I don’t think the headline “Was the two-metre rule one big lie?” really does the article any favours. Firstly, of course, a rule can’t really be a “lie”, since a rule is an imperative, not an indicative. If you read it as “Was [the claim that] the two-metre rule [was based on science, or the science that it was based on,] one big lie?”, then the author answers the question herself: No (in accordance with Betteridge’s Law)
The headline might have read “Did the Government change the two-metre rule as soon as the science behind it became clearer?” A reasonable question, to which the answer is “Probably not”. But even so, the underlying implication that there is some distance, be it one or two metres, which is somehow “safe” whereas some other smaller distance is “unsafe”, is too simple. The question, too long for a headline, might be “What are the risks involved in 1 versus 2 metre separation, compared to all the other factors, and did the Government time its shift correctly to accord with current understanding of all those risks and balance them against other risks and benefits?” To which the answer is: Nobody knows.
Yeah the article is trying to have its cake and eat it.
The 2m rule was brought in as a rough guide that’s easy to follow. Waiting for the “truth” would have meant no action and nothing – we still don’t have the answer now.
In short these guidelines are what you expect – guidelines for things where there is no empirical answer available but some action is required. Question them by all means as a general point – but what is your alternative? There is none.
No, by “science” I mean conclusions drawn from reproducible experiments and published in peer-reviewed literature which can be understood be reasonably competent and literate people.
You are missing the point Richard. The game these days is to rant and rave as much as possible so as to attract clicks to yourself. So if you invert all the substance of the article ( UK stuck to 1m while WHO raised it to 2) then the screaming from this journo would have been exactly the same.
Do you know who formulates the headlines at Unherd? Sometimes it is completely out of the author’s hands.
Dougie Undersub
3 years ago
When the message was changed from Stay at Home to Stay Alert, the media complained it was confusing. We can be sure the media would have criticised a reduction from 2m to 1m as confusing, against the science, reckless. The Government can only take on so many fights at a time. The media has a lot to answer for.
David Bell
3 years ago
The problem is there have been to many political decisions for political reason. You only have to look at Scotland and Wales to see how two national assemblies are trying to differentiate themselves from Boris Johnson by ramping up fear. Covid 19 has been sighted by remainers as a reason to extend the EU transaction period by 2 years!
Covid 19 has become a reason to do (or not do) so many things which are completely unrelated to the virus and public health!
paul chandler
3 years ago
While not disagreeing with the thrust of the article, I note that the writer says ‘2 metres was the standard recommended distance…’. Where does this come from? The only standard reference I can find is the Centre for Disease Control suggesting 3 feet. We mustn’t let the government off this hook so easily.
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Of course it was a big lie. Everything they told us was a big lie. Everything the state says and does is a big lie. if you have reached the age of 30 and not understood this you are an idiot. Even worse, our eternally useless and self-serving state apparatus – particularly the revolting and sanctimonious NHS – completely failed to protect the very people who were most vulnerable. Namely, the old and public transport workers etc. Really, the headline is perhaps the most absurd statement of the obvious in the entire history of ‘journalism’.
I understand why people don’t see the lies they’ve been told.
Even though I understand it frustrates me and leaves me with a feeling of despise and sometimes anger towards whom defend the most absurd idiotic portrays of reality and the characters that represent that reality.
The problem of calling them “idiots” “zombies” or any preferred adjective it doesn’t solve anything, on the contrary makes it worst. Creates more division among us, and thats exactly how they win by creating this tribal wars. 1984 in a nutshell
I agree, but here’s a bit of hyperbole going on there I think (rather like some politicians perhaps?). Sometimes we’re told (an approximation to) the truth, but everything you’re ever told needs treating with a degree of scepticism. Including the above comment (& this one!).
The revolting and sanctimonious NHS. Wow, you sound angry.
The problem is with the NHS is that it has been used as a political play thing for far too long, and we haven’t yet had the chance to have a national conversation about what we want from the system and how much people are willing to pay for it, and how they are willing to pay. Until then it will be the political football it’s always been, and the enormous layers of bureaucracy and management will still exist. We need a clear direction and vision.
The ‘failure’ to protect the vulnerable was coming for years, the crisis in social care provision, particularly community care has been acute for years, probably back to the Blair government and further. Every government and health minister from then has failed to do anything to solve it, though Andy Burnham did come close before Labour were booted out of office
The NHS as a model of delivering healthcare to a population is the worst i have across anywhere – and I have lived in four different countries. Its record on successful treatment levels across a whole range of diseases is one of the worst in the developed world. Healthcare should be denationalised and we should be allowed to choose the providers and level of care we want, via a minimal state subsidy and private insurance. We could have a better service at less cost (the NHS is one of the largest consumers of our taxes).
Further, I am highly irritated by the condescending and patronising tones that doctors (& even nurses) use towards me, as if I am lucky to be treated, and i must not question anything. Give me a service with choice, and I could leave these beings to their inevitable economic decline, and pay instead those in the profession who treat one as an adult.
Trevor Law
3 years ago
Probably not a lie, in the sense of a deliberate deception, but you are right to point out the (sometimes unhinged) reality of public health advice. After all, possibly the biggest mass murderer in recent history was Ancel Keyes, whose dishonest findings from his Seven Countries study ultimately led to a huge (and still growing) increase in diabetes and related illnesses as millions were persuaded to leave off the animal fats and instead gorge on grains, High Fructose Corn Syrup and manufactured vegetable oils. The problem with “independent experts” is that they are seldom as expert or as independent as we (or they) think they are.
It was a deliberate deception. SAGE minutes show that. It was accepted that the so-called science indicated 1 metre, but it was decided that the UK population would not really follow that, so 2 metres was implemented to introduce a wider safety margin in the event of poor compliance.
Just remind us which of the 38 meetings minutes you’re referring to?
Neil Stanworth
3 years ago
I have always found the 2m rule irritating because in the official guidance we were told to maintain distance of 2m or (brackets) 6 feet. But 2 metres is not six feet – it is about 6ft 7ins; as anyone who has bought timber in modern metric lengths knows, six feet is about 1.8m. This may seem excessively pedantic but there was then debate about whether the limit should be dropped to 1.5 m – or almost exactly 5 feet. So we were basically arguing about one foot or 30 cms – depending on your metric v imperial preference. It has also been apparent to me for weeks that few if anyone one standing in a supermarket queue knows what 2 metres is – or 6 feet come to that – and most tend to stand much closer. But it didn’t much matter because there is clear evidence that the risk of transmission outdoors is low, even at 1 metre. Meantime the BBC science editor never missed a chance to run his ridiculous animation (based on dubious US research) showing how we were in mortal peril from a sneeze at up to 8 metres. I’m sure 2m was never that scientific, and derived from the assumption that we would default to 1 – 1.5m, due to a mixture of insouciance and ignorance. Now we are at I metre I am happy: it is plenty close enough for me, and i have no desire to get closer than that to anyone other than my wife and children.
Personally I’d always assumed 2m spacing as a ‘rule of thumb’ rather than some precise measurement. Walking down the street it’s impossible to avoid other pedestrians by 2m, unless you want to jump into the road! Most supermarket aisles are the same – even if it’s one-way, some people stop while others pass.
When you are moving you need a bit of a buffer, so 2m makes sense for those times when you can’t avoid getting closer. But when it comes to people sitting down – whether in offices, classrooms or cinemas for that matter, you can keep them spaced out, albeit with the occasional reminder!
I agree with the gyms that it seems an odd message to send that pubs can open but not sports facilities. As long as gyms use staff to disinfect regularly, why not open? Pubs and restaurants will need to do the same with tables, chairs, etc.
mccaffc
3 years ago
“Citizens should be treated as rational actors, capable of taking decisions for themselves and managing personal risk.” Problem: That is precisely what many citizens reject. They do not want to be so treated. They demand to be infantilised with no risk, no uncertainty, no debate. Now, pretending that a republic of thinking citizens exists might still be a good idea as – following J.S. Mill – there is the hope that confronting great debates may improve people.
benbow01
3 years ago
Yes.
Along with all the other lies about this virus.
Paul Theato
3 years ago
Some more valid questions:
“Was the destruction of the economy and the ending of civil liberties worth it to avoid bringing forward the deaths of extremely frail people (with a tiny number of exceptions) by two or three months?”
“What are we doing about China? Full stop”.
“Why is the BBC still allowed to charge a licence fee?”
“How is it that we did not elect a coalition of the Marxist Labour Party, the LibDems and the Green Party and and yet ended up with their government?”
Andrew Hall
3 years ago
You cannot get behind the wheel of a car in the UK without infringing the Highway Code, as a seasoned police driver or driving instructor will tell – or at least, they have told me.In Oxford, the city authority created 20mph speed restrictions in the central area where before there was a 30 mph limit. Why not 10mph? We all vary speed according to circumstance – sometimes zero mph is appropriate and sometimes 30mph in town. So with the “2 metre rule” when negotiating a narrow aisle or busy pavement. It’s all about nudging us around to behaving safely and considerately. I don’t like being nudged and I hate faux scientific argument but I don’t want a loved one run down by a speeding drunken driver either. Government cannot win the argument (tho’ they may punish non-compliance). But better poor governance than none at all and good government is an oxymoron as any fool knows.
There is no sound evidence that 20mph speed limits reduce accidents involving pedestrians. Evidence from the first area where this was piloted (Portsmouth) showed an increase in pedestrian casualties. My own local authority introduced 20mph limits in spite of this and has subsequently admitted that they have been found not to be effective in reducing accidents involving pedestrians – but they cannot now afford to reverse the work! Traffic and transport is another area where evidence based policy making is sadly lacking and little use is make of behavioural science.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the powers that be finally admit the dangers of “smart” motorways. Those will take a lot more ripping out than a few 20 signs and speed humps.
Objective: To quantify the effect of the introduction of 20 mph (32 km an hour) traffic speed zones on road collisions, injuries, and fatalities in London.
Design Observational study based on analysis of geographically coded police data on road casualties, 1986-2006. Analyses were made of longitudinal changes in counts of road injuries within each of 119″‰029 road segments with at least one casualty with conditional fixed effects Poisson models. Estimates of the effect of introducing 20 mph zones on casualties within those zones and in adjacent areas were adjusted for the underlying downward trend in traffic casualties.
Main outcome measures All casualties from road collisions; those killed and seriously injured (KSI).
Results The introduction of 20 mph zones was associated with a 41.9% (95% confidence interval 36.0% to 47.8%) reduction in road casualties, after adjustment for underlying time trends. The percentage reduction was greatest in younger children and greater for the category of killed or seriously injured casualties than for minor injuries. There was no evidence of casualty migration to areas adjacent to 20 mph zones, where casualties also fell slightly by an average of 8.0% (4.4% to 11.5%).
Conclusions 20 mph zones are effective measures for reducing road injuries and deaths.”
David Goldsmith
3 years ago
I have to say that the idea that a single distance “does it” in all situations and in all countries is frankly bizarre. Literally, one size fits all. Only it doesn’t. Given the totally shambolic lamentable failure to contain the virus in February and March due to incompetence and incapacity in centralised health bureaucracies in the UK, we were left with little option but to go for “safety plus” 2 metres. No-one can argue that the infectious risk is reduced at 2 m than at 1 m, even if the benefits are perhaps exaggerated by 2 m extollers. But as we know, and has been admitted, there are extenuations and mitigations. Nuances, if you will. Inside versus outside. Facing apart, facing together. Singing Medieval plainchants or Rolling Stones classics. Etc. We now know that if we take mitigations – say, a mask – and apply these correctly, we can be roughly as safe at 1 m as we were at 2 m. I will agree that this is ALL researchable and the fact that no-one has bothered to do much research on this, or as much as we need, is yet another black mark against Public Death England, and many similar smug organisations. This type of research COULD now be urgently undertaken in the brief pause between the first and any subsequent viral infection surges. We’ll see.
Tom Hawk
3 years ago
What I see is a complete lack of science and research.
It was obvious from the outset that this is an airborne contagion. Therefore good science would start by investigating the mechanics of the contagion. Is exhailed breath contagious or is it just sneezing and coughing? How much virus does an infected person exhale per cough, heathy breathing, normal breathing.
Such research would inform separation rules with facts … but we see none of that sort of thing.
Michael Upton
3 years ago
The striking fact that this solid chunk of commendable British common sense was actually written by someone whom the B.B.C. employs, might almost restore a little bit of one’s lost childhood faith in the now-seemingly malign B.B.C. But perhaps that would be to rush to judgment.
rob oregan
3 years ago
The book entitled “Introducing Martial Law into a Country” stresses that one indicator of blind acquiescence to silly rules is a indicator of probable blind acceprence !
randomnamepot
3 years ago
If the reason of large portion of population is not susceptible to covid-19 is cellular immunity that cross reacts with common cold coronaviruses that we were exposed in the past, then reducing spread of common cold coronaviruses will reduce our cellular immunity to covid-19 just because any immunity fades away. This is a problem. With low prevalence of covid-19 we may harm ourselves with these masks.
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
In all this media hype and hysteria, No one has Asked the 3 Main political parties,why they Closed Isolation hospitals and have Increased Towns,Villages with ‘Endless suburbs” Areas with Less populous ,tend to have less SARS2…I have Seen nothing from opposition parties to say they Would have done better or different, remainers still prattle on about Yet more Extensions,and prop up failing EU
Derek M
3 years ago
Yes
mattclarke153
3 years ago
A lot of viral replication occurs in the mouth – where are the mouth sprays???
TONY.ARKINSTALL
3 years ago
The difference in risk between 2M vs 1M is unknown. Writing articles about untested opinions is pointless. However, the risks of transmitting virus by touching a contaminated surface is well understood and the most likely way of getting a virus. For example when SARS reached Hong Kong only the residents of floor nine were infected by touching the elevator button, I queued at the cash point waiting for four other people to use it. Not one person sanitised their hands before or after using the machine, When is the media and government going to realise that is the ignorance of much of the public that is the real risk?? We should have a campaign and stickers on all doors,hand rails, buttons etc.. NOW SANITIZE YOUR HANDS & DON’T TOUCH YOUR FACE IN A PUBLIC PLACE
I don’t think the headline “Was the two-metre rule one big lie?” really does the article any favours. Firstly, of course, a rule can’t really be a “lie”, since a rule is an imperative, not an indicative. If you read it as “Was [the claim that] the two-metre rule [was based on science, or the science that it was based on,] one big lie?”, then the author answers the question herself: No (in accordance with Betteridge’s Law)
The headline might have read “Did the Government change the two-metre rule as soon as the science behind it became clearer?” A reasonable question, to which the answer is “Probably not”. But even so, the underlying implication that there is some distance, be it one or two metres, which is somehow “safe” whereas some other smaller distance is “unsafe”, is too simple. The question, too long for a headline, might be “What are the risks involved in 1 versus 2 metre separation, compared to all the other factors, and did the Government time its shift correctly to accord with current understanding of all those risks and balance them against other risks and benefits?” To which the answer is: Nobody knows.
Yeah the article is trying to have its cake and eat it.
The 2m rule was brought in as a rough guide that’s easy to follow. Waiting for the “truth” would have meant no action and nothing – we still don’t have the answer now.
In short these guidelines are what you expect – guidelines for things where there is no empirical answer available but some action is required. Question them by all means as a general point – but what is your alternative? There is none.
“Science”? Oh, you mean the pulling a piece of paper from a chapeau once a week or so with the new “science” on it. BravoSierra! Science! Laughable.
No, by “science” I mean conclusions drawn from reproducible experiments and published in peer-reviewed literature which can be understood be reasonably competent and literate people.
Fair enough, except science does not have to be experimental. For example, finding and describing a new species of Banksia.
And what is so good about that? Read some actual facts about “peer review” in http://www.pseudoexpertise.com/ch-...
You are missing the point Richard.
The game these days is to rant and rave as much as possible so as to attract clicks to yourself.
So if you invert all the substance of the article ( UK stuck to 1m while WHO raised it to 2) then the screaming from this journo would have been exactly the same.
Do you know who formulates the headlines at Unherd? Sometimes it is completely out of the author’s hands.
When the message was changed from Stay at Home to Stay Alert, the media complained it was confusing. We can be sure the media would have criticised a reduction from 2m to 1m as confusing, against the science, reckless. The Government can only take on so many fights at a time. The media has a lot to answer for.
The problem is there have been to many political decisions for political reason. You only have to look at Scotland and Wales to see how two national assemblies are trying to differentiate themselves from Boris Johnson by ramping up fear. Covid 19 has been sighted by remainers as a reason to extend the EU transaction period by 2 years!
Covid 19 has become a reason to do (or not do) so many things which are completely unrelated to the virus and public health!
While not disagreeing with the thrust of the article, I note that the writer says ‘2 metres was the standard recommended distance…’. Where does this come from? The only standard reference I can find is the Centre for Disease Control suggesting 3 feet. We mustn’t let the government off this hook so easily.
Of course it was a big lie. Everything they told us was a big lie. Everything the state says and does is a big lie. if you have reached the age of 30 and not understood this you are an idiot. Even worse, our eternally useless and self-serving state apparatus – particularly the revolting and sanctimonious NHS – completely failed to protect the very people who were most vulnerable. Namely, the old and public transport workers etc. Really, the headline is perhaps the most absurd statement of the obvious in the entire history of ‘journalism’.
I understand why people don’t see the lies they’ve been told.
Even though I understand it frustrates me and leaves me with a feeling of despise and sometimes anger towards whom defend the most absurd idiotic portrays of reality and the characters that represent that reality.
The problem of calling them “idiots” “zombies” or any preferred adjective it doesn’t solve anything, on the contrary makes it worst. Creates more division among us, and thats exactly how they win by creating this tribal wars. 1984 in a nutshell
I agree, but here’s a bit of hyperbole going on there I think (rather like some politicians perhaps?). Sometimes we’re told (an approximation to) the truth, but everything you’re ever told needs treating with a degree of scepticism. Including the above comment (& this one!).
I’m intrigued that you think the need for social distancing is a ‘big lie’.
If there was no need for any rule, how could we have protected the old and, erm, bus drivers?
Maybe it’s a lie that all those old and infirm people have actually died. If the govt lie about everything, why believe the death stats?
The revolting and sanctimonious NHS. Wow, you sound angry.
The problem is with the NHS is that it has been used as a political play thing for far too long, and we haven’t yet had the chance to have a national conversation about what we want from the system and how much people are willing to pay for it, and how they are willing to pay. Until then it will be the political football it’s always been, and the enormous layers of bureaucracy and management will still exist. We need a clear direction and vision.
The ‘failure’ to protect the vulnerable was coming for years, the crisis in social care provision, particularly community care has been acute for years, probably back to the Blair government and further. Every government and health minister from then has failed to do anything to solve it, though Andy Burnham did come close before Labour were booted out of office
The NHS as a model of delivering healthcare to a population is the worst i have across anywhere – and I have lived in four different countries. Its record on successful treatment levels across a whole range of diseases is one of the worst in the developed world. Healthcare should be denationalised and we should be allowed to choose the providers and level of care we want, via a minimal state subsidy and private insurance. We could have a better service at less cost (the NHS is one of the largest consumers of our taxes).
Further, I am highly irritated by the condescending and patronising tones that doctors (& even nurses) use towards me, as if I am lucky to be treated, and i must not question anything. Give me a service with choice, and I could leave these beings to their inevitable economic decline, and pay instead those in the profession who treat one as an adult.
Probably not a lie, in the sense of a deliberate deception, but you are right to point out the (sometimes unhinged) reality of public health advice. After all, possibly the biggest mass murderer in recent history was Ancel Keyes, whose dishonest findings from his Seven Countries study ultimately led to a huge (and still growing) increase in diabetes and related illnesses as millions were persuaded to leave off the animal fats and instead gorge on grains, High Fructose Corn Syrup and manufactured vegetable oils. The problem with “independent experts” is that they are seldom as expert or as independent as we (or they) think they are.
It was a deliberate deception. SAGE minutes show that. It was accepted that the so-called science indicated 1 metre, but it was decided that the UK population would not really follow that, so 2 metres was implemented to introduce a wider safety margin in the event of poor compliance.
Thus a lie.
Just remind us which of the 38 meetings minutes you’re referring to?
I have always found the 2m rule irritating because in the official guidance we were told to maintain distance of 2m or (brackets) 6 feet. But 2 metres is not six feet – it is about 6ft 7ins; as anyone who has bought timber in modern metric lengths knows, six feet is about 1.8m. This may seem excessively pedantic but there was then debate about whether the limit should be dropped to 1.5 m – or almost exactly 5 feet. So we were basically arguing about one foot or 30 cms – depending on your metric v imperial preference.
It has also been apparent to me for weeks that few if anyone one standing in a supermarket queue knows what 2 metres is – or 6 feet come to that – and most tend to stand much closer. But it didn’t much matter because there is clear evidence that the risk of transmission outdoors is low, even at 1 metre.
Meantime the BBC science editor never missed a chance to run his ridiculous animation (based on dubious US research) showing how we were in mortal peril from a sneeze at up to 8 metres.
I’m sure 2m was never that scientific, and derived from the assumption that we would default to 1 – 1.5m, due to a mixture of insouciance and ignorance. Now we are at I metre I am happy: it is plenty close enough for me, and i have no desire to get closer than that to anyone other than my wife and children.
Personally I’d always assumed 2m spacing as a ‘rule of thumb’ rather than some precise measurement. Walking down the street it’s impossible to avoid other pedestrians by 2m, unless you want to jump into the road! Most supermarket aisles are the same – even if it’s one-way, some people stop while others pass.
When you are moving you need a bit of a buffer, so 2m makes sense for those times when you can’t avoid getting closer. But when it comes to people sitting down – whether in offices, classrooms or cinemas for that matter, you can keep them spaced out, albeit with the occasional reminder!
I agree with the gyms that it seems an odd message to send that pubs can open but not sports facilities. As long as gyms use staff to disinfect regularly, why not open? Pubs and restaurants will need to do the same with tables, chairs, etc.
“Citizens should be treated as rational actors, capable of taking decisions for themselves and managing personal risk.” Problem: That is precisely what many citizens reject. They do not want to be so treated. They demand to be infantilised with no risk, no uncertainty, no debate. Now, pretending that a republic of thinking citizens exists might still be a good idea as – following J.S. Mill – there is the hope that confronting great debates may improve people.
Yes.
Along with all the other lies about this virus.
Some more valid questions:
“Was the destruction of the economy and the ending of civil liberties worth it to avoid bringing forward the deaths of extremely frail people (with a tiny number of exceptions) by two or three months?”
“What are we doing about China? Full stop”.
“Why is the BBC still allowed to charge a licence fee?”
“How is it that we did not elect a coalition of the Marxist Labour Party, the LibDems and the Green Party and and yet ended up with their government?”
You cannot get behind the wheel of a car in the UK without infringing the Highway Code, as a seasoned police driver or driving instructor will tell – or at least, they have told me.In Oxford, the city authority created 20mph speed restrictions in the central area where before there was a 30 mph limit. Why not 10mph? We all vary speed according to circumstance – sometimes zero mph is appropriate and sometimes 30mph in town. So with the “2 metre rule” when negotiating a narrow aisle or busy pavement. It’s all about nudging us around to behaving safely and considerately. I don’t like being nudged and I hate faux scientific argument but I don’t want a loved one run down by a speeding drunken driver either. Government cannot win the argument (tho’ they may punish non-compliance). But better poor governance than none at all and good government is an oxymoron as any fool knows.
There is no sound evidence that 20mph speed limits reduce accidents involving pedestrians. Evidence from the first area where this was piloted (Portsmouth) showed an increase in pedestrian casualties. My own local authority introduced 20mph limits in spite of this and has subsequently admitted that they have been found not to be effective in reducing accidents involving pedestrians – but they cannot now afford to reverse the work! Traffic and transport is another area where evidence based policy making is sadly lacking and little use is make of behavioural science.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the powers that be finally admit the dangers of “smart” motorways. Those will take a lot more ripping out than a few 20 signs and speed humps.
Abstract
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b4469
Objective: To quantify the effect of the introduction of 20 mph (32 km an hour) traffic speed zones on road collisions, injuries, and fatalities in London.
Design Observational study based on analysis of geographically coded police data on road casualties, 1986-2006. Analyses were made of longitudinal changes in counts of road injuries within each of 119″‰029 road segments with at least one casualty with conditional fixed effects Poisson models. Estimates of the effect of introducing 20 mph zones on casualties within those zones and in adjacent areas were adjusted for the underlying downward trend in traffic casualties.
Main outcome measures All casualties from road collisions; those killed and seriously injured (KSI).
Results The introduction of 20 mph zones was associated with a 41.9% (95% confidence interval 36.0% to 47.8%) reduction in road casualties, after adjustment for underlying time trends. The percentage reduction was greatest in younger children and greater for the category of killed or seriously injured casualties than for minor injuries. There was no evidence of casualty migration to areas adjacent to 20 mph zones, where casualties also fell slightly by an average of 8.0% (4.4% to 11.5%).
Conclusions 20 mph zones are effective measures for reducing road injuries and deaths.”
I have to say that the idea that a single distance “does it” in all situations and in all countries is frankly bizarre. Literally, one size fits all. Only it doesn’t. Given the totally shambolic lamentable failure to contain the virus in February and March due to incompetence and incapacity in centralised health bureaucracies in the UK, we were left with little option but to go for “safety plus” 2 metres. No-one can argue that the infectious risk is reduced at 2 m than at 1 m, even if the benefits are perhaps exaggerated by 2 m extollers. But as we know, and has been admitted, there are extenuations and mitigations. Nuances, if you will. Inside versus outside. Facing apart, facing together. Singing Medieval plainchants or Rolling Stones classics. Etc. We now know that if we take mitigations – say, a mask – and apply these correctly, we can be roughly as safe at 1 m as we were at 2 m. I will agree that this is ALL researchable and the fact that no-one has bothered to do much research on this, or as much as we need, is yet another black mark against Public Death England, and many similar smug organisations. This type of research COULD now be urgently undertaken in the brief pause between the first and any subsequent viral infection surges. We’ll see.
What I see is a complete lack of science and research.
It was obvious from the outset that this is an airborne contagion. Therefore good science would start by investigating the mechanics of the contagion. Is exhailed breath contagious or is it just sneezing and coughing? How much virus does an infected person exhale per cough, heathy breathing, normal breathing.
Such research would inform separation rules with facts … but we see none of that sort of thing.
The striking fact that this solid chunk of commendable British common sense was actually written by someone whom the B.B.C. employs, might almost restore a little bit of one’s lost childhood faith in the now-seemingly malign B.B.C. But perhaps that would be to rush to judgment.
The book entitled “Introducing Martial Law into a Country” stresses that one indicator of blind acquiescence to silly rules is a indicator of probable blind acceprence !
If the reason of large portion of population is not susceptible to covid-19 is cellular immunity that cross reacts with common cold coronaviruses that we were exposed in the past, then reducing spread of common cold coronaviruses will reduce our cellular immunity to covid-19 just because any immunity fades away. This is a problem. With low prevalence of covid-19 we may harm ourselves with these masks.
In all this media hype and hysteria, No one has Asked the 3 Main political parties,why they Closed Isolation hospitals and have Increased Towns,Villages with ‘Endless suburbs” Areas with Less populous ,tend to have less SARS2…I have Seen nothing from opposition parties to say they Would have done better or different, remainers still prattle on about Yet more Extensions,and prop up failing EU
Yes
A lot of viral replication occurs in the mouth – where are the mouth sprays???
The difference in risk between 2M vs 1M is unknown. Writing articles about untested opinions is pointless. However, the risks of transmitting virus by touching a contaminated surface is well understood and the most likely way of getting a virus. For example when SARS reached Hong Kong only the residents of floor nine were infected by touching the elevator button, I queued at the cash point waiting for four other people to use it. Not one person sanitised their hands before or after using the machine, When is the media and government going to realise that is the ignorance of much of the public that is the real risk?? We should have a campaign and stickers on all doors,hand rails, buttons etc.. NOW SANITIZE YOUR HANDS & DON’T TOUCH YOUR FACE IN A PUBLIC PLACE
Miss you asked a question. Yes is the answer.