Government should encourage outdoor New Year’s Eve parties, as people going to celebrate either way, Independent Sage suggests

Professor Susan Michie says majority of ‘superspreader’ events take place indoors, not outside

The government should encourage outdoor New Year’s Eve parties since people will celebrate together regardless of the coronavirus restrictions, an expert has suggested.  

Professor Susan Michie, a behavioural psychologist and member of the Independent Sage group of scientists, said people could see in the new year together by having socially-distanced gatherings outside, since the vast majority of “superspreader” events have happened indoors.  

She suggested people could take extra precautions such as keeping apart, wearing face masks and using hand sanitiser – but admitted it might not help if people are intoxicated.  

Prof Michie told an Independent Sage meeting: “People are already planning these things; they’re planning the Christmases, they’re planning their New Year’s.  

“So one thought is, given how much safer things are outdoors - a global database was showing that 95 per cent plus of the superspreading events were those that were indoors and three or four per cent outdoors - maybe there could be a real encouragement for outdoor parties but parties that could be as distanced as possible, with people wearing face masks, with hand sanitiser stations around the place.  

“Will any of that work when large volumes of alcohol are consumed? Who knows - but I think it’s got to be this sort of balance between on the one hand people getting together is going to increase transmission and is going to increase death at this point, with trying to engage with the reality of what people are likely to be doing anyway and how to manage that situation so go outdoors is one potential part of the solution.”  

Independent Sage also raised doubts over whether there was evidence backing the suggestion that social distancing rules could be relaxed for five days over Christmas, followed by a stricter lockdown for 25 days.  

Public Health England has warned that every day of relaxation would require five days of tighter restrictions afterwards to get transmission rates back down.  

Asked whether the figures sounded accurate and if this is something the country should do, committee member Professor Karl Friston, a neuroscientist, said he could not find any evidence to corroborate the numbers.  

Professor Susan Michie, of the Independent Sage group, has suggested people could have outdoor parties for New Year’s Eve (Independent Sage/screengrab)

He said: “It’s a very difficult question to answer because you’d like to answer it from the point of view of the evidence base and we just don’t know, so I’ve spent the morning on Google trying to find out where this evidence comes from and have failed.  

“In terms of what’s likely to happen, I’m wondering whether this rule - which is a very attractive meme to propagate around the media - may be a slight misdirection.”  

Prof Friston said there would “absolutely” be an “enduring persistent social distancing after Christmas” - but added that he was “not so sure it’s useful to have little trade-offs inside and outside”.  

Dr Kit Yates added that the 25-day potential post-Christmas lockdown calculation only accounts for attempting to bring cases back down – and “sort of neglects the fact that cases bring hospitalisations and hospitalisations bring deaths with them”.  

The mathematical biologist said: “There is almost certainly a cost for if we relax restrictions and let you mix with whoever you like for as long as you like. There has to be sensible limits and we need to press the best ways to meet safely - wearing masks, being outdoors, social distancing, ventilation – all of these aspects need to be encouraged if we are going to allow people to meet over Christmas.”  

The Independent Sage group was set up by Sir David King, a former government chief scientific adviser, to look at how the UK could work its way out of coronavirus lockdown after the official Sage faced criticism over an alleged lack of transparency.  

He claimed the new board was necessary because he feared experts were deferring to ministers.