Examining the current evidence for the two-metre rule, Prof Heneghan and Prof Jefferson looked at 172 studies cited in a recent review in The Lancet and found just five had dealt explicitly with coronavirus infection in relation to distance. Only one mentioned coming within six feet of a patient, and that paper showed proximity had no impact.
"Queueing outside shops, dodging each other once inside, and not getting too close to other people anywhere: social-distancing has become the norm," they wrote. "The two-metre rule, however, is also seriously impacting schools, pubs, restaurants and our ability to go about our daily lives.
"Much of the evidence in this current outbreak informing policy is poor quality. Encouragement and hand-washing are what we need, not formalised rules."
A University of Dundee study suggested that 78 per cent of the risk of infection happens below one metre and there is just an 11 per cent chance of any increased distance making a difference.
Dr Mike Lonergan, a senior statistician and epidemiologist who reviewed 25 papers compiled for the World Health Organisation (WHO) said: "Our conclusion is that avoiding contact is very important and that a one-metre distance might be slightly better than just avoiding contact, but the difference is unlikely to be much. These data give no indication that two metres is better than one metre."