2 metre rule vs 1 metre

[Kev40ish]

I am a strong believer that the 2 metre rule needs to be reduced to ensure the economy can recover quicker.

I am constantly annoyed at the way the media frame the facts. All they say is your twice as likely to die if  you reduce it.

No social distancing 13% will catch it, of which a maximum of 4% will die..
2 metre will reduce the risk of catching it, it will go down to 1.5%
1 metre will “double it” so take it to 3% yes an increased risk, but not as bad as people make it sound.

If it makes the economy actually be able to function them it’s got to be worth the increased risk

It’s what we do all the time, look at how they apply speed limits to reduce risk, but balance it with us being able to get around.

Yes it will result in a loss of life but if they were that concerned they would impose a 3 metre rule which will half the risk that 2 metres allows

[Kev40ish]

Never a good choice to make but unfortunately these are the facts the government need to way up when making these decisions..

[monsterballz47]

I completely agree. I don't necessarily agree, though, that reducing it from two metres to one metre will result in a loss of life (at least not in any extensive way).

The evidence on what is a safe distance has always been far from certain. Of course, the further people stay apart, the lower the risk of transmission is. But most experts have admitted that there is no clear threshold regarding what is a dangerous distance and what is a safe distance.

We've been hearing murmurings of it been reduced throughout lockdown, and now more and more people are talking about it (in government and in the media), so I do think it's only a matter of time before it's reduced to one metre.

[GingerNuts]

You've answered your own question. At the moment they've balanced the risk and the answer is 2m.

A 3m distance would involve significantly more practical difficulty.

A 1m distance results in increased infections and deaths (double according to your post).

With lower numbers of infections we appear to be moving towards the balance shifting to reducing the distance and it'll happen when it's deeemed appropriate.

[winkywanky]

Clearly 1m is a lot different from 2m, if you spend a minute talking to someone at 1m you can feel their breath on your face, you can't at 2m.

Having said that I do feel we've reached the point now where the limit should be reduced from 2m, perhaps down to 1.5m. That would apparently enable a lot more places to open and at least assist in the return to normality which so many crave now. I think it's a reasonable compromise when you consider the damage Lockdown is doing to people.

If you then go to those places, then of course take precautions, and don't feel you can just stand next to a stranger at that distance for minutes on end. And if you turn up somewhere and it's more crowded than you're comfortable with, turn around and go somewhere else. Use your loaf.

Of course the whole thing will probably go tits up by next weekend anyway, when all those Demo twats start coming down with it, along with all the other people they gave it to on PT  .

[george r]

after all the protests its gone out of the window ? more like less than a foot now ?

[willie loman]

When a rule is viewed as unobservable, and makes life impossible, it tends not to  be observed.

[Spencer Fobby]

When a rule is viewed as unobservable, and makes life impossible, it tends not to  be observed.

+1
when pubs open, the rule will be out of the window.  Good thing too.

[Wadebridge]

Clearly 1m is a lot different from 2m, if you spend a minute talking to someone at 1m you can feel their breath on your face, you can't at 2m.

Bang on correct! Crazy to scrap the 2m rule with the UK high numbers, still in the several thousands.
The number of new infections are going up already even though the 2m rule still, for now, applies, and easing of lock down is only partial. Well informed people can see through this right away, with the R rate being reported as > 1 in some areas, SW England,  NW England etc. And of course the lying govt just denies these regional differences (even though its regional testing project is a joke) and bangs on about R being steady, between between 0.7 and 0.9. 
We're also told that the new cases are now approx 1,500  a day according to worldometers website, but regional news reports and Ch4 state figures of 5,000 new infections per day, down from 8,000+.
So reducing distancing from 2m to 1m will confirm to me what the govt's and Dom Cum's strategy has been all along;  herd immunity by stealth.

+1
when pubs open, the rule will be out of the window.  Good thing too.

If pubs do open shortly, I would guess there'll be only two types of customers going to them (1) those selfish people that don't care one iota whether or not they get the virus, or who they pass it on to, and (2) those that already know, from being laid low from the virus, that they've had a dose. Anyone not in group (1) or (2), if they've any common sense at all, ought to stay well clear of pubs.

[winkywanky]

As we come out of Lockdown we need the fucking T&T phone App, asap. WTF are they playing at? 

They're gonna give us worldclass this, worldclass that, it's a fucking joke  .

The latest is this bloody document with the BAME review recommendations. Half of it comes out this week, with the bits the BAME mob are baying for, missing  . The govt are just making themselves look like useless cunts. I've cut them a lot of slack in the circumstances, but maybe they just are?

[Spencer Fobby]

The phone app won't work.
Masses of people will not download it voluntarily.
Think of the many circumstances where you might need to consider the consequences of sharing the data of who you've been seeing.
And I'm not just talking about punting - if you were a freelancer, working as part of a team, put all your colleagues under forced quarantine and stop them earning? 
The only way an app works is if it's compulsory, checkable and enforceable. Like China.  And we are fortunately not in a totalitarian regime.

And it won't be ready to roll out for ages. 

[Beamer]

Can't believe that the politicians are not listening to the Scientists and The Chief Medical Officer.
IMO it's far too early for anyone to start reducing social distancing.
We will end up with the worst of all worlds. 

[Kev40ish]

Can't believe that the politicians are not listening to the Scientists and The Chief Medical Officer.
IMO it's far too early for anyone to start reducing social distancing.
We will end up with the worst of all worlds.

Fear seems to be the biggest obstacle.. there are lots of differing scientific views, which ones are right.
WHO advocate 1mtr rule. So you can pick and choose which ones to believe..
Someone just needs to make a decision..

[Beamer]

Fear seems to be the biggest obstacle.. there are lots of differing scientific views, which ones are right.
WHO advocate 1mtr rule. So you can pick and choose which ones to believe..
Someone just needs to make a decision..

Let's hope it's not left to the Chancellor! Nothing against him but science and medical experts have to lead?
Wasn't aware WHO wanted 1 metre.
I guess all the demonstrations will play a part .....no peak after all the "close people" could sway the decision?
the government's scientific advisers say that being 1m (just over 3ft) apart carries up to 10 times the risk of being 2m apart.
C'mon Doc. .... where are you?

[Spencer Fobby]

It's the FEAR that's going to be most destructive in the long term.  Everyone's so fucking scared.

[winkywanky]

I'm not scared. I'm careful. And I listen to what's being said, seeing where it comes from and then drawing my own conclusions, and acting on them for my own situation.

[timsussex]

2m was always a simplistic measure , clearly face to face is much higher risk than back to back. side to side falls in between

so is 2m face to face or 1 m otherwise too difficult for the public to comprehend ?

[Wadebridge]

The govt are just making themselves look like useless cunts. I've cut them a lot of slack in the circumstances, but maybe they just are?

No, you were right the first time! They are a bunch of incompetent, U-turning, late-acting, making policy up on the hoof-ing, useless cunts!

WHO advocate 1mtr rule. So you can pick and choose which ones to believe.

The WHO started off by stating 2 meters. They may now be starting to revise their new recommendation to 1m, by going on statistics from other continental European whose regional testing strategies are much more robust than ours, and where the people's general common sense and behaviour has been exemplary, most people outdoors wearing masks etc; not flooding to beaches, and packing in together on protest marches like we've been doing; and where new daily cases have come down into the few hundreds, not several thousands like we have.
Our govt doesn't give a 'monkeys' about its citizens welfare,  or the fact that its strategy is high risk. It just wants people to go out shopping, pubbing, teaching etc so that the govt's precious economy can get the boost it so desperately needs, so govt can look good again. Most of the MPs have had the virus anyway,  and they've had priority access to tests which most of us ordinary folk have not.
To get the economy started up again, what they needed to do was to reduce or eliminate the fear factor in people, which could only have happened if people had complete trust in what their govt was spouting. But unfortunately it has been exposed day after day to be lies and porkie pies.

[Beamer]

It's the FEAR that's going to be most destructive in the long term.  Everyone's so fucking scared.

Except the idiots who were demonstrating.
The guy caught  pissing against the memorial to the Policeman who lost his life serving his country should be made to clean up the mess and then go and apologise to the family.
What an arse.

Then we need a real public conversation with Boris and the Scientific head (?Sir Patrick) and Prof Chris Witty. So that we all know who has made the decision to change 2 metre rule.

[winkywanky]

Except the idiots who were demonstrating.
The guy caught  pissing against the memorial to the Policeman who lost his life serving his country should be made to clean up the mess and then go and apologise to the family.
What an arse.

Then we need a real public conversation with Boris and the Scientific head (?Sir Patrick) and Prof Chris Witty. So that we all know who has made the decision to change 2 metre rule.

Was he actually pissing on it? Not justifying his actions of course, he's almost certainly just a big, fat, gormless, racist cunt. From what I saw it looked like he was pissing down the side of it in his complete ignorance. I may be completely wrong of course, and happy to be proved so.

[Bryan11]

I prefer the minus 6 inches rule

[Beamer]

Was he actually pissing on it? Not justifying his actions of course, he's almost certainly just a big, fat, gormless, racist cunt. From what I saw it looked like he was pissing down the side of it in his complete ignorance. I may be completely wrong of course, and happy to be proved so.

Apparently,  he has been arrested after he gave himself up to an Essex policeman.
Not sure the precise location, direction and flight details of his "act".

[Doc Holliday]

A Doc Holliday diatribe follows .....

2m was always a simplistic measure , clearly face to face is much higher risk than back to back. side to side falls in between

so is 2m face to face or 1 m otherwise too difficult for the public to comprehend ?

Yes we are all idiots in the eyes of the government.

It is a general principle not an exact science and the distance MUST take into account the time spent within that distance as well as other factors such as indoors v outdoors, very enclosed indoor environments poor ventilation and any PPE being worn.

I posted about this in another thread  https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=278158.msg2871319#msg2871319

This Lancet study giving rise to recent articles was commissioned by the WHO and published a couple of weeks ago. It is really just a review of a large number of existing studies all of which vary in their findings. The figures therefore quoted in the media are IMO pretty meaningless in terms of accuracy, especially because the time factor within a zone is so variable.
External Link/Members Only

WHO advocate 1mtr rule. So you can pick and choose which ones to believe..
 

The WHO position is that it should be at least 1 metre. 1 metre is a minimum, but beyond that is safer External Link/Members Only

With other respiratory viruses there is a great deal of spread by coughing and sneezing which bumps the distance up. With Covid sneezing is rare and you would hope that anyone who has a cough (unlike colds and flu) would be self isolating. This does therefore allow some flexibility as transmission by speech from asymptomatic carriers would be more likely and 1 metre becomes more viable. Bear in mind that at two metres you may drift occasionally just by leaning forward for example into 1.5 metres albeit briefly. At one metre and you enter the red zone briefly you are increasing the risk considerably.

Whatever the distance masks will reduce the risk further, but the UK is all over the place with this and have boxed themselves into a corner.

What should happen is that the distance should be flexible to suit the circumstances. If you can keep 3 metres or more do so especially indoors. We know 2 metres has worked for the supermarkets which have remained open all the time and the infection rate has dropped so stick with it. Other retailers can also copy this.

If that causes problems for smaller retailers then would 1.5 be better? I personally think 1.5 is acceptable.

I would say that 1 metre is pushing it and it is only a minority of countries who are with 1 metre. The majority are 1.5 to 2 metres. The Germans (don't mention the war) are at 1.5 and they have generally done well in European comparisons. Also nearly all of those countries who are at 1 metre have much lower infection rates and far better T&T setups eg Singapore China. We don’t have that safety factor. Looking at the way the data is bottoming out we may never have that safety margin?

Someone just needs to make a decision..

Agreed. That is the problem though the government needs to make that decision but is desperate for the scientists to change their mind … and I cannot see that happening especially given the continued high rate of infection in the UK.

Boris therefore needs to be honest and say we need to make an economic decision and not one based on the science. In order to protect jobs we need to potentially  increase the risk of transmission within the hospitality sector. People can then make their own minds up whether to sit within 1 metre next to someone inside the pub all night or not whilst not wearing a mask.

[Doc Holliday]

The phone app won't work.
Masses of people will not download it voluntarily.
Think of the many circumstances where you might need to consider the consequences of sharing the data of who you've been seeing.
And I'm not just talking about punting - if you were a freelancer, working as part of a team, put all your colleagues under forced quarantine and stop them earning? 
The only way an app works is if it's compulsory, checkable and enforceable. Like China.  And we are fortunately not in a totalitarian regime.

And it won't be ready to roll out for ages.

This ^

[Kev40ish]

A Doc Holliday diatribe follows .....

Yes we are all idiots in the eyes of the government.

It is a general principle not an exact science and the distance MUST take into account the time spent within that distance as well as other factors such as indoors v outdoors, very enclosed indoor environments poor ventilation and any PPE being worn.

I posted about this in another thread  https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=278158.msg2871319#msg2871319

This Lancet study giving rise to recent articles was commissioned by the WHO and published a couple of weeks ago. It is really just a review of a large number of existing studies all of which vary in their findings. The figures therefore quoted in the media are IMO pretty meaningless in terms of accuracy, especially because the time factor within a zone is so variable.
External Link/Members Only

The WHO position is that it should be at least 1 metre. 1 metre is a minimum, but beyond that is safer External Link/Members Only

With other respiratory viruses there is a great deal of spread by coughing and sneezing which bumps the distance up. With Covid sneezing is rare and you would hope that anyone who has a cough (unlike colds and flu) would be self isolating. This does therefore allow some flexibility as transmission by speech from asymptomatic carriers would be more likely and 1 metre becomes more viable. Bear in mind that at two metres you may drift occasionally just by leaning forward for example into 1.5 metres albeit briefly. At one metre and you enter the red zone briefly you are increasing the risk considerably.

Whatever the distance masks will reduce the risk further, but the UK is all over the place with this and have boxed themselves into a corner.

What should happen is that the distance should be flexible to suit the circumstances. If you can keep 3 metres or more do so especially indoors. We know 2 metres has worked for the supermarkets which have remained open all the time and the infection rate has dropped so stick with it. Other retailers can also copy this.

If that causes problems for smaller retailers then would 1.5 be better? I personally think 1.5 is acceptable.

I would say that 1 metre is pushing it and it is only a minority of countries who are with 1 metre. The majority are 1.5 to 2 metres. The Germans (don't mention the war) are at 1.5 and they have generally done well in European comparisons. Also nearly all of those countries who are at 1 metre have much lower infection rates and far better T&T setups eg Singapore China. We don’t have that safety factor. Looking at the way the data is bottoming out we may never have that safety margin?

Agreed. That is the problem though the government needs to make that decision but is desperate for the scientists to change their mind … and I cannot see that happening especially given the continued high rate of infection in the UK.

Boris therefore needs to be honest and say we need to make an economic decision and not one based on the science. In order to protect jobs we need to potentially  increase the risk of transmission within the hospitality sector. People can then make their own minds up whether to sit within 1 metre next to someone inside the pub all night or not whilst not wearing a mask.

Thank you once again a really useful response 

[Beamer]

Thank you once again a really useful response 

Always......thanks Doc 

[winkywanky]

I would say that 1 metre is pushing it and it is only a minority of countries who are with 1 metre. The majority are 1.5 to 2 metres. The Germans (don't mention the war) are at 1.5 and they have generally done well in European comparisons. Also nearly all of those countries who are at 1 metre have much lower infection rates and far better T&T setups eg Singapore China. We don’t have that safety factor. Looking at the way the data is bottoming out we may never have that safety margin?

Agreed. That is the problem though the government needs to make that decision but is desperate for the scientists to change their mind … and I cannot see that happening especially given the continued high rate of infection in the UK.

Boris therefore needs to be honest and say we need to make an economic decision and not one based on the science. In order to protect jobs we need to potentially  increase the risk of transmission within the hospitality sector. People can then make their own minds up whether to sit within 1 metre next to someone inside the pub all night or not whilst not wearing a mask.

You call that a diatribe Doc? Very poor effort IMO 

Yes, 1m seems almost like not distancing at all. If you were down the pub chatting with someone you would naturally be at about that distance anyway, so as not to invade their personal space.

1.5m seems like a good compromise, and with clear explanation like you've given here. For Boris to be just as clear would be good...for once.

Agreed, that Boris needs to have the balls to make the call, that careful personal choices need to be made now, not just sticking slavishly to 2m etc. The point has been reached where so long as the R number allows, we need to start opening up a bit for everyone's sanity, as well as salvaging the economy in some way.

[Beamer]

Boris has just announced "no change" for another month.
Good decision

[winkywanky]

It's very tricky isn't it? 

[Adoniron]

Reducing it to 1m won't make any difference unless people feel it's safe. If they think it's being done for economic rather than scientific reasons they still won't visit these businesses. I would have thought the government behavioural scientists (the so-called"nudge unit") would know this.

[winkywanky]

Reducing it to 1m won't make any difference unless people feel it's safe. If they think it's being done for economic rather than scientific reasons they still won't visit these businesses. I would have thought the government behavioural scientists (the so-called"nudge unit") would know this.

I suspect you are wrong, some are scared, others are simply waiting for the green light. Many are flagrantly breaking Lockdown already.

If places open up, people will come. It just won't be you, that's all.

[Adoniron]

I suspect you are wrong, some are scared, others are simply waiting for the green light. Many are flagrantly breaking Lockdown already.

If places open up, people will come. It just won't be you, that's all.

I didn't say nobody would go.

Nor did I say I wouldn't go.

[winkywanky]

I didn't say nobody would go.

Nor did I say I wouldn't go.

Well you said: Reducing it to 1m won't make any difference unless people feel it's safe.

Many will feel it's safe enough. So it will make a difference.

[Adoniron]

Well you said: Reducing it to 1m won't make any difference unless people feel it's safe.

Many will feel it's safe enough. So it will make a difference.

Many businesses say that they can't operate profitably at say 50% capacity with a 2m rule but could at 65-70% with 1m. However there is no guarantee they will be able to fill that capacity.
Some customers will return. Others won't, either because they are afraid or can't afford to do so because they have been furloughed or made redundant.
It's fanciful to suggest that if the distance is reduced to 1m everyone will say oh that's ok then and trade will return to pre-lockdown levels.

[Doc Holliday]

This Lancet study giving rise to recent articles was commissioned by the WHO and published a couple of weeks ago. It is really just a review of a large number of existing studies all of which vary in their findings. The figures therefore quoted in the media are IMO pretty meaningless in terms of accuracy, especially because the time factor within a zone is so variable.
External Link/Members Only

The WHO position is that it should be at least 1 metre. 1 metre is a minimum, but beyond that is safer External Link/Members Only

External Link/Members Only

[winkywanky]

Many businesses say that they can't operate profitably at say 50% capacity with a 2m rule but could at 65-70% with 1m. However there is no guarantee they will be able to fill that capacity.
Some customers will return. Others won't, either because they are afraid or can't afford to do so because they have been furloughed or made redundant.
It's fanciful to suggest that if the distance is reduced to 1m everyone will say oh that's ok then and trade will return to pre-lockdown levels.

Of course they wouldn't  . But if you make it 1m and it all goes tits up then the govt will be to blame  . 1m just seems too dangerous to me and I doubt very much the govt will OK it.

IMO 1m is clearly too close, you can feel people breathing at that distance.

If it were 1.5m then at least some businesses could open, but clearly not as many as if it were 1m. But better than nothing.

[LLPunting]

A Doc Holliday diatribe follows .....

Yes we are all idiots in the eyes of the government.

...

Spot on Doc, alas the trouble plaguing us is that there are is a significant proportion of the population who do not know how to conduct themselves proportionately to situations and our history with alcohol mixed with all situations suggests that the appropriate safe behaviour will not ensue once pubs and clubs re-open, particularly in certain areas.  The riots and holiday swarmings have already exemplified that.

The model you describe should have been publicly advised repeatedly ad nauseam and implemented for all businesses.  Under such public awareness we should have had non-essential shops and businesses open weeks ago, just kept the pubs and clubs shut. 

I don't see how shops taking stock off the floor for x hrs/days after it's been handled is going to work, especially as we've moved from a model of on site stock keeping.  Some other behaviour and practice needs to be resolved for that.

[Adoniron]

Of course they wouldn't  . But if you make it 1m and it all goes tits up then the govt will be to blame  . 1m just seems too dangerous to me and I doubt very much the govt will OK it.

IMO 1m is clearly too close, you can feel people breathing at that distance.

If it were 1.5m then at least some businesses could open, but clearly not as many as if it were 1m. But better than nothing.

There isn't a lot of difference between 1m and normal life. If I'm in the pub I don't want strangers within 1m of me anyway. In addition, once alcohol is involved, 1m would soon become 70cm, then 50...

[winkywanky]

There isn't a lot of difference between 1m and normal life. If I'm in the pub I don't want strangers within 1m of me anyway. In addition, once alcohol is involved, 1m would soon become 70cm, then 50...

I totally agree, I think a 1m rule would be sheer folly.

[southcoastpunter]

I totally agree, I think a 1m rule would be sheer folly.

from a pure medical point of view you maybe right - indeed the safest way is to lock us all up to next year or whenever we have a vacine. But the governments job is to try to balance all the various things like medical, jobs, economy, debt and borrowing, personal welbeing and public acceptance of measures in place.

Its very easy for you to sit whereever you sit and say the things you do - but Boris and team for all their faults (and there are a few!) have to take a overall holistic view of ALL the factors in play. At least you have the option to take whatever measures you think are appropiate for you and your own circumstances -as indeed most of us have.

FWIW- I thought Boris had only ordered an enquiry into reducing 2M down to 1M and not had confirmed that it WILL happen or when.

[winkywanky]

from a pure medical point of view you maybe right - indeed the safest way is to lock us all up to next year or whenever we have a vacine. But the governments job is to try to balance all the various things like medical, jobs, economy, debt and borrowing, personal welbeing and public acceptance of measures in place.

Its very easy for you to sit whereever you sit and say the things you do - but Boris and team for all their faults (and there are a few!) have to take a overall holistic view of ALL the factors in play. At least you have the option to take whatever measures you think are appropiate for you and your own circumstances -as indeed most of us have.

FWIW- I thought Boris had only ordered an enquiry into reducing 2M down to 1M and not had confirmed that it WILL happen or when.

I'm taking that 'balance' into account, you haven't read what I said  : which was that 1m is pretty well no distancing at all, it's as far away as you stand from someone normally anyway.

[LLPunting]

I'm taking that 'balance' into account, you haven't read what I said  : which was that 1m is pretty well no distancing at all, it's as far away as you stand from someone normally anyway.

How much do you tell the girls is six inches again?

Conversations with strangers perhaps at 1m, most conversations with people known to you are probably happening at arm's length so perhaps 50-70cm.  Pub scrums and drunken blatherings are full contact encounters with loads of loaded exhalation and projection.

[kippydon]

i think the 2M rule does need to change, but at the moment until infection rates are a lot lower than there are now, just would not be safe , another few weeks  we should wait, we come this far, just need to make sure

[winkywanky]

How much do you tell the girls is six inches again?

Conversations with strangers perhaps at 1m, most conversations with people known to you are probably happening at arm's length so perhaps 50-70cm.  Pub scrums and drunken blatherings are full contact encounters with loads of loaded exhalation and projection.

What's the difference between 70cm and 100cm? Not a lot. Although if I had a 30cm cock it would be considered a lot and I'll just have to make do with one half that size  

I would definitely say that 100cm is the average distance you stand from someone to talk in normal situations. I just got a tape measure to check, and it is. Obviously in a noisy pub environment you'd be closer to hear.

This isn't like the inverse-square law where an increase in exposure is precisely quantifiable, nevertheless if you go from 2m to 1m distance then you increase the exposure to this virus by vastly more than double. Think of all those little animations we've all seen lately , where you see the animated 'spray' come out of someone's mouth. You'd be right in the firing line.

Too close for me, and I think it would be a bad move while the R number is so high.

[Beamer]

Have just seen that Rabb does not have any scientific or medical experts with him today at the daily briefing.   I  missed the start, does anyone know why they are not part of the briefing?

[winkywanky]

...possibly because they don't want to be associated with what the govt might be about to say...

[Adoniron]

...possibly because they don't want to be associated with what the govt might be about to say...

They know the government is going to try to put the blame on them so they're trying to put some distance between them and the government.

[LLPunting]

They know the government is going to try to put the blame on them so they're trying to put some distance between them and the government.

Perhaps making a very obvious point about social distancing needing to be more than 2m at the present time...
Or perhaps called in a sickie with declared symptoms knowing it would get the crap flowing at Downing St.

[Kev40ish]

They know the government is going to try to put the blame on them so they're trying to put some distance between them and the government.

I doubt the government would get away with blaming the scientist..
I think honesty is the best policy just say the risks. I think the government is just scared of telling the truth..
Yes we can save a lot more lives but no-one will have a job, it will lead to poverty for many.. the economy will take years to recover..more deaths related to mental issues, and a lowering of life expediency due to the lack of money..
or we can accept more deaths they will be old or people with pre-existing illnesses, which we will shield for an unspecified amount of time - stimulate the economy and try and build a near normal society.. give the young a future..

[Spencer Fobby]

I doubt the government would get away with blaming the scientist..
I think honesty is the best policy just say the risks. I think the government is just scared of telling the truth..
Yes we can save a lot more lives but no-one will have a job, it will lead to poverty for many.. the economy will take years to recover..more deaths related to mental issues, and a lowering of life expediency due to the lack of money..
or we can accept more deaths they will be old or people with pre-existing illnesses, which we will shield for an unspecified amount of time - stimulate the economy and try and build a near normal society.. give the young a future..

+1