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

[DynamicSpirit]

The fundamental problem with both a rigid '2m' rule and a rigid '1m' rule is that they are too absolute. The reality is that there is virtually no absolute safety in public - rather, the point is to keep everyone as safe as practical and to keep the transmission rate below 1 while opening up the economy and normal life as much as you can while adhering to those guidelines.

2m is undoubtedly safer than 1m, but isn't practical in all scenarios. In supermarkets, a 2m rule makes sense because - as the last month as shown - it's perfectly possible to run supermarkets according to that rule, and doing so keeps people safer than a 1m rule would.

On the other hand, on public transport, a 2m rule is completely impractical, and a 1m rule is only really practical at quiet times. And if we want society and the economy to carry on, we probably have to accept that, and allow people to be closer (perhaps with enforced mask wearing) for the duration of their journeys. That's nowhere near as bad as abandoning the 2m rule everywhere. And since most people's public transport journeys are relatively short, may well still be consistent with keeping the transmission rate below 1 if it's part of a strategy of enforcing as much social distancing as is practical in each situation.

In other words, the strategy we ought to be adopting is, to require as much social distancing as is practical in each environment that is consistent with allowing most businesses to operate. That would probably lead to rules that say something like, Stay 2m apart, but being closer is permitted for short durations in specified situations where there is no practical alternative (such as on public transport).

Unfortunately, the Government's messaging so far has been in terms of absolute distances and absolute safety, which has left most of the public completely unprepared for a policy of, 'as much social distancing as we can practically achieve in each environment'. As a result, it's going to be a huge challenge to adopt a sensible social distancing approach that allows safely opening up the economy.

 

[Camden]

The WHO on the other hand have claimed that 1m is sufficient,

The WHO also spent the first couple of months of this year claiming that the disease was being contained, and to this day the WHO still remain tight lipped on the evidence of source of this incredibly unusual virus.

One metre is nothing. You may as well just ask people not to lick each other.

 

[Huntergreed]

Particularly at 2m.

It baffles me that they're still insisting on 2m. Most other places are coping absolutely fine with much less, and the WHO has proven 1m works just as well. It's as if they want to make things more difficult for reopening the economy, the messaging needs to change, and sooner rather than later.

 

[yorksrob]

It baffles me that they're still insisting on 2m. Most other places are coping absolutely fine with much less, and the WHO has proven 1m works just as well. It's as if they want to make things more difficult for reopening the economy, the messaging needs to change, and sooner rather than later.

I suspect that given the higher death rate and later lockdown, they want to be seen to be being more cautious than elsewhere. Unfortunately public transport users are the fall-guys.

 

[37424]

It baffles me that they're still insisting on 2m. Most other places are coping absolutely fine with much less, and the WHO has proven 1m works just as well. It's as if they want to make things more difficult for reopening the economy, the messaging needs to change, and sooner rather than later.

You might be fine with 1m I'm not I prefer more than 2m quite frankly, and while I'm mainly confined to the house anybody less than 2m from me gets abuse from me, I have a zero tolerance on less than 2m

 

[Bletchleyite]

You might be fine with 1m I'm not I prefer more than 2m quite frankly, and while I'm mainly confined to the house anybody less than 2m from me gets abuse from me.

I don't think there is any excuse whatsoever for giving abuse to people under any circumstances, I'm afraid. Please don't do that. Just assertively and firmly ask them to give you the correct space.

 

[scotrail158713]

I have a zero tolerance on less than 2m

Is there any reason for that?

 

[yorksrob]

You might be fine with 1m I'm not I prefer more than 2m quite frankly, and while I'm mainly confined to the house anybody less than 2m from me gets abuse from me, I have a zero tolerance on less than 2m

That rather illustrates the problem. We have a 2m rule that is an international outlier and not really backed up by the medical evidence, and people have taken it to heart.

 

[yorkie]

You might be fine with 1m I'm not I prefer more than 2m quite frankly, and while I'm mainly confined to the house anybody less than 2m from me gets abuse from me, I have a zero tolerance on less than 2m

It's a guideline, not the law, and not always possible to achieve. Can you clarify what you mean by give abuse, as this sounds concerning to me. I hope your actions are within the law (https://www.cps.gov.uk/verbal-abuse-and-harassment-public)?

 

[duncanp]

anybody less than 2m from me gets abuse from me, I have a zero tolerance on less than 2m

Would you be OK if someone else gives you abuse because you are less than 2 metres from them?

It is just as much your responsibility to stay more than 2 metres from other people as it is their responsiblity to stay more than two metres away from you.

In any case, studies have shown that, particularly outdoors, coming within 2 metres of someone carries a negligible risk of passing on or catching the virus provided if you don't spend too long in proximity to that person.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would you be OK if someone else gives you abuse because you are less than 2 metres from them?

It is just as much your responsibility to stay more than 2 metres from other people as it is their responsiblity to stay more than two metres away from you.

This depends. I've found a lot of people walking several-abreast on paths, and people really should not be doing this in the circumstances.

 

[Bikeman78]

It's a guideline, not the law, and not always possible to achieve. Can you clarify what you mean by give abuse, as this sounds concerning to me. I hope your actions are within the law (https://www.cps.gov.uk/verbal-abuse-and-harassment-public)?

Every time I have been to a shop I have been within two metres of someone. It's not possible to see round corners and sometimes three people arrive at a crossroads in a supermarket at the same time. The same no doubt applies to the London underground. Whilst many pedestrians flows are one way, some passages are two way and it would be impossible to stay two metres apart. There are plenty of intersections where passenger flows meet or conflict. Nothing short of multi million pound reconstructions will solve these.

 

[37424]

That rather illustrates the problem. We have a 2m rule that is an international outlier and not really backed up by the medical evidence, and people have taken it to heart.

Well its the guidence we have as someone at very high risk i will not be happy with less than that even if it changed. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if did change more for convenience rather than safety in the not too distant future.

Well a delivery got an ear bashing for being too close earlier this week, I also rang up his employer to complain, also a women in the queue outside my GP, abuse may a bit strong a description but they a very curt response.

 

[Bikeman78]

This depends. I've found a lot of people walking several-abreast on paths, and people really should not be doing this in the circumstances.

This reminds me of an observation from a friend who is a bus driver. A number of pedestrians have stepped off the pavement into his path in order to avoid getting too close to another pedestrian. Some people have really lost all perspective.

 

[duncanp]

It is not possible to stay more than 2 metres of someone all the time, and it is high time official policy recognised this.

Walking along a pavement that is less than 2 metres wide, how do you keep more than two metres away from someone who is coming in the opposite direction, without stepping into the road?

Or in my experience walking around the canals in the Birmingham area, should I volunteer to jump into the canal just to stay more than two metres from someone else? Of course not, but you can see how ridiculous the situation can get if we try and ask people to do something which is impossible.

 

[Huntergreed]

Or simply reduce it to 1 metre and ask people to walk to the other end of the pavement to pass others

 

[Tom B]

2m is a rule of thumb. If you happen to pass somebody at 1.9m in the street, you are not going to spontaneously burst into flames.

 

[Bletchleyite]

2m is a rule of thumb. If you happen to pass somebody at 1.9m in the street, you are not going to spontaneously burst into flames.

Practically, it makes sense for people to walk in single-file and at opposite sides of the path.

 

[yorkie]

If 2m is necessary / practicable why don't WHO day 2m?

It needs to change to 1m sooner rather than later in my opinion.

 

[sheff1]

You might be fine with 1m I'm not I prefer more than 2m quite frankly, and while I'm mainly confined to the house anybody less than 2m from me gets abuse from me, I have a zero tolerance on less than 2m

Charming.

Probably best if you stay at home. Abusing law abiding citizens in the street is unlikley to end well.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

If 2m is necessary / practicable why don't WHO day 2m?

It needs to change to 1m sooner rather than later in my opinion.

I suspect that might well be the next Government announcement; yesterday one store I was in had signs up which read 1m, not 2m. That makes me wonder if they've jumped the gun a bit. It didn't look like a straightforward typo error because the signs saying 1m were all rather different in overall appearance from the other signs still up in the same store that were saying 2m.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect that might well be the next Government announcement; yesterday one store I was in had signs up which read 1m, not 2m. That makes me wonder if they've jumped the gun a bit. It didn't look like a straightforward typo error because the signs saying 1m were all rather different in overall appearance from the other signs still up in the same store that were saying 2m.

I would expect to hear "1m but only if both people are wearing a mask" before long.

Moderator note: any further mask discussion to take place on the https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...s-to-be-encouraged-with-no-compulsion.203732/ thread please

 

[yorkie]

If reducing the guideline to 1m reduces incidents of key workers being abused by people () then that's another bonus.

Some of the lengths I've seen some people take to get more than 2m from others is just crazy (including stepping into roads without looking); the message needs to change to be more practicable.

Of course if you are indoors in an office environment, then you should aim to be further apart. That's completely different to brief encounters (especially outdoor ones).

 

[BJames]

You might be fine with 1m I'm not I prefer more than 2m quite frankly, and while I'm mainly confined to the house anybody less than 2m from me gets abuse from me, I have a zero tolerance on less than 2m

I don't really think this is acceptable. I note your follow up comment on the potentially strong use of the word abuse but to me this just suggests a poor mindset. I also see that you have said you are in a vulnerable category, but I would ask you to be aware that some people may quite simply have misjudged a distance of 2 metres, but that it is not possible to remain 2 metres away from people at all times - hence why this is guidance. Being rude or curt in any way to someone who has (9 times out of 10) just made a mistake is just as bad as their transgression - from the sounds of it ("an ear bashing") you may be shouting at them? Or at the very least you are increasing the amount of contact you are having with the person which doesn't seem to make any sense, as surely the most appropriate course of action is to just take yourself out of the situation. If someone is coming too close to you in the queue, politely remind them to keep their distance but you don't need to be rude to them as you almost certainly start off on in an unfavourable situation. If you go into a situation at a "high level" (i.e. loud/aggressively) you're not likely to be met with any apologies or change of behaviour - it's just going to turn the person against you.

That rather illustrates the problem. We have a 2m rule that is an international outlier and not really backed up by the medical evidence, and people have taken it to heart.

Indeed. Comments like the above are very concerning to me, as 2 metre distancing can't and won't last until every last case of Covid-19 has gone - quite simply because (as noted increasingly in the news this week) we cannot be certain that the disease will ever completely go away.

 

[NorthOxonian]

I am forced to stay at home due to having a compromised immune system but I still have to go out for Hospital appointments etc. Even if I was perfectly healthy I would be very unhappy with anyone not obeying 2m, if it gets altered to 1m then I think the government are going to have to answer a lot difficult questions on the justification for that, and I'm sure there will be plenty of people like myself who will want stick to 2m. As much as I'm not a fan of Nicola I think Scotland and Wales have the better approach at the moment.

Any distance we decide upon is fundamentally a compromise. If the 2m was increased to 3m, that would reduce transmission even further, but that distance would make public life even more difficult. There's always a trade-off between transmission rates and allowing us to have some semblance of normality, whether that be in allowing public transport to run for essential journeys or allowing supermarkets to open without having a tiny throughput. I would personally go for a 1m (or 1.5m) limit but with 2m still advised for those in a vulnerable group, and with people urged to respect the distance chosen by others, which I think would be a reasonable compromise.

As for the allegation that I'm not taking this seriously, I am. But I'm also taking the mental health of those stuck in lockdown seriously, not to mention our economy (which funds the health service) and society. We can't live like this forever, in fact most people are struggling enough as it is and the thought of suffering this for months more is hard to bear. Personally, I don't really support the way some restrictions are being eased for affluent people with cars and big gardens, but those of us relying on public transport and without a taste for golf or garden centres are left in the lurch, but I don't think the "cower in fear" approach of Wales and Scotland is much more effective either.

 

[Bantamzen]

That rather illustrates the problem. We have a 2m rule that is an international outlier and not really backed up by the medical evidence, and people have taken it to heart.

If the rumours are true that 2m was chosen because the government didn't trust the public to observe a 1m rule, then they have made a rather serious rod for their own backs, because the public haven't just lapped this up, it seems to be engrained into their psyche to the point (as demonstrated above) that people get angry about being 1.98m from somebody. It is going to take an awful lot to dial people back from what has gone from a temporary measure to a more permanent neurosis.

This reminds me of an observation from a friend who is a bus driver. A number of pedestrians have stepped off the pavement into his path in order to avoid getting too close to another pedestrian. Some people have really lost all perspective.

I've witnessed quite a few people practically leaping into oncoming traffic to avoid passing someone, even when there has been more than enough room. I can't help but suppose that throwing yourself in front of a moving vehicles is infinitely more life threatening than passing within 2m of someone who might have a small chance of carrying the virus. But this is what the government's approach has helped to nuture.

 

[underbank]

But isn't the 2m rule all about being protected if the other person randomly coughs/sneezes/spits rather than the virus suddenly deciding to leap from person to person like a flea would?

I think a good long term compromise as we come out of lockdown would be to avoid being within "touching distance" of another, i.e. an arms' length, so maybe 1 metre. That gives people their right to "personal space", i.e. not being jostled, touched, etc in queues/on public transport. When I say long term, I mean the rest of the year at least. It effectively halves the length of queues, maybe doubles the number of people of buses/trains, but still gives a degree of protection. Bearing in mind that even 2 metres isn't far enough is someone with Covid has a sneezing fit!

A "touching distance" or arm's length rule would mean that you'd only need one empty row of seats on a bus/train between people and that you could have people sat in the same row (either side of aisle).

Also arm's length is far easier for people to visualise as it seems some people can't gauge what two metres looks like. They will find it much easier to keep apart if it's touching distance.

 

[yorkie]

But isn't the 2m rule all about being protected if the other person randomly coughs/sneezes/spits rather than the virus suddenly deciding to leap from person to person like a flea would?

No! If someone sneezes towards you 2m is not enough!

 

[WelshBluebird]

But this is what the government's approach has helped to nuture.

As much as I'd love to pin something else on a Tory government, I am really not sure you can with this.
People should use their damn brains and know not to jump out infront of oncoming traffic.

 

[Bantamzen]

As much as I'd love to pin something else on a Tory government, I am really not sure you can with this.
People should use their damn brains and know not to jump out infront of oncoming traffic.

It was the government that came up with the messaging about saving lives, they came up with the 2 metre rule, so yeah. I really do think you can.