THE RISK of catching coronavirus at just one metre is ‘very small’, a top Government adviser says. Professor Robert Dingwall, who sits on the Government’s New and Emerging Virus Threats Advisory Group, called for the two metre social distancing rule to be scrapped to help save struggling industries amid the coronavirus pandemic. And he claimed the risks of reducing the […]
THE RISK of catching coronavirus at just one metre is ‘very small’, a top Government adviser says.
Professor Robert Dingwall, who sits on the Government’s New and Emerging Virus Threats Advisory Group, called for the two metre social distancing rule to be scrapped to help save struggling industries amid the coronavirus pandemic.
Read our coronavirus live blog for the latest news & updates
And he claimed the risks of reducing the distance needed to be “set against” all the other harms caused by the lockdown and shop closures.
In particular, lowering the two-metre rule to one or 1.5 metres could mean tens of thousands more pubs could reopen and avoid many of them having to lay off staff or even close their doors forever.
Just last week, a major Lancet study found that standing more than a metre from someone lessened the chance of virus infection to three per cent, compared to 13 per by standing closer than a metre.
The study, part-funded by the World Health Organisation (WHO), also discovered that standing two metres away reduced this risk even further to just over one per cent.
You are moving from a tiny risk at two metres to a very small risk at one metre
Professor Robert Dingwall
Prof Dingwall, who is based at the school of social science at Nottingham Trent University, pointed out that the three per cent risk infection rule of more than one metre was still “very small”.
He told the BBC’s Today Programme: “It’s a question of relative risk.
“Even the problematic Lancet study that was published last week was saying you are moving from a tiny risk at two metres to a very small risk at one metre.
“You have to set that against all the other harms that are being done by the economic devastation that is wreaked by the two metre rule, the deaths that will be attributable to the lockdown itself and to the social and economic disruption that it is causing.
“Even at one metre it is clear there is a significant margin of safety.
“The work on transmission in naturally occurring environments suggests that it is very rare for particles to travel much more than half a metre so you have that safety margin built in.
“The jury is still out on this one but there’s a significant body of opinion that thinks airborne transmission may not be that important compared with what you pick up on your hands and transfer to your own face.”
Individuals in England are allowed to meet with people from outside their household if they stay outdoors and keep more than two metres apart.
However, the UK is reportedly the “only country in Europe” using the measure, with Germany using 1.5 metres and France and Italy using only one metre.
And the advice from WHO is that people should “maintain at least one metre (three feet) distance between yourself and others.”
Professor Linda Bauld, an expert in public health at the University of Edinburgh, said the Government should only reduce the rules to 1.5 metres, no less.
She said: “If they are going to reduce it I can understand from a practical perspective why two metres is difficult but it would be putting more people at greater risk if we go right down to a metre.
“My personal view would be that there is not insignificant benefit for keeping it at 1.5metres rather than going down to a metre.”
It would be putting more people at greater risk if we go right down to a metre
Professor Linda Bauld
Professor Bauld pointed to lab research which had revealed that the chances of droplets falling on someone who coughed or sneezed increased if they were standing less than 1.5 metres away.
Last month, the Government’s chief scientific officer Sir Patrick Vallance warned that one-metre social distancing was “up to 30 times” riskier than two metres.
He told the Health and Social Committee: “The two-metre distancing is based on probability.
“A minute at two metres is about the same risk as six seconds at one metre.
“That gives some idea why the two metres becomes important and the risk at one metre is about 10 to 30 times higher than the risk at two metres.
“That’s why two metres is an important part of this.
“Where masks may have a role is in situations where distance is not possible and where there may be undue crowding.”
Despite this, this week it was revealed Boris Johnson is believed to favour ditching the current two metre rule if the science says it is safe to do so.
The Prime Minister is said to have tasked a small group of ministers – called the ‘Save Summer Six’ – to draw up measures to return life to something like normal by July.
The group believes changing the social distancing rule is the key to restarting the economy and paving the way for more businesses to open.
It comes as Business Secretary Alok Sharma is said to have warned that a failure to reopen the hospitality sector could cost up to 3.5 million jobs.
The Sunday Times reports on hearing the news the PM reportedly replied: “Christ!”
A Whitehall Official familiar with the forecasts said: “I wouldn’t quite say there is going to be a tsunami of job losses. “But it’s a pretty enormous wave.”
Last week the ex-Chancellor Lord Lamont demanded the distance was ditched to save the economy.
He argued it was “impossible” for the hospitality industry – including pubs and restaurants – to get back to normal “with rigid social distancing”.
The Government plans to gradually ease the strict lockdown measures after more than two months, with non-essential shops re-opening on June 15.
Don't miss the latest news and figures - and essential advice for you and your family.
To receive The Sun’s Coronavirus newsletter in your inbox every tea time, sign up here.
To follow us on Facebook, simply ‘Like’ our Coronavirus page.
Get Britain’s best-selling newspaper delivered to your smartphone or tablet each day – find out more.
