Risk of infection could double if 2-metre rule reduced, study finds

Reducing physical
distancing advice from 2 metres to 1 metre could double the risk of coronavirus
infection, according to the most comprehensive study to date.
The research,
part-funded by the World Health Organization (WHO) and published in the Lancet,
will add to the debate in the UK about whether the 2-metre rule should be
reduced.
Last week, Boris Johnson
said he hoped to “be able to reduce that [2-metre] distance”, to make it easier
to travel on public transport and boost the hospitality industry. This would
allow extra people inside workplaces, restaurants, pubs and shops, and reduce
the length of queues. The prime minister has instructed the Scientific Advisory
Group for Emergencies (Sage) to look into the possibility.
The UK guidance is out
of line with advice in most other countries and with recommendations from the
WHO, which says people should stay 1 metre apart. This is followed by France,
while countries such as Germany and Australia have a 1.5-metre rule.
The Lancet’s
meta-analysis of observational studies across Covid-19 but also – predominately
– Sars and Mers, highlights the potential consequences of a change.
It found that keeping a
distance of more than 1 metre from other people reduced the risk of infection
to 3%, compared with 13% if standing within a metre. However, the modelling
also suggested that for every extra metre further away up to 3 metres, the risk
of infection or transmission may halve.
Linda Bauld, professor
of public health at the University of Edinburgh, who was not involved in the
research, said: “The most useful finding is that physical distancing matters.
There have been plenty of complaints that the guidance in the UK on 2 metres
distance is excessive because it is more than in other countries. But this
review supports it.
“Maintaining this
distance is likely to reduce risk compared to 1 metre. Thus, where possible,
this is the distance that retailers and employers should use as more premises
and workplaces reopen in the future. This is going to be very difficult in some
settings but is important and we’ll all need to get used to maintaining this
distance for some months to come.”
The researchers also
wade into the debate about face masks. Based on evidence from 10 studies
involving 2,647 participants, they found that the risk of infection or
transmission when wearing a mask was 3% compared with 17% when not wearing a
mask, although they said the level of certainty was “low”. Similar benefits
were found, also with low certainty, concerning wearing of protective eye
coverings such as face shields, goggles and glasses.
Respirator-type masks
were found to offer more protection from viral transmission to healthcare
workers than surgical masks. The authors also found that multi-layer masks were
more effective than single-layer ones, which may help guide people making their
own face coverings at home.
Business leaders have
warned that if the 2 metre distance is not reduced it could make their
companies unsustainable, despite the relaxation of lockdown. Greg Clark, the
chairman of the Commons science and technology select committee, told the
Telegraph he had written to Johnson urging him to urgently review whether it
was possible to reduce the distance to 1.5 metres.
“The difference between 2 metres and
1.5 metres may seem small but it can be the difference between people being
able to go to work and losing their jobs,” Clark said.
Last month, Yvonne
Doyle, the medical director of Public Health England (PHE), told the committee
PHE was looking at “whether 2 metres is actually necessary or could it be
reduced further”.
The distance is based on
the belief that when people cough and sneeze large respiratory droplets,
believed to be the main means of transmission of Covid-19 along with contact,
they will travel no more than 2 metres before falling to the ground. However,
some believe this to be an underestimate. Additionally, debate remains about
whether smaller aerosols can cause transmission.
The authors of the
Lancet paper analysed nine studies involving 7,782 participants relating to
physical distancing across the three viruses, reaching conclusions with
“moderate certainty”.
Prof Holger Schünemann
from McMaster University in Canada, who co-led the research, told the Guardian:
“We have a suggestion here that 2 metres might be more effective than 1 metre
distance. And what that would mean is if one were to implement a policy, and
particularly if 2 metres were already in place, 2 metres may be the right
policy to undertake.”
How countries’ rules
differ
UK: Physical distance
requirement of 2 metres; guidance says a face covering should be worn in
“enclosed spaces” where physical distancing may be difficult, such as on public
transport or in some shops.
Germany: Physical
distance requirement of 1.5 metres; face masks compulsory on public transport
and shops (although some variation by state).
Australia: Physical
distance requirement of 1.5 metres; face masks not required.
France: Physical
distance requirement of 1 metre; face masks compulsory on public transport and
in secondary schools, and shops can require customers to wear them.
Vietnam: Physical
distance requirement of 1 metre; face masks compulsory in public.
Sweden: People advised
to keep at a non-specified distance from each other. Face masks are not
prescribed, with the Swedish health ministry stipulating that they are “not
needed in everyday life”.
This article was amended
on 2 June 2020. The original incorrectly stated that the physical distance
requirement in France was 1.5 metres, rather than 1 metre. It also said people
in Sweden were not advised to maintain physical distance from others. In fact,
the advice in Sweden is to maintain distance but the exact distance is not
specified.