Originally Posted by
FFMAN
If it was only that I'd agree. Thing is we have some evidence now of what has and hasn't worked. The government decided to indoctrinate the population with a (literally) made-up 2m distancing rule against WHO guidance of 1m and the knowledge that most other countries opted to be 'on the safe side' specifying 1.5m. This is the fake science another poster referred to. Going for 2m in this country has upped the ante in the UK and has terrified the population in to thinking that somehow by walking past someone on the street you will get the virus... and probably die a death worse than ebola and cancer rolled into one. The nation is petrified because of this inept government's choices. The fact the UK choose 2m and other countries with much better outcomes choose 1.5m is evidence that it makes no difference. Are they going to change the 2m rule against the evidence? Are they ****. The trouble is even if they wanted to, they now can't because they created a rod for their own back. If they even suggested it, the self-righteous 'I'm saving the NHS' brigade will howl with terror. The government has painted itself into a corner. The 2m rule effectively makes whole sections of the economy redundant or unviable, in particular, aviation.
Boris thinks he won a landslide because people like him but he won by virtue of him being not quite as stupid as Jeremy Corbyn but surely even Corbyn couldn't have screwed up this badly.
Fake science, the linked article below suggests not - there are even arguments for 4 or 6 metres, and that the combination of distance and duration are important.
And one leading scientist says that timing can really make a difference. "Spending two seconds one metre apart is as dangerous as spending one minute two metres apart," he says.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-52522460