-
The way I view it: every individual needs to count the number of people that they come within 2m of within a day at fewer than 5.
What's the work behind this? Obviously the fewer opportunities for transmission the better, but this seems oddly specific. Having said that, for some people, quantifying it like this would probably be very helpful.
I've tried to quantify what social distancing means... not just distance from people, but number of people we encounter.
If I go to the office and there's 150 people there in an open plan, I may come within 2m of 50 during the work day, add another 10-20 during lunch queuing for food and being served, add another 100+ strangers I walk past on the tube or share the tube/bus with, add a couple for neighbours and housemate.
2m space is good... but we should also reduce the number of people we pass in a day, push all the numbers down... so what's a low enough number?
If I casually cross the paths of 250 people in a day, should I aim for 10% of that? 25 people in a day... this is quite lax still, it's still popping out to a cafe for lunch whilst mostly staying in or crossing the road to avoid people. Could it be more aggressive? What about 5%? That's 12 people... but if I were ill and did infect 12 people that's still crazy growth of the virus... what is a per-person goal instead? Something that could be a nice rule I could apply to myself?
And so I came up with 5.
5 people within 2m per day... which is not to go in any shop, cafe, etc. Not to go meet at anyone's house. Still allows for a walk around the streets for air, but forces me to cross the road and not occupy even the pavement with others.
That said, I haven't gone outside in almost a week... so my number is 1.
Velocio-
I really like the idea of quantifying it to help focus the mind. No idea what the right number would be, but whatever helps. I also think the idea of every interaction being cut is one less opportunity for the virus to spread is a key thing for people to grasp. As I said previously, this is not binary situation. Everyone who is currently practicing government recommendations and beyond have taken themselves out (or greatly reduced their opportunity for being part) of the network of spread which should have a real world impact.
I will say:
That's 12 people... but if I were ill and did infect 12 people that's still crazy growth of the virus... what is a per-person goal instead?
I'm sure you know this, but it's worth keeping in mind that that's unlikely (infecting all 12 people).
-
So two things on that: on the one hand, you are of course correct on the face of it. However, it is worth remembering that my risk of getting infected just from walking past someone who isn't coughing in my general direction is really small, even if they are indeed positive. I still think the main issue is surfaces that are used a lot. Handrails, seats, door knobs, etc. etc.: it doesn't matter if you keep 10m distance to the next person to go through a door if you touch the same surfaces within seconds or minutes of each other.
Also secondly, I think they should declare all roads that aren't main roads pedestrian zones for the moment (with people living there allowed to drive through at say 10mph max). Imagine how nicely spaced out everybody could get about if we actually used the huge amount of road area that is currently mostly unused (see here).
-
Still allows for a walk around the streets for air, but forces me to cross the road and not occupy even the pavement with others.
I like the 5 people logic, it's roughly what we've been trying to do in the last week. Exercise has been one 10k loop on quiet roads with a section through a park. It almost works. Until people out running brush past you, people block all pavements for a chat with neighbours, road works cut you down to a near single file 'alley'... we succeeded with <5 people at 6am this morning, but it's only a matter of time before everyone joins that club too.
Turbo time it is.
SwissChap
lookitsluke
What's the work behind this? Obviously the fewer opportunities for transmission the better, but this seems oddly specific. Having said that, for some people, quantifying it like this would probably be very helpful.