This week everyone has been talking about ‘changing the 2m rule’. (See numerous press articles). My (controversial?) suggestion is that the debate is ill-informed and there’s no rule that needs changing.
My sense is that most people, journalists, Ministers and scientific talking heads included, don’t always have a clear sense what it is they are debating changing.
Most of the discussion seems to assume that it’s about changing a mandatory 2m requirement imposed on people and businesses.
But the ‘2m rule’ as it is invariably called is not law in England. No law requires 2m distance to be observed in any context.
It’s not a ‘rule’ at all or even emphatic public health advice. It’s a recommendation meant as a proxy for the advice that you should not be too close to people for more than a short amount of time.
Don’t believe me? The official description of the ‘2m rule’ can be found buried in Annex A of the Gov’s recovery strategy: 
So there’s no rule to change.
The Gov could simply be clearer about what the ‘2m rule’ actually is (and is not).
And if and when the government does ‘decide to change the 2m rule’, all it will have *actually* decided to do is change its messaging/presentation of national health England’s underlying advice (NHE is part of the government), which will remain exactly the same.
And I query whether it’s sensible or even rational to substitute one vastly oversimplified proxy for another (eg 1m) when the underlying advice remains constant.
Perhaps journalists would be better to ask, ‘when will the Gov decide to be clear that the 2m rule is not a rule but a recommendation? and why does the government not make clear that the advice is actually that you should try not to be too close to people for too long’?
Footnote : There is a legal requirement on businesses to try and maintain 2m distancing in Scotland and on some businesses in Wales and, oddly, for burial grounds in Northern Ireland. None of this applies in England and none applies to general personal activities.
