as Korea and New Zealand) are the risk......so we've got to be really careful about how we open up, and who we open up to.

 

[Starmill]

Of course they do - ask anyone and normal daily life is exactly what everyone wants! Shops, cinemas, houses, work all as usual. Everyone I speak to is climbing the walls awaiting that, or ignoring the rules and just doing it.

This is absolutely wrong.

 

[Bantamzen]

This is absolutely wrong.

It really isn't.

 

[Scrotnig]

The idea that people are clamouring en masse to be locked in their houses and only allowed out in very limited circumstances, and then only wearing a mask, is abject nonense.

Sure, there are a few people like that. They are welcome to hide under a rock for the rest of their lives, along as they don't expect th government to keep paying them to do it.

 

[Starmill]

The idea that people are clamouring en masse to be locked in their houses and only allowed out in very limited circumstances, and then only wearing a mask, is abject nonense.

Sure, there are a few people like that. They are welcome to hide under a rock for the rest of their lives, along as they don't expect th government to keep paying them to do it.

What are you talking about? Nobody ever claimed this. This is nonsense raving that adds nothing to the debate.

 

[corfield]

This is absolutely wrong.

Nope, it is absolutely what the overwhelming majority if not almost all, want.

If you doubt it, and think people are happy with this and the restrictions, then try watching what people do, or even asking them.

 

[Starmill]

Nope, it is absolutely what the overwhelming majority if not almost all, want.

If you doubt it, and think people are happy with this and the restrictions, then try watching what people do, or even asking them.

I have got no idea why you think anyone would be happy with the restrictions to be honest? Surely absolutely nobody is? Of course people mange to stomach things they don't like. But that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the claim I was responding to.

The world will never be again as it was before this virus arrived. That's near certain. And most people absolutely don't want it to be. There's no great clamour to return to the 'old normal' from anyone. Most people want to use it as an opportunity to do things differently in the future. And of course for many people, life was perennially miserable in "the old normal".

 

[birchesgreen]

The world will never be again as it was before this virus arrived. That's near certain. And most people absolutely don't want it to be. There's no great clamour to return to the 'old normal' from anyone. Most people want to use it as an opportunity to do things differently in the future. And of course for many people, life was perennially miserable in "the old normal".

Lots of big claims here. Can you elaborate?

 

[Starmill]

Lots of big claims here. Can you elaborate?

Nothing too controversial or unusual.

 

[Scrotnig]

I have got no idea why you think anyone would be happy with the restrictions to be honest? Surely absolutely nobody is? Of course people mange to stomach things they don't like. But that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the claim I was responding to.

The world will never be again as it was before this virus arrived. That's near certain. And most people absolutely don't want it to be. There's no great clamour to return to the 'old normal' from anyone. Most people want to use it as an opportunity to do things differently in the future. And of course for many people, life was perennially miserable in "the old normal".

Well not for me. Whilst it wasn't perfect, I want everything back to how it was, as far as is possible.

I certainly want to be able to use railways again without being treated like an international criminal.

 

[Starmill]

Well not for me. Whilst it wasn't perfect, I want everything back to how it was, as far as is possible.

I certainly want to be able to use railways again without being treated like an international criminal.

Oh, the irony! Many, many people, including me, have been "treated like criminals" by train companies despite having never once committed an offence before the virus came along.

Still you're of course free to want the world to return to the way it was before but I wouldn't count on it!

 

[Mag_seven]

With an announcement expected tomorrow (Tuesday 23rd June) by Boris Johnson that is expected to reduce the the 2m rule to 1m, now is therefore the time to draw this thread to a close. A new thread on the repercussions of the announcement will be started tomorrow once the announcement has been made.