My general opinion is that 4 weeks may serve you better. Even 6 won't hurt. My reasons are the following. From personal experience, and I have over 30 years of competitive running to bank from here if you are open.
Over the years I have always been concerned with getting better and addicted to the process that I could not nor should not stop it. When after training and getting injuries that lasted near 2 months, (better performances) followed in short order. This was surprising to me.
It didn't take long to tune my body ,having more of a sense of effortlessness and joy for the movement then in the months earlier. I grew and major prs just after the long break. e.g.8 weeks nothing but swimming. - PR 15:16--6 weeks later was 15:00 and 8 weeks later 14:48. This was post 8 weeks and a slow comeback.
The voluntary 4 week break or longer has changed my ability to train getting major results and made it easy to have performance increases that surpassed the prior period of performance.
I hate the long break and don't want to do it, but if I am not seeing results or getting worse, training should stop. I have found 6 to be better than 4. It seems it has to do with the endocrine response to protracted hard training. I have found 6 weeks better than 4 and should include a conservative comeback accelerating on the honest sense that I am always fresh and not reaching. Progress returns quickly,as health is reinstated.
Good luck-