Here's the key table from our new paper in . Email me for the source file if you want to translate it (please acknowledge if you do, BMJ copyright etc). Paper here
New paper: What is the evidence for physical distancing in covid-19? Upshot: The 6-foot rule comes to us from 1897. The reality is that ideal distance depends on masks, occupancy, indoor vs. outdoor, silence vs. speaking vs. shouting, and ventilation.
Thanks to the many people around the world who translated our social distancing diagram into (so far) 28 different languages. I'll post them all in this thread. Here's the English one, along with the explanation.
Time to transcend the outdated 6 feet (2 m) physical distancing rule from 1948! New Role of many factors like ventilation, airflow pattern, exposure time, activity (eg shouting) and colleagues
Our new paper - outdated 1-2 m physical COVID-19 distancing rules need updating. See risk figure e.g. outdoor NOT always safer vs indoor - more nuance needed i.e. occupancy, masks, exposure time etc
Great resource for COVID risk assessments from this new review in the
Gosh. Our review of the evidence on social distancing is now the most tweeted-about and written-about [in online news articles] paper the BMJ has ever published. But only 6 rapid responses so far. If you have a view on this topic, do post it online.
This paper (which went viral) was led by a PhD student + early-career researcher, assisted by 2 medical students. They later roped in 2 professors. We came to the conclusion that "Current rules on safe physical distancing are based on outdated science".
Interesting paper discussing how physical distancing guidance is an oversimplification and risk of #COVID19 transmission varies based on force of emission, ventilation & exposure time by et al in
Un article du BMJ estime que la règle des 2 mètres (ou des 1m comme en France) est obsolète. En matière de #COVID19, il faut adapter cette distance à la situation : intérieur/extérieur, ventilation, masque ou non, audience silencieuse ou vociférante.
Detailed analysis of importance of social distancing, face covering and ventilation in mitigating against transmission. Avoid the red zones.
Our paper (published today) now has the 7th highest Altmetric score of any ever published in BMJ. Still, we have trolls saying it was "not peer reviewed" (it was) and "lacking rigour" (cos we refused to offer spurious precision). It's a QUALITATIVE figure!
Excellent review on how the distance should vary depeding on where you are and what you are doing. Also points out aeroplanes appear safer than bars or nightclubs. Two or one: what is the evidence for physical distancing in covid-19?
Someone sent me a policy from their child's school, with this table from our paper (published last week). Our guidance isn't perfect, but it's pragmatic and can be tailored to circumstances. If your kids' school needs a place to start, do share this.
Rules that stipulate a single physical distance (1 or 2 metres) to reduce the spread of covid-19 are an oversimplification, say . Instead of fixed physical distance rules, they propose graded recommendations
Most people want to keep each other safe, but it's very common for people to take their mask off to talk on the phone, probably without even realising they're doing it. Talking increases risk of spreading #COVID19 so it's extra important to keep it on!
Schools are not employing the same standards as other workplaces. Where would you place a full classroom on this risk matrix? Now ask if it’s right to tell all teachers and students not to wear masks. And to fine parents for keeping their children home.
Si vous voulez faire le point sur ce qu'on sait de la transmission aérienne du #SARSCoV2, cet article paru il y a quelques jours peut vous intéresser : Rapide résumé francophone ⬇️
Risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in different settings Green = low Yellow = medium Red = high Source:
The right social distancing to prevent #COVID19 transmission depends on lots of things: Density of people Are you inside or outside Ventilation of the space Are you wearing Mask or no mask Are you listening speaking, shouting singing Great chart here
Rules which stipulate a single specific physical distance (one or two metres) between individuals to reduce the spread of covid-19 are based on outdated science and experiences of past viruses, argue researchers in this #BMJAnalysis
Which are all the parameters for room-level aerosol transmission. They don't include close proximity, which is understood to be avoided Paper is at
There is nothing magical about the 2 metre rule. If you haven’t read this paper already I recommend you do. Distancing should be worked out in combination with: ▪️length of exposure ▪️level of crowdedness ▪️degree of ventilation
The reason why Joe Biden May also be in trouble is explained in our paper. Virus is airborne; spreads in *shared air*. Debate 48h before Trump tested positive had a) indoors, b) close(ish) and very prolonged contact, c) prolonged *shouting*, d) no masks.
Occupancy Ventilation Face coverings Useful figure on how they impact risk from a good article in bmj HT
Instead of fixed physical distance rules, these graded recommendations better reflect the multiple factors that combine to determine risk. This provides greater protection in the highest risk settings but also greater freedom in lower risk settings.
Six feet physical distancing alone is insufficient to stop SARS-CoV-2 if you are indoors, or singing, or maskless, or in a large crowd - study from MIT and Oxford reports.
Our paper 'Two metres or one?' on the evidence behind physical distancing policies for Covid-19 is now in the top 20 Altmetric scores of all time. We argue to go beyond single-factor, linear models and think about multiple influences on contagion risk.
Two metres or one: what is the evidence for physical distancing in covid-19?
Today, in our student induction, I used Figure 3 from this paper by Jones et al to explain how to stay safe during #covid19. Perfect size for a slide, easy to talk through different scenarios cc
COIVD19 risk stratification based on physical distancing and other factors.
De l’art de comprendre la complexité des risques de transmission de #COVID19 en fonction du port du masque,de l’int/ext et de la distanciation Généralisation du port du masque certes MAIS fermeture endroits clos d’abord Bar/resto Article ▶️ traduit
"Instead of single, fixed physical distance rules, we propose graded recommendations that better reflect the multiple factors that combine to determine risk."
Share this evidence review with all who talk about ''Covid secure" classrooms. the chart in Fig3 is particularly useful. All uni estates staff/mgment should be reminded that harm reduction is just that. Reduction.
New translations of our risk diagram (some in languages I never knew existed): TAGALOG (by Edward Gordon) BASQUE (Ugo Mayor) ODIA (Asit Mishra) Here's the original paper in
خطر التقاط عدوى كوفيد-19 وفقًا لظروف مختلفة. يجب أخذ هذه النتائج في الاعتبار لتخطيط العودة إلى المدارس، الجامعات، العمل و أيّ تجمعات داخلية. Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Transmission in different settings. Available at Thank you
1-2 m is not a magically “safe” # but helpful in combo w/ #handhygiene #facemasks & ventilation mgmt. Even if 2 m may not be enough to escape droplets/aerosols when shouting/singing argue that a more nuanced approach is needed
Shout out to two of my coauthors on the most tweeted-about paper ever published in : Dr Nick Jones (lead author) Dr Zeshan Qureshi Give these young academics a follow! (other coauthors aren't on Twitter sadly)
keep things low occupancy, on the quiet side, and outdoors.... this is really, really simple folks. We can beat this so easily... just no more crowded, inside, screaming/signing in bars/church/etc and we're golden!
Two metres or one: what is the evidence for #PhysicalDistancing in #Covid19? Rigid safe distancing rules are an oversimplification based on outdated science and experiences of past viruses. via #BackToSchool🎒
Two metres or one: what is the evidence for physical distancing in covid-19? Rigid safe distancing rules are an oversimplification based on outdated science and experiences of past viruses, argue Nicholas R Jones and colleagues #COVID19 #Publichealth
AMHARIC (Ethiopian), ARABIC, CHINESE (simplified), CHINESE (traditional).
Two metres or one: what is the evidence for physical distancing in covid-19?
Two metres or one: what is the evidence for physical distancing in covid-19? via et al
"Rules on #distancing should reflect the multiple factors that affect risk, including ventilation, occupancy, and exposure time" #COVID19
Adding helpful nuance to social distancing recommendations. Neither is perfect, and other factors influence which is sufficient: such as ventilation, group size, masking.
With thanks to I bring you HUNGARIAN version of our social distancing chart. BMJ paper here:
With thanks to here is the MALTESE version of our risk diagram, along with the original English. Suddenly very topical as CDC have finally acknowledged airborne transmission. Our paper here
Two metres or one: what is the evidence for physical distancing in covid-19? | The BMJ
Highly recommend this #COVID19 paper by and colleagues: #evidencesynthesis Knowledge gap articulation here is really useful:
Use this chart to have fun and stay safe during this long weekend. #SocialiseResponsibly
Translation of our risk table into DANISH by Søren Wejdemann. Including the English version too. See my pinned tweet for thread with 30 other languages.
Risk of transmission matrix, from "Two metres or one: what is the evidence for physical distancing in covid-19?" BMJ 2020; 370 doi:
Thanks for the ROMANIAN version of our risk table (English also attached). Paper explaining it here