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

[LAX54]

As for the 2m rule, I did a 11 mile long walk with another forum member today and on multiple occasions it was clear that most people are treating it as 1m already and that 2m is often impractical. So it really just needs to be made official ASAP.

Those who seemed to be taking it the most seriously weren't even satisfied with 2 metres, but those people are very much the minority now. They are the sort who will jump into roads, placing themselves in much more danger.

and we have to remember, unless someone sneezes in your face, the period of time that you are at risk from when 'mixing', is after 15 mins.

 

[Huntergreed]

Just an update from Scotland, the health secretary on today’s briefing stated that the “2m” was not just “picked out of thin air” but was essential to stop the virus from jumping from person to person.

It’s beginning to look like Scotland will not be changing their stance and will retain the requirement for 2m or more throughout the remainder of this pandemic, which I think is an incredibly overcautious decision to make.

 

[Butts]

Just an update from Scotland, the health secretary on today’s briefing stated that the “2m” was not just “picked out of thin air” but was essential to stop the virus from jumping from person to person.

It’s beginning to look like Scotland will not be changing their stance and will retain the requirement for 2m or more throughout the remainder of this pandemic, which I think is an incredibly overcautious decision to make.

Only if people pay any attention to it

 

[LAX54]

Only if people pay any attention to it

Well, on my way to work this evening, I assumed that everything was back to pre-lockdown days, as that what it looked like, cars all over the place, and people everywhere, and of course nowhere near 2M or even 1M apart.

 

[Butts]

Well, on my way to work this evening, I assumed that everything was back to pre-lockdown days, as that what it looked like, cars all over the place, and people everywhere, and of course nowhere near 2M or even 1M apart.

Same here, I drove into Edinburgh tonight rather than get the Train, "the tumbleweed" journeys are fast becoming a dim and distant memory - unfortunately

 

[Huntergreed]

Well, on my way to work this evening, I assumed that everything was back to pre-lockdown days, as that what it looked like, cars all over the place, and people everywhere, and of course nowhere near 2M or even 1M apart.

My town is busier than ever, yesterday there were groups of 20-30 drinking down by the river, with no distancing whatsoever. My neighbours for example had 15 people from 8 different households around to their house (inside) last night for drinks.

I’m sure the last thing the government would want to do is re-impose lockdown, but could it be the only choice given the sudden loss of compliance?

 

[northernchris]

My town is busier than ever, yesterday there were groups of 20-30 drinking down by the river, with no distancing whatsoever. My neighbours for example had 15 people from 8 different households around to their house (inside) last night for drinks.

As annoying as this is the Government have always been clear they expected some level of non-compliance so it's not to be unexpected. This report from Kings College London is an interesting read, according to their survey 14% of people admit to having family and friends visit them at home and 82% are avoiding public transport compared with 80% 6 weeks ago

UK still staying home and even coming to terms with lockdown

Many are continuing to not leaving their homes, reflecting real caution at lifting restrictions

www.kcl.ac.uk

Compared with six weeks ago, compliance with several key rules and pieces of guidance remains very high and virtually unchanged:

• Obeying the 2-metre distance rule: 92% now vs 94% then.
• Hand-washing more often, for 20 seconds: 90% now vs 93% then.
• Covering your mouth when you cough: 89% vs 90% then.
• Avoiding public transport: 82% now vs 80% then.

But there have been two significant changes since the beginning of April:

• 14% have now had friends or family visit them at home, triple the 5% who had previously done the same.
• 38% have now been wearing face masks, double the 19% who had worn them six weeks ago.

 

[Huntergreed]

As annoying as this is the Government have always been clear they expected some level of non-compliance so it's not to be unexpected. This report from Kings College London is an interesting read, according to their survey 14% of people admit to having family and friends visit them at home and 82% are avoiding public transport compared with 80% 6 weeks ago

UK still staying home and even coming to terms with lockdown

Many are continuing to not leaving their homes, reflecting real caution at lifting restrictions

www.kcl.ac.uk

Whilst this is promising of course, I don't know if I fully trust surveys like this. Many people I imagine when asked if they have complied or not will exclaim 'yes absolutely' when in fact this is far from the truth. I hope compliance remains as high as is stated in this survey, but my own, admittedly anecdotal, experiences suggest otherwise.

 

[LAX54]

Whilst this is promising of course, I don't know if I fully trust surveys like this. Many people I imagine when asked if they have complied or not will exclaim 'yes absolutely' when in fact this is far from the truth. I hope compliance remains as high as is stated in this survey, but my own, admittedly anecdotal, experiences suggest otherwise.

I can confirm that the Station Car Park at Colchester, is almost as empty now, as it was at the start of the lockdown, there are more cars parked, but you can count them on 2 hands, however there are far, far more cars and people in general on the roads around Colchester & Clacton, driving along the A120 at 4.55/5am for the Day shift, now seems almost like a normal day, traffic wise.

 

[Bantamzen]

Just an update from Scotland, the health secretary on today’s briefing stated that the “2m” was not just “picked out of thin air” but was essential to stop the virus from jumping from person to person.

It’s beginning to look like Scotland will not be changing their stance and will retain the requirement for 2m or more throughout the remainder of this pandemic, which I think is an incredibly overcautious decision to make.

This begs the question, if 2 metre is an essential distance in the UK, why is it not essential in France for example where the distance is, and always has been 1 metre? This statement just further convinces me that politicians are treating us like idiots.

 

[scotrail158713]

This begs the question, if 2 metre is an essential distance in the UK, why is it not essential in France for example where the distance is, and always has been 1 metre? This statement just further convinces me that politicians are treating us like idiots.

Agreed

 

[yorkie]

Whilst this is promising of course, I don't know if I fully trust surveys like this. Many people I imagine when asked if they have complied or not will exclaim 'yes absolutely' when in fact this is far from the truth. I hope compliance remains as high as is stated in this survey, but my own, admittedly anecdotal, experiences suggest otherwise.

True. Hardly anyone stays 2m away from others now as it's not practicable; you can't easily hold a conversation with someone 2m away. The current situation is farcical and the distance has become de facto 1m.

 

[Class 33]

It's becoming steadily more challenging now to always remain 2 metres away from anyone when walking on pavements along busy main roads. Lots more people out walking about and lots more traffic about. Noticeably more busier than last week here in Bristol. It will get busier again come 15th June and 1st July. And if the 2 metre social distancing rule is still in force by then, then I fear that there will be a number of accidents involving pedestrians and vehicles. Come 1st July at the latest, the 2 metre social distancing rule will surely have to be scrapped. We can't continue like this for many months to come....

 

[nlogax]

Hardly anyone stays 2m away from others now as it's not practicable; you can't easily hold a conversation with someone 2m away.

It's been perfectly practicable in the right situation, ie when everyone was sticking to lockdown. Problem is the busier everything gets, the louder the background noise and the less easy it becomes..

 

[mmh]

Here people have become noticeably more relaxed over the last month, now people going out of their way to avoid others are definitely in the minority. We are half heartedly adhering in shops, where I suspect many are doing it simply out of politeness to others - I was all along, I'm not particularly bothered but if someone else is I don't see a need to make them fearful or angry if I don't need to. Although here it only really worked properly in Aldi, which seems the size of shop best suited to it. It doesn't work well in small shops or full size supermarkets.

On a slight railway theme, the difference here is best shown on the Conwy bridge alongside the railway line. The footpath is perhaps a metre wide, and barriered. Initially people would stop and wait for someone crossing in the opposite direction, now nobody looks in the slightest concerned about passing normally.

And to be honest, people in general look a lot happier for it. Time to make a change so social distancing can effectively disappear quietly and not take any more foothold as "the new normal."

 

[The Ham]

I don't recall where I saw it but I Sean to recall that at 1m you get something like 30 times the amount of virus as you would at 2m (for the same time period), if people maintain it then that allows then to be in that proximity for a longer period.

As such walking past each other for a few seconds being within even 0.5m is likely to be of low risk. However by advising 2m it encourages everyone to try and give eachother a bit more space.

Interestingly the 2m is only guidance, whilst the not gathering in groups of 2 or more separate households inside is set in the legislation. This has lead to people suggesting that "close proximity" activities between consenting adults (with up to 5 others!) of different households is fine in the garden but not inside with one other.

 

[43066]

It’s becoming increasingly nonsensical to talk in terms of 1m or 2m distancing. Alighting from a train onto a busy platform, walking down an escalator passing people standing on the right, walking around supermarket aisles are all examples of how it’s physically impossible to maintain these distances in day to day life (I’ve done all of these already this morning, and it’s not even 7am!).

Somebody made the good point (perhaps on another thread) that it might be time to do away with the concept of social distancing and arbitrary distances altogether, and change the message to “please respect personal space”, or similar.

 

[Bantamzen]

It’s becoming increasingly nonsensical to talk in terms of 1m or 2m distancing. Alighting from a train onto a busy platform, walking down an escalator passing people standing on the right, walking around supermarket aisles are all examples of how it’s physically impossible to maintain these distances in day to day life (I’ve done all of these already this morning, and it’s not even 7am!).

Somebody made the good point (perhaps on another thread) that it might be time to do away with the concept of social distancing and arbitrary distances altogether, and change the message to “please respect personal space”, or similar.

That would be me!

But I do honestly believe that we need to move away from arbitrary distancing to something that can actually be applied in the longer term.

 

[jfollows]

An article in today's Times reports there is a difference observed in the virus transmission rate between 1m and 2m separation.

"The risk of catching coronavirus from an infected person falls from 13 per cent at less than one metre to 3 per cent further away and halves with each extra metre"

It doesn't say how the "13 per cent" figure is derived, is that 13% if spending an extended period of time less than a metre away from an infected person, or just by passing within a metre of an infected person? Presumably the former.

Then the question is how significant is the difference, even if true? How likely are you to be within 1m or 2m of someone who is infected in the first place? Then does the difference between 13% and 3% of this number realistically matter?

CORONAVIRUS
Coronavirus infection rates show every metre counts

Chris Smyth, Whitehall Editor
Tuesday June 02 2020, 12.01am, The Times

The risk of catching coronavirus from an infected person falls from 13 per cent at less than one metre to 3 per cent further away and halves with each extra metre, according to an overview of dozens of studies.

The research comes after a government adviser called for a “green cross code for coronavirus” to replace the two-metre rule. Professor Robert West, of University College London, said that people must be helped to make their own decisions on risk based on a better understanding of how the virus is transmitted, rather than using a blanket rule.

Standing closer together outdoors or when not facing each other could be considered safe, but employers may need to install ventilation systems to allow people to sit even two metres apart in offices, he said.


Boris Johnson has said that he hopes to be able to relax the two-metre rule to allow people closer together on public transport and in pubs and restaurants, and is being urged to change the advice by many Tory MPs.

However, yesterday Downing Street insisted that “people do need to abide by the two-metre rule” as lockdown is eased.

Professor West said: “There is a push from MPs and businesses to make the two-metre rule more flexible and a desire to help pubs and restaurants open again, which a ‘green cross code for coronavirus’ could help with — so we would hope we would be pushing at an open door here — making indoor spaces safer as well as more usable.”

The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies concluded that two metres was a “ballpark” guide to where most people would consider the risk had fallen low enough, but many other countries recommend less.

Professor West said the government could do better than a binary rule. “There is more evidence that outdoor transmission is extremely rare because the virus disperses much more quickly,” he said. “So that would give you more confidence about being more relaxed outdoors, but indoors you can’t just say, ‘Stand a certain distance apart and you’re safe’, you have to look at things like airflow.

“That could mean improving ventilation — not air conditioning which can aerolise droplets, but systems that keep the airflow moving. It could also include things like not facing each other so that you’re not pushing droplets directly towards other people.”

Just as the green cross code combined a set of rules with individual judgments with regards to when it is safe to cross the road, Professor West said: “We could develop something similar for coronavirus so that people could learn to manage their risk and adjustments to indoor public spaces like offices could be based on something more nuanced than just telling bosses to stick the desk two metres apart and you’re fine.”

Analysis released today of 28 studies of people with Covid-19, Sars and Mers concludes that the risk of catching a coronavirus falls by 80 per cent if you are more than a metre away from an infected person. An international group of scientists led from McMaster University in Canada estimated that the risk halved each metre further away someone was from the patient. They found there was a 1.3 per cent chance of contracting the virus when two metres away from an infected person and a 2.6 per cent chance if one metre away.

“The results of our current review support the implementation of a policy of physical distancing of at least one metre and, if feasible, two metres or more,” they write in The Lancet.

Linda Bauld, of the University of Edinburgh, said: “There have been plenty of complaints that the guidance in the UK on two metres distance is excessive because it is more than in other countries. But this review supports it. Maintaining this distance is likely to reduce risk compared to one metre. Thus, where possible, this is the distance that retailers and employers should use.”

 

[yorksrob]

So to put it another way, you have a 97% chance of not catching it at 1m, compared to a 98-99% chance of not contracting it at 2m.

Personally I don't think that the additional risk of 1.5% is worth suspending all normal social and economic activity. Others might take a different view depending on their circumstances. That said, if it's easy to keep 2m from a stranger, it's a no brainer.

 

[jfollows]

So to put it another way, you have a 97% chance of not catching it at 1m, compared to a 98-99% chance of not contracting it at 2m.

Personally I don't think that the additional risk of 1.5% is worth suspending all normal social and economic activity. Others might take a different view depending on their circumstances. That said, if it's easy to keep 2m from a stranger, it's a no brainer.

Precisely that sort of thing. But to try and put some numbers on it:

We currently have something like 0.4% of the UK population with confirmed cases (276,332 out of 66.5m). If we assume, for now, that there's a 1% chance of the person in your proximity being infectious, which is a much greater figure than currently seems likely (allowing for a large number of unknown, probably asymptomatic but infectious cases), then it's the difference between 13% of 1% (1 in 770) and 3% of 1% (1 in 3,300). An additional risk of 10% of 1%, or in other words an additional risk of 0.1%, 1 in 1,000.

Other figures than these can be derived, I'm sure.

But there are many daily activities which people undertake with an additional risk of 0.1% without thinking twice about it.

Of course, this additional risk isn't a one-off thing, it's repeated every time you're in closer proximity to someone else for an appropriate length of time, whatever that might be, so the additional risks over a period of time do add up.

 

[yorksrob]

Precisely that sort of thing. But to try and put some numbers on it:

We currently have something like 0.4% of the UK population with confirmed cases (276,332 out of 66.5m). If we assume, for now, that there's a 1% chance of the person in your proximity being infectious, which is a much greater figure than currently seems likely (allowing for a large number of unknown, probably asymptomatic but infectious cases), then it's the difference between 13% of 1% (1 in 770) and 3% of 1% (1 in 3,300). An additional risk of 10% of 1%, or in other words an additional risk of 0.1%, 1 in 1,000.

Other figures than these can be derived, I'm sure.

But there are many daily activities which people undertake with an additional risk of 0.1% without thinking twice about it.

Of course, this additional risk isn't a one-off thing, it's repeated every time you're in closer proximity to someone else for an appropriate length of time, whatever that might be, so the additional risks over a period of time do add up.

Some very enlightening analysis !

 

[Yew]

As someone with a background in fluid dynamics, specialising in droplet mass transfer, I'd be interested to see the methodology and underlying assumptions they've been using to calculate the relative likelihoods.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As someone with a background in fluid dynamics, specialising in droplet mass transfer, I'd be interested to see the methodology and underlying assumptions they've been using to calculate the relative likelihoods.

I'd be surprised if they weren't public (a surprisingly large amount of the Government stuff is) so some time with Google should bear fruit.

 

[6862]

Found out today that the building I worked in before all this kicked off (a lab), has implemented a rule where no more than 2 people can be in any room at any one time, even in labs which are approx 10 by 5 meters. Apparently if a third person wants to go in, even for a few minutes, someone has to leave. I am not eligible to return to work because I'm not in the chosen 20 %, but even if there was any chance of me being able to return, I don't see how it would be possible to work with such over the top restrictions.

 

[jfollows]

But, please, would someone explain to the people responsible for the ludicrous signs in which they've taken "2m" literally and converted it to "6.6 feet" that they are guilty of confusing people unnecessarily. Such a sign pops up on the BBC Web site with frustrating regularity.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

Precisely that sort of thing. But to try and put some numbers on it:

We currently have something like 0.4% of the UK population with confirmed cases (276,332 out of 66.5m). If we assume, for now, that there's a 1% chance of the person in your proximity being infectious, which is a much greater figure than currently seems likely (allowing for a large number of unknown, probably asymptomatic but infectious cases), then it's the difference between 13% of 1% (1 in 770) and 3% of 1% (1 in 3,300). An additional risk of 10% of 1%, or in other words an additional risk of 0.1%, 1 in 1,000.

Other figures than these can be derived, I'm sure.

But there are many daily activities which people undertake with an additional risk of 0.1% without thinking twice about it.

Of course, this additional risk isn't a one-off thing, it's repeated every time you're in closer proximity to someone else for an appropriate length of time, whatever that might be, so the additional risks over a period of time do add up.

Just to show you are correct that other interpretations can be made.

Putting another take on these figures, acknowledging like you do that they are untested assumption.

If we calculate how many interactions are needed to get a 50% probability of catching the virus then for 1 in 770 it is about 533 but for 1 in 3300 it is 2287 so a fourfold increase.

 

[jfollows]

If we calculate how many interactions are needed to get a 50% probability of catching the virus then for 1 in 770 it is about 533 but for 1 in 3300 it is 2287 so a fourfold increase.

Thank you, that's good.
If I were to redefine my thought experiment, I suspect that 1% likelihood of every individual with whom you have extended close proximity being infectious is far too high a figure, and it's more likely that there's a 1% likelihood that any one of all the individuals with whom you have extended close contact during a period (such as a day or a month) is infectious. But this is all hand waving for sure.

 

[Huntergreed]

During the Scottish briefing today, Sturgeon mentioned that “there are various media sources stating that 1m is a safe distance”, she emphasised that in Scotland this was not the case, that we need to remain 2m apart of risk another lockdown and overwhelming the NHS. I really do think even the government are overestimating the risks considering other countries have adopted 1m and are managing fine.

 

[Bantamzen]

During the Scottish briefing today, Sturgeon mentioned that “there are various media sources stating that 1m is a safe distance”, she emphasised that in Scotland this was not the case, that we need to remain 2m apart of risk another lockdown and overwhelming the NHS. I really do think even the government are overestimating the risks considering other countries have adopted 1m and are managing fine.

Meanwhile, in Paris residents are enjoying a croissant & coffee on café terraces after having had a lockdown with a social distancing of 1 metre..... Still Nanny Sturgeon knows best. I love Scotland as a country to visit, but would hate to have to live in her state!