General discussion on current situation 3

[Maiden Stone]

Little old grans and others with no internet access or family/friends to keep them updated could fall foul of the law.

Some might be frightened to go out.
What are passengers who have travel passes with photo ID supposed to do?
Don't forget little old granddads.
Also, powers that be, don't forget people who are deaf or hard of hearing. How will they cope in a world where so many have covered mouths?  Visually impaired already people feel isolated and fearful in Covid land.

[weste]

Also they say the police are gonna do their own track and trace for their officers due to security reasons.

[Guy Etchells]

I just feel that it's now  a small group of BJ and DCs favourites, sitting around a table (socially distanced to the best of their ability - do they know what 2m is?) deciding what they can come up with as the great idea for the day 

I bet that on Monday they will announce that face garments must be worn in shops.

I think they may say that on Monday for shops as well, but at least they can say they are following WHO advice!
They won't, in all honesty, be able to say they are following the 'science'!!!

But even 2 metres isn't agreed on by all countries/all scientists - WHO recommends 1 metres, other 'experts' say 2 metres isn't far enough.

All you can do is your best, which hopefully will be good enough. I will make my own judgements on some things, and I will try to follow the law, though as it changes every week or so it might be difficult to do.
Little old grans and others with no internet access or family/friends to keep them updated could fall foul of the law.

Regards Margaret

With regards the distance of two metres it has been explained on various occassions why this was chosen rather than 1 metre.

Here is the BBC version by David Shukman Science editor -

"In a study published in the medical journal The Lancet, scientists evaluated recent research into how the coronavirus can spread.

They conclude that keeping at least 1m from other people could be the best way to limit the chances of infection.
The risk of being infected is estimated to be 13% within 1m, but only 3% beyond that distance.
And the study says that for every extra metre of distance up to 3m, the risk is further reduced by half."

However that is only part of the equation as not only is distance important but also the longer you spend in close proximity with an infected person, the bigger the risk.

Scientists advising the UK government say that spending six seconds at a distance of 1m from someone is the same as spending one minute at a distance of 2m.

Being exposed to someone coughing is riskier. Being 2m away from a cough carries the same risk as someone talking to you for 30 minutes at the same distance.contact.

If that research is accurate then the compromise Canada, Spain and the UK take is sensible as it takes into account variations due to time & distance.

Cheers
Guy

[Maiden Stone]

Must admit that i'm wondering whether they'll announce you need masks in shops soon and also try toreduce the social distance. I'm finding in shops, people are dilly dalling and you get the odd one using the phone whilst you are waiting to walk where they are and they don't bother even if they see you.

Do they not have shopping lists? I write a list in the same order as items are in store.
It's 5 months since I was in a big supermarket.

[Ray T]

As far as the reputations of those appearing with the politicos is concerened, they lost any cedibility with me weeks ago.

There was a brief interview with Nobell Prize winner, Professor Sir Paul Nurse (who I suspect might know a bit more than most of the numpties) on C4’s Dispatches programme when he described the government’s response to the Crick Institute’s offer to carry out some of the testing analysis as “Like poking a blancmange - it wobbles for a bit and then goes back to the shape it was beforehand”.

[sugarfizzle]

I just feel that it's now  a small group of BJ and DCs favourites, sitting around a table (socially distanced to the best of their ability - do they know what 2m is?) deciding what they can come up with as the great idea for the day 

I bet that on Monday they will announce that face garments must be worn in shops.

I think they may say that on Monday for shops as well, but at least they can say they are following WHO advice!
They won't, in all honesty, be able to say they are following the 'science'!!!

But even 2 metres isn't agreed on by all countries/all scientists - WHO recommends 1 metres, other 'experts' say 2 metres isn't far enough.

All you can do is your best, which hopefully will be good enough. I will make my own judgements on some things, and I will try to follow the law, though as it changes every week or so it might be difficult to do.
Little old grans and others with no internet access or family/friends to keep them updated could fall foul of the law.

Regards Margaret

With regards the distance of two metres it has been explained on various occassions why this was chosen rather than 1 metre.

Here is the BBC version by David Shukman Science editor -

"In a study published in the medical journal The Lancet, scientists evaluated recent research into how the coronavirus can spread.

They conclude that keeping at least 1m from other people could be the best way to limit the chances of infection.
The risk of being infected is estimated to be 13% within 1m, but only 3% beyond that distance.
And the study says that for every extra metre of distance up to 3m, the risk is further reduced by half."

However that is only part of the equation as not only is distance important but also the longer you spend in close proximity with an infected person, the bigger the risk.

Scientists advising the UK government say that spending six seconds at a distance of 1m from someone is the same as spending one minute at a distance of 2m.

Being exposed to someone coughing is riskier. Being 2m away from a cough carries the same risk as someone talking to you for 30 minutes at the same distance.contact.

If that research is accurate then the compromise Canada, Spain and the UK take is sensible as it takes into account variations due to time & distance.

Cheers
Guy

I think most of us have some idea as to why 2 metres was chosen, and I agree, it seems a sensible compromise.

However, there is no 'science' to back this distance up, and our politicians are always going on about the 'science'.

On the same day I read two different articles, one saying that 1 metre was more than adequate, another saying it should be nearer to 5 metres. Neither of them fully scientific if I remember, can't provide links, think one of them at least was from an epidemiological point of view.

Basically, you pays your money and takes your choice!

Margaret

[KGarrad]

We (Isle of Man) are expecting an announcement this next week on reducing the 2 metres to 1 metre.
I'll let you know how it goes

[Guy Etchells]

I think most of us have some idea as to why 2 metres was chosen, and I agree, it seems a sensible compromise.

However, there is no 'science' to back this distance up, and our politicians are always going on about the 'science'.

On the same day I read two different articles, one saying that 1 metre was more than adequate, another saying it should be nearer to 5 metres. Neither of them fully scientific if I remember, can't provide links, think one of them at least was from an epidemiological point of view.

Basically, you pays your money and takes your choice!

Margaret

On the contrary there is plenty of research on the subject but as a stated a compromise to give a set distance for the general public to accept rather than confuse them by specifying different distances according to different circumstances.

For an indication on some of the research see.

http://www.rootschat.com/links/01pk4/

Cheers
Guy

PS If however you are referring to the safety of medics rather than the public, the science on masks is way out of date (based on 1930 science) and should be updated, but then medical masks would not offer enough protection, which is what the stats imply

[jillruss]

As far as the reputations of those appearing with the politicos is concerened, they lost any cedibility with me weeks ago.

There was a brief interview with Nobell Prize winner, Professor Sir Paul Nurse (who I suspect might know a bit more than most of the numpties) on C4’s Dispatches programme when he described the government’s response to the Crick Institute’s offer to carry out some of the testing analysis as “Like poking a blancmange - it wobbles for a bit and then goes back to the shape it was beforehand”.

I saw that Dispatches programme last week and had a chuckle at the blancmange description. I've seen Sir Paul Nurse on other programmes too and he always impresses me.

That programme was very critical of the way the epidemic has been handled in this country but in an apolitical way. It confirmed a lot of my previous suspicions about what little action was taken in the early days and was altogether extremely worrying about our prospects for getting out of this mess. I'm sure it will still be on catch up if you'd like to check it out (Channel 4).