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

[underbank]

It did seem a fairy counter-productive announcement, not least for the pubs.

As was the announcement on the Friday afternoon that pubs had to close that night - which led to even more numpties rushing to pubs before they closed.

 

[yorksrob]

All things that the virus depends on to start ramping up infections again.

It has to be said that most of those things haven't actually been completely relaxed yet.

 

[yorkie]

Which caused all the numpties to flock to the pubs that week. Our village pub had never been busier!

Yes, you've mentioned that a few times before, in various threads, but I am not aware of anyone else experiencing the same thing anywhere else. I don't see how that is justification for retaining the 2m guideline though, if that's what you're suggesting?

SD for everyone was implemented 7 days prior to lockdown, 17 March.

Not in the way it is now.

The biggest issue with the 2m 'rule' is the impact on businesses; people in the street aren't sticking to it because it's impractical (I still had to avoid someone who walked into the road in front of me yesterday but that was more because the people going the other way were two abreast, leaving him very little room)

We could have nearly ignored doing a lockdown at all and just socially distanced if people followed the 2m guidance as soon as it was brought in, they didn't do so leading to the rates of infection rising.

You've said that before, but there is no real evidence of this. If you purely want to talk about the infection rate, well it sill rose in the early stages of the actual lockdown anyway. I'm not really sure what you're arguing for here; are you using this as an argument to say the 2m guideline should not be relaxed because people flout it anyway, or something else?

If you want people to be 1m apart, you suggest 1.5m or 2m as the guideline...

That's what happens out on the street, but see the article I linked to the other day for why we need to reduce to 1m.

When the UK gets down to French infection rates, you might have a point!

Do you have a source to indicate France had a 2m guideline when they were at our rate of infections?

 

[C J Snarzell]

Would you care to expand on what part of the lockdown you think they broke?

All the people I saw yesterday were huddled in groups and were not adhering to social distancing. I saw youngsters play fighting, holding hands and hugging one another. I think it's fair to say most of them were from different households.

 

[yorkie]

All the people I saw yesterday were huddled in groups and were not adhering to social distancing. I saw youngsters play fighting, holding hands and hugging one another. I think it's fair to say most of them were from different households.

I don't see how you can take someone's childhood off them for more than a few weeks? It's not like they're at much risk themselves so it's understandable. We have transferred a huge burden onto the younger generation but you cannot expect youngsters to socially distance for an extended period lasting many months. It's not practicable nor healthy to do so. Are you using this as a reason for not relaxing the 2m guideline?

 

[nedchester]

I don't see how you can take someone's childhood off them for more than a few weeks? It's not like they're at much risk themselves so it's understandable. We have transferred a huge burden onto the younger generation but you cannot expect youngsters to socially distance for an extended period lasting many months. It's not practicable nor healthy to do so. Are you using this as a reason for not relaxing the 2m guideline?

Exactly.

My daughter (15) has been seeing her friends over the last couple of weeks. We've been telling her to keep her distance but I'm not going to go and spy on her every move. Same for my son (18) whose been seeing his friends and girlfriend in the last few days.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I saw youngsters play fighting, holding hands and hugging one another. I think it's fair to say most of them were from different households.

It's inevitable, really, you can't expect children to remain distanced forever. And teenagers *are* still children.

Do you have a source to indicate France had a 2m guideline when they were at our rate of infections?

They've always had 1m, I think, which is the WHO guideline. But people aren't sticking to 2m, and the UK infection rate hasn't dropped, so changing it to 1m now would be a backward step in terms of consistency of messaging. Although thanks to Dommy C, that's already pretty much gone out of the window.

Certainly when cafes, restaurants, etc re-open you could look at 1m, but I wouldn't until then.

1m v 2m makes no difference in shops, and certainly makes no difference on public transport.

 

[nedchester]

They've always had 1m, I think, which is the WHO guideline. But people aren't sticking to 2m, and the UK infection rate hasn't dropped, so changing it to 1m now would be a backward step in terms of consistency of messaging. Although thanks to Dommy C, that's already pretty much gone out of the window.

1m v 2m makes no difference in shops, and certainly makes no difference on public transport.

The infection rate HAS dropped. It was near 3 in March but now (just) below 1.

 

[yorkie]

1m v 2m makes no difference in shops

People don't religiously stick to 2m in shops; it's not practicable

and certainly makes no difference on public transport.

Are you sure? Have you seen the layout of the trains that have "Do not use" labels on seats?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Have you seen the layout of the trains that have "Do not use" labels on seats?

No, I haven't. My understanding was guidance to bus companies was to skip one row, so 2 seats out of 8 (2 rows) can be used. If the gap is 1m the same would have to apply.

Are the train operators going more overboard than that? If they are, then yes, get it down to skipping rows. As the chairs are high-backed, you're less likely to be phlegmmed on than on a bus which uses that rule.

My only experience of public transport is here. Other than the seats behind the driver, you can sit where you want. But as the most I've seen is 10 people on a 40-seater Citaro, that is fine.

 

[Bantamzen]

No, I haven't. My understanding was guidance to bus companies was to skip one row, so 2 seats out of 8 (2 rows) can be used. If the gap is 1m the same would have to apply.

Are the train operators going more overboard than that? If they are, then yes, get it down to skipping rows. As the chairs are high-backed, you're less likely to be phlegmmed on than on a bus which uses that rule.

My only experience of public transport is here. Other than the seats behind the driver, you can sit where you want. But as the most I've seen is 10 people on a 40-seater Citaro, that is fine.

That guidance is based on 2 metres surely? A two metre separation takes up 4 times the area around a person as a 1 metre separation would. Therefore for a 1 metre distancing policy the guidance on layouts would have to change.

 

[Huntergreed]

That guidance is based on 2 metres surely? A two metre separation takes up 4 times the area around a person as a 1 metre separation would. Therefore for a 1 metre distancing policy the guidance on layouts would have to change.

Is there 1m between Diagonally opposite table seats? This could increase capacity, as well as perhaps two in every row staggered between windows and aisles.

To be realistic though, if we want to get the country anywhere near normal again, we can’t use this as a viable method of operating transport, it’s just not going to be enough seats.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Therefore for a 1 metre distancing policy the guidance on layouts would have to change.

As I say, I don't have experience of the UK, Bus Vannin are not being so rigid, other than taping off the "jump seats" directly behind the driver and front door.

With 1m distancing on a bus you'd still only be able to have the two window seats in a row occupied, and you'd still have to have alternate empty rows. Which is what the guidance to bus companies seems to be now, it's certainly what Stagecoach are saying on their website.

If buses or trains are leaving two empty rows between passengers (@yorkie is that what you meant about trains?) then, yes, bring that down.

 

[C J Snarzell]

I don't see how you can take someone's childhood off them for more than a few weeks? It's not like they're at much risk themselves so it's understandable. We have transferred a huge burden onto the younger generation but you cannot expect youngsters to socially distance for an extended period lasting many months. It's not practicable nor healthy to do so. Are you using this as a reason for not relaxing the 2m guideline?

My point is to all this, when I use the term 'young people' - I mean teenagers or people in their early 20s not children. These people should know to keep safe distances from one another like the rest of the adult population.

 

[MikeWM]

The infection rate HAS dropped. It was near 3 in March but now (just) below 1.

Indeed, the daily total number of cases found has been dropping consistently since the start of May, probably significantly earlier than that if you consider the substantial ramp up in number of tests.

Best estimate for R is below 1, yes. If you strip out hospitals and care homes, it is likely to be *significantly* lower than that. However, given it appears that the government either isn't trying to collect statistics as to *where* these new cases are catching it - or if they are, they're not advertising it well - then it is hard to give a firmer number than that. (I'm not at all sure *why* they're not trying to do this - it seems a pretty important thing to know to drive policy...)

 

[underbank]

My point is to all this, when I use the term 'young people' - I mean teenagers or people in their early 20s not children. These people should know to keep safe distances from one another like the rest of the adult population.

This is the crux. If the "young and healthy" want freedom and normality, then they have to respect simple/sensible precautions to protect the vulnerable who may be around them, such as maintaining personal space, regular handwashing, not spitting, coughing and sneezing without catching it, not hand-shaking/hugging/kissing relative strangers as a greeting, etc. Fair enough, they can do what they want in places where vulnerable shouldn't be, such as bars, clubs, etc., but on public transport, in shops, etc., they need to do the simple/sensible precautions.

 

[Esker-pades]

@yorksrob has given the correct answer. France always had a 1 metre separation regardless of their rates of infection and death. So I can only assume those siding with the government on 2 metres are happy to be treated as untrustworthy idiots by the government?

Or that we're exercising caution?

Previous forum favourite Denmark started at 2m and reduced down to 1m when they got the virus under control. Denmark is also in a much better position than France.

 

[Yew]

My point is to all this, when I use the term 'young people' - I mean teenagers or people in their early 20s not children. These people should know to keep safe distances from one another like the rest of the adult population.

I dislike your use of the word safe. For people in their 20's the risk is so small that all distances are effectively safe.

 

[underbank]

I dislike your use of the word safe. For people in their 20's the risk is so small that all distances are effectively safe.

For them, yes, but not for those they get too close to, or for those touching surfaces after they've touched surfaces etc etc. It depends if you care about others or not really.

 

[MikeWM]

My point is to all this, when I use the term 'young people' - I mean teenagers or people in their early 20s not children. These people should know to keep safe distances from one another like the rest of the adult population.

Hopefully I can't be alone in thinking that the *extinction of the human race* is rather an overreaction to a disease with an IFR of less than 0.5%? But if we're saying that young people can't form new relationships because they can't get closer than 2m apart, extinction is the inevitable result...

 

[mmh]

There are cases where people caught Covid-19 on Mother's Day because they went to see their families, when they were very much told not to, and so there were more cases than needed.

That can only be supposition. There is no way anybody can know where they contracted it.

 

[yorkie]

That can only be supposition. There is no way anybody can know where they contracted it.

Indeedd. @The Ham do you have a source for your claim?

 

[Bantamzen]

Or that we're exercising caution?

Previous forum favourite Denmark started at 2m and reduced down to 1m when they got the virus under control. Denmark is also in a much better position than France.

Or perhaps it was just a figure picked out of the air. Across the world there have been distances of 1m (WHO recommendation), 1.5m, 2m, 3m, so which one is right?

For them, yes, but not for those they get too close to, or for those touching surfaces after they've touched surfaces etc etc. It depends if you care about others or not really.

I find that second sentence very objectional. People being human doesn't mean that they don't care.

 

[yorksrob]

For them, yes, but not for those they get too close to, or for those touching surfaces after they've touched surfaces etc etc. It depends if you care about others or not really.

Being careful about touching surfaces is probably one of those areas that will be much more effective at controlling infections than the second meter of distance.

 

[Skymonster]

As was the announcement on the Friday afternoon that pubs had to close that night - which led to even more numpties rushing to pubs before they closed.

I went to a pub that Friday night in the knowledge that they were going to have to close. I don’t consider myself a numpty for doing so nor does it seem to have done me any harm despite the scaremongering even though I am in a group that perhaps has some degree of elevated risk (though not highest). Furthermore, I will be back in the pub the day the restrictions are lifted, without concern or reservation.

 

[The Ham]

Indeedd. @The Ham do you have a source for your claim?

People were told not to see family on Mother's Day, with about 1,000 confirmed cases being diagnosed on that date, a week later there were about 2,500 confirmed cases. As such some of those are likely, even if I can't prove it, to have contracted it from visiting family when they were specifically told not to do so.

That's just confirmed cases, the actual number is likely to be much higher.

 

[Huntergreed]

People were told not to see family on Mother's Day, with about 1,000 confirmed cases being diagnosed on that date, a week later there were about 2,500 confirmed cases. As such some of those are likely, even if I can't prove it, to have contracted it from visiting family when they were specifically told not to do so.

That's just confirmed cases, the actual number is likely to be much higher.

With an R rate of 2-3 before the lockdown and around a 5-7 day incubation period, this would be roughly what you would expect to see regardless of whether people visited their mothers or not. As hospitalisation is normally around 2 weeks after infection, and testing was mostly restricted to hospitals at that point, if anything that evidence suggests that the increase you'e mentioned was not caused by mothers day. You would expect to see those cases recorded with a positive test around a week or so later.

 

[MikeWM]

Being careful about touching surfaces is probably one of those areas that will be much more effective at controlling infections than the second meter of distance.

I suspect there is truth in this. On the other hand, we can't pretend that we can live meaningfully in a society where we continually try to avoid touching things other people may have touched, either.

I am also concerned at the wider effect all these measures will have on our immune systems. We need to be exposed to nasty things from time to time in order to keep our immune system working at its best.

As a key example, take the recent study that showed that it is quite possible that 40-60% of us are already immune to this current unpleasant virus, because they have already been infected with a previous common cold coronavirus.

 

[yorksrob]

I suspect there is truth in this. On the other hand, we can't pretend that we can live meaningfully in a society where we continually try to avoid touching things other people may have touched, either.

I am also concerned at the wider effect all these measures will have on our immune systems. We need to be exposed to nasty things from time to time in order to keep our immune system working at its best.

As a key example, take the recent study that showed that it is quite possible that 40-60% of us are already immune to this current unpleasant virus, because they have already been infected with a previous common cold coronavirus.

Indeed. This is where the incessant hand washing comes in (and I've been opening a lot of doors with elbows etc).

Do you have a link to that report ? It would certainly be a good news read if it turns out that the common cold can bestow some level of immunity ! (I've had enough of them in the past!).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is there 1m between Diagonally opposite table seats? This could increase capacity, as well as perhaps two in every row staggered between windows and aisles.

The problem is face to face is more of a risk. I did notice while out for a walk earlier that a family, managed by the husband, stopped by the side of the path and turned away from me while I passed - I was just going to move to one side. They were a BAME family so maybe their level of concern was driven by recent media reports of increased vulnerability.