Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby
It's math and geometry.
Let's use an aisle. A nice big aisle. We have a shopper with a shopping cart in front of her, because she's pushing it. She stops to check out something on the shelf to her right.
Now we have someone coming down from the opposite end, and he stops adjacent to the woman, with his cart in front of him, while he looks on a shelf to HIS right.
Now, we have a guy without a shopping cart coming up behind the woman, and he wants to pass by. But we also have a woman and her two kids beside her, with a shopping cart, coming from the other direction, trying to pass the guy.
In order for the guy without the cart to pass the woman at the same time the lady with the two kids is trying to pass the guy with the cart, they all have to go down the middle of the aisle, facing each other and passing each other in VERY close proximity. As in - bumping shoulders.
The one-way scenario REDUCES this. It doesn't eliminate it, but it does reduce it.
You won't have people coming within inches of each other, while facing each other, in order to pass the people in front of them.
You'll still have people trying to pass, but it'll be a single lane of "people trying to pass" right down the middle, instead of people coming from both directions trying to create two "passing" lanes in the middle.
One passing lane vs. two passing lanes, all taking up the same amount of real estate.
Reduced risk. That's what it's about.
|
Thank you, OBB for a reasonable explanation. I can see how this could potentially reduce risk. However, I see some flaws in the one-way traffic policy.
First, the scenario you laid out seems to be rather specific and therefore relatively rare. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and it might reduce the risk compared to having two way traffic. A little.
However, and this always seems to be the bigger issue, the risk is not all or nothing. We have to consider the cost of the action. What's the cost of one way traffic? I think unquestionably it increases the time required to shop...get in and get out. The longer we are trapped indoors with many people (some of whom are not wearing masks which are designed to protect the population, not the wearer) the higher the risk of infection.
In the overall scheme of things, I would think reducing time exposed would be towards the top of the list of risk mitigation techniques available. I think I would want to accept the two-way traffic risk (especially since I can mitigate that by waiting longer for the person to pass and not bumping shoulders) in exchange for significantly reducing the exposure time risk.
Your explanation of the benefit of the policy is good. I am not convinced that the policy is wise overall. Especially since, in the real world, people are confused and violate the policy frequently. So we could end up with the aisle risk (bumping shoulders) AND the longer exposure risk.
There's always a battle between theoretical and actual when it comes to predicting human behavior.
Thoughts?