I WISH I could agree with Joanna Blythman that the two-metre rule is "scientifically baseless ("Scientifically baseless two-metre rule would kill our restaurants. But there is another way", Herald Magazine, May 23), but sadly I cannot. It is agreed that transmission between people occurs when virus-containing moisture droplets, shed by an infected person, reach the breathing zone of another. Live experiments, where such droplets were illuminated by laser light, showed that coughing, sneezing and even loud conversation can generate such droplets. The larger droplets tend to fall within one to two metres. The smaller droplets or virus particles continue floating in mid-air and may follow any air currents into other breathing zones. So there is an observable scientific basis for a distance factor in the transmission mechanism.
Outdoors, there is usually some air movement to disperse the floating particles and an infinite supply of fresh air to dilute any contaminated volumes. So the risk of transmission is relatively small.
Indoors, the risk depends on the particular ventilating system involved. Some air may be re-circulated, with the balance being fresh air from outside. The re-circulated air passes through filters, but these are not normally capable of removing such small particles, unless for special systems used in hospitals and clean rooms. A comment made to me by an eminently qualified environmental engineer is that "most HVAC systems are not fit-for-purpose when it comes to infection control".
Guidance notes, issued by a European HVAC technical federation, state that "the safety distance of two metres between people regarding the risk of Covid-19 is a myth". It is legislating for indoor situations and emphasising that the distance between people is largely beside the point. The more important question is – what does a particular ventilation system do, as regards virus-loaded droplets and how do you set the system to reduce the risk of virus particles staying in the breathing zone? It may be that the best thing you can do is switch the system off and open windows to produce a through-flow of fresh air (perhaps not conducive to the kind of dining-out experience we all treasure). There is a restaurant case study where one diner infected nine others, many of whom were much further than two metres away from the infected person. There was plenty of air movement from wall-mounted air conditioners, but very little fresh air ventilation.
So Ms Blythman is correct if she is implying that two-metre spacing, regardless of the context, is not the issue, but the information on HVAC systems suggests that a great deal of work needs to be done urgently on indoor environments. This applies to a large number of locations – schools, shops, offices, theatres and so on. Where is the guidance from governments?
Thomas G F Gray, Lenzie.
MAY I respond to Ian McNair's request (Letters, May 26) for an adult debate about appropriate social distancing?
It is becoming increasingly clear that there is no such thing as " The Science". Scientists, highly qualified, have differing opinions, and different governments take different advice.
I would choose neither Boris Johnson nor Angela Merkel's science, and would adopt the one-metre rule recommended by the World Health Organisation. The WHO rule would enable pubs, restaurants, clubs and coffee shops, unable to comply with the two metre rule, to open, thereby helping what little remains of our economy.
David Miller, Milngavie.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel