Coronavirus: the problem of keeping your distance s …

An experiment at the University of Navarre has shown the difficulty of guaranteeing a social distance of 1.5 meters between people on the move in spaces such as shopping centers or supermarkets.

The study published in the scientific journal Scientific Reports It included more than forty volunteers who were coordinated by the Department of Applied Physics and Mathematics of the Faculty of Science with the School of Architecture at the university center.

Research has investigated whether it is possible to maintain social distance within a moving crowd, so volunteers had to walk in an enclosed space of 75 square meters with the prior knowledge that they had to try to maintain social distancing.

“Our results show that, cWhen we move, we are not able to maintain the imposed safety distance, even in very low density conditions and in which our only goal is to maintain this distance ”, underlines Iñaki Echeverría, PhD of the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Navarre and main author of the study.

The results of this experiment coincide with the implementation of new restrictions in the face of the third wave of the pandemic, several of which include shopping malls and supermarkets.

“The study shows that Respecting social distancing in these spaces is often physically impossible for us, due to the own limitations of space and density, it is therefore better to avoid them ”, adds Echeverría.

The work in turn suggests that, to ensure the minimum distance of one and a half meters, the density should not exceed 0.16 person per square meter, or 6 square meter per person.

“According to Spanish regulations, the capacity of shopping centers under normal conditions is 0.5 people per square meter. At the most critical moment of the pandemic (April and May of last year), due to capacity reductions, densities fell to 0.17 people per square meter, ”the researchers said.

Another of the conclusions of the study is related to the speed of pedestrians: “Walking fast increases the number of times social distance is violated. On the other hand, the time required to resolve these conflicts (to return to a situation where the distance to the nearest pedestrian is safe) is less ”.

“Thus, it is not entirely clear what is the most practical to avoid non-compliance with the standard”, reflects Echeverría and suggests that this research could continue with the analysis of more realistic and everyday situations, such as crowds in streets, malls and other spaces where it is difficult to maintain the recommended distance.