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

[Bletchleyite]

Medical science is in a constant state of debate, it's not an exact science. You say that 2 metres will minimise deaths because it's safer than 1 metre, how do you know this? Are you a viral scientist or are you just repeating something you've heard?

There's plenty of material out there - including from the Government itself - that confirms the risk is roughly tenfold between 2m and 1m.

However, the economy needs to recover. So this suggests to me that where it *is* possible we should stick to 2m, but where it isn't go lower. Supermarkets, for instance, are working fine with a "keep it to 2m so far as possible" approach - OK, the queueing is a pain, but you do get round quicker with the dawdlers and families of 5 out of the way.

You could say the same about Professor Neil Ferguson, that he is trained very well in medical science but it didn't stop him making the stupid and absurd prediction that half a million people in Britain would die - and was then caught breaching the rules he was advocating.
I repeat, just because they're experts doesn't necessarily mean they're infallible.

It's not stupid and absurd. It's an entirely possible scenario. Remember Sweden didn't do nothing at all, despite what people seem to think - it did have some elements of distancing.

 

[thejuggler]

Testing still isn't working. A friend is a teacher, pupil tested positive, all staff had to be tested.

She went yesterday, at first they refused as she has no symptoms, then test was done, told it would be 24 hours for a result, now told it will be Monday at the earliest. School is now closed until all tests are back.

 

[johnnychips]

There's plenty of material out there - including from the Government itself - that confirms the risk is roughly tenfold between 2m and 1m.

Yes, but ten times what? If the risk is, say, one in a hundred thousand at two metres, and therefore one in ten thousand at one metre it’s still insignificant. As I posted on another thread, eating lots of bacon and ‘burnt’ foods increases your chances of bowel cancer by a third. That should turn you vegan immediately until you realise the risk increases from three in a thousand to four in a thousand.

 

[Bikeman78]

There's plenty of material out there - including from the Government itself - that confirms the risk is roughly tenfold between 2m and 1m.

However, the economy needs to recover. So this suggests to me that where it *is* possible we should stick to 2m, but where it isn't go lower. Supermarkets, for instance, are working fine with a "keep it to 2m so far as possible" approach - OK, the queueing is a pain, but you do get round quicker with the dawdlers and families of 5 out of the way.



It's not stupid and absurd. It's an entirely possible scenario. Remember Sweden didn't do nothing at all, despite what people seem to think - it did have some elements of distancing.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the people who predicted half a million for the UK also predict 40,000 deaths for Sweden?

 

[Mugby]

It's not stupid and absurd. It's an entirely possible scenario. Remember Sweden didn't do nothing at all, despite what people seem to think - it did have some elements of distancing.

Could be, might be, maybe, entirely possible. Anything is possible, It could possibly have been the end of civilisation.

I'm not really interested in what's possible, I'd rather know what will be. If people don't know that, I'd prefer them to say nothing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not really interested in what's possible, I'd rather know what will be. If people don't know that, I'd prefer them to say nothing.

Nobody knows what will be, not even Bojo, so there's not a lot of point spending time on a discussion forum about the disease if speculation isn't your thing.

 

[Mugby]

Nobody knows what will be, not even Bojo, so there's not a lot of point spending time on a discussion forum about the disease if speculation isn't your thing.

I'll take that as an admission that all your postings on this particular subject have been pure speculation.

 

[Huntergreed]

Could be, might be, maybe, entirely possible. Anything is possible, It could possibly have been the end of civilisation.

I'm not really interested in what's possible, I'd rather know what will be. If people don't know that, I'd prefer them to say nothing.

Unfortunately, nobody knows for certain what 'will be', but I think it is becoming increasingly clear that the level of uncertainty associated with our current approach is not going to be viable.

What I think is certain (and I've posted this elsewhere) is that our only way out of this pandemic is to achieve a level of herd immunity. Elimination is no longer possible, and due to the virus having a near to negligible death rate for healthy under 55's, I would propose that we allow them to return to a society much closer to normal whilst shielding the vulnerable in order to achieve this, as the current lockdown approach is attempting to eliminate the virus which, with the number of cases now flatlining, is simply not going to be possible.

Keeping on topic, the main thing that we need to do as a society is to stop seeing social distancing as a concept as an 'absolute' theoretical ideal. It was implemented in order to try and slow transmission, and of course, 2m is better than 1m, but 3m is better than 2m, 4m is better than 3m, and at this point, our economy is severely damaged (a 20.4% fall in GDP in April alone is something not to take lightly), and it's becomingly increasingly obvious that the current 2m distancing would be better off as 1m (I would argue we should drop distancing entirely soon, but that's not the purpose of this thread) in order to make the economic recovery much swifter and more viable and practicable, as with 2m many places won't be able to break even, let alone turn a profit.

 

[Yew]

I'll take that as an admission that all your postings on this particular subject have been pure speculation.

Any discussion of the future or alternate history is, by definition, speculation.

 

[The Ham]

Yes, but ten times what? If the risk is, say, one in a hundred thousand at two metres, and therefore one in ten thousand at one metre it’s still insignificant. As I posted on another thread, eating lots of bacon and ‘burnt’ foods increases your chances of bowel cancer by a third. That should turn you vegan immediately until you realise the risk increases from three in a thousand to four in a thousand.

Whilst it's true that if the risk is low (say 1 in 100,000 Vs 1 in 1,000,000) for each individual interaction each person has there's two important factors.

Firstly by saying 2m it discourages people from standing and talking, this shortens the length of time of exposure as well increasing the distance, both of which are factors as to how likely someone will contact the virus.

Secondly, we don't just have a single chance of catching it (unlike cancer where it's a lifetime event), therefore by reducing the interactions that there are then this reduces the risk of infection. By getting most office workers to work from that reduces the risk, in that (say) 3 million people then aren't going into their office, that then reduces the risk for them.

However even that is part of the story, in that they are then reducing the risk to others they meet in other interactions as they've moved with fewer people.

I do however understand that keeping everything closed its harming our economy and that a blanket 2m isn't going to work going forwards because of this. However whilst the number of deaths this week have seen figures of around 200 a blanket 1m probably isn't going to help get that lower as fast as having a flexible approach.

By having the rules as:
- try and keep 2m apart
- where this isn't possible try and limit your time whilst being within 1m of each other
- when inside and where there's a high risk of being within 1m of others then face coverings should be worn

That allows the economy to restart whilst keeping the risk (probably) almost as low as a blanket 2m rule, but lower than a blanket 1m rule.

 

[jfollows]

By having the rules as:
- try and keep 2m apart
- where this isn't possible try and limit your time whilst being within 1m of each other
- when inside and where there's a high risk of being within 1m of others then face coverings should be worn

That allows the economy to restart whilst keeping the risk (probably) almost as low as a blanket 2m rule, but lower than a blanket 1m rule.

That would reflect my position, too. However there's some loss of clarity and increasing in confusion with the "2m or 1m" message and the government hasn't done a good job of being clear until now anyway.
Clearly a 2m separation is less risky than a 1m separation, where possible. But we're also in danger of the "bacon" issue previously alluded to in which the scientific consensus is that eating bacon increases your risk of bowel cancer (which is undoubtedly true) but the risk is so small that most sensible people ought to conclude there are more important things to worry about.

Also, this set of "rules" also seems to reflect reality today, in that I see people seeking to distance themselves at further than 1m when there's plenty of space, but it's just impossible even to avoid being within 1m in a lot of environments.

EDIT: I forgot to add - this set of "rules" is also pretty much what I try and implement for myself anyway. I don't really care for much of what the government says to me, but have worked out for myself that this makes sense.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'll take that as an admission that all your postings on this particular subject have been pure speculation.

All postings on this subject by all posters have been speculation with varying amounts of evidence, except where they were just reporting an incident that took place or a stated TOC policy or similar.

 

[jfollows]

I've just heard someone on Radio 4 give out completely confusing advice: he just said that 1m should be OK if you're young and fit, but if you're 70 or over you should stick to 2m.

To me, this is unhelpful confusion of two totally different things, firstly that the risk of catching the virus from another person decreases with distance, but the risk is going to be approximately the same regardless of age, and secondly that the impact of catching the virus is likely to be significantly greater and worse if you're older, especially if you're over 70.

This sort of statement is extremely unhelpful in my opinion.

What's undoubtedly true is that someone who is over 70 should want to be more wary of catching the virus than someone significantly younger, but that shouldn't directly influence the distance at which they stand away from others.

 

[Freightmaster]

What's undoubtedly true is that someone who is over 70 should want to be more wary of catching the virus than someone significantly younger, but that shouldn't directly influence the distance at which they stand away from others.

Why not??




MARK

 

[jfollows]

Why not??

MARK

It's the "direct" part I have a problem with, that's to say advice being handed out which conflates multiple issues. I think it just adds to the confusion. However, it's sensible that once people have assimilated clear advice, there are reasons why they might make decisions based on the advice which includes an understanding of the significance of their age.

I just feel that by giving advice which combines multiple issues in this way it's a bit like saying "smoking is bad for you, but if you're over 70 it doesn't matter because you're going to die soon anyway". Well, I exaggerate a bit I know.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are two issues - spreading and catching it yourself.

Catching it yourself is extremely unlikely to be an issue if you're at the younger end of things, but you may still spread it.
Catching it yourself could be a big issue if you're at the older end of things.

However...we only need enough people not to spread it for R to remain below 1, then it will slowly fizzle out...so such a situation may actually work.

I just feel that by giving advice which combines multiple issues in this way it's a bit like saying "smoking is bad for you, but if you're over 70 it doesn't matter because you're going to die soon anyway". Well, I exaggerate a bit I know.

That also may have legs. If you're 70 and you think you've had a good innings and aren't bothered how much longer you live, and you smoke, and you like smoking, then you may well validly choose not to give up. A 30 year old smoker (say) would be much better advised to give up as they have a fairly high chance of having their life shortened to well before 70.

Almost nothing about health is an absolute.

 

[talldave]

I've just heard someone on Radio 4 give out completely confusing advice: he just said that 1m should be OK if you're young and fit, but if you're 70 or over you should stick to 2m.

To me, this is unhelpful confusion of two totally different things, firstly that the risk of catching the virus from another person decreases with distance, but the risk is going to be approximately the same regardless of age, and secondly that the impact of catching the virus is likely to be significantly greater and worse if you're older, especially if you're over 70.

This sort of statement is extremely unhelpful in my opinion.

What's undoubtedly true is that someone who is over 70 should want to be more wary of catching the virus than someone significantly younger, but that shouldn't directly influence the distance at which they stand away from others.

It's bang on - accepting that different levels of risk apply to different people. I've suggested to my elderly parents that if they want to venture out, masks might be a good idea. But I'm not wearing one because I don't see the risk as life threatening.

 

[jfollows]

It's certainly true that I have a stash of Cuban cigars and have to decide when to take up smoking if I'm going to use them up, my next significant birthday is 60, or do I wait until I'm 70 ..... I think I'm getting off-topic so I'll shut up now!

 

[yorkie]

Coronavirus: Result of 2m social distancing review 'to come next week'

Pubs and restaurants might not survive under current guidance in England, industry leaders warn.

www.bbc.co.uk

A review into the 2m social distancing rule in England will conclude "within the coming days", Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden has told the BBC.

It comes amid warnings many businesses will not survive under the current guidance as the government prepares to ease more restrictions on 4 July.

Prof Calum Semple at the University of Liverpool, a member of the government's Sage scientific advisory group, said he had changed his personal view on the need for social distancing because there were now "low levels, and sustained low levels, of transmission throughout the country".

This sounds promising.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's bang on - accepting that different levels of risk apply to different people. I've suggested to my elderly parents that if they want to venture out, masks might be a good idea. But I'm not wearing one because I don't see the risk as life threatening.

Remember though that the point of face coverings is more stopping you giving it to someone else, which if you're being relaxed about the rest of it (as I am) means you probably have more chance of giving it to someone vulnerable if you have an asymptomatic case.

 

[yorkie]

Let's avoid discussion of masks here please

Other relevant threads to discuss masks (or masks vs social distancing) include:

• Face coverings compulsory on public transport in England from 15 June
• Could mandatory mask-wearing replace social distancing on public transport, thus increasing capacity?
• What are your observations of face coverings wearing on public transport?

Thanks!

 

[317 forever]

I live in Sheffield, and I think @sheff1 has already alluded to bus routes being changed, presumably to stop their non-existent queues interacting with the very few queues for shops. There is a ‘lane’ marked past the pedestrianised Town Hall and down The Moor, with big yellow signs instructing you to use it to reach the shops, not to loiter in it; and mysterious crosses near pelican crossings, presumably showing you how to wait 2m behind someone. All the bus stops, in apparently all of South Yorkshire, have had their timetables removed and replaced with a pink notice about social distancing. Another sign says you must not enter Sheffield Interchange unless for the express purpose of catching a bus.

Needless to say, nobody is taking a blind bit of notice, and there is nobody to enforce it anyway. The good people of Sheffield seem to have taken on the message that outdoor spread of CV is very low risk.

I was last in Sheffield last September. Even at 9.30 on that Saturday morning there were very few people in Sheffield Interchange. So the idea of non-passengers being required to avoid entering it is pointless. It is also an inevitable walk between the rail station and parts of the city centre anyway.

Now that the government are officially planning to announce the results of the review next week, and Rishi Sunak has expressed approval of the reduction, it now seems a foregone conclusion. The next review is due on Thursday. Even if bars etc do not open until July 4th, I would not be surprised if the 2 metre rule is reduced to 1 metre before then, possibly from Monday 29th.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So it seems it already has been relaxed - just came across this on my FB - it now says "keep a safe distance from others, 2m where possible", not "keep 2m from others".

 

[YorksDMU]

That is very good news, and after it is announced officially, next Thursday, presumably, then perhaps we can all get back to a more normal kind of reality. I’ll sleep soundly tonight. Thank you for posting that notice - I’m not a member of FB.

 

[corfield]

Walk round a supermarket or a shop and 2m is a joke. Has been throughout. Yes b&q tried but one way systems arent even followed by their staff and customers rapidly followed them in ignoring them. Ditto supermarkets.
The only place it is followed is in queues, which makes sense as that is sustained time vs the semi-instanstaneous nature of passing so

In town today it was not much quieter than before and so people had to brush shoulders to get through. Everyone just got on with it without silliness.

The sooner we get rid of this nonsense and start getting back to full normal and stop destroying the livelihoods of 10s of millions the better. Those who are particularly vulnerable can then be protected and resourced for that rather than wasting vast resources on low risk people and associated damage to all.

 

[Mugby]

The sooner we get rid of this nonsense and start getting back to full normal and stop destroying the livelihoods of 10s of millions the better. Those who are particularly vulnerable can then be protected and resourced for that rather than wasting vast resources on low risk people and associated damage to all.

Couldn't agree more. Our leaders seem to think that once everyone starts shopping again, everything will be fine but there are so many other factors which they seem to be oblivious to.

It's almost certain now that 2 meters will be reduced soon but it seems almost as if the population is leading the government out of this silliness rather than the government leading the people.

 

[Richard Scott]

The sooner we get rid of this nonsense and start getting back to full normal and stop destroying the livelihoods of 10s of millions the better. Those who are particularly vulnerable can then be protected and resourced for that rather than wasting vast resources on low risk people and associated damage to all.

Couldn't agree more. Our leaders seem to think that once everyone starts shopping again, everything will be fine but there are so many other factors which they seem to be oblivious to.

It's almost certain now that 2 meters will be reduced soon but it seems almost as if the population is leading the government out of this silliness rather than the government leading the people.

Think a lot of people are not taking any notice anymore as they realise it's unrealistic. Last time I was in Tescos people seemed more relaxed and the 2m idea wasn't really being followed by anyone. The politicians are losing control of this one as they insist on maintaining these ideals. We just have to get back to getting on with life and accepting the virus is around us - if it goes away great, if it doesn't then we'll have to deal with it. This way of living is unsustainable and can't carry on much, if at all, longer. If I could get travel insurance and not have to do 14 day quarantine I'd be heading off to Europe as just need to get on with life. Hoping that's not too far away? Wishful thinking?

 

[corfield]

Couldn't agree more. Our leaders seem to think that once everyone starts shopping again, everything will be fine but there are so many other factors which they seem to be oblivious to.

It's almost certain now that 2 meters will be reduced soon but it seems almost as if the population is leading the government out of this silliness rather than the government leading the people.

Quite, the population has tacitly put up with this mainly because everyone has an older and thus more vulnerable family member which brings it home, but looking around it is ever more increasingly being ignored. At my takeaway the staff work next to each other as normal and have done the entire time.

It needs to stop now before the damage to the country gets worse. Our “leaders” couldn’t lead themselves out of a paper bag and the opposition scent blood as “manna from heaven” in what was otherwise a pretty hopeless position for them, so it long ago became politicised and any sense was subsumed to political advantage, as we see with the Unions behaviour.

My daughter is in a class of 7 now, has lost nearly all social contact with friends, cant even play “it“ and the teaching is far from what she should be doing (best efforts and the school are working hard). It is plainly daft.

The Government needs to realise that what the establishment wants, including a lot of “experts” whose experience in this type of this situation consists of purely this situation, is increasingly dissacociated from the people and it’s the latter that put them there. Hiding behind “science” which is about the least valid type of science we have, is not what they are there to do. Especially as most of the public sector pushing this rubbish are the only people insulated from the reality of economic destruction.

 

[yorkie]

COVID-19 Evidence is lacking for 2 meter distancing - The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

Carl Heneghan Tom Jefferson. In a transmission review for which our group is extracting data, we included some studies also

www.cebm.net

There is no scientific evidence to support the disastrous two-metre rule. Poor quality research is being used to justify a policy with enormous consequences for us all (Access here)

Summary:

As experienced reviewers, we looked at the evidence and could not replicate the distance estimates reported in the Lancet paper. We now invite others to check the papers – most are open access – and share their assessments. we look forward to your comments

The writing is on the wall for the 2m guideline and I will be celebrating its demise when the time comes.

Quite, the population has tacitly put up with this mainly because everyone has an older and thus more vulnerable family member which brings it home, but looking around it is ever more increasingly being ignored. At my takeaway the staff work next to each other as normal and have done the entire time.

It needs to stop now before the damage to the country gets worse. Our “leaders” couldn’t lead themselves out of a paper bag and the opposition scent blood as “manna from heaven” in what was otherwise a pretty hopeless position for them, so it long ago became politicised and any sense was subsumed to political advantage, as we see with the Unions behaviour.

My daughter is in a class of 7 now, has lost nearly all social contact with friends, cant even play “it“ and the teaching is far from what she should be doing (best efforts and the school are working hard). It is plainly daft.

The Government needs to realise that what the establishment wants, including a lot of “experts” whose experience in this type of this situation consists of purely this situation, is increasingly disassociated from the people and it’s the latter that put them there. Hiding behind “science” which is about the least valid type of science we have, is not what they are there to do. Especially as most of the public sector pushing this rubbish are the only people insulated from the reality of economic destruction.

Well said! I was feeling increasingly angry but I am now confident it will be abolished so I am now feeling hopeful and relaxed and very much looking forward to a positive result within the next few days.

 

[45107]

Quite, the population has tacitly put up with this mainly because everyone has an older and thus more vulnerable family member which brings it home, but looking around it is ever more increasingly being ignored. At my takeaway the staff work next to each other as normal and have done the entire time.

It needs to stop now before the damage to the country gets worse. Our “leaders” couldn’t lead themselves out of a paper bag and the opposition scent blood as “manna from heaven” in what was otherwise a pretty hopeless position for them, so it long ago became politicised and any sense was subsumed to political advantage, as we see with the Unions behaviour.

My daughter is in a class of 7 now, has lost nearly all social contact with friends, cant even play “it“ and the teaching is far from what she should be doing (best efforts and the school are working hard). It is plainly daft.

The Government needs to realise that what the establishment wants, including a lot of “experts” whose experience in this type of this situation consists of purely this situation, is increasingly dissacociated from the people and it’s the latter that put them there. Hiding behind “science” which is about the least valid type of science we have, is not what they are there to do. Especially as most of the public sector pushing this rubbish are the only people insulated from the reality of economic destruction.

So the Government should ignore the people with experience of this type of situation and take the populist "what the people want" approach without regard for the health consequences. Yes, there are conseuquences for the economy (as there are throughout the world), but these are nothing compared with what is coming next January.
My view is that the Johnson and his cronies are claiming to follow the advice of the scientists, but when challenged u-turn and follow the press opinion.
(I think it was Heseltine who described Johnson as someone who dithers, see which way the crowd is going and says follow me).