In answer to my question on whether the 2m social distance rule would be reduced, as the PM seemed to imply yesterday he would favour, @uksciencechief said research published and soon to be published would allow flexibility for businesses like pubs, theatres and restaurants...
(eg back-to-back sitting can be safe at much less than 2m). In stark contrast @CMO_England stressed that unless we keep a strict 2m distance from people, we run a significantly increased risk of being ordered to quarantine for 14 days under the new test, trace...
and isolate rules. That creates a massive disincentive for us to go back to cafes and pubs if in July we are allowed to do so. And offices and factories will find it that much harder to reconfigure working arrangements to comply with social distancing rules. Obviously...
public health is the priority, but whether we stick to our mandatory 2m distance or move closer to the World Health Organisations recommended 1m will determine whether vast numbers of businesses go bust, jobs and tax revenues are lost, and income is gone forever. The painful...
paradox, captured by this debate over 2m versus 1m, is that the more that Coronavirus prophylaxis deepens our economic contraction, the more deprivation there'll be and the more lives will be cut short by poverty. Weighing the trade-offs may be hugely complicated, but is...
literally a matter of life and death. PS you are not going mad. This is the second time I have published this thread. Because I went a bid mad and attributed views to Vallance that are in fact what Whitty said and vice versa. Not sure how that happened. But the true position...
appears to be that Whitty is a 2m hawk and Vallance is more of a dove. All clear now? Hope so. And sorry for my earlier confusion.
