Scientists report flaws in WHO-funded study on 2-metre distancing

Mistakes mean findings should not be used as evidence for relaxing rule, say professors

Senior scientists have reported flaws in an influential World Health Organization-commissioned study into the risks of coronavirus infection and say it should not be used as evidence for relaxing the UK’s 2-metre physical distancing rule.

Critics of the distancing advice, which states that people should keep at least 2 metres apart, believe it is too cautious. They seized on the research commissioned by the WHO, which suggested a reduction from 2 metres to 1 would raise infection risk only marginally, from 1.3% to 2.6%.

But scientists who delved into the work found mistakes they believe undermine the findings to the point they cannot be relied upon when scientists and ministers are forming judgments about what constitutes safe physical distancing.

“The analysis of infection risk at 1 metre versus 2 metre should be treated with great caution,” said Prof David Spiegelhalter, a statistician at Cambridge University, who has participated in the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies . “I’m very suspicious of it.”

Prof Kevin McConway, an applied statistician at the Open University, went further and called the analysis inappropriate. He said the work “should not be used in arguments about how much greater the infection risk is at 1-metre minimum distance as opposed to 2 metres”.

The study, published in the Lancet, is the latest to come under fire from experts who fear that in the midst of the pandemic some research papers are being written, reviewed and published too fast for sufficient quality checks to be performed. Earlier this month, the Lancet and another elite publication, the New England Journal of Medicine, were forced to retract coronavirus studies after flaws in the papers emerged.

Doubts about the study emerged as Boris Johnson announced a formal review of the 2-metre physical distancing rule, which is expected to report by 4 July, the earliest date pubs and restaurants may reopen in England. In recent weeks, Johnson has come under intense pressure from Conservative MPs to relax the advice to help businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector.

Led by researchers at McMaster University in Ontario, the report pooled data from previously published studies to estimate the risk of becoming infected with coronavirus at different distances. It also considered how face masks and eye protection might help prevent the spread of disease.

But in the analysis the authors assume the proportional impact on risk of moving from 2 metres to 1 metre is the same as moving from 1 metre to zero. “They are forcing the proportional fit to be the same,” Spiegelhalter told the Guardian.

McConway believes there is a more fundamental problem in the way the risks of infection at different distances are compared in the study. He said: “The method of comparing the different distances in the paper is inappropriate for telling you exactly how the risk at 2-metre minimum distance compares to a 1 metre minimum distance. It does not support, and should not be used in, arguments about how much greater the risk is with a 1 metre limit versus a 2-metre limit.”

Another scientist, Prof Ben Cowling at the WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control at the University of Hong Kong, flagged further issues with the work. He tweeted that he was “not taking the whole paper very seriously” because it looked only at distance and not how long a person was exposed for.

McConway said he had raised questions about the analysis with the authors and was waiting to hear back. He believed peer review by the Lancet and the WHO should have spotted the problems. “I think they did it in such a rush – the authors, possibly the WHO, and the Lancet peer reviewers – that important things were missed,” he said.

“Everyone believes that the risk of infection at 1-metre is higher than at 2-metre and we need to know how much higher because there’s a trade-off between the increased risk and the gains from moving to 1-metre. But if you don’t know how the risks at 1 metre and 2 metres compare, how do you know how to trade it off? It’s finger in the air stuff,” McConway said.

The most recent public Sage document on physical distancing, updated on 2 May, makes clear that multiple streams of evidence are used to advise on safe distancing, including how long people are together, ventilation and room size, and that the 2-metre advice is no more than a ballpark guide for face-to-face meetings.

In a statement, the WHO said it recommends keeping a distance of 1 metre or more.

“The evidence used to inform this guidance was based on a systematic review of all available, relevant observational studies concerning protective measures to prevent transmission of the coronaviruses that cause Sars, Mers and Covid-19. After checking for relevance, 44 comparative studies done in health-care and non-health-care settings were included.

“The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 metre or more, which is in line with the existing WHO recommendation that people should physically distance at least 1 metre,” the statement said.

The Lancet and the authors of the study have been contacted for comment.


Ian Sample Science editor

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
England and Wales hit target to vaccinate top four priority groups
Milestone means 65 to 69-year-olds will be invited for jab and those with underlying conditions are expected to follow

Dan Sabbagh

12, Feb, 2021 @5:30 PM

Article image
Covid vaccine rush could make pandemic worse, say scientists
Experts caution strong evidence of efficacy needed to avoid approval of inferior vaccines

Sarah Boseley Health editor

30, Aug, 2020 @4:00 PM

Article image
Covid-19 spilling out of hospitals and care homes, says UK expert
Prof Neil Ferguson tells Lords committee cases will remain steady until September

Ian Sample Science editor

02, Jun, 2020 @1:49 PM

Article image
UK bulk buys hydroxychloroquine as potential Covid-19 treatment
Drug taken by Trump being acquired in case it proves effective against coronavirus

Rajeev Syal and Lisa O'Carroll

19, May, 2020 @6:24 PM

Article image
Coronavirus: April will be 'second dose month', says UK vaccines minister
Nadhim Zahawi hails milestone of 30m first doses and says UK still on track to protect all adults by July

Dan Sabbagh and Andrew Sparrow

28, Mar, 2021 @7:13 PM

Article image
What is the science behind the UK's coronavirus distancing rules?
Experts reveal why the 2-metre guidance matters and the importance of opening doors and windows

Ian Sample Science editor

10, Jun, 2020 @2:24 PM

Article image
People will need face masks if 2-metre rule relaxed, says Sage
Warning from UK government advisers reflects concerns over plans to reopen pubs and cafes

Ian Sample, Hannah Devlin and Sarah Boseley

12, Jun, 2020 @4:24 PM

Article image
Budding couples in UK told to live together or stay apart
Lockdown may lead to awkward conversations as government issues clarification

Peter Walker Political correspondent

24, Mar, 2020 @7:03 PM

Article image
Scientists raise concerns about quality of UK Covid-19 tests
Warning that infections could be missed amid questions about credibility of testing operation

Hannah Devlin Science correspondent

19, Apr, 2020 @4:17 PM

Article image
England's 2 metre distancing rule still 'under review'
No change announced by Alok Sharma at No 10 briefing despite Boris Johnson’s desire to loosen rule

Heather Stewart and Rob Davies

09, Jun, 2020 @6:32 PM