Social bubbles – made up of friends and family – may be the best way to keep coronavirus contained when lockdown is lifted, study shows.
Researchers from the University of Oxford created a series of models to discover the best measures governments could use in order to keep the infection rate flat.
Strict social distancing and isolation measures were likely to be ignored by large parts of the population, so a solution was needed people would follow, they found.
However, creating small groups of contacts could keep the risks from COVID-19 low while giving people more freedom, Oxford University researchers have said.
Strict social distancing and isolation measures were likely to be ignored by large parts of the population, so a solution was needed people would follow, they found
Experts looked at three different scenarios for how people could interact more with others in a post-lockdown world while still keeping the spread of COVID-19 low.
This included keeping contact to within the neighbourhood, people you see regularly and creating social bubbles with certain groups of people.
All three strategies were effective in keeping the spread of the virus under control, although social bubbles were in some respects more beneficial, experts said.
Lead author Dr Per Block said all of their strategies treated the groups people cam in contact with as if they were in the same household – so didn’t need to be 6ft apart.
Block said it was important that outside of these scenarios, social distancing was kept up, such as when people went to the supermarket.
‘Under the first scenario, what could be done is that you meet people who live within your neighbourhood, so you could extend the radius of your contact to a block or two away from your home,’ he said.
‘In the second, the idea is you ask yourself – who are the people you interact with regularly?
‘So you might have a group of friends, or you have a family that includes your parents, your siblings your nieces and nephews, and you try to limit interactions to these groups,’ Block said.
This means you’d avoid potentially haphazard contacts – such as the person you see only for specific activities or even Tinder dates.
‘The third scenario is very similar to what’s been talked about as social bubbles, which basically is keep sticking to the same people,’ said Block.
The idea is you’d pick a handful of people from outside your household and they’d be the only ones you met with regularly while ignoring the 6ft rule.
He said that, in practical terms, it may be necessary to limit the number of people within the bubble as the larger the bubble the more risky it becomes.
Two of the scenarios could potentially be combined, such as a social bubble plus seeing neighbours, but that the frequency of interactions would then need to be reduced to limit transmission risk.
Real-world data is now needed to see how people interacted within each scenario.
‘We can say with reasonable confidence that all of these different options on how to restructure contact seem to work,’ said Block.
He said each scenario required that ‘people stick to it, that people understand that it’s useful, and that people trust that others will also do it’.
‘In a sense, it’s a good question of solidarity that we are all in this together and therefore we should all stick to the rules,’ he added.
In terms of transmission risk, the ‘best scenario’ was for everybody to continue to stay at home, he said.
‘But of course, this is where we have the biggest psychological and social and economic costs’, so isn’t the best option beyond purely mitigating coronavirus.
‘Now if we would open up society completely… in terms of transmission rates, this would be a disaster,’ said Block.
‘So what we have tried to do is go somewhere in between and say, ‘how about if we only try to keep our contacts to a minimum, but also try to be smart about who we meet with and structure our interactions strategically?’.’
The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) have previously discussed the concept of social bubbles.
The latest Sage minutes available, from May 7, show that while advisers agree there are benefits from social bubbles for wellbeing and mental health, there are risks if they were to be introduced alongside other changes, or if there is poor adherence.
Experts looked at three different scenarios for how people could interact more with others in a post-lockdown world while still keeping the spread of COVID-19 low
‘The effects of bubbles are complex. Introducing bubbles alongside other changes could reconstruct excessive networks, particularly when combined with any increase in contacts in other settings,’ the minutes say.
‘These networks could enable transmission through the population. It will be difficult to assess the effects of individual policy changes on R if multiple changes are introduced together’.
Of the latest Oxford study, Linda Bauld, professor of public health at the University of Edinburgh, said the study shows lockdown release is about harm reduction.
‘One of the most interesting elements of this research is that it directly addresses a key element of current public health advice in the UK,’ said Bauld.
‘This is the ‘stay two metres away from anyone not in your household’ rule.
‘For separated couples and single people, including our young people, this rule can be perceived as unfair and is unlikely to be followed in the long-term.’
Bauld said that this research suggests that the concept of a social bubble and the creation of mico-communities could reduce the risk of people ignoring the rule.
‘This would be appealing for couples who don’t live together, or as the researchers point out, a group of carers looking after vulnerable adults, or might even allow those in the shielded category to meet up,’ she said.
‘It was also the most effective strategy included in the research in terms of allowing more contact between individuals while slowing the spread of the virus.’
She stressed that human behaviour is not, however, predictable and ‘won’t necessarily mirror what the statistical models in this study predict.’
The research has been published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour.