Am 02.06.2020 um 17:30 schrieb Jeremy Double:
Recliner wrote:
David Jones wrote:
Robin wrote:

On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote:

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are
forcing their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the
lycras around here who've decided social distancing is
unnecessary.

But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or
Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social
distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your
distance..?


As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage
from them - starting many years ago.

Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than
2m*.

*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver

No. "Social distancing" allows one to be close to anyone of the same
housewhold, while at leasat 2m from anyoned else


In the UK. In most other countries, it's 1.5m or 1m, or 6' in the US. The
WHO recommends at least 1m.

This article, looking at scientific studies, says the virus will be passed
on more if the social distancing distance is reduced from 2m:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ed-study-finds

Actually, the article says that only 3m would be a "safe distance", that
anything below 1m would be dangerous and that any distance between 1m
and 3m is some kind of compromise between safety and getting a normal
life.

As the UK was very late in starting social distancing, it is meaningful
to be more cautious until your infection nubmers are significantly down.