When I first heard the term “social distancing” less than two weeks ago, my immediate thought was, What the hell is that?  Then I learned it meant keeping at least six feet between me and someone else. The term somehow didn’t seem right and nagged at the back of my mind until a conversation this past week with someone whose office in Center City Philadelphia had been closed down because of decisions regarding the coronavirus pandemic.

He said, “When one of my employees left the office, she said, ‘Social distancing doesn’t have to mean social isolation.’”

In that moment it dawned on me exactly what had been bothering me about the term “social distancing.” What is needed is physical distancing not social distancing. The risk of spreading the coronavirus increases with physical proximity but there’s no evidence that it is affected by people’s social closeness. Social distancing is a misnomer that confuses functional realms.

We are social animals and under stress need social contact with others. It’s deep in our biology. A group of chimpanzees under external threat or after experiencing internal conflict will gather in a group and hug each other. At other times, when relaxed, they also maintain physical closeness with grooming.

In the current circumstances with the coronavirus it seems wise to take precautions of maintaining physical distance until we know more exactly the magnitude of the risk of coronavirus spread. In the meantime, we need to do our best to maintain social closeness while maintaining physical distance.

For years I’ve heard people remark how ironic it is that social media is called that because its actual effect is often to distance people from each other socially. This is a perfect time, however, to use social media constructively rather than destructively. To prevent viral contagion, we need physical distancing not social distancing. In fact, especially now, we need to practice social closeness with family, friends and other loved ones in whatever forms we can find.

— Peter A. Crist, M.D.