1 Metre instead of 2?

[palacegirl77]

Would this be a game changer? Theyre talking about it in relation to the hospitality industry - fitting in more tables in pubs and restaurants - but wouldn't this be a positive for schools too? Less distance apart = more tables in a room/more kids in one bubble - could at least get to all kids in part time surely (talking about Primary).

WHO suggesting 1 metre apart is sufficient....would it be beneficial to the country if we adopted this measure?

Yes 1m and greater mask use would seem the best compromise.

The likelihood of infection rises from around 1 to 2 per cent, so an increase but small. Maybe the height of the person you're next to counts - different trajectory from a tall person?

I think we will see this reduction soon, when the government needs to throw another bone.

Certainly in secondary schools where they (physically) take up more space they would be able to wear masks wouldnt they?

Agree. In a couple of weeks, when the number of infections falls further, this would be a great move.

People have enough trouble doing the 2m thing they will never be able to do 1 metre with any degree of accuracy and won't bother.

I'm suspecting this will happen soon from reading between the lines on changes in mask wearing policy, target to open pubs/ cafes early July and the initial hope to open primary schools before the end of the school year in July.

2m is more than most European countries which have had 1m or 1.5m.

2m is the grearest logistical barrier to easing lockdown and making services and businesses run at functional capacities.

I don't have an issue with 2m where it can be reasonably achieved e.g. meeting friends in a park.

1 m is just out of arms reach for people over 5' tall. It's pretty easy to figure out.

@lljkk

1 m is just out of arms reach for people over 5' tall. It's pretty easy to figure out.

Plus it's a pretty natural distance to keep and much more condusive to conversation!

I’m baffled by the 2m rule tbh as things I’ve read claim that you only have a 50% chance of catching it from someone you actually live with, if this is the case is it really as infectious as we’re being told? Could it just be a low immune system that day that meant a person was unlucky enough to catch it?

Yes I think so too @howdidwegetheremary

2 metres made sense when we didnt know much about transmission and we thought it was highly infectious/contagious. The most evidence we gather, the more we know about this virus, the better. For example, we now know that transmission is greatly reduced outdoors. The 1m guidance (as recommended by WHO) is the next logical step IMO. Later followed by indoor socialisation.

1m would make a huge difference in the hospitality sector and I would imagine could make the difference between some places going under or not as they’ll be able to serve more people and be closer to capacity. I hope that it goes ahead for the sake of many people’s livelihoods

The difference is 3% to 13% from 2 to 1m.

would that be the same outside Trickywords? I mean would 2m indoors be the same as 1m outdoors? Or is it so much lower outdoors kids could mingle when outside?

@TrickyWords

The difference is 3% to 13% from 2 to 1m.

^that!!!

But it will be reduced From 2to 1, because Bozo is more worried about being popular & job losses than than human lives. His push for a faster unlock came about when he was told there would be 3 million jobs lost if we didn't unlock pronto. So he is - forget All
Previous things that had to be in place, forget about 'not wasting' the lock down.

Fast track to 2nd wave, exponential growth & overwhelming the NHS.

Bring it on

I suspect 1m will come into force when pubs and cafes open and would be game changer for schools by September 👍🏼

Would be great if I hadn't just ordered stickers that say 2m distancing on an nhs budget. Government need to be clear!!

A lot of other countries that used the 1-1.5 metre rule have faired a lot better than us. I think what a lot of people don't understand is a great amount of job losses ultimately equals lives. My assumption is that most people who claim lives are more important than job loses are financially comfortable themselves and/or have no fear of losing their jobs and livelihood. Pretty sure most would change their tune if they did!

I personally think reducing it to 1-1.5 will help save the hospitality sector. Sadly many don't care and have the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude.

In Germany, we've always had 1.5 m, not 2 m

However, I've heard that schools may be ft after the summer vacation, which would require 1m, even with the roomier German schools.

It would cost retail businesses a fortune to replace all the ‘2metres’ signage with ‘1 metre’.

Restaurants etc are now open, but from what I've seen people are choosing to keep a good 3m apart !

And still demanding takeaway instead
e.g. our regional award-winning restaurant in the next town is normally packed, with their huge beer garden.
However, even with glorious sunshine, they've had to change their business model to takeaway, because hardly any customers want to sit down

This obviously cuts out all tips and also almost all drinks

Scientists now know that about 80% of COVID spread is from 10% of those infected,
which explains why so many people don't catch it from an infected household member, but an infected person can spread it to a large number of people at church, carnival, meat plants etc

So keeping the distance is an effective measure to stop the superspreader,
but obviously damages profits in the hospitality sector and also arlines

it's a risk / benefit calculation - probably depends on whether infections & deaths continue to decline to a sufficiently low level.

There is a strong case for abandoning social distancing among kids at school - as they are at v v low risk - but keeping it between teachers and students

That would enable ft schools after summer and make a massive difference to the economy, also to those WFH struggling with homeschooling

@TrickyWords

The difference is 3% to 13% from 2 to 1m.

Science focus magazine actually says that these % are not for 2m and 1m but The risk of coronavirus infection when people stand more than a metre away from the infected individual was found to be 3 per cent, and 13 per cent if within a metre.

I've recently read that it was 2.3% for one m. And 1.3% for 1m.

But 13% for no social distancing.

Visual from daily mail, but source is the lancet.

Now, statistically, that looks like it's significant as 2.3% is nearly double 1.3%. But when viewed in terms of total value it's not that great.
It's like the difference between 1.3cm and 2.3cm when compared to a metre.