Social isolation needs to last for almost a year, say experts

Social isolation measures will need to be in place for most of a year at least to control the spread of the coronavirus outbreak, according to experts’ advice to the UK Government.

Scientists also advised ministers that, while the severity of measures could alternate during the period, the “stricter” measures would need to be enforced for at least half of the year. The Government published the advice yesterday – a day after Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he expects the tide to be turned in the fight against Covid-19 within 12 weeks.

A report by the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling states: “It was agreed that the addition of both general social distancing and school closures to case isolation, household isolation and social distancing of vulnerable groups would be likely to control the epidemic when kept in place for a long period.

“It was agreed that a policy of alternating between periods of more and less strict social distancing measures could plausibly be effective at keeping the number of critical care cases within capacity.

“These would need to be in place for at least most of a year. Under such as policy, at least half of the year would be spent under the stricter social distancing measures.”

The triggers for controls to be imposed or lifted could be set at a level of UK nations and regions, the advice states, suggesting that more stringent measures could be enforced in London, where the disease is at its most rampant.

The advice dated Monday says the measures that would need to stay for “a long period” would include general social distancing, school closures and household isolation.

Three days later, the PM told the nation: “I think, looking at it all, that we can turn the tide within the next 12 weeks and I’m absolutely confident that we can send coronavirus packing in this country.”

The document also stresses the need for the general public to follow the advice on social distancing, saying critical care facilities would likely be “overwhelmed” unless all measures were taken.

But still the experts said it was “unclear” whether the steps introduced so far would “curtail the epidemic” by stopping its spread.

Separate advice from the Scientific Group on Behaviour and Communications detailed the weight of the pressure on the PM.

They said public disorder amid epidemics were “usually triggered by perceptions about the government response”.

However, they did agree that “large-scale rioting is unlikely” and there was a greater chance of acts of altruism predominating, which they said ministers could “promote and guide”. One risk to order is from police actions being deemed excessive, with the experts advising that officers should take a role of “support rather than control”.

To minimise the chances, ministers were told to “provide clear and transparent reasons for different strategies” with “clear expectations on how the response will develop”.

However, the behavioural advisers warned the household isolation advice and school closures would have greater impacts on poorer families.

On social distancing, the advice suggested the risk of infection from attending large events was generally no higher than smaller gatherings. Family gatherings were classed as high risk.