Even one metre seems generous. A reanalysis of data in: Chu et al. (2020) Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.
Lonergan, M.
Show abstract
Re-examination of the large dataset collected and meta-analysed by Dr Chu and his colleagues contradicts their conclusions about the effects of separation distance on infection risk. Their conclusion was based on misunderstandings of the datasets. Each of these estimated risk relative to that incurred when touching infected individuals. Allowing for this suggests that the main advantage of social distancing, a perhaps 78% (95% CI 24, 92) reduction in risk of infection, occurs at distances below 1m. The data imply an 11% chance of further distances reducing the risk, with any effects likely to be small. However the limitations of the dataset do limit the strength of these conclusions.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Human agency and infection rates: implications for social distancing during epidemics 90%
- Beliefs about Mask Efficacy and the Effect of Social Norms on Mask Wearing Intentions for COVID-19 Risk Reduction 90%
- Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the number of new infections with COVID-19 during the first epidemic wave 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Facemasks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such asCOVID-19: A rapid systematic review 90%
- Estimating the effect of mobility on SARS-CoV-2 transmission during the first and second wave of the COVID-19 epidemic in Switzerland: a population-based study 89%
- The impact of unplanned school closure on children's social contact: Rapid evidence review 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- How well does societal mobility restriction help control the COVID-19 pandemic? Evidence from real-time evaluation 89%
- Comparison of COVID-19 outcomes among shielded and non-shielded populations: A general population cohort study of 1.3 million 89%
- Lies, Gosh Darn Lies, and Not Enough Good Statistics: Why Epidemic Model Parameter Estimation Fails 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- The physical and mental health benefits of touch interventions: A comparative systematic review and multivariate meta-analysis 90%
- Measuring the Impact of Exposure to COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation on Vaccine Intent in the UK and US 89%
- Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- The methodologies to assess the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions during COVID-19: a systematic review 91%
- Mendelian randomisation for mediation analysis: current methods and challenges for implementation 89%
- Sex differences in the mortality rate for coronavirus disease 2019 compared to other causes of death 88%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.