Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Boris Announces 2M Rule Down To 1M
78 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by MargoTester. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"One Metre Plus" is intended to be in place of 2m, where 2m isn't possible. it means that people can be one metre away from people they don't live with, provided they make additional efforts to protect themselves.
"additional efforts" could mean avoiding face-to-face seating, reducing the number of people inside establishments, improving ventilation, installing protective screens and additional hand sanitiser. Allegedly the "plus" in this new guidance would be the same, in terms of public safety, as the existing two-metre guidance.
"additional efforts" could mean avoiding face-to-face seating, reducing the number of people inside establishments, improving ventilation, installing protective screens and additional hand sanitiser. Allegedly the "plus" in this new guidance would be the same, in terms of public safety, as the existing two-metre guidance.
It is rubbish really in the sense that a lot of people are ignoring it.
But the thing is I am sure the government is well aware of that. It’s a case of persisting with it in the hope they enough people will still do it.
This is really a slow climb down in a way that as much as anything manages people’s fears.
A slightly different climbdown from that if the airport quarantine nonsense which will be binned with a series of “exceptions” before being laid to rest
But the thing is I am sure the government is well aware of that. It’s a case of persisting with it in the hope they enough people will still do it.
This is really a slow climb down in a way that as much as anything manages people’s fears.
A slightly different climbdown from that if the airport quarantine nonsense which will be binned with a series of “exceptions” before being laid to rest
//Not for anyone with an ounce of sense.//
Let’s look at “distancing” in a bit of detail (which, alas, few people do). The WHO original guidance on the subject was that people should avoid close proximity with people for a prolonged period. It defined close proximity as closer than 1m and a prolonged period as more than 15 minutes. The UK chose to gold plate that advice to 2m, the time element was all but forgotten and “advice” to be taken where possible was interpreted as a “rule” which could not be broken under any circumstances. So ridiculous was this interpretation that we have seen people swerving off the pavement and into the road to avoid (what they see as ) “close contact”, we see extraordinary behaviour in supermarkets and we see local authorities narrowing roads in order to widen pavements. None of this is “avoiding where possible”. It has become an hysterical, paranoid reaction to a threat which is miniscule. Just how miniscule? 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 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 their exhalations. The UK government’s own advice states that you are unlikely to be infected if you walk past another person in the street. 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 I think the people with an ounce of sense are not those who swerve off the pavement or rant at somebody who passes by them in the supermarket aisle. Rather it is those who have weighed up the risk (which is the product of likelihood and impact) and made their own minds up.
//ymb. What a load of cobblers.The young are not immune.//
No they are not immune. But the chances of them being seriously ill as a result of the virus are exceedingly small. Yes I understand that they can pass it on to somebody who might be more seriously affected but we need to regain sight of what the lockdown was for. It was to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed (which was successful). It was not designed to prevent the virus spreading to anybody anywhere (which is impossible). Asking those not vulnerable to put their lives on hold to protect those who are is not sustainable. Life is not risk free and as soon as everybody realises that (and the government tells them so in no uncertain words) the sooner we can restore some sanity to a nation that is behaving in increasingly bizarre manners.
Let’s look at “distancing” in a bit of detail (which, alas, few people do). The WHO original guidance on the subject was that people should avoid close proximity with people for a prolonged period. It defined close proximity as closer than 1m and a prolonged period as more than 15 minutes. The UK chose to gold plate that advice to 2m, the time element was all but forgotten and “advice” to be taken where possible was interpreted as a “rule” which could not be broken under any circumstances. So ridiculous was this interpretation that we have seen people swerving off the pavement and into the road to avoid (what they see as ) “close contact”, we see extraordinary behaviour in supermarkets and we see local authorities narrowing roads in order to widen pavements. None of this is “avoiding where possible”. It has become an hysterical, paranoid reaction to a threat which is miniscule. Just how miniscule? 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 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 their exhalations. The UK government’s own advice states that you are unlikely to be infected if you walk past another person in the street. 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 I think the people with an ounce of sense are not those who swerve off the pavement or rant at somebody who passes by them in the supermarket aisle. Rather it is those who have weighed up the risk (which is the product of likelihood and impact) and made their own minds up.
//ymb. What a load of cobblers.The young are not immune.//
No they are not immune. But the chances of them being seriously ill as a result of the virus are exceedingly small. Yes I understand that they can pass it on to somebody who might be more seriously affected but we need to regain sight of what the lockdown was for. It was to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed (which was successful). It was not designed to prevent the virus spreading to anybody anywhere (which is impossible). Asking those not vulnerable to put their lives on hold to protect those who are is not sustainable. Life is not risk free and as soon as everybody realises that (and the government tells them so in no uncertain words) the sooner we can restore some sanity to a nation that is behaving in increasingly bizarre manners.
All viruses are spread by dirty hands, and dirty equipment of any kind, it just so happens that this virus takes a lot more washing away. Unless your standing in front of someone that is coughing and sneezing all over you, like working in an office all day with them, then distancing everyone is tosh. Raw meat has always been a great host for any virus, that's why you now see it developing more in meat processing plants. (Robust) cleaning throughout the working day is the only answer to stand any chance of reducing such risk.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles28 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles32 mins ago
Technology58 mins ago
Spam & Scams67 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.