Scientist points to ‘flawed’ research

The two-metre rule to keep a safe distance when socialising may be based on a misunderstanding of studies into infection risk, a Tayside medical expert has said.

Dr Mike Lonergan, senior statistician and epidemiologist at Dundee University’s School of Medicine, believes research showing the benefits of keeping a two-metre distance, the advice since the beginning of lockdown, is flawed.

Dr Lonergan has examined the studies of 25 countries around the world and found eliminating direct physical contact is the best way to reduce infection and anything more “adds little”.

He begins his paper, available at Research Gate, by saying “Even one metre seems generous”, and adds public health advice may be better focused on highlighting the risk of cross-contamination through sharing hard surfaces.

“This re-analysis suggests there may be some benefit in remaining one metre away from infected individuals but that is likely to be small,” he says.

“It is much harder to find any support for advantages from greater separation distances here.

“These results could be taken as suggesting that the bulk of infection takes place through the direct transfer of material, rather than by an aerial route.

“If that is so, then, provided we refrain from coughing or spitting on each other, public health policy might be better concentrating more on limiting the touching of surfaces than on keeping people apart.”

The World Health Organisation (WHO) commissioned analysis of 25 papers from around the world examining the effects of separation distance on infection risk.

Although the WHO had previously recommended that people stay at least one metre away from each other, the researchers found that extending this distance significantly reduced the chances of infection.

Dr Lonergan re-examined the studies and believes these datasets were limited and contradict the researchers’ conclusion.

He said avoiding touching a person with coronavirus was the best way to prevent the spread.