Brian,

Why two meters, why not three, or even 5?

The problem for me is that there can be no 'standard' distance that meets all circumstances. Studies have shown that the distance the the particles can range to create what I call the inhalation zone can vary depending on a range of factors. Consider I am standing behind the infected person (donor). The wind is blowing from behind me past me and then past them. They sneeze emitting the particles at high velocity but away from me. Are they really going to stop and reverse back against the wind to reach me? So here the safe distance is very small, possibly just 25cm. Now suppose I am downwind of the donor. Here the viruses can travel on the wind. I have studies showing a distance of 8 and even 10 metres could be needed. This is, of course, in the open air. Now consider a small room, no ventilation, the 'donor' sneezes. How many times would he need to sneeze to contaminate all the air in the room to a critical level? I am not decrying the potential benefit of social distancing but trying to be objective about its effectiveness. It is just one  in a whole range of measures that we need to combat the spread of the virus and the risk of infection therefrom.

Morrisons is the only supermarketr I will shop it during this pandemic. They have easily been the best in my area. They have continued to control the numbers of shoopers in store throughout, when others have become a free-for-all. They have hand sanitiser stations around every 50m, where others only have one at the entrance that you can't use for fear of being run down by other shoppers desperate to buy their stocks of toilet paper. They have continued to limit it to one shopper per trolley/basket as opposed to being days out for the kids and family.

I am sure that, as a private business, Morrisons has the right to refuse service. This cannot be done if it violates equal rights (i.e. based on religion, race, belief system etc.) but even these can be violated if it is a matter of public safety. I am sure I have covered this before. Therefore, probably, Morrisons can enforce the face covering rule if they truly wish to. Whether it is worth the negative publicity when Granny Haddock can't get in to by her weekly groceries is another matter. Although, if you are too ill to wear a mask, then maybe supermarket shopping asn't a great idea at the moment.

I do love this need for "proof" normally endemic in the realms of H&S.

The Face Covering regulations Do Not require the exempt to either obtain or to carry proof - it is not a documented requirement within the two English versions (transport and enclosed spaces) nor their amendments.

Had a quick revisit last night when reading the article about Morrisons.

A Morrisons spokeswoman said at the time: "We are continuing to follow all government guidelines to ensure the safety of our customers and colleagues."

A spokesman for West Yorkshire Police added: “We will deal proportionately with any reports of people not wearing face coverings in relevant places and continue to encourage everyone to comply with the restrictions and guidance set out by the Government. Fixed Penalty Notices can also be issued if appropriate.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own

Updated 4th December 2020

Exemption cards - If you have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering:

- you do not routinely need to show any written evidence of this

- you do not need show an exemption card

This means that you do not need to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about your reason for not wearing a face covering.

The regulations permit a Constable to remove someone who is failing to comply with the regulation but if they consider themselves exempt they are compliant so how would the constable be following the law?

Edited by user 12 January 2021 11:21:56(UTC)  | Reason: FFS

Brian

I saw the heading of your message and went googling and, surprise, surprise I found myself on the DM (like you not my preferred source of news).

So, quoting from their online version:

"Leading members of the Sage scientific advisory panel want the measure raised from 'one metre plus' to 'two metres plus'.

In practice this would change the limit to three metres – nearly 10ft. The drastic proposal came as a furious Matt Hancock denounced individuals who flout social distancing rules."

Somebody needs to go back to primary school!

Two metres plus does NOT equal 3m. Any more than one metre plus would equal 2m.

Two metres plus one metre = 3m

To be honest I had forgotten that England had moved from 2m to 1m+. I live in Scotland where the 2m signage was put up at the beginning of the lockdown and nobody has needed to replace it.

(In places the signage is getting rather worn, but for example the signage outside one of our local banks is still visible and positioned to keep the queue away from the entrance to the newsagents next door).

The number was never precise. The guidance started off as "at least 2m" which I translate as being roughly equal to 2m plus and where the UK (initially) adopted a standard roughly double that of the WHO recommendation of "at least one metre".

So, I read this message from SAGE as meaning asking for the guidance to revert to what is was before, but with SAGE's advice being translated into a headline meaning something entirely different. 

The sort of headline that might provoke outrage amongst some who have complained about restrictions often or throughout the pandemic.

For once I am broadly in agreement with Mr Hancock. The rules (and exceptions to the rules) are there for a purpose - time people stopped trying to find excuses not to observe them.

....and perhaps more focused enforcement (by "focused" I do not mean what happened last week in Derbyshire!), but with a recognition that those empowered to enforce have stretched resources.

1+m, 2m, 2+m 3m, its all the same,  There will always be those who wholly ignore it and those who kinda guess what the distance means in the practical world.  One of the comments on the news today was that in general that people have littl eidea what that distance is.  A local poster showed that if two employes put their arm up and could tough each other then they were too close.  For many it may not be quite 2m and some its a bit more, but it was a good visualisation that they could follow and a revelation to many that they thought 2m was 'arms length'!!!!. 

Edited by user 12 January 2021 13:40:43(UTC)  | Reason: typo

The problem with the distances is that the effective to distance ratio is not is not linear – 1 m is not half as effective a 2 m distance at stopping the spread. https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3223 is a review of the research. But making the “safe” distance 3 m will probably have little or no effect.

By this time next year, if things do not improve, the 2 metre rule may well have increased to "keep the next person to you just in sight, at night you may have to wear a flashing light"

Originally Posted by: peter gotch

The drastic proposal came as a furious Matt Hancock denounced individuals who flout social distancing rules."

Had the honorable member considered a first level "what if" scenario last December we would likely not be in this current mess.

- Identify a new variant

- Inform the public just before Xmas

- Warn them their travel is about to be restricted (having initially promised time to see family)

- Complain bitterly about the scenes of chaos at train stations and on the roads prior to the rules being applied

- Blame the public for spreading the disease

Dear Matt (or whoever is health secretary) change the play list

- Identify new variant

- Stop travel

- Tell the public

People want an “answer” unfortunately in the real world answers like that don’t always exist. it is a matter of balancing different requirements and needs. They could completely shut the country down with nobody allowed out of the house for any reason-of course the UK would soon revert to something like the middle ages if we did that. We could have simply let the epidemic run its course which would have meant tolerating loads of additional deaths and total collapse of the health care system. There is no easy answer but people have been brought up to think they can have their cake and eat it. The media don’t help but we have politicians who just pander to this as well.