Not a huge amount of evidence either way on one or two-metre social distance, says head of expert group

THERE is a lack of evidence for whether the physical distancing rule to protect against the spread of coronavirus should be one or two metres, the chair of the advisory group behind the decision has said.

Dr Cillian de Gascun, head of the National Virus Reference Laboratory, whose group advises on key pandemic measures, said the two-metre distance was introduced in March because coronavirus was “an emerging and dangerous” pathogen at the time.

Opting for two metres was “prudent and cautious”, he added.

He was speaking as pressure grows from the hospitality trade and businesses to reduce the two-metre rule to one metre to allow for more customers.

“If you want to look for evidence based on one or two metres you are not going to find a huge amount,” he said.

The gap is aimed at protecting people from being infected through the droplets spread by someone nearby who coughs or sneezes.

The expert group looked at the 1.8-metre recommended distance to guard against Sars infections.

Speaking yesterday, chief medical officer Dr Tony Holohan said sometimes the National Public Health Emergency Team (Nphet) does not have the evidence and instead works on the precautionary principle.

He was speaking after another nine people here were reported yesterday to have died from the coronavirus.

It followed the milestone reached on Monday when no daily deaths were announced.

A further 37 new cases of people diagnosed with the virus were reported, the majority of whom were women. However, Dr Colm Henry, chief clinical officer of the HSE, said the virus was “virtually extinguished”.

He revealed that only 2pc of people tested for the virus were now positive, compared with a rate of 25pc earlier in the pandemic.

The turnaround time for test results was now three days, and lower for those who test negative, he added.

Questioned on where Nphet was on the phased reopening of childcare facilities from the end of June, Dr Holohan said work had begun in drawing up guidelines with the Department of Children.

There was no zero risk but they were aiming to mitigate the risk of these services resuming.

The Health Protection Surveillance Centre, the country’s disease watchdog, was also involved in providing guidelines, he added.

They would set out their advice “at the right time”, he added.

Earlier yesterday, Federation of Early Childcare Providers chairwoman Elaine Dunne said there was no guidance in place to support the reopening of childcare facilities for the children of essential workers on June 29.

A survey conduced by the federation showed that of 609 childcare providers, 60pc would definitely not be opening on that date.

Opting for two metres at the start of pandemic was ‘prudent and cautious’

Questioned on when residents of nursing homes could see loved ones again, Dr Holohan said Nphet was particularly sensitive to the impact that loss of visitors was having on people of advanced age.

“We are looking to see if we can be creative and sensitive to the impact. It is a significant challenge,” he added.

Commenting on the ongoing controversy around how private nursing homes handled the coronavirus threat, he said it was not a case of blaming anyone and the objective at this stage was to learn lessons.

It was unhelpful to blame visitors to nursing homes bringing in the virus and there was no evidence for this, he added.