Two metre rule

[Peter F]

Apparently Germany has a 1.5m distancing rule. Would anyone like to point out the differences between German levels of success in dealing with the pandemic compared to the UK levels of success?

Just pointing out that distance is possibly the least important factor in dealing with the virus.

The reasons why Germany has had more success than the UK is that they locked down sooner, they have a better funded health service and they did much more thorough testing.

This is not an example of why the 2m is meaningless. Distancing is important if you cannot avoid social interactions all together.

[Paulatic]

Apparently Germany has a 1.5m distancing rule. Would anyone like to point out the differences between German levels of success in dealing with the pandemic compared to the UK levels of success?

Just pointing out that distance is possibly the least important factor in dealing with the virus.

The reasons why Germany has had more success than the UK is that they locked down sooner, they have a better funded health service and they did much more thorough testing.

and as TM points out the actual distance appears to be not an important factor. The things you mention appear more important.

This is not an example of why the 2m is meaningless. Distancing is important if you cannot avoid social interactions all together.

15 minutes in the same room then possibly. Passing someone on a cyclepath lasting 2 or 3 seconds. Pull the other one.

[mjr]

We live on a terraced Street with our front doors opening straight into the footway.i very much doubt you'd have a problem with front doors hitting cyclists because there's often a pavement that's got enough space plus doors open inwards.

I lived on such a terraced street in the old fishing quarter roughly 1999-2006. Doors open inwards, but feet go outwards and sometimes a torso follows quickly enough to sit a careless walker on their bum! Sometimes, the first thing out the door is a front wheel with a substantial postman-style rack above it. Smart people soon learn not to skim the front doors and alley gates.

[Jdsk]

Current WHO guidance is "at least 1 m".
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public

Jonathan

[Tangled Metal]

Apparently Germany has a 1.5m distancing rule. Would anyone like to point out the differences between German levels of success in dealing with the pandemic compared to the UK levels of success?

Just pointing out that distance is possibly the least important factor in dealing with the virus.

The reasons why Germany has had more success than the UK is that they locked down sooner, they have a better funded health service and they did much more thorough testing.

This is not an example of why the 2m is meaningless. Distancing is important if you cannot avoid social interactions all together.

You totally missed my point. Germany has a lower distance but better performance in the fight against COVID 19. That indicates other aspects have higher importance than the distance 2m for social distancing. Germany has focused more on things of more importance perhaps? They did the right thing at the right time and more of it. No doubt testing, tracking and tracing too.

The other point to note, the virus might come out of the infected in droplets which theoretically fall within 2m. However those droplets apparently break up (my words) into a finer aerosol which doesn't drop out. A few weeks back I heard that most viruses transmit better in one of these size of water particles but they don't know which. There's evidence it's aerosol which means 2m is probably a worthless figure and the 1930s research is irrelevant. Another point is you need to get enough virus into you to get it. They do not have a clue what this viral load is. It's important because breathing, coughing and sneezing distributes the virus different levels of efficiency. Breathing might give you 200 viral particles, sneezing 500 but you might need 1000. Then again half a sneeze load might not even get into your respiratory system even if you're close up.

Basically there's not enough research to give a distancing figure, they have no idea so every scientist if asked gives their best guess for politicians to make the rules with. Then the population obsesses over it until complacency or frustration sets in. In the end it's not what will have the biggest effect on COVID 19 by a long measure. 1m or 2m, not as important as testing, track and trace.

[Tangled Metal]

We live on a terraced Street with our front doors opening straight into the footway.i very much doubt you'd have a problem with front doors hitting cyclists because there's often a pavement that's got enough space plus doors open inwards.

I lived on such a terraced street in the old fishing quarter roughly 1999-2006. Doors open inwards, but feet go outwards and sometimes a torso follows quickly enough to sit a careless walker on their bum! Sometimes, the first thing out the door is a front wheel with a substantial postman-style rack above it. Smart people soon learn not to skim the front doors and alley gates.

Not many fishing quarters across the UK and if you live there I bet you'll account for that.

There's always staithes in the North East of England that has houses opening out onto narrow walkways where 2m is impossible to achieve. I wonder if they've made them one way only with 2m distance mankind along the footpaths threading their way through them???

[Bmblbzzz]

Regarding virus (or bacteria) transmission, the risk is probabilistic. It is not a case of "over this distance safe, under it dangerous". The more distance you can put between yourself and other persons, the safer; the less, the more hazardous.

But I think the point of this thread was passing distances in the road safety sense. If a successful campaign could be built on the back of social distancing and the increased numbers on bikes, then good.

[peetee]

Regarding virus (or bacteria) transmission, the risk is probabilistic. It is not a case of "over this distance safe, under it dangerous". The more distance you can put between yourself and other persons, the safer; the less, the more hazardous.

But I think the point of this thread was passing distances in the road safety sense. If a successful campaign could be built on the back of social distancing and the increased numbers on bikes, then good.

Thank you, that’s exactly the point I was making in the OP. However, I fear the opportunity has passed. The populace as a whole appears to be back to its frenetic activities and the pace of life Is taking folk in the opposite direction to tolerance.

As for distancing in relation to infection I think that immediate environment is the deciding factor in risk. Two cyclist riding side by side will, in all likelihood, be in entirely separate air space but one cyclist following another, even 5m away will inhale some of the same air the first has exhaled.

[Mike Sales]

The Guardian reports a study part funded by WHO and published in The Lancet.
It says that halving the distance from 2m to 1m could double the risk of infection.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/risk-of-infection-could-double-if-2-metre-rule-reduced-study-finds

[Cyril Haearn]

Could be true, or not, nobody knows, I feel it might be true
Best to keep as much distance as possible in any case, that is a no-brainer

[mjr]

Regarding virus (or bacteria) transmission, the risk is probabilistic. It is not a case of "over this distance safe, under it dangerous". The more distance you can put between yourself and other persons, the safer; the less, the more hazardous.

The most credible theory IMO is that it is not only probabilistic but also cumulative (in that you need to consume some number of virus particles to succumb to infection, and that number varies by person), but I don't know what period it clears/dissipates over. So it may be that 2 hours at 2.5m is as risky as 15 minutes at 2m on average, and that that 2 hours can be clocked up over the course of a day, but that's just an illustration.

There's so much about this we still don't know and it'd be great to say just be cautious but there's a point where that really hinders health in other ways, physical or mental. The riskiest thing I've done is probably either go for a blood test or shopped in a badly-managed supermarket. I could have avoided both but then I'd not know if my drugs were about to kill me and I'd have had a more limited diet and probably less money or had to travel and queue again elsewhere, none of which are good for me.

It's a big balancing act crossed with gambling. Good luck, everyone!

[Bmblbzzz]

Regarding virus (or bacteria) transmission, the risk is probabilistic. It is not a case of "over this distance safe, under it dangerous". The more distance you can put between yourself and other persons, the safer; the less, the more hazardous.

The most credible theory IMO is that it is not only probabilistic but also cumulative (in that you need to consume some number of virus particles to succumb to infection, and that number varies by person), but I don't know what period it clears/dissipates over. So it may be that 2 hours at 2.5m is as risky as 15 minutes at 2m on average, and that that 2 hours can be clocked up over the course of a day, but that's just an illustration.

Yes, this is another way of saying the same thing. You could get ill from one sole virion, but it's more likely that your immune system would kill it before it had a chance to become established. Distance and time are both factors in limiting (or increasing) the number of virions you are likely to inhale (or be subjected to, they can also enter through eyes).

There's so much about this we still don't know and it'd be great to say just be cautious but there's a point where that really hinders health in other ways, physical or mental. The riskiest thing I've done is probably either go for a blood test or shopped in a badly-managed supermarket. I could have avoided both but then I'd not know if my drugs were about to kill me and I'd have had a more limited diet and probably less money or had to travel and queue again elsewhere, none of which are good for me.

It's a big balancing act crossed with gambling. Good luck, everyone!

It's a terribly risky balancing act with winners and losers on both sides but the awful thing is that the losers are going to outnumber the winners, whether you go for a total martial-law house-arrest lockdown, do nothing at all, or some balance. In the meantime, we can/could hope to enjoy some quieter roads and cleaner air.

[Peter F]

Basically there's not enough research to give a distancing figure, they have no idea so every scientist if asked gives their best guess for politicians to make the rules with. Then the population obsesses over it until complacency or frustration sets in. In the end it's not what will have the biggest effect on COVID 19 by a long measure. 1m or 2m, not as important as testing, track and trace.

I think to say that they have "no idea" is just wrong. They do have an idea, a pretty good idea. The issue is one of risk and of course the specific number, be it, 1m, 6ft or 2m, is a balance of risk.

No people shouldn't be getting worked up about someone passing closer than 2m briefly outside. The issue is really people who completely ignore it.

Yes, other measures are far more important, but that doesn't mean we can just ignore social distancing and that it isn't important.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct0px8