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.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
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.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.11.20127415: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.11.20127415: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-