As usual you can expect the worst from the Guardian.
Following yesterdays publication in the Lancet by Chu et al, the Daily Mail and the Guardian had different takes on the same simple statistic.
According to the report, if no distancing takes place then there is a 13% risk of infection. With one metre "social distancing" that risk is lowered to 2.6% and for two metres it is reduced to 1.3%.
Image by the Daily Mail
The Daily Mail rightly accepts that the difference between 2.6% and 1.3% is negligible so therefore one metre distancing should be introduced for the sake of the economy and everything else. The Guardian, however, decide that the difference between 2.6% and 1.3% means double the risk. Doubling anything sounds big, that could mean the NHS being over-run and bodies piling up after just a couple of weeks.
Whether this is plain ignorance, stupidity or something more mendacious I don't know but it's laughable.
Although the Daily Mail did OK on this, they still missed an opportunity to play down the general hysteria. Instead of 13% Risk of Infection etc they should have done this....
Taking it to it's logical conclusion, I suggest introducing a ten metre rule. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health Officers (of which I am ashamed to be a member) would probably be very happy with a 10m rule based on their press release earlier today.