Henry had had enough. A standard unit of measure it must be. There had been frustrating inconsistency leading to confusion and waste.

After all, informal agreements relating to a foot of measurement had been used in England for many years.

King Henry I, youngest son of William the Conqueror and Matilda of Flanders and the 24th great-grandfather of Elizabeth II, ruled from 1100 until his death in 1135.

He was known for his focus on improving governance including a more bureaucratic form of rule that included the Exchequer (Courts and Treasury) and the Charter of Liberties (Coronation Charter) clearly outlining the Crowns' rights and responsibilities, ostensibly to protect him from his brother's, Robert II, claim to the throne.

King Henry expanded the bureaucracy as means of securing his reign and, in doing so, set up mechanisms that allowed him to consider matters such as standardisation.

Consequently, a "foot" becoming law is often attributed to King Henry. It was the length of his foot that was chosen as the unit of standardisation rather than a "foot" typically being the boot of the person measuring.

At about the same time, the yard (now three feet or 36 inches - 91.44 centimetres) was defined after settling on the measurement from the tip of King Henry's nose to the thumb of his outstretched hand.

The idea of body parts including feet and arms and the width of a man's thumb for an inch (2.54cm) had been around since ancient times.

Yet it wasn't until 1959 that the length of a foot was formally standardised as 12 inches (30.48cm) - the size of an average man's foot.

The imperial system retains influence in Australia and even though we are parochially metric (adopted 1966-1971), feet and inches are still the preferred measure for height along with pounds and ounces for newborns.

I find it hard to visualise the height of a 200cm footballer or the size of a three kilogram baby.

Australia's Chief Medical Officer, Professor Brendan Murphy, who had enjoyed relative anonymity, was thrust into the spotlight due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Not a natural media performer, with a dry sense of humour, his consistency of message could be questioned, but not his resilience to front each day and explain complex medical concerns to a confused and frightened public.

On the weekend of March 14-15, Professor Murphy was having a well-earned rest and one of his deputies, Dr Paul Kelly, stepped up when it was announced that handshakes were off and starting Monday standing 1.5 metres apart from each other was considered a "safe physical distance", strongly encouraged to stop the spread of COVID-19.

The Prime Minister reassured us: "We're not going to have social-distancing police", to allay concerns.

Interestingly, that message was lost in translation across Bass Strait. Perhaps the cable was broken again.

Over coming days and weeks, the Prime Minister with the support of Professor Murphy and Dr Kelly had the difficult task of explaining why 1.5 metres was chosen as the standardised rule.

There is a study that suggests we should be 1.8 metres apart. However, the medical chiefs decided that 1.8 metres should be reduced to 1.5 metres, a measurement that is practical and relatively easy to imagine.

Like many decisions during the pandemic, it was a "gut-reaction" rather than being underpinned by numerous scientific studies and peer reviews and the rigour normally associated with medical judgments.

The US instructed either "put distance between yourself and other people", or six feet (182.88cm), the World Health Organization and Singapore chose one-metre and, underpinned by 1930's research, New Zealand went for two metres along with the UK who after finally falling for the metric system soon realised that it was easily explained with, "Och, just stay six feet apart - the height of your bairn, or wee'un, or littlin, or lad or lass..." affectionately used well after such descriptors should have lost relevance.

King Henry and his fandangled bureaucracy sure would have been handy at 2020 pressers ...

"Simply remain the distance of the royal wingspan apart," he would have stated before delivering a theatrical demonstration to loyal subjects.

Throughout history we have often struggled for consistency and standardisation.

Perhaps that is a good thing, forcing us to challenge, experiment, and continue to learn as we trial different solutions to complex problems.

It was said to me this week that the overused term "new normal" should be rebranded as "better normal" with a focus on the ideas that ought to be adopted to streamline our lives.

And while our normal may have changed, one thing that hasn't is the need for people to work together.

Whether in government or the private sector we rely on the attributes, skills, and talents of a diverse workforce - that is true power.

"He preferred to contend by council rather than by the sword", said historian William of Malmesbury regarding King Henry circa 1125.

I like that sentiment. Nearly 900 years on it still rings true.