By Charlotte Webster And Chris Williamson-
There are notable flaws in a recently published research that the rule of six has had no influence in reducing the virus.
Scientists at the London School for Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who concluded that coronavirus restrictions such as the rule of six and the 10pm pub curfew is having zero impact on slowing the spread of Covid-19 may be right, but may also be wrong. Close examination of the findings reveal gaps and overlooked aspects that potentially alters its conclusion, or leaves aspect inconclusive.
The rule of six is just a useful guideline to minimise the spread of the coronavirus, and is useful even in the normal flu season. It has no specific scientific backing.
The public will ultimately use their common sense in deciding how to apply it, but the general idea is to avoid large gatherings of over ten people in a concentrated area. A gathering of seven or eight people indoors is not likely to spark any alarm, but would strictly speaking be breaching the rule.
A study claiming that the rule only one in three people have stopped meeting up with friends and family because of the rule of six, does not mean that ratio of people are gathering in large groups. The scientists who concluded that coronavirus restrictions such as the rule of six and the 10pm pub curfew is having minimal impact on slowing the spread of Covid-19 may be right, but may also be wrong.
The revelation of the study that a quarter of the participants admitted they have seen more people on average since the rule came into force, failed to address how many people the participants had met at one time.
Rebel Tories at the time widely criticised the rule and said the ban on gatherings of more than six people in England didn’t make any sense, while the 10pm curfew crushed the hospitality sector. Forty-two Conservative MPs opposed the curfew measure in the Commons because of its potential negative effect on businesses.
The researchers found that while the rule still allows for general gatherings up to six people, only one in three people stopped meeting up with friends and family because of the rule. It doesn’t specify how many individuals made up the group of friends and family met by the people. Most of the participants claimed not to have changed their contacts, but the researchers were not specific about numbers.
The scientists conclusion that the rule and curfew has “zero effect” on the number of different households mixing, also has errors. It excludes information about what proportion of the participants go home after 10 pm, and what proportion continue mixing indoors with specific numbers of people.
The conclusion that the rule likely fails to slow the spread of the virus is also questionable for the reasons of the gaps in the research. The researchers also seems to have missed out one of the reasons for the 10pm curfew, being to limit the potential of drunken violence which leads to competition for hospital space needed for COVID-19 patients.
More violence is report nationwide after 10pm, leading to more casualties needing hospital treatment.
The paper concludes: “We determine that the ‘rule of six’ and encouraging people to work from home has seen the average person reduce contacts but these reductions are likely small.
“There was little suggestion that the 10pm closure has affected the number of contacts that participants make outside home, work and school.
“In contrast to national restrictions, there was a strong suggestion that local restrictions reduced the number of contacts individuals make outside of work and school, though again, this effect was small in comparison to the national lockdown.”
The research is very useful, and could lead to consideration by the government for review. However, it also has its clear weaknesses.