2 metre rule changing to 1 metre rule? Good news?

[Harry Peterson]

Looking increasingly likely, and very soon.

 

This will have a major beneficial impact on all businesses, including cruise companies - and make cruising a lot more financially viable.

 

Good news?  

[wowzz]

About time too. Whilst obviously 2 metres is slightly better, a short level of exposure at 1 metre for the vast majority of people is perfectly safe.

The "new normal"  (awful phrase) needs to be relevant to 90% of the population, rather than the current approach which tries to protect everyone, at a terrible cost to the economy and  future health of the nation. 10 million people on the NHS waiting list for example.

[brian1]

It's always been 1 metre here,no worries.Zero new cases or deaths in our region for the last 10 days.

[brian1]

I must add that masks are compulsory in all public inside spaces and in restaurants you're ok at your table but must wear a mask when getting up for any reason.

[jaydee6969]

Good news indeed.  Another step in the right direction.

[pete14]

It does of course depend on what part of the sound scientific and medical evidence they choose to follow.

[wowzz]

8 minutes ago, pete14 said:

It does of course depend on what part of the sound scientific and medical evidence they choose to follow.

French and Danish scientific advice is that 1 metre is fine, so lets hope they follow that advice!

Edited June 11, 2020 by wowzz

[grapau27]

1 hour ago, Harry Peterson said:

Looking increasingly likely, and very soon.

 

This will have a major beneficial impact on all businesses, including cruise companies - and make cruising a lot more financially viable.

 

Good news?  

We seem to be the only people to observe the 2 metre rule when we go out walking and if we say 2 metres when people get to close they look at us with dumb looks.

In supermarkets and shops staff and customers are standing around chatting as if covid19 does not exist.

1 metre will make a massive difference for hotel, restaurant and  airline businesses to open again and possibly make cruising again happen quicker.

Edited June 11, 2020 by grapau27

[Harry Peterson]

18 minutes ago, pete14 said:

It does of course depend on what part of the sound scientific and medical evidence they choose to follow.

I think it has very little to do with scientific evidence (it's difficult to escape the conclusion that the closer you are to a source of infection, the greater the risk of contracting that infection) and considerably more to do with the financial evidence.

 

There are two sides to the equation - each with strong pluses and minuses.

[grapau27]

1 minute ago, Harry Peterson said:

I think it has very little to do with scientific evidence (it's difficult to escape the conclusion that the closer you are to a source of infection, the greater the risk of contracting that infection) and considerably more to do with the financial evidence.

 

There are two sides to the equation - each with strong pluses and minuses.

I agree.

Without a strong economy the NHS would not get the money to treat everyone and business would get no furlough and financial support.

[wowzz]

I can't see any issue standing alongside someone at a bar, or standing immediately behind them, regardless of the distance between us. Similarly,  then sitting in the pub, with someone else sitting 1 metre to one side of me, seems perfectly safe. 

 

[Selbourne]

Although I think it’s far from being certain that this will happen imminently, I would support it. I agree with everything Wowzz has said and would add that the restrictions now seem disproportionate to the risk, with less than 1 person in 1000 carrying the virus and it being very difficult to contract it outdoors. That being said, I believe that you are something like 20 times more likely to contract the virus at 1m than 2m, so it’s a tough call. 

[wowzz]

11 minutes ago, Harry Peterson said:

I think it has very little to do with scientific evidence (it's difficult to escape the conclusion that the closer you are to a source of infection, the greater the risk of contracting that infection) and considerably more to do with the financial evidence.

 

There are two sides to the equation - each with strong pluses and minuses.

Indeed Harry, but if you were to implement a 3 metre rule,  it would be even safer! 

The figures that I have seen, indicate that you need to be  face to face  for at least 15 minutes to be at risk of getting a sufficient viral load and possibly develop CV19. Surely it would be easier to tell people not to be in close contact for more than 15 minutes, and do away with social distancing altogether?

[wowzz]

6 minutes ago, Selbourne said:

Although I think it’s far from being certain that this will happen imminently, I would support it. I agree with everything Wowzz has said and would add that the restrictions now seem disproportionate to the risk, with less than 1 person in 1000 carrying the virus and it being very difficult to contract it outdoors. That being said, I believe that you are something like 20 times more likely to contract the virus at 1m than 2m, so it’s a tough call. 

Latest evidence from the Lancet, says that standing 2 metres away, rather than 1 metre, reduces the chances of you contracting CV19 from 13% to 3%, so an 80% reduction. However, as I alluded to in an earlier post,  you also need to factor in how long you are in the physical presence of the other individual. 

[pete14]

Perhaps we can suggest two metres for those who haven’t washed their hands for at least 30 seconds with soap and hot water in the previous hour and one metre for those who have. Unless of course either or both are in a bubble. 😇

Edited June 11, 2020 by pete14

[Harry Peterson]

11 minutes ago, wowzz said:

Indeed Harry, but if you were to implement a 3 metre rule,  it would be even safer! 

The figures that I have seen, indicate that you need to be  face to face  for at least 15 minutes to be at risk of getting a sufficient viral load and possibly develop CV19. Surely it would be easier to tell people not to be in close contact for more than 15 minutes, and do away with social distancing altogether?

I don’t disagree. I genuinely have no strong feelings either way. There are very strong, equally logical, equally fact based, arguments either way.

 

I posed the question to seek out opinions to help inform my own.

[terrierjohn]

29 minutes ago, Harry Peterson said:

I think it has very little to do with scientific evidence (it's difficult to escape the conclusion that the closer you are to a source of infection, the greater the risk of contracting that infection) and considerably more to do with the financial evidence.

 

There are two sides to the equation - each with strong pluses and minuses.

So whilst we are taking a health safety stance, the countries adopting a 1 metre rule are more interested in the economy. Is that your view Harry?

[Harry Peterson]

1 minute ago, terrierjohn said:

So whilst we are taking a health safety stance, the countries adopting a 1 metre rule are more interested in the economy. Is that your view Harry?

No idea. Is it yours?

[terrierjohn]

1 minute ago, Harry Peterson said:

No idea. Is it yours?

I think if you put 100 experts in a room, you would very likely end up with at least 50 opinions, possibly more.  But it still seems that our SAGE approach is probably being used by most other nations. It's just that their consensus can be different to ours, and neither is wrong or right.

[Harry Peterson]

Difficult balancing act.  The greater the distance, the lower the risk of spreading the virus - but the higher the risk of even more substantial damage to the economy than has already been done.

 

And more economic damage increases the risk of yet another funding crisis for the NHS, education, policing etc..

 

But if the relaxation sparks off the second wave that killed so many more people than the first flu wave in 1918/19, it’s a double whammy of deaths, an NHS that can’t cope, and a seriously damaging further lockdown.

 

No simple answers at all.  Just questions and guesses.

 

 

[zap99]

47 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

I think if you put 100 experts in a room, you would very likely end up with at least 50 opinions, possibly more.  But it still seems that our SAGE approach is probably being used by most other nations. It's just that their consensus can be different to ours, and neither is wrong or right.

At some point people need to be able to assess the risk for themselves and make their own decisions. If it is ok to go and visit Aunty Doris and stay overnight, why is it not ok to go to yourself contained holiday accommodation for a few nights. 2m , or 1m will be a political call. The experts will never put their names to anything that may increase risk, even if only marginally.

[Denarius]

2 hours ago, wowzz said:

Latest evidence from the Lancet, says that standing 2 metres away, rather than 1 metre, reduces the chances of you contracting CV19 from 13% to 3%, so an 80% reduction. However, as I alluded to in an earlier post,  you also need to factor in how long you are in the physical presence of the other individual. 

I think that you have got your figures wrong.

The latest evidence you quote iindicates that the risk of contracting Covid-19 from being close to an infected person is 13% - one in seven. With 1 mtr social distancing this reduces to 2.6% - about one in forty. With 2 mtr social distancing it reduces further to 1.3% - about one in eighty. Reducing the social distancing requirements from 2 mtrs to 1 mtr would thus double the risk, but in absolute terms would only increase it by about one in eighty because the actual risk being doubled is so low. A risk in my view well worth taking when balanced against the benefits to the economy and general well being.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Denarius
clarification

[Harry Peterson]

Some interesting observations here:
 

https://www.ft.com/content/2418ff87-1d41-41b5-b638-38f5164a2e94?xtor=ES-208-[32877_NEWS_NLB_ACT_Wk24_Thurs_11_jun]-20200611-[Financial+Times]

[wowzz]

25 minutes ago, Denarius said:

I think that you have got your figures wrong.

The latest evidence you quote iindicates that the risk of contracting Covid-19 from being close to an infected person is 13% - one in seven. With 1 mtr social distancing this reduces to 2.6% - about one in forty. With 2 mtr social distancing it reduces further to 1.3% - about one in eighty. Reducing the social distancing requirements from 2 mtrs to 1 mtr would thus double the risk, but in absolute terms would only increase it by about one in eighty because the actual risk being doubled is so low. A risk in my view well worth taking when balanced against the benefits to the economy and general well being.

I took my information from here

https://fullfact.org/health/mail-guardian-2m/

Seems to me that there are various opinions to hand,  but I totally agree with you - reducing the distance to 1 metre is a risk well worth taking g. 

[Eddie99]

7 minutes ago, Harry Peterson said:

Some interesting observations here:
 

https://www.ft.com/content/2418ff87-1d41-41b5-b638-38f5164a2e94?xtor=ES-208-[32877_NEWS_NLB_ACT_Wk24_Thurs_11_jun]-20200611-[Financial+Times]

That’s an interesting article

Flying and cruising don’t come out well, do they?