Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

2m rule

87 replies

Orangeblossom78 · 10/06/2020 07:54

Just wondered what you all felt about the possibility of the 2m rule changing as level of cases goes down. From the Times today

"The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) has recommended against a change in the two-metre rule and has been reluctant to endorse a shorter distance as evidence mounts that the risk of infection is twice as high at one metre as at two.

However, one option would be to say that a higher risk of transmission is more acceptable when cases are low enough. Sage is due to discuss the rule today after shifting to weekly meetings as the outbreak eases.

Denmark has halved its rule to one metre, while New Zealand has got rid of social distancing after almost entirely eliminating the virus. Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser, has also indicated that the rule could be made more flexible by putting greater emphasis on advice that standing back to back or side to side reduces the risk"

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/two-metre-coronavirus-rule-will-be-relaxed-after-pubs-reopen-htx5l0wqj

(saying it may be brought in as pubs start to open- July (?)

OP posts:
Original poster
Orangeblossom78 · 10/06/2020 07:56

*that the risk of infection is twice as high at one metre as at two.

I think I read it was very low at 2m something like 3% and 13% at one metre but happy to be corrected on that. And differences with time as well.

OP posts:
Waxonwaxoff0 · 10/06/2020 11:30

Sounds good to me. It's the only way we can get children back to school in September. Other countries aren't doing 2m.

BernardsarenotalwaysSaints · 10/06/2020 11:33

I'd be in favour of it being reduced for the same reasons as Wax

SudokuBook · 10/06/2020 11:34

1.3% and 2.6% I heard was the increase in risk of transmission

iVampire · 10/06/2020 11:34

I think it should stay as it is

The 2.5million people who were asked to shield still need 2m. And they won’t get it if the rules change.

It’s hard enough being on so much stricter isolation, without making it impossible to go out safely because there is no reasonable expectation of 2m

If a shorter distance is suitable for children in schools, then set it as a guideline for within schools only

What is the distance advice for the ‘flu jab’ group vulnerable?

Randomschoolworker19 · 10/06/2020 11:38

The 2m rule isn't the problem for schools as we're not expected to do that anyway.

The problem is social bubbles where you can only have a max of 15 children in a classroom. You can't leave children unattended and if you half the size of cohorts you'll need twice the amount of classrooms and staff.

The problem is schools can't magic up classrooms and staff.

helpfulperson · 10/06/2020 11:38

The number of infections only came down because of the various measures in place. If we open everything up, reduce the distance and go back to the way we were before the numbers of infections will go back up - the virus hasn't changed, we don't have herd immunity.

Original poster
Orangeblossom78 · 10/06/2020 14:59

The 2.5million people who were asked to shield still need 2m. And they won’t get it if the rules change

But they would be just going out into the garden to meet one specific person who would presumably be aware of this. Or if they went for a walk at a quiet time meeting someone in passing that would be very low risk also

OP posts:
Original poster
Orangeblossom78 · 10/06/2020 15:00

go back to the way we were before- it would not be the way things were before, because then we had no social distancing in place at all

OP posts:
hamstersarse · 10/06/2020 15:02

It would be great! Might give shops and restaurants a fighting chance

As for the RISK OF DEATH....wash your hands and don't cough in people's faces

Duckfinger · 10/06/2020 15:07

@Orangeblossom78

go back to the way we were before- it would not be the way things were before, because then we had no social distancing in place at all
I actually think it would be the way we were before. 1 metre is just over 3 feet, if you hold one arm out from your finger tips across you body to the opposite shoulder is about a metre for most people. How often do you get within that distance of someone you don't live with, let alone a stranger? I'd bet for most people only on public transport where masks are already compulsory.
LivinLaVidaLoki · 10/06/2020 15:08

@hamstersarse

It would be great! Might give shops and restaurants a fighting chance

As for the RISK OF DEATH....wash your hands and don't cough in people's faces

^^ This has to be my favourite response EVER
Original poster
Orangeblossom78 · 10/06/2020 15:11

In Holland, people were asked to try and keep a distance form the start, 1.5 m and they seem to have coped quite well. Just for comparison

Quite a densely populated, if smaller, country than the UK.

OP posts:
PeterWeg · 10/06/2020 15:18

@Orangeblossom78

*that the risk of infection is twice as high at one metre as at two.

I think I read it was very low at 2m something like 3% and 13% at one metre but happy to be corrected on that. And differences with time as well.

That's correct. Problem is if either party leans forward its will zoom up in risk.
LivinLaVidaLoki · 10/06/2020 15:22

It may be worth noting that the jump to 13% is only indoors.

The general risk is 2m distancing is 1% chance of catching it from droplets, 1m 2.5% but it increases to 13% if you are indoors.

But again with the usual caveat that the person in your space has to actually have covid for you to catch it.

MarcelineMissouri · 10/06/2020 15:28

I definitely think it should be reduced to 1m or at the very least 1.5m
I think some people have it in their heads that risk at 2m = 0 and risk at 1m = 50% (or even 100%) chance of catching cv. When in fact that chances at both distances are still small and that’s even if the person you are near to is actually even infected in the first place which is getting less and less likely.
Wash hands, cough into elbow, be sensible.

2m is just not sustainable.

countrygirl99 · 10/06/2020 15:29

livinlavidalica exactly and currently there's approx only 1 in 1000 chance of that.

Duckfinger · 10/06/2020 15:30

But again with the usual caveat that the person in your space has to actually have covid for you to catch it.

I am so glad to see someone else post this it sometimes feels like it's only me shouting "you can't get a virus nobody as got".

There have been less than 10 cases in the village (no deaths all recovered) yet some of the neighbours are shouting to each other across the road so they don't get it.

Tuemay · 10/06/2020 15:31

Is that not why the groups are small though, because they need to keep space between the children?

Tuemay · 10/06/2020 15:32

That was for @Randomschoolworker19 the quote disappeared!

MeanMrMustardSeed · 10/06/2020 15:34

I’m very much in favour of this - and as soon as possible.

RaspberryIsMyJam · 10/06/2020 15:37

WHO recommends 1m.

tabulahrasa · 10/06/2020 15:37

Thing is though... walking round supermarkets or outside, I find people aren’t leaving 2m... I mean I assume they think they are, but they’re really really not.

So what happens when you change it to what people are actually doing anyway, if they think it’s half that?

cooperage · 10/06/2020 15:38

One metre feels normal, 2 metres is unnatural.

Changing the rule could make the difference between children returning to normal school or staying at home for god knows how much longer, and pubs and restaurants sinking or swimming.

peonypower · 10/06/2020 16:49

If only 1 in 1000 have the virus, and as I'm not over 80, I'm totally fine no social distancing measures whatsoever

I'd rather not stand in someone's armpit on the tube but that's not fear of the virus - that's just because it's vile