Hi Steve, , hmm it's an interesting point about whether or not Cv19 is more of what the experts call an aerosol virus in that minute droplets can hang and carry in the air, as the early conclusion was that with Cv they would go to ground quickly and be killed by exposure to the atmosphere and UV rays I think.
However since then other 'experts' have suggested that in some cases say if the humidity was just right very minute droplets could carry much further. I read that for some viruses they may ask for human guinea pigs to test these theories on but it's deemed it would be too dangerous with Cv 19. Thank goodness because there would be some daft folk willing to have a go for £200 or so.
My view is aligned with that of Dr Pottinger in the latter paragraphs. The droplets are mostly larger type and the 2 metre distance is a sensible precaution. Otherwise as he says there would be no debate as the numbers infected would tell their own story.
Also to note is that a number of people don't have any symptoms at all so don't know they have it and go about their business, but apparently they can pass it on in their breath which is another reason for distancing . To back that up 20% of those folk who tested positive on The Diamond Princess had no symptoms.
Yes, it is a most interesting debate, and Pottinger makes a most persuasive argument...
However, there is a particular aspect that is being undermined, in my view...
That is that whenever humanity is unsure of any particular risk to life and the community, it is always wiser to apply what is known as the 'Precautionary Principle'.
The Precautionary Principle, is often referred to in matters of the environment. However, its rationale also applies equally across a much broader and diverse ethic, that covers the 'human condition'.
"A key question is how human societies can continue to obtain the great benefits of development while promoting a clean and healthy environment and ensuring an adequate standard of living in the future.
As the nature of threats to health and the environment becomes more complex, uncertain and global in nature, the precautionary principle is increasingly being debated"
"The principle states that in the case of serious or irreversible threats to the health of humans or the ecosystem, acknowledged scientific uncertainty should not be used as a reason to postpone preventive measures."
"Debate about the precautionary principle is partly a response to the recognition of the severe social and economic costs of not taking precautions. Millions of children worldwide have suffered from neurological damage, diminished mental capacity and thus the ability to make a living as a result of exposure to lead from smelters, in paint and in petrol. Tobacco, asbestos and numerous other agents provide ample evidence of the high costs associated with waiting for convincing proof of harm. These cases exemplify the failure of science and policy to prevent damage to health and ecosystems and the resulting impacts on health and the economy" (Martuzzi & Tickner 2004, pp. 2)
All of the above types of polluting industry, and industrial development, place the ethic of making profits ahead of the lives of humans without opportunity, as well as and including the lives of any other sentient creatures who might just happen to be in their way...
If we humans could possibly ever learn just one lesson from COVID-19, it should be this... We are all connected to each other, and what affects us today, now has the potential to affect us all so indiscriminately ... We need a paradigm shift in our ethic, one that does not place the gathering of wealth as its centre most function, in my view...
There are many very ugly scenes already developing out there, people spitting on each other and beating one another up over toilet paper...
How much worse might all of this become if we do not approach the risks with the advice of 'do no harm' as our first priority? If ever there was a time for employing the rationale of the 'Precautionary Principle' I for one believe that it must be now!
Best wishes, stay safe & well to you and your family Chris...
Steve
REFERENCE
WHO. 2004. "The precautionary principle: protecting public health, the environment
and the future of our children". Eds. Marco Martuzzi and Joel A. Tickner
Can't disagree with the principle but not sure how it would work in terms of preventive measures in Cv 19 as if there were micro droplets travelling a distance greater than a few feet they could land anywhere on your person, hair , clothing or in your mouth, eyes. There was talk on tv today about not touching your hair then your face in case you transferred the virus that way, I didn't catch it all but it said some peops in Wuhan were shaving their heads but was deemed unnecessary!
The best preventive for folk like us to stay safest is to stay home and for everyone to be more mindful of hand hygiene as our interaction shows there are too many unknowns at the moment. Maybe we'll never fully know all there is to know about how this virus spreads.
That is more or less what the PP indicates as a course of action...
For instance, if the range of dispersal is up to a radius of 7-8m instead of 1.5m, however, the scientific proof does not yet exist to suggest that droplet size might not always apply... Then until such time as the evidence is proven in either case, the PP would indicate to create a larger Social Distance (SD) as being the wiser alternative...
Staying home, is another option of observing the bigger SD, by not being there at all...
At present there remains far too many unknowns, in my view...
The is also another theory that explains the CV19 will be around for a while in waves, between our two hemispheres due to seasonal variations (temp's etc)
Singapore, is a case in point where after having successfully seen off Stage 1, they relaxed their stance, and are now being hit by a 2nd wave of CV19 transmissions...
Hopefully, we shall be maintaining the current batch of CV19 restrictions for a while longer yet my friend, or such is my hope...
Steve, science might tell us how far the virus might spread when someone coughs or sneezes but by itself that does not determine what social distancing should be.
The advice on social distancing must take into account the feasibility of any distance that is selected - if the distance were set at, say, 5 metres, shopping for food would become almost impossible as would public transport.
It is also important to recognise that you can't reduce the risk of transmission to zero by social distancing but you can reduce it significantly and two metres sends the message - "keep away from other people".
In the UK the central message is "stay indoors, only go out for essentials and do that as infrequently as possible". If you add to that the advice about vulnerable people not going out at all the discussion about whether 2 metres is sufficient becomes somewhat academic.
There might be something more that could be done to advise people to avoid individuals who are coughing or sneezing and to encourage people to use a tissue to cover their mouth and nose but people who are coughing and sneezing should really be avoiding public spaces anyway.
There are lots of things to cause concern at the moment. Worrying about whether 2 metres is sufficient shouldnt be one of them.
Your opinion is welcome, as are the perspectives of all who choose to comment. There are a great many aspects to this debate, and sadly I believe were are only at the pyramid's apex, at this juncture...
Steve, did you mean " only at the pyramid's apex"?
As an aside I spent my career working on drinking water quality standards where the precautionary principle lead to a lot of unnecessary concern and huge expenditure on unnecessary treatment. It also acted as a distraction and diverted resources away from many issues that posed a much greater risk to health. The science can inform decision making but it should never be used to make the decisions in isolation.
This question I have pondered over , and from a personal view I would like to see it doubled to 4 meters ,in Ques for shopping and one way system in shops a must .
I had a rather annoying experience in an Aldi store yesterday where the young woman & her mother were endeavouring to get through the check out fast by NOT observing the required SD, (1.5m here in Australia...). I simply tried to explain before having to realise it would not have mattered what I said, because they were extremely defensive and ignorant of the ever present dangers of COVID-19. I tried to explain why I was wearing a mask, (most people in Australia do not at present), but then I realised it wasn't going to matter whatever I had to say, because they were seemingly incapable of understanding anything other than the needs of their reflexive actions...
I really do shudder upon going to the supermarkets... Wish there were other options available to me... I shall just continue to remain calm & manage as best I can, as I am sure we are all doing...
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Is Shielding ending/extending ? 
Vaccination for the vulnerable?
