Draconian stay-at-home orders and shutting all non-essential businesses had little effect on fighting coronavirus in Europe, according to a study.
But the same scientists discovered closing schools and banning all mass gatherings did work in halting outbreaks across the continent.
University of East Anglia researchers now say relaxing the stay-at-home policy and letting some businesses reopen could be the UK’s first step to easing lockdown.
The findings throw into question whether Britain’s total lockdown – announced on March 23 – was necessary.
Other top scientists have claimed Britain’s COVID-19 crisis peaked and started to decline before lockdown began, arguing that Number 10’s drastic policy to shut the UK down was wrong.
It comes after Boris Johnson yesterday confirmed that strict rules imposed under the six-week coronavirus lockdown will start to be eased on Monday.
The Prime Minister will outline a five-step plan for Britain’s ‘second phase’ on Sunday, with the government set to drop its ‘Stay at Home’ message.
Graphs provided by researchers at the University of East Anglia showed how banning mass gatherings and shutting schools helped to curb coronavirus cases in Europe
Results of the study – based on data from 30 countries – also showed how the same measures worked to keep death tolls down
UEA researchers looked at a range of social distancing measures adopted across 30 European countries.
They cautioned that the study, which was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response at King’s College London and Public Health England, is experimental.
Banning mass gatherings, along with closing schools and some non-essential businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector, were the most effective ways at stopping the spread of the disease, the researchers found.
They said that more investigation is needed on the use of face coverings in public, as the current results, which do not support using them in public, were ‘too preliminary’.
One of the scientists involved in the research, Dr Julii Brainard, said they found clear distinctions between which measures were more effective.
‘We found that three of the control measures were especially effective and the other two were not,’ she told BBC Radio 4 this morning.
‘It pains me to say this because I have kids that I’d like to get back into education, but closing schools was the most effective single measure, followed by mass gatherings.
‘[This was] followed by what were defined… as the initial business closures. So that was the point when, in the UK for instance, they closed gyms and clubs.
‘Adding very little additional effect was the stay-at-home measure, surprisingly, and the additional business closures.’
UEA researchers collected data from 30 different European countries, revealing roughly when each of their outbreaks began and when social distancing measures were introduced
It comes after Boris Johnson yesterday confirmed that strict rules imposed under the six-week coronavirus lockdown will start to be eased on Monday
Royal College of GP data shows the number of people with flu-like illness in England and Wales dropped by 50 per cent when hand-washing and social distancing was encouraged on March 16. Professor Heneghan says this is evidence full lockdown was not necessary
The researchers looked at the number of cases and deaths taken from daily published figures by the European Centre for Disease Control.
These were compared with the start dates of different measures including the restriction of mass gatherings, the closure of schools and different types of businesses, stay-at-home orders and the wearing of face masks.
Lead researcher Professor Paul Hunter, from UEA’s Norwich Medical School, said the study shows that school closures in Europe had ‘the greatest association with a subsequent reduction in the spread of the disease’, but it does not clarify the ongoing puzzle of whether children can pass Covid-19 to adults.
He said: ‘And it does not identify which level of school closure has the most impact, whether it is primary, junior, senior school or even higher education.
‘It’s also important to remember that our results are based on total closure, so it is possible that partial school closures could have worthwhile impacts on the spread of infection.’
Banning public and private mass gatherings was another key tool in fighting the spread of the virus.
Professor Hunter noted that the size of the current banned mass gatherings varied between countries and so the importance and impact of the scale of the individual event is still not clear.
Dr Julii Brainard, of UEA’s Norwich Medical School, said the researchers were ‘really surprised’ to learn that stay-at-home orders may not be needed to control the outbreak, provided that this did not lead to more mass gatherings.
It was found that these stay-home policies were not linked with a decline in incidences, and that as the number of lock-down days increased, so did the number of cases.
Differences in how the countries carried out these policies have ranged from them being an advisory notice in some places, while elsewhere they were orders which were enforced by police with penalties.
The shut-down of non-essential businesses, which included places where people gathered such pubs, leisure centres, restaurants and venues, also had an impact on the spread of infection in each country.
Professor Hunter said: ‘This suggests that keeping some businesses closed, particularly in the hospitality and leisure sector, would have the most impact.
‘However, we also know that while outbreaks of food poisoning are frequently linked with restaurants, outbreaks of other respiratory infections generally in the hospitality sector are fairly rare.’
Dr Joshua Moon, of the University of Sussex Business School, noted that differences in testing rates and strategies in each country would have an impact on the number of cases.
He said the study may indicate that stay-at-home orders could be the first things to be relaxed.
Dr Moon said: ‘We have to remember that decisions like this cannot and should not be made on a single finding.
‘Nor should policy be made based solely upon science – there are many social, economic, political, and moral factors to consider that science simply cannot answer.
‘When it comes to this pandemic, caution is paramount, otherwise we could tip too far and risk a second wave and a return to lockdown.’
Researchers from the University of Newcastle, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Tshwane University of Technology in South Africa are also part of the study team.
Despite Number 10 confirming that lockdown will start to be eased on Monday, it is expected the measures will be extended for another three weeks today.
On Sunday, Mr Johnson will unveil a series of ‘easements’ to the nation, which will be announced after the Cabinet finalises details.
The government’s stay at home message will be replaced with a ‘be careful when you’re out’ mantra, according to one Cabinet minister.
The minister added that the easing of lockdown will be based on how much each step of the plan affects the rate of infection – or R.
The government is thought to have drawn up a draft 50-page blueprint to gradually ease lockdown in staggered steps between now and October.
This blueprint is expected to lead to a five-step roadmap to see Britain leave lockdown completely by Autumn.
But an ’emergency brake’ could be applied if a second wave of the deadly virus arrives.
A leading Oxford University expert has argued that the peak of Britain’s coronavirus crisis was a week before lockdown was announced on March 23, and that the early warnings for people to try to social distance and to wash their hands regularly had an impact on their own.
Professor Carl Heneghan claims data clearly showed infection rates halved after the Government launched a public information campaign on March 16.
Health bosses urged Brits to wash their hands and keep two metres (6’6″) away from others before rolling out the unprecedented lockdown.
Professor Heneghan argued ministers ‘lost sight’ of the evidence and rushed into a nationwide quarantine six days later.
He said that they were instructed by scientific advisers who have been ‘consistently wrong’ during the crisis.
Professor Heneghan hailed Sweden – which has not enforced a lockdown despite fierce criticism – for ‘holding its nerve’ and avoiding a ‘doomsday scenario’.
He told MailOnline: ‘The peak of deaths occurred on April 8, and if you understand that then you work backwards to find the peak of infections.
He referred to a delay in the time it takes for an infected person to fall seriously ill and die – three weeks on average.
Data shows the rate of Britons with upper respiratory tract infections dropped from 20 per 100,000 people on March 15 to around 12 per 100,000 just six days later.
The figures do not relate solely to coronavirus but may be a good indicator because so few people were being tested for the deadly infection.
Explaining the logic behind his claim, Professor Heneghan said: ‘The UK Government keeps saying it is using the best science.
‘But it appears to be losing sight of what’s actually going on. We’ve been getting scientific advice that is consistently wrong.
‘It has failed to look at all the data and understand when the peak of infections actually occurred.’
He added: ‘Fifty per cent reductions in infections occurred on March 16, right when hand washing and social distancing was introduced.
‘If you go look at what’s happening in Sweden, they are holding their nerve and they haven’t had doomsday scenario. Our Government has got it completely the wrong way around.’