Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
[COVID-19] - Things to do when under lockdown
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Which Tyler" data-source="post: 997632" data-attributes="member: 73592"><p>Out of interest - can someone please explain why 2m (based on actual science) is supposed to be excessive; but 1 or 1.5 is "common sense"</p><p>~Also why common sense is better than actual science?</p><p></p><p>2m was NOT a distance just arbitarily plucked out of thin air.</p><p>It was a distance based on sread of respiratory droplets via breathing, coughing and sneezing etc.</p><p>Smaller droplets travel further; as do those expired more forcefully - they also contain less viral load.</p><p></p><p>There is no magic distance where it suddenly becomes safe; whilst it's unsafe before that; it's a sliding scale of risk - with further being safe.</p><p>Large droplets (with large viral load) typically travel 1.2-2.4 metres - 2m is pretty low risk; 1m is pretty high risk; somewhere in between is somewhere in between. This stuff predates Covid by decades. Opinion varies on what level of risk is acceptable - it doesn't really vary on what the risk level is for different distances.</p><p></p><p>If everyone is wearing a mask, then this comes down; as they will stop some droplets; and slow down others, meaning they travel less far. But that necessitates mask wearing.</p><p>Research on how effective masks are at this, and where they move the "safe point" to is essentially impossible, as we're mostly talking about unregulated masks (whether home-made, FFP1, polution protection etc etc - and by definition, not all made to the same standard).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Which Tyler, post: 997632, member: 73592"] Out of interest - can someone please explain why 2m (based on actual science) is supposed to be excessive; but 1 or 1.5 is "common sense" ~Also why common sense is better than actual science? 2m was NOT a distance just arbitarily plucked out of thin air. It was a distance based on sread of respiratory droplets via breathing, coughing and sneezing etc. Smaller droplets travel further; as do those expired more forcefully - they also contain less viral load. There is no magic distance where it suddenly becomes safe; whilst it's unsafe before that; it's a sliding scale of risk - with further being safe. Large droplets (with large viral load) typically travel 1.2-2.4 metres - 2m is pretty low risk; 1m is pretty high risk; somewhere in between is somewhere in between. This stuff predates Covid by decades. Opinion varies on what level of risk is acceptable - it doesn't really vary on what the risk level is for different distances. If everyone is wearing a mask, then this comes down; as they will stop some droplets; and slow down others, meaning they travel less far. But that necessitates mask wearing. Research on how effective masks are at this, and where they move the "safe point" to is essentially impossible, as we're mostly talking about unregulated masks (whether home-made, FFP1, polution protection etc etc - and by definition, not all made to the same standard). [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
[COVID-19] - Things to do when under lockdown
Top