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

[johnnychips]

The fact is that 2 metres is not consistent with WHO guidelines and is not viable longer term. If it gets ditched in 2 weeks then that's just about acceptable. 4 weeks is not ideal but we may get away with that. No way can it continue into July though.

Call that arbitrary if you want, but it's realism.

The point about this social distancing is that people have realised that it isn’t viable; and they are more aware that they are not in vulnerable groups.

So do you remember the first few weeks of this distancing on the forum: eeergh someone passed with me less than two metres in the supermarket/ street/canal towpath, I’m worried.

That just doesn’t happen now.

 

[Bantamzen]

Public opinion has pretty consistently been pro-lockdown and I would hazard that it remains as such. The current levels of restrictions (in England) seem to me to be the sweet spot, people are allowed outside as long as they're sensible, certainly alleviates the cabin fever of the past 2 months. Come back to me in another month when the virus has continued to trend downwards and then it might be the right time to consider further loosening, the virus is still way too prevalent in the community to throw open the floodgates now

I would hardly call measures that are literally costing hundreds of billions of pounds, where thousands of jobs every week are sinking into the abyss, and the health service has completely focused on one disease at the expense of all others a "sweet spot". It may appear on the surface that everything is going swimmingly, but it really isn't. The country is sleepwalking into the biggest economic and social crisis we've had in decades, maybe even centuries.

Unfortunately the public, not to put too fine a point on it, are idiots. They've been so scared by the government's over the top "stay at home, save lives" message that a significant proportion of people think that the minute they leave their homes they will instantly catch the virus and die! In reality of course the actual chances of catching the virus, particularly outdoors, is so minimal as to be insignificant, however much the lockdown enthusiasts on so many internet forums may tell you otherwise.

With the number of infections and deaths falling constantly over recent days, I would be very surprised if the current lockdown measures are extended beyond the next review in around a week's time.

I'd go so far as to call it Stockholm Syndrome. I know people who now fear any relaxation of these measures, and refuse to listen to any argument that involves this. To put it mildly it is frightening to see people become so dependant on the government telling them what they cannot do. I may sound like a broken record here, and I do not apologise for it, but we are sinking into a dystopian world the likes of which George Orwell warned us of in his works.

If I were a dictator-in-waiting I would be keeping notes right now.

 

[scotrail158713]

We won't; it's just not viable. People won't stand for it.

Never doubt the potential of the public. Remember we have 2m guidance because they thought we wouldn’t follow that so would naturally end up around 1m from people. Unfortunately we seem to have followed the 2m guidance very well.

 

[yorkie]

Never doubt the potential of the public. ...

It's not about that. Moving from 2m to 1m will make a difference in terms of the viability of public transport and a huge part of our economy and the livelihoods of millions of people. The idea that we can go on like this indefinitely is preposterous.

 

[AM9]

It's not about that. Moving from 2m to 1m will make a difference in terms of the viability of public transport and a huge part of our economy and the livelihoods of millions of people. The idea that we can go on like this indefinitely is preposterous.

... And, (all other things being equal), halving the separation distance increases the probability of transmission by about four times. That was posted with a link a few days ago here but I can't find it ATM. So, if everyone is happy with that then the MINIMUM separation distance can be dropped to 1m. Is that what you think should happen?

 

[yorkie]

... And, (all other things being equal), halving the separation distance increases the probability of transmission by about four times. That was posted with a link a few days ago here but I can't find it ATM. So, if everyone is happy with that then the MINIMUM separation distance can be dropped to 1m. Is that what you think should happen?

How long do you think we should stick with 2 metres? Indefinitely?

If there is such a big problem with 1 metre, why do the WHO advise 1m instead of 2m?

 

[Esker-pades]

It's not about that. Moving from 2m to 1m will make a difference in terms of the viability of public transport and a huge part of our economy and the livelihoods of millions of people. The idea that we can go on like this indefinitely is preposterous.

Why is setting an arbitrary date any less preposterous than waiting until the data shows we can relax. "Sensible" Denmark waited.

... And, (all other things being equal), halving the separation distance increases the probability of transmission by about four times. That was posted with a link a few days ago here but I can't find it ATM. So, if everyone is happy with that then the MINIMUM separation distance can be dropped to 1m. Is that what you think should happen?

Yes, that was the evidence given to the Science and Technology Select Committee.

Indeed, on Friday, the same committee heard evidence that, like so many other things, we should keep the 2m distancing until we know more about COVID-19 is transmitted. Basically, "better safe than sorry".

 

[yorksrob]

... And, (all other things being equal), halving the separation distance increases the probability of transmission by about four times. That was posted with a link a few days ago here but I can't find it ATM. So, if everyone is happy with that then the MINIMUM separation distance can be dropped to 1m. Is that what you think should happen?

Four times what though.

If the "what" is low enough - which given so many other countries are satisfied with it, I assume it is the case, then yes, I am happy with that.

 

[Esker-pades]

Four times what though.

If the "what" is low enough - which given so many other countries are satisfied with it, I assume it is the case, then yes, I am happy with that.

4x the viral load. This, of course, varies significantly depending. If a person sneezes and you're 1m away, you get 4x more virus than you would've done. If a person just breathes a bit when you're 1m away, you still get 4x the virus, but in absolute terms it's less than with sneezing.

 

[yorksrob]

4x the viral load. This, of course, varies significantly depending. If a person sneezes and you're 1m away, you get 4x more virus than you would've done. If a person just breathes a bit when you're 1m away, you still get 4x the virus, but in absolute terms it's less than with sneezing.

Indeed, however If the the viral load is a low enough risk at 1m for the WHO and the majority of other countries, then I would tend to consider it to be here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Public opinion has pretty consistently been pro-lockdown and I would hazard that it remains as such.

Until they lose their homes and can't feed their children.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd go so far as to call it Stockholm Syndrome.

I must admit I'm feeling a bit of that. Not because of the measures themselves, but that I have for a while been considering moving back "up north" and seem to feel less enthusiastic about that after these few months of being reasonably happy within range of (current) home. It's quite interesting thinking about it that way.

 

[NorthOxonian]

I must admit I'm feeling a bit of that. Not because of the measures themselves, but that I have for a while been considering moving back "up north" and seem to feel less enthusiastic about that after these few months of being reasonably happy within range of (current) home. It's quite interesting thinking about it that way.

Oddly I've found the complete opposite - being stuck in my home town up north, and being unable to leave a tiny radius of home, has just increased my resolve to move down south after I graduate.

 

[yorksrob]

Being locked down "oop North" has made me realise just how much of Northern England I miss !

 

[Butts]

It's not about that. Moving from 2m to 1m will make a difference in terms of the viability of public transport and a huge part of our economy and the livelihoods of millions of people. The idea that we can go on like this indefinitely is preposterous.

Are you including Aeroplanes in that 1m restriction ?

Why not just bite the bullet and admit if whatever your distance is decided upon, unless it's universal and enforced it's pointless ?

 

[underbank]

Are you including Aeroplanes in that 1m restriction ?

Why not just bite the bullet and admit if whatever your distance is decided upon, unless it's universal and enforced it's pointless ?

There are places where 2m is possible, places where 1m is possible and places where you'll be touching. Surely it's a matter of people having the choice. I.e. if they "choose" to fly or go to a pub, then they are going to be in touching distance. But 2m is perfectly feasible in a supermarket or canal footpath or beach. What needs to happen is that people respect "personal space" - i.e. only get close in places where there's no alternative - people who are vulnerable or shielding can avoid those places. But by the same token, people who aren't vulnerable need to give 2 m distance where they can, i.e. where the vulnerable are likely to be. Trouble is when you get the low risk people going to pubs, clubs, etc., and then ignoring social distancing around others who are vulnerable. We need common sense, courtesy and respect for other people's personal space where possible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oddly I've found the complete opposite - being stuck in my home town up north, and being unable to leave a tiny radius of home, has just increased my resolve to move down south after I graduate.

I wonder if that's more of a small vs. big town thing? I'm guessing you're not actually meaning Toon rather than town?

I was getting very stir crazy being stuck within spitting (!) distance of home (and oddly being told you can only go out once makes you feel like a prisoner even if you'd normally only go out once in an average day) but now I can drive elsewhere much less so, though I am missing the railway and am very much ready to give it a few hundreds of pounds in a short space of time when it says it wants that custom.

 

[NorthOxonian]

I wonder if that's more of a small vs. big town thing? I'm guessing you're not actually meaning Toon rather than town?

Hahaha, potentially. I'm from Gateshead and while I could walk into Newcastle if I really wanted, that'd be pretty pointless at the moment, except for a slight change of scenery. Maybe it's to do with how dreary a given place is.

I agree with you on the latter point though - once leisure travel is allowed again, I'll be making at least a couple of fairly major trips. I also think this crisis has also made my resolve more firm in ticking things off my bucket list, so my first trip would probably be to Glasgow or Sheffield, two of the larger cities I've not yet visited (though the former may be off the cards if Scotland keeps separate rules). To bring this vaguely back on topic though, the latter trip might not be possible either - 2m social distancing on a Voyager seems about as possible as taking a Voyager to the moon! Unless you reduce it to 1m, Crosscountry's capacity will be ludicrously low.

 

[sheff1]

I'd go so far as to call it Stockholm Syndrome.

Never though of it that way .... but now I have and am inclined to agree with you.

 

[Hadders]

We can argue over the timing of the lockdown but the Government had to time it carefully to get maximum effect, thinking that people would go stir crazy and start to break it after a short period.

It seems to me that the lockdown has actually been more effective than anticipated and we now have the situation where many people don't want to go out. The problem with this approach is that we can't ignore the economy in all of this. I agree with the Government approach to furlough etc but anyone who thinks things are going to get back to normal quickly is wrong.

Take an example of a coffee shop. Pre lockdown probably operating on small profit margins. With lockdown staff are on furlough. Once they re-open and the staff come off furlough sales are highly unlikely to reach their previous level initially because:

1. Some people might not have the money to be able to afford to buy coffee in a cafe
2. Some people will have got out of the habit of buying coffee and realised they can manage without
3. Some people are too scared to go out
4. Some people will working from home, or not going into the office as regularly so won't be buying coffee in a coffee shop near their office

The result of this is staff will get laid off or the coffee shop might even close. Now this is a very simple example but it is likely to happen across vast swathes of our economy.

The Government is having to borrow eye watering sums of money (quite rightly) to support the nation through the pandemic but the banking crisis of 2008 took 10 years of austerity to sort out from a financial point of view. Sorting the finances out after the pandemic could take 20+ years.

We have to do everything we can to keep the economy going, the Government needs to be encouraging people to get out and about spending money, with appropriate social distancing measures in place. There are some sectors that are going to be difficult, particularly public transport, sporting events, concerts but a way needs to be found to try and keep things going.

Unfortunately there are large numbers of the population who just don't recognise this and think there's an endless pot of money to pay for all of this.

 

[sheff1]

We have to do everything we can to keep the economy going,the Government needs to be encouraging people to get out and about spending money, with appropriate social distancing measures in place. There are some sectors that are going to be difficult, particularly public transport, sporting events, concerts but a way needs to be found to try and keep things going.

I would love to be able to help keep the economy going - using public transport, staying in hotels, eating in restaurants, drinking in pubs, attending sporting events.

Unfortuntely, the government does not want me do that and actively promotes legislation to make most of it illegal. The government stance is apparently backed by large swathes of the population.

 

[Huntergreed]

The government stance is apparently backed by large swathes of the population.

This is, once again, an unwanted repercussion of the initial lockdown messaging. People have been convinced that the risk to them is far greater than it actually is and this will make it considerably harder to restart the economy.

The part that worries me the most is the 'exit strategy' from the Scottish Government which seems to suggest that many tourist and hospitality locations will either not be able to reopen for a long time or will be very heavily restricted to the point where it will be unviable for them to remain open. I do hope that some of the more observant and forethinking ministers will start to raise their concerns otherwise we're heading down a very dangerous and risky path. Whilst it doesn't specifically state anything, to me it sounds like they're basing their strategy on insisting on 2m distancing throughout the majority of the exit period, and this is, in my opinion, making things unnecessarily difficult for themselves.

 

[sheff1]

The part that worries me the most is the 'exit strategy' of the Scottish Government which seems to suggest that many tourist and hospitality locations will either not be able to reopen for a long time or will be very heavily restricted to the point where it will be unviable for them to remain open. I do hope that some of the more observant and forethinking ministers will start to raise their concerns otherwise we're heading down a very dangerous and risky path.

Here in England, the message coming across from the Scottish (and Welsh) governments is that they do not want English people crossing the border at all. People in my social circle are commenting that, when tourist and hospitality places start to reopen across the UK, they will be looking to visit areas which have been a bit apologetic about asking people to stay away and avoiding areas which have been basically telling people to f-off. One would hope MSPs who represent areas heavily dependant on tourism are, indeed, raising concerns .... but I see no obvious evidence of it.

 

[yorkie]

The government stance is apparently backed by large swathes of the population.

The tide is turning though; this thread now includes a poll, so it will be interesting to see how it goes.

 

[Bald Rick]

There is a slight problem with any of this.

I reckon a majority of the population couldn’t tell you how long a metre is, to within 50%. My degree educated wife, when tested on the subject, failed dismally.

Obviously this forum understands these things better.

 

[Bald Rick]

Take an example of a coffee shop. Pre lockdown probably operating on small profit margins.

One thing is certain, most coffee shops do not operate on small profit margins. There’s a reason why Costa require half a million quid off anyone wanting to take on one of their franchises!

 

[NorthOxonian]

There is a slight problem with any of this.

I reckon a majority of the population couldn’t tell you how long a metre is, to within 50%. My degree educated wife, when tested on the subject, failed dismally.

Obviously this forum understands these things better.

Would a rule of four feet work better? Might be better known, and is slightly longer so there's more wiggle room should people estimate the distance wrongly.

 

[Huntergreed]

There is a slight problem with any of this.

I reckon a majority of the population couldn’t tell you how long a metre is, to within 50%. My degree educated wife, when tested on the subject, failed dismally.

Obviously this forum understands these things better.

It's not about being able to 'estimate' exactly how long a metre is.

A 1m reduction would significantly increase capacity on transport, make it much easier for cafes, restaurants, pubs to reopen and have a much greater capacity.

With regards to 'passing someone on the street', most people will likely keep their distance as they're scared of catching the virus, I've had multiple people shouting at me for 'not being far enough away' when in my view I was indeed at least 2-3 metres away from them.

It's more about making the reopening of the economy much more practical and reasonable, plus it seems a little unusual to insist on double the distance that the majority of countries and the WHO have stated are safe enough to return to a new sense of normality.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Here in England, the message coming across from the Scottish (and Welsh) governments is that they do not want English people crossing the border at all. People in my social circle are commenting that, when tourist and hospitality places start to reopen across the UK, they will be looking to visit areas which have been a bit apologetic about asking people to stay away and avoiding areas which have been basically telling people to f-off. One would hope MSPs who represent areas heavily dependant on tourism are, indeed, raising concerns .... but I see no obvious evidence of it.

This is certainly my view. "Would you mind staying away for now because we can't cope?" - reasonable. "Eff off" (or any form of vigilanteism) = "you permanently want to lose my business".

 

[yorksrob]

It's not about being able to 'estimate' exactly how long a metre is.

A 1m reduction would significantly increase capacity on transport, make it much easier for cafes, restaurants, pubs to reopen and have a much greater capacity.

Indeed. We can leave it to the transport providers and small businesses to worry about the spacing of the seats and the markings on the floor etc.