Is the government calling time on the two-metre rule?

There has been a lot of debate, including in the cabinet, about the trade-off between the economic benefits of reducing the government’s two-metre social distancing rule – to one-and-a-half or even one metre – and the additional health risks this would pose to the public. Proponents point to reports that business output could be much higher if the distance was reduced (car manufacturers, for example, have said they could produce just half their normal output with a two-metre rule but operate at full capacity if this was cut to one) and the fact that other countries have managed to keep the disease in check while allowing less than two metres’ social distancing. Sceptics highlight medical evidence suggesting it would increase the risk of Covid-19 transmission.

Put simply, some businesses will be unviable if the two-metre rule remains, but may survive if the distance is cut. But the economic calculation is more complicated, and the government must give proper consideration to the risks as well as benefits.

Changing the rules isn’t enough – customers must have confidence too

Many businesses have experienced sharp drops in demand not only due to government-mandated closure but also because consumers have become unwilling to visit typically crowded places like shops, restaurants and bars for fear of contracting Covid-19. This was happening in the UK even before the lockdown was enacted;[i] Sweden did not impose a lockdown at all but has still experienced big drops in commercial footfall.

For custom to pick up across the UK it is not just rules that need to change but customers’ confidence levels too. The long queues outside shops on Monday morning, the day many non-essential shops were allowed to re-open, suggest many clearly do have that confidence. But others may not – and loosening the rules on social distancing could, reasonably, exacerbate the concerns over catching the disease that kept them away in the first instance. Some 58% of respondents to a recent YouGov poll said they thought the two-metre rule should remain in place; only 24% thought it should be cut to one metre. If those concerns manifest in consumers staying away, it would dampen the recovery in demand even as businesses re-open.

To weigh up the potential costs and benefits of reducing the social distancing guidance, the government needs to understand what the public’s attitudes are and how they might be affected by changes to social distancing guidelines. Much here will depend on how the government communicates the evidence and risks associated with looser restrictions, and what other measures it can put in place assuage consumers’ nerves.

The economic costs of a second spike could outweigh any short-term gains

It is possible that looser restrictions will lead to a second wave of infections that necessitates another widespread lockdown. This would the cause the economic costs to increase – maybe even past what they would have been had the government simply taken a more cautious approach first time round. Re-opening a business will involve a range of upfront costs: putting in place safety measures (even with a shorter distancing rule), re-hiring or unfurloughing staff, buying in necessary supplies and the like. In the long run, it may prove more costly for businesses to re-open, shut down and re-open again than just to endure a slightly longer single period of inactivity.

A second lockdown also risks permanently undermining consumer and business confidence in the government’s ability to control the disease and any future advice and reassurances ministers offer. That would make it harder still for the government to reinvigorate the economy for a second time.

Key to avoiding a second spike and associated lockdown will be the ability to identify and isolate new outbreaks of the coronavirus. The OECD has praised Germany’s “widespread testing and high health sector capacity”, which allowed its government to implement a “shorter and less stringent [lockdown] than in other major European economies”.[ii] It has experienced a far less severe economic shock as a result. By contrast, the UK’s ‘test and trace’ programme has got off to an uncertain start – and has failed to keep pace with the government’s announcements.

The government is right to ask whether two metres remains the right social distance, given the current prevalence of the disease, new understanding about its transmission and treatment, and other changes that have been made to reduce the spread in public places (such as mandating the use of face masks on public transport). But it must assess the economic risks as well as opportunities in doing so. Those risks could be reduced if the government can reassure the public that their chance of contracting the disease is low, and that it has the ability to mitigate a second spike should one come. Facilitating an economic recovery requires getting all of this right – not just changing two metres to one.