Summary
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.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work received no funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
None necessary
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data is all tabulated in the manuscript.
