|
It works well in my area, means the pavements are wide enough to walk past someone whilst maintaining the recommended 6’6” social distance. I do not mind being in traffic so long as I am in the relative coc*** of my own car.
|
|
Usually only needs a very small thing some distance away to cause total gridlock in Colchester. Intentional gridlock can only be the work of Colchester Council. I don't know why the residents keep voting in such malevolent incompetents. Politics.
|
|
Frankly it's utter nonsense.
The guidance (and it's guidance, not a rule) is that 2m should be maintained where possible. It does not mean that road and pavement layouts should be altered to make it possible. It will all have to be changed back next week when the ridiculous restriction is lifted (though, having been put in place by a local authority, it may well be retained "just to be on the safe side").
The entire 2m guidance is absolutely unnecessary outdoors (and scarcely necessary indoors come to that). The chances of contracting the virus when passing somebody in the street is as close to zero as makes no odds. The trouble is the country has lost its marbles and local authorities taking measures like this are doing nothing to help it find them.
Edited by Middleman on 20/06/2020 at 21:46
|
And what makes you such an expert? Self appointed I assume.
I would rather not become one of the daily statistics, so plastic barriers as my council have done, are fine by me. One of the few decisions by my local council I actually agree with!
|
And what makes you such an expert? Self appointed I assume.
The 2-metre 'rule' - or rather, guidance - is an arbitrary distance, and a very round number, which has been plucked out of the air and sold to the public as a magic talisman. Inside crowded premises it makes reasonable sense. Outdoors or in the street, passing people without them coughing or sneezing will present no risk at all. There's no sense in overcomplicating daily life pointlessly.
|
And what makes you such an expert? Self appointed I assume.
The 2-metre 'rule' - or rather, guidance - is an arbitrary distance, and a very round number, which has been plucked out of the air and sold to the public as a magic talisman. Inside crowded premises it makes reasonable sense. Outdoors or in the street, passing people without them coughing or sneezing will present no risk at all. There's no sense in overcomplicating daily life pointlessly.
but if the wind is passing the infected person and goes in your direction surely the virus is moved to you from the infected person? which imo is why the government used that distance as I am assuming it dies just before that distance
I dont know much about it either but am assuming thats the reason for the 2 mtr distancing, and as they learn more, reduce it
|
|
|
And what makes you such an expert? Self appointed I assume.
The 2-metre 'rule' - or rather, guidance - is an arbitrary distance, and a very round number, which has been plucked out of the air and sold to the public as a magic talisman. Inside crowded premises it makes reasonable sense. Outdoors or in the street, passing people without them coughing or sneezing will present no risk at all. There's no sense in overcomplicating daily life pointlessly.
Absolutely right...outside, the risk is virtually zero...irrelevant of social distance.
'tis my understanding that you would have to be "close" to someone outside for 15 mins to be at any risk at all.
|
And what makes you such an expert? Self appointed I assume.
The 2-metre 'rule' - or rather, guidance - is an arbitrary distance, and a very round number, which has been plucked out of the air and sold to the public as a magic talisman. Inside crowded premises it makes reasonable sense. Outdoors or in the street, passing people without them coughing or sneezing will present no risk at all. There's no sense in overcomplicating daily life pointlessly.
Absolutely right...outside, the risk is virtually zero...irrelevant of social distance.
'tis my understanding that you would have to be "close" to someone outside for 15 mins to be at any risk at all.
Sorry but understanding and knowing for a facts are not the same, too many are taking it upon themselves to do things that are advised against, and I have even heard it said its no worse than the Flu?
if they haven't had it how do they know?, and as some people are taking months to recover its not what I would recommend going out your way to get, which a lot of people seem to be doing???
|
|
I have even heard it said its no worse than the Flu?
I can vouch for the fact that it is far far worse than 'Flu.
|
|
|
|
<< I have even heard it said it's no worse than the Flu? >>
For many - especially younger - people it is certainly no worse than flu. The problem with CV is that some unfortunates are attacked unexpectedly badly. But my g-daughter (18) said yesterday that she reckons she had it much earlier this year, but only remembers losing taste and smell for a few days.
When the dust has settled, more is known about the longer-term effects, and proper stats have been collected, I think it will look quite like the 'Spanish flu' pandemic about 100 years ago in scale, possibly less severe.
The long-term argument is about sacrificing most of the economy to protect a fairly modest proportion of the population - who of course depend on it like the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our local high street has been reduced from two lanes to one for this. The mayor's been trying to pedestrianise it for years, but as it's a major A route I suspect higher authority has prevented it.
|
|
I have not looked into it in great detail. But listening on the radio to the news, there was mention of the problems faced by pubs and restaurants were the 2m rule not relaxed. But a spokesperson mentioned that the WHO actually recommended 1m. Not sure if this is true or not, but as others have mentioned, the 2m thing is meaningless. Some reckon 4m would be better, which undoubtably would be the case for reducing the potential to catch the virus (though utterly unworkable in real life), but if someone were to sneeze, droplets could easily travel 4m or more, so there is no definitive 'safe' distance.
|
|
It’s just like there is no 100% safe speed but the rules are flexible to allow modern transport to proceed with acceptable safety. At the moment the blanket 2m gap is akin to a blanket 20 mph speed limit on the whole road network.
|
|
Wrong. No speeding rules are flexible. You can be fined and pointed for driving at 31 in a 30mph and there's nothing you can do about it.
|
|
Sulphur, like you I don’t regard the posted limit as flexible but I wouldn’t expect the same limit to be posted on a suburban road (30) as on a motorway (70). That’s the analogy I was trying to draw with the blanket 2m.
|
|
|
|
|
And what makes you such an expert? Self appointed I assume.
I didn’t say I was an expert. I’m simply a dunce who has looked at what has been published and made my own assumptions on what it means. So let's forget my expertise, or lack thereof. Let's consider what the WHO guidance is on such matters (presumably they employ one or two experts). It can be found here:
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public
It says this:
“Maintain at least 1 metre (3 feet) distance between yourself and others. Why? When someone coughs, sneezes, or speaks they spray small liquid droplets from their nose or mouth which may contain virus. If you are too close, you can breathe in the droplets, including the COVID-19 virus if the person has the disease.”
So let’s move on and look at tHM Governments latest guidance on the issue. It can be found here under Section 1 (“Keep your distance from people outside your household”):
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/staying-safe-outside-your-home/staying-safe-outside-your-home
It says this:
“Whilst recognising this will not always be possible, it is important to be aware that the risk of infection increases the closer you are to another person with the virus, and the amount of time you spend in close contact with them. Therefore, you are unlikely to be infected if you walk past another person in the street.
Public Health England recommends trying to keep two metres away from people as a precaution. However, this is not a rule and the science is complex. The key thing is to not be too close to people for more than a short period of time, as much as you can.”
Note the passages I have emphasised.
So now let’s have a think about what this really means. First of all the chances of passing an infected person in the street at all is incredibly small. At any one time it is estimated that around 30,000 people in the whole of the UK are infected with the virus to an extent that they may pass it on. So that means you have a one in 2,000 chance (very rough figures but it gives you an idea of the ball park) of passing one of them in the street. Then they have to sneeze, cough, speak or expel an unusually large amount of breath in your direction. Can’t put a figure on that, but quite long odds judging by the people I pass in the street. Then you would have to inhale it. So even by the UK government’s own advice, you are unlikely to be infected if you walk past another person in the street. With my lack of expertise (but ability to do basic sums and make a judgement) I would go further than that. I would say it is highly unlikely to be infected if you walk past another person in the street.
So on to Colchester Council (and they are not alone, I’m sure). Despite "Whilst recognising "this will not always be possible” and . “…this is not a rule and the science is complex. The key thing is to not be too close to people for more than a short period of time, as much as you can.” They have taken it on themselves to rearrange the road and pavement layout – possibly introducing other hazards, who knows – to facilitate guidance which is by no means mandatory and which will, in all probability be officially altered next week.
If you’d rather not become one of the statistics (and let’s face it, who does?) and your paranoia leads you to believe the roads have to be narrowed to allow you to leave your house safely that’s your call, But your view, coupled with my observations of people I see out and about leads me, even as an idiot who cannot possibly have any understanding of these things, to stand by my contention, that the country has lost its marbles. Not only that – it needs to regain them rather quickly even if local authorities such as Colchester are making it hard for them to do so.
Edited by Middleman on 21/06/2020 at 11:17
|
|
"The entire 2m guidance is absolutely unnecessary outdoors (and scarcely necessary indoors come to that)."
This is wrong. The Cheltenham Racing Festival, held March 9th-13th was an outdoor event which accelerated COVID-19 infection rates in the GL51 postcode producing a death toll double that of Bristol, Swindon and Bath, which are all more densely populated areas.
This disease spread globally over the course of 6 months due to proximity. There are three outbreaks in progress currently, at three meat processing plants in the UK. Due to proximity of workers. I, for one, will maintain 2m for the foreseeable future until such time as a vaccine is found, or herd immunity is genuinely reached and proven. We owe that responsibility to all those working to beat this b***** thing.
Edited by Sulphur Man on 21/06/2020 at 11:37
|
|
|
|
|
|
If its a major A route, the mayor, nor the local council wont have actioned this. County councils are responsible for A routes and have received funds from central government to implement this. So it's likely nearly all COVID distancing measures will be on County responsible roads.
For those discussing the 2m rule, the temporary space measures are to allow high street shops to implement queuing systems on pavements, whilst still allowing passing pedestrians safe distance to get by. The big supermarkets can simply cone off a bank of their own car spaces to make a queuing system. High st chemists, butchers and bakers dont have that luxury and so will struggle for trade unless they decide to wilfully break the law.
It's a good measure. Any business that thinks the loss of a few car spaces and a narrower road will impact profits needs a better business model.
|
High st chemists, butchers and bakers dont have that luxury and so will struggle for trade unless they decide to wilfully break the law.
As I have outlined above, the 2m separation suggestion is guidance to be followed where possible. It is not law.
|
High st chemists, butchers and bakers dont have that luxury and so will struggle for trade unless they decide to wilfully break the law.
As I have outlined above, the 2m separation suggestion is guidance to be followed where possible. It is not law.
I have wondered if the extreme cautionary measures are a result of Boris's bad experience: if he'd had minor symptoms the policies might have been less restrictive.
|
|
Taking precautions is not something I readily associate with Boris;-)
|
This is wrong. The Cheltenham Racing Festival, held March 9th-13th was an outdoor event which accelerated COVID-19 infection rates in the GL51 postcode producing a death toll double that of Bristol, Swindon and Bath, which are all more densely populated areas.
There is a difference between 50,000 people gathering at a racecourse and two people passing each other in the street. The former is illegal under current regulations the latter is not. Whether the government's lockdown (of which the legislation preventing gatherings is part) was the correct way to tackle the outbreak is a discussion for elsewhere. This is about the ridiculous measures some councils seem to be going to in order to facilitate a piece of guidance which is advisory, which says that the risks being mitigated are absolutely minimal and where the measure are out of all proportion to those risks.
|
|
Clearly there's no goalpost you cannot move.
In the Armed Forces there's a saying for people who are a hindrance and a risk, not a valued member of the unit for the benefit of the whole. It goes 'dont want them in my trench'.
Find another trench.
|
Clearly there's no goalpost you cannot move.
It seems that the principle goalpost that has been moved is the one which formed part of the government's original guidance on "social distancing." When first published it stated that people should avoid being within two metres of another person for more than 15 minutes. The time element of that advice seems to have been lost in the hysteria created by supermarkets and councils devising schemes to prevent people passing by each other just momentarily with less than that separation. This is despite the government's current advice suggesting that the risk of infection from such an encounter is absolutely minimal.
The population is fast becoming a group of hysterical and paranoid people who treat any encounter at closer than two metres with another person as potentially fatal. Many believe they will continue to do so until either the virus is eliminated or a vaccine in found. Since neither of those is remotely likely they are in for a long wait and I'm afraid they will have to develop ways to keep 2m clear of me and my fellow irresponsible freedom seekers rather than I find ways to avoid them.
|
|
The population is fast becoming a group of hysterical and paranoid people who treat any encounter at closer than two metres with another person as potentially fatal. Many believe they will continue to do so until either the virus is eliminated or a vaccine in found.
Not surprising given how bad it is, problem is if you are a carrier and pass it on to some unsuspecting person/s, you wont know if they die as you only passed them.
and as there are many people out there with the same attitude, I would steer clear as I dont know if you/anyone else are carrying the virus
|
|
<< Many believe they will continue to do so until either the virus is eliminated or a vaccine in found. Since neither of those is remotely likely they are in for a long wait and I'm afraid they will have to develop ways to keep 2m clear of me and my fellow irresponsible freedom seekers rather than I find ways to avoid them. >>
+ 1. Risks in a normal life cannot be reduced to zero. The human existence is based on familiarity with known risks and adapting behaviour to correspond with them. If a particular threat fails to appear for a year we probably start to assume that it won't. That may be part of the reason for the odd riot or two we have seen recently.
|
|
A few very basic thoughts:
Thought 1
Transmission is largely about proximity to another who is infected. Assume that any release of virus forms a cone as it speads from a single point (mouth).
The density of virus particles will decline by at least the square of the distance (4 times) - simple maths for the area of a disc. The reality is somewhat higher as air movement (esp outside) will disperse the virus, and there comes a point where the virus is so dispersed as to pose no material risk.
To assert that reducing distancing makes no difference to the risk is patently rediculous - unless there is no infection in the community. Distancing is just part of a range of measures to control spread - masks, handwashing, perspex screens etc etc - not a policy sitting in beautiful isolation from all others.
Thought 2
The government has spent three months promoting lockdown behaviours. One of the key tools has been creating fear to encourage compliance with the rules. Many are now actually scared to venture outside their front door.
They now want people in the shops to help avoid wrecking the economy. They need to create the illusion of safety - keep your distance, wear a mask etc is the route to salvation. Making the pavements wider is part of the illusion - possibly unecessary but a bit of traffic congestion may be a small price to pay to save jobs and the economy.
Thought 3
Rationally the risk outdoors is low. Infection in the community is about 1 in 2000. So it is unlikely that you will go anywhere near an infected person on your shopping trip.
As an argument this only makes sense if you are tolerably numerate - most of the general public are not.
It also assumes that personal attutudes to personal risk are the same as attitudes towards generic risk. Around 100 people are dying, and many ore being saved albeit with chronic illnesses, each day. I am reminded of Clint Eastwood movie "do you feel lucky today"
|
|
The rthing is : "people" are not a homogeneous bunch. Some are old, some young, some with diabetes, some not, some obese, some not,some BAME, some not.
Risks for the old, obese, diabetic,BAME - are higher - often a LOT higher.
And in outside events, there are toilets and bars which are enlcosed spaces.
And you have a small minority who are infected - or claim to be - and enjoy coughing/spittting at health staff/poloce etc..
You have to cater for the idiots - ie. abou some young who go toe illegal raves - and are surprised when they are raped, or assaulted and no police help them..
Some people need to be protected from temeselves as they act as they have no common sense.
|
|
And you have a small minority who are infected - or claim to be - and enjoy coughing/spittting at health staff/poloce etc
I have been watching the footie and I thought one of the conditions for allowing the resumption was NO spitting. Fat chance, there it is on the pitch and the players on the floor with their usual theatrics, but wait, there is no audience!
|
|
Swab testing involves sticking it right to the back of the throat and deep into the nose. Failure to do that results in a likely negative test. My take on that is that casual proximity to someone is low risk but being sneezed or gobbled on is high risk.
|
|
|
|
|
