Rank: New forum user 
|
Hi everyone, based on the government guidance for workplaces, there is rightly a focus on ensuring the 2m distance is always maintained where people cannot work from home.
In reality a strict application of 2m rule in all cases closes or signficantly restricts the occupancy, in our assessment of some workplaces to below 10%, in almost all cases due to short duration transient passing, e.g. walking past a desk or in a corridor, where one way is not possible. My question is, if the person is passing has a duration in the 2m zone (maybe at 1m) of 1 - 2 seconds, maybe 8 times a day, and the person they are passing has their back to them, we have a duration in the 2m zone, not face to face of approximately 16 seconds per person per day, is this an unacceptable risk?
The government guidance for education environments states that passing in transient situations is low risk and permitted. None of the other guidance documents has this, I wondered if this was delibarate because the risk mprofile is different or if the same science would apply? Any input from others in similar situations would be much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As I understand it we have two routes by which COVID-19 infection can be caused, direct and indirect. Direct is when the infected person emits the virus in an exhaled breath at sufficient velocity (cough or sneeze) that it reaches into my breathing zone and I inhale this, thus becoming infected. The indirect route is when the infected individual emits the virus and this is deposited on a surface with which I later have contact. Usually the contact with be with my hands. On the hands it will be unlikely to cause infection but may well be transferred to other body areas, e.g. around the nose or mucous membranes, from where it can enter the breathing zone to reach the lungs. Compare the probability of me being in exactly the right location at the moment that the infected person sneezes and directs the exhalation in my direction with the probability of my touching something that they have contaminated with the virus. Think of all the objects we touch during a normal day, particularly in the public zone, that might have become infected. Now ask yourself, which is more probable, direct or indirect?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
You have tripped up your own thought process in the first line of your post as HM Gov guidance does not say always, it says where practicable.
As to 16 seconds of exposure over a day being acceptable that is down to whoever is signing off the RA. Following Zero Risk / Zero Harm mantra no risk is acceptable or permissable given a cough or sneeze happens very quickly (estimated at 22m/s & 45m/s respectivley).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You have tripped up your own thought process in the first line of your post as HM Gov guidance does not say always, it says where practicable.
As to 16 seconds of exposure over a day being acceptable that is down to whoever is signing off the RA. Following Zero Risk / Zero Harm mantra no risk is acceptable or permissable given a cough or sneeze happens very quickly (estimated at 22m/s & 45m/s respectivley).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
if you look at the new test and track app, you have to be in 2m vicinity for 15mins before it triggers a condition in the software. However if you are in the room with 10 ill people, 15 mins is way too long, yet the software wont detect it as any different (AFAIK). passing in corridors is like passing in supermakets, how many of those have aisles that are 2M or more wide? what about any residue in the air, how long does that last, based on temp, volume or air disturbances. its a mine field, which is why I think the HSE are not really getting involved unless its really unsafe (full canteens, toolbox talks in small rooms etc). All you can do is mitigate as much as possible, providing RPE, providing sanitizer etc,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
HM Gov only advises RPE where there is an actual need based upon the task, working environment and lack of other controls not as a Covid-19 measure
|
 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
HM Gov only advises RPE where there is an actual need based upon the task, working environment and lack of other controls not as a Covid-19 measure
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There is some advice on the You Gov website for different business- . https://www.gov.uk/guidance/working-safely-during-coronavirus-covid-19
As Roundtuit says, the 2m thing is caveated by "where practical" so its not an absolute. Do you have the space to introduce a one way system around the office? this will reduce the amount of time people spend in close proximity in corridors or gaps between areas.
Do consult with others in the area, they may have ideas or tell you about issues you were not aware of- Many people are really worried about going back to work, a lot of the stuff I am looking at is more to do with re-assurance than actual safety.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The 2m 'rule' is under pressure. The WHO say 1m, as do some other countries, USA say 6 feet, (which is 1.8m) and in Germany they have variable distances depending on circumstances. So it can't be THAT critical.
If people are face to face, 2m seems just about OK, but if back-to-back for a minute or so at 1m - supermarket aisle for example - I don't feel unsafe, and it would be perfectly acceptable in some other countries.
However, surfaces which have been contaminated is the biggy. Why do NHS still suggest the use of tissues as a sneeze control measure, over the use of inner elbow? I know the guidance says "and then wash your hands" but who does that for every sneeze? The number of people I see coughing into their hands, and then touch everything around the office / workshop / shop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: aud  The 2m 'rule' is under pressure. The WHO say 1m, as do some other countries, USA say 6 feet, (which is 1.8m) and in Germany they have variable distances depending on circumstances. So it can't be THAT critical.
If people are face to face, 2m seems just about OK, but if back-to-back for a minute or so at 1m - supermarket aisle for example - I don't feel unsafe, and it would be perfectly acceptable in some other countries.
The geat thing about the 2m is that it's a single simple number to remember. I'd have thought that in normal,life, about 1m is the typical social gap anyway. As for the US using 6 feet instead of 2m, let's just remember they still tend to be imperial measurements. In practical terms, if asked, I'd say that 2m is about 6 feet anyway.
|
1 user thanked Acorns for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
In terms of your general duties the virus is just another hazard to be considered so thinking about exposures, routes of entry etc makes sense and following the science is defendable.
The government responsibility is subtly different of course (to a family or even a workplace 1 death is a disaster, to a govt <20,000 was deemed a good result). We are perhaps now seeing responses heavily swayed by public order capability... IE million’s of calls to the police about people exercising in excess of once for one hour, response - allow unlimited exercise. Fear of restricting access to beaches at bank holiday, response - add beaches and travel to allowable exercise. Facebook full of barbecue pictures. Response - increase numbers allowed to gather in gardens, etc etc etc. The government responsibility to the economy (particularly in retail and hospitality) will undoubtedly change messages on distancing and gatherings....
But has the virus changed? Have your general duties changed? Has the science behind exposures and routes of entry changed?
|
3 users thanked Wailes900134 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Wailes900134
The government responsibility is subtly different of course (to a family or even a workplace 1 death is a disaster, to a govt <20,000 was deemed a good result). We are perhaps now seeing responses heavily swayed by public order capability... IE million’s of calls to the police about people exercising in excess of once for one hour, response - allow unlimited exercise. Fear of restricting access to beaches at bank holiday, response - add beaches and travel to allowable exercise. Facebook full of barbecue pictures. Response - increase numbers allowed to gather in gardens, etc etc etc. The government responsibility to the economy (particularly in retail and hospitality) will undoubtedly change messages on distancing and gatherings....
But has the virus changed? Have your general duties changed? Has the science behind exposures and routes of entry changed?
Exactly how i see it, their control measures have failed at each step and so they release that measure, despite the fact the science doesn't indicate its time. We're only given a little info on the science which is casuing part of the problem. If parents know the science behind why is it say for kids to return there would be less resistance maybe.
I was listening to a good article on radio 4 last nigbt at about 8:30pm and it explained how the modelling works and how multiple measures are better than 1 single one, worth a listen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere. However, I would appreciate your thoughts/best advice on the use of desk/table electric fans with regards to the potential risk of spread of Covid-19. The key areas are our Production Areas where staff have always used the fans to add ‘cooling’ to their immediate work area. With the current 2m distancing the concern is that if the fans are used it more or less makes the 2m rule ineffective. Of course, we could ask that fans are positioned such that the risk is reduced, but at present we are saying no fans which isn’t being well received. As I say, would appreciate feedback. Many thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
This is to do with probabilities not certainties. You are not “safe” just because you are more than 2 m away from someone. You might be unlucky and catch a virus ffrom more than 2 m or be very luck and spend hours working less than a metre from someone with the infection and not catch anything. There is a probability that that particular encounter might lead to an infection and this probability increases the nearer you are to infected people. The only way to totally ensure that nobody will be infected is to continue with total isolation probably for ever, which is not really practicable. As we need to work the 2 m was chosen as a guide for the optimum social distance. In the UK we like our personal space and we have one of the wider spacings. The WHO looks at this from the global perspective and in many parts of the world people seem to enjoy/accept much less personal space. The HSE are not going to take any action if a) the space is not quite 2 m b) you only occasionally get too close. All the guidance the government has produced says that spacing is not the be all and end all for controlling the virus. For example as important is to limit mixing between different groups of workers. Ideally they would like people to work in fixed groups which don’t mix with others. Such team working would limit the spread of the virus. Please remember that a) the entire population hasn’t been infected and the odds of actually coming into contact with an infected individual are quite small and b) the infection is not that serious- the fatality rate if you are infected is only 5% assuming that you are not one of the people classed as vulnerable individuals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: AcornsConsult
In practical terms, if asked, I'd say that 2m is about 6 feet anyway.
Sorry to be the pedant, but 7 feet is closer to 2m than 6 feet (by around 4 cm). I would imagine it is because people know what a 6 foot tall person looks like, but don't know as many 7 feet tall people. This is why I hate the 2m or 6 feet, it just doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Just picking up on the risk assessmet comment... - The risk of severe disease in the EU/EEA and UK is currently considered low for the general population in areas where appropriate physical distancing measures are in place and/or where community transmission has been reduced and/or maintained at low levels.
- The risk of severe disease in the EU/EEA and UK is currently considered moderate for the general population in areas where appropriate physical distancing measures are not in place and/or where community transmission is still high and ongoing.
Source ECDC and part of my weekly risk assessment update.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There is of course a flaw in the mantra that you wash your hands regularly, and certainly after coughing or sneezing. Whilst this is achievable within your house, when you go out you will often find toilets closed. Apart from the need to answer calls of nature, how the hell are you to wash your hands when there is nowhere to do so? The shortage of public conveniences was a national scandal before the virus hit us, it's even worse now. It's not as if you could nip into a pub, or the old standby of McDonalds. The alternative position has been to use hand sanitiser instead, but then this hasn't been exactly plentiful in the shops, has it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
|
1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Originally Posted by: AcornsConsult
In practical terms, if asked, I'd say that 2m is about 6 feet anyway.
Sorry to be the pedant, but 7 feet is closer to 2m than6 feet (by around 4 cm). I would imagine it is because people know what a 6 foot tall person looks like, but don't know as many 7 feet tallpeople.This is why I hate the 2m or 6 feet, it just doesn't make sense.
Eh? 2m or 6ft, makes perfect sense to me. People understand the numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Do coronavirus use metric or imperial measurements? 2 m is 6.56168 foot or 6’63/4 “ so only just closer 7 foot than 6 foot. This is not an absolute, don’t get hung up about it. Of more interest is the question of how do you mark your floor area? Shops have been marking out 2 m spaces on their floors for weeks now. The idea being that you stay between the lines as you buy you essentials creating about a 2 m gap from the next person. Most seem to have started these lines from the entrance but I can see how this might cause issues in a workspace. Surely there the marking should start outwards from individual’s workstations otherwise nobody can work within 2 metres of the exit/entrance, which is where you might put in equipment and hand wash facilities. Shared equipment will, of course, cause issues as will the requirement to disinfect between users.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Originally Posted by: AcornsConsult
In practical terms, if asked, I'd say that 2m is about 6 feet anyway.
Sorry to be the pedant, but 7 feet is closer to 2m than 6 feet (by around 4 cm). I would imagine it is because people know what a 6 foot tall person looks like, but don't know as many 7 feet tall people.This is why I hate the 2m or 6 feet, it just doesn't make sense.
being pedantic, I'd agree. However, social,distance is a dynamic situation where pedantic numbers don't apply.
of course, we could take pedantic a step further for SD and ask where is it measured from? Any body extremity? In which case if We swing our arms, we'd need to stand 3-5 m apart 😁
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In the supermarket I would be more concerned about that person who, whilst keeping to the social distance, sneezed and deposited loads of COVID-19 on objects on the shelves which I will now pick up. If I were to visit a supermarket (haven't done so since early March) I would have my hand sanitiser with me in my pocket so that once I have transferred the goods to the car I could make sure I was not a carrier nor contaminating surfaces inside the car. Would also ensure that on arriving home I would take the necessary precautions to ensure that no virus transfer could occur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Being a pedant, what concerns me is that if our Governments can't do fairly simple metric to imperial conversions and then say that 2m is "about 6 feet", then when the pressure is to reduce that 2m, they will say that 1 metre is "about 3 feet".
WHO have set a global recommendation of "at least one metre". 3 feet would not meet that recommendation.
The WHO guidance is based on lots and lots of science. Anyone who has been in H&S in the UK for long enough knows that 6 feet 6 inches is "about 2 metres". We had lots of metrication regulations to say so.
In the days before the Work at Height Regulations, the magic number where you did not have to protect your employee from falling (in most circumstances) was 6 feet 6 inches. That got turned into a magic number of 2m which was dropped as lots of people fell less distance and sustained serious injury. I have personally investigated three fatal accidents where people fell less than 2m. One would have been one of the rare occasions when it was not legal to let someone fall less than 2m - collapse of a patently defective step ladder.
One 5 feet (1.5m when metricated) fall from a trestle scaffold. Legal then, but we would probably now say that something inherently safer as a place of work would be reasonably practicable.
One 17 inches (340mm) - legal then, and it would be very difficult to argue that it was reasonably practicable to prevent the accident. Single floor board lifted with good reason.
But, back to physical distancing, if HMG are minded to relax to a one metre criterion, I hope that they will make sure that any imperial approximation errs on the safe side. 1 metre equals 3 foot 3 inches and a bit. So, 40 inches would be the right approximate that would be consistent with WHO's recommendation, not 3 feet 3 inches, and definitely NOT "about 3 feet"!
|
1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Surely the distance is not the real issue in the risk assessment? If there is No infection present, there has to be Zero risk. So why worry about distance? If you have infection present, there will be a chance the virus can travel much further than 2 metres it has been shown to travel over 10 metres in sufficient quantities to cause infection (WHO data). 2 metres happens to be a figure set by so-called "experts" where the infection rate drops to a reasonable level of risk...............What the hell does that mean? Anyone in this group fancy standing bedside of an active infection at 2 metres with no PPE? Doctors, Nurses cleaners and careworkers were being asked to do just that at one point. In an office environment if staff are being responsible and in a low-risk area with almost no infections, what is the risk?...........certainly no significant difference at 1., 1.5 2 or 2.5 metres. If we are doing everything reasonable to stop infection, getting into building getting staff to act responsibly should be the focus. Sorry for the rant but having work in high risk biological environemnts and with freinds returning to Ebloa areas this week
|
1 user thanked BernieGale123 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There are lies damned lies and statistics.
Today's number confusion in the press states that halving the distance to 1m "doubles the risk".
In the small print at 2m your chance of catching the virus is 1.3% whereas at 1m the chance is 2.6% - that calculates as a doubling of the figure but doubling of the risk?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There are lies damned lies and statistics.
Today's number confusion in the press states that halving the distance to 1m "doubles the risk".
In the small print at 2m your chance of catching the virus is 1.3% whereas at 1m the chance is 2.6% - that calculates as a doubling of the figure but doubling of the risk?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The trouble is you can never know that no one has it because symptoms don't show straight away. Why wouldn't a doubling of the probability be a doubling of the risk - what am I missing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I've spoken to a worker today in london on a big project. Says that distancing is in place when entering building, one way systems etc, but after that its a free for all in there, people standing around chatting etc. 1m or 2m, makes no difference if you people are doing this. 1 worker got red carded for not wearing gloves.. not sure how thats a red card, as gloves dont protect you from the virus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Craig, From the ACoP for the PPE regulations: “The use of PPE must not increase the overall level of risk, ie PPE must not be worn if the risk caused by wearing it is greater than the risk against which it is meant to protect.” This means that we must balance the risk should gloves not be worn with the damage that will occur from wearing occlusive gloves. If the latter is greater than the former gloves should not be worn. As all occlusive gloves will damage the skin, regardless of the material they are made from, we need to balance this damage against the damage that would occur were gloves not to be worn. As you correctly state, wearing gloves will not reduce the risk of infection simple because the virus can survive on the surface of the gloves and then be transferred to the face should this be touched by the gloved hand. Furthermore, unless the wearer has been trained in correct removal of the glove studies have shown that it is extremely common for the wearer to come into contact with the outer surface of the gloves when removing them, thus ensuring that anything on the glove is transferred to the hand. The irritant damage that occurs due to the hyperhydration in the skin underneath the glove also results in a reduction of the skin’s barrier properties once the glove is removed, thus making it easier for colonisation of the skin by transient micro-organisms. I think that the red card should be redirected towards the person who handed it to you who seems not to have a great understanding of how gloves work and how they fail. Chris
|
2 users thanked chris.packham for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
thanks Chris, I'm glad I'm not alone in the thinking that gloves for Covid are pointless in this situation. They wear them for COSHH reasons, but only when they need to. Every tried to mask up with gloves on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Craig How about this? In a letter to the Journal of Hospital Infection (March 2010) the authors (Ludlam HA, Swayne RL, Kearns AM, Brown DFJ) listed 25 cases where MRSA had been transmitted from a source to a site from which infection could result. Of these for 21 (84%) the vector was the gloved hands of the health care worker! Ludlow HA, Swayne RL, Kearns AM et al, “Evidence from a UK teaching hospital that MRSA is primarily transmitted by the hands of healthcare workers”, Journal of Hospital Infection, 2010, 74, 266-270 So I come out of the supermarket wearing my contaminated gloves. Do I take them off before or after loading the car and what do I then do with them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.