2m rule

[Orangeblossom78]

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 (?)

The fear was placed in your heads quite deliberately by completely evil and sick bastards

How’s your tin hat?

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

Yes and then we would have another 40,000 people dead and the economy in even deeper shit

@Astabarista

Going back to normal too quickly would send us back to square one and mean we’ve done all this for nothing

Sorry to break it to you, but the whole thing has been a monstrous mistake, for no discernible benefit.

A massive hand grenade has been chucked into our lives - and particularly our children's lives - for no good reason at all.

We have "done all this" for nothing. It will go down in history as one of the worst political mistakes ever made by a British government.

the economy is destroyed for the next 5-10 years anyway, but the sooner the 2m rule is reduced to 1m the better

The 2m is still expected in secondary schools

@greathat

The 2m is still expected in secondary schools

Until the rule changes. I wouldn't make those signs too hard to remove

We have "done all this" for nothing. It will go down in history as one of the worst political mistakes ever made by a British government.

I think so too. I imagine final figures will show the horrific number of deaths would have happened anyway. We’ve ended up with the worst of all worlds.

@SudokuBook

We have "done all this" for nothing. It will go down in history as one of the worst political mistakes ever made by a British government.

I think so too. I imagine final figures will show the horrific number of deaths would have happened anyway. We’ve ended up with the worst of all worlds.

Completely agree

Yep I’m with Delatron

Read up on Germany and do that

Anything to get out of this. It's not living atm

1.3% at 2m
2.6% at 1m.

13% with no social distancing.

So yes, at some point we can lower it.
That because as the number of community infections gets lower at some point that current 1.3% will be equal to what the 2.6% will be iyswim?

And yes I agree that 2m is generally meaning people are at least a meter away. Reducing to 1m could mean it become close contact, no distancing.

The virus hasn't gone away.
It isn't less transmissible now.

If we do now what we did in January and February we'd soon have another March and April.

I live in a rough area, we have an r rate of over 1

Nowhere in the UK has an R rate of over 1.

Reduce it to 1M, scrap it altogether in schools. Make everyone wear masks in shops, if it makes people feel better. It makes me laugh walking along the street when people press themselves against walls to avoid others. The risk of catching virus from a passer-by, outside at 2M, now, is minuscule.

Here is Switzerland it has been and still is 2m - however masks are not required here; they are recommended when 2m can't be maintained so supermarkets and public transport.

I know in Germany it's 1.5m. They have mandatory mask wearing in public though.

Perhaps 1m or 1.5m and mandatory masks in public would be an option.

@Drivingdownthe101

I live in a rough area, we have an r rate of over 1

Nowhere in the UK has an R rate of over 1.

Nor is the area r rate all that relevant as it mostly refers to high levels in carehomes/hospitals

I think it should stay as it is for now, at least until numbers are in the low hundreds and we know more. We can't go back to how we were with it spreading like crazy. We need to protect everyone's health and try and get the economy moving for jobs/services we need, and we can work around the 2m rule (admittedly restaurants/pubs will struggle but I'd be happy to pay double to support them, especially as it'll be more of a treat than an on the spur thing).

Wash hands regularly
Wear masks in crowded places
Don't gob on people

= how to deal with Covid, Flu, winter colds and most other airborne diseases

I think it's a terrible idea.

The most vulnerable (shield) have just been told that it's OK to go out for daily exercise/leisure as long as they keep to at least 2m social distancing.

That's challenging enough even now, as so many people interpret 2m as 1.5 or 1 anyhow. But most people do keep to edges of paths, so it's usually OK

It won't be OK if you try to run two distances depending on your health status.

The benefits of defining as 1,5 or 1 are marginal. The detrimental effect on the most vulnerable, by making outdoors riskier, seems pretty shitty. And I think continuing isolation is tough enough already, without adding extra stress

nether
How long should people shield for ?
Weeks?
Months?
Years?

ListeningQuietly I don't know - Boris said there wouid be an announcement shortly, but I'm not sure that it was made today. Scotland and Wales have already announced extensions, but not England.

I think how a community supports (or ignores) its most vulnerable is important.

And continuing with 2m in all public places, which means that everyone can go out without undue risk, is fair, reasonable and already working well.

Different rules, indoors in specified places (ie they are the exception, not the rule) could of course exist in parallel.

And continuing with 2m in all public places, which means that everyone can go out without undue risk, is fair, reasonable and already working well.

It won’t work well when places have to shut down as they can’t run their businesses and make all their staff redundant.

I think it needs to be reduced to 1m ASAP. Life can’t get back to any even vague semblance of normality in most areas if it stays at 2m.

If the risk of getting it outside is v low and the risk of getting it just passing someone is low then would it make much difference to shielded people really?

It won’t work well when places have to shut down as they can’t run their businesses and make all their staff redundant

Different rules, indoors in specified places (ie they are the exception, not the rule) could of course exist in parallel

There is no need to alter the general rule for 2m in all public places, except for those which state on entering the premises that a different distance will be observed. Which is what is already bound to happen, as you cannot eg operate as a hairdresser at 1m distance.

And by having a default of 2m, the 2.5million shielding people have a chance at daily exercise, as very few people can get out for any form of leisure without going along a pavement

Yes, that would work OK nether.

Apologies if I am being a bit thick, but I don't really understand the fifteen minute thing.

As I understand it, if you are positive, you only mention to T & T bods the people you have been less than 2 metres from (fine) for more than fifteen minutes.

But if someone is at work and suddenly becomes ill, they could be accidentally slightly less than 2m from you, and have a coughing fit. They might only be close to you for 5 seconds, but you would stand a high risk of being infected in that time surely?

Any T&T staffers on here who can help me out?