What scientific evidence decided that 6' of distance in social distancing was the proper distance for people who practice social distancing
Great question Wayne!
It's 6 feet because Dr. Fauci is 6 feet tall (-:
Actually, there is great disagreement on this and there is no magic number. 6 feet seems to be the distance which most aerosol particles from sneezing travel.........according to some sources.
One would think that if everybody is wearing a mask, the safe distance is a bit less than that and without a mask, surely its farther than that.
The 6-foot social distancing recommendation is pulled from guidance designed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for medical providers to prevent the spread of infectious respiratory diseases between themselves and their patients in a health care setting. It’s based on past studies of infection among health care workers, and specific to illnesses like the flu that are transmitted by respiratory droplets released when an infected person coughs, sneezes or even talks. Like the flu, novel coronavirus is believed to be transmitted primarily via those droplets.
“We’re in an unusual time that we’re actually advising [those practices] for people in the community setting, as opposed to people who are in a hospital or a clinic,” said Julie Fischer, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Georgetown University and the chair of the Global Health Security Agenda Consortium, which focuses on responding to the threat of infectious disease.
The World Health Organization has a different recommendation for COVID-19: that people keep a minimum of 3 feet between themselves and “anyone who is coughing or sneezing.” That metric, Fischer explained, is based on research conducted during the 20th century that determined 3 feet is the minimum distance needed to reduce chances of infection for pathogens like bacterial meningitis and rhinovirus colds.
But after SARS-CoV-1 — another virus that is closely related to novel coronavirus — broke out in East Asia during the early 2000s, several studies that examined infection rates of health care workers suggested that a standard 3-foot distance might not be enough.
Those studies “hypothesized that the droplets might have spread as far as 2 meters, or about 6 feet,” Fischer said, based on the observation that medical students and other health workers became infected after being in the vicinity of patients, even if they were no closer than 6 feet.
READ MORE: How to use ventilation and air filtration to prevent the spread of coronavirus indoors
In the years that followed, 6 feet became a standard guideline in the U.S. A 2007 CDC guide that focused on preventing transmission of infectious disease in a health care setting noted that it “may be prudent” for providers to wear a mask within 6 to 10 feet of a patient, “especially when exposure to emerging or highly virulent pathogens is likely.” During the 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak, the CDC officially expanded its guidance to recommend a minimum of 6 feet of physical distance between providers and patients — a recommendation that still stands.
But whether that number actually holds up with this specific virus is a question that researchers are now pursuing. One study published by MIT in March suggested that “turbulent gas clouds” released by infected patients could travel upwards of 23 to 27 feet. The “locally moist and warm atmosphere” within those clouds, researchers explained, allow respiratory droplets to “evade evaporation” and persist for a longer period of time compared to isolated droplets.
metmike: Funny how we are being told that people in groups greater than 10 are a high risk for transmission and that people closer than 6 feet cause a higher rate of transmission and we hear that distance, 6 feet behind reported over and over. All the stores have marked off spots, 6 feet from each other for customers to stand on while they wait in line.
But somehow, millions of people protesting this Summer, smashed up against each other(nobody 6 feet apart) , some not wearing masks and many shouting, which launches aerosal particles a great distance, especially not wearing a mask...........is NOT spreading COVID.
No evidence we are told.
Of course contact tracers were instructed to not ask positive cases if they had been to a protest.............to intentionally NOT have the evidence.
Covering up massive COVID being spread from protests-8/8 update below
23 responses |
Started by metmike - July 30, 2020, 7:28 p.m
They are really good at using their version of science to define political things, so that the science always supports them.
1. The science says that we must ALWAYS social distance at least 6 feet apart.
2. But wait........With protesting........ The science says that there is no evidence of COVID being spread by millions of people NOT social distancing or following scientific rule #1.............which only applies to non protesting situations.
3. Their science says that hydroxychloroquine is a dangerous drug with no evidence that it works.................even as the real medical science, practiced by thousand of doctors prescribe it(with benefits) and hundreds of millions of people have safely taken it the last 4 decades with no deleterious side effects.
4. The last 40 years have irrefutably featured the best weather/climate for life on this massively greening planet in the last 1,000 years(the last time it was this warm). A climate OPTIMUM. But their science says that we are having a climate crisis.
5. Bernie's science says "that major cities along the coast lines of the world will be under water in 8 or 9 years" The real science says that the ocean level will continue to rise at the current rate and be 1 inch higher then.
6. AOC's science and Greta's science says that the planet will be destroyed by the year 2030 if we don't act now and do what they say, cutting CO2 emissions to near zero by then. The authentic science in biology, agronomy and everywhere else(except politics) says that CO2 is a beneficial gas, greening up the planet and causing record food production and a booming biosphere with life flourishing.
6. Al Gore's science said that the climate crisis was threatening polar bears. He won an Emmy for his fake science movie "An inconvenient Truth" and Nobel Peace Prize too in 2007 for saying this stuff. The real science shows that polar bear numbers have exploded higher by 30% since 2005.
7. Al Gore's science said that all the Arctic sea ice would be melted bythe Summer of 2014. Still plenty of ice today.
8. The United Nations, behind the fake climate crisis scheme, was already making many dire predictions in 1989:
https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
9. I can add dozens of other failed predictions on climate change and other things but oddly, they all come from one side..........the same side manufacturing all this bs.......that keeps turning out wrong year after year, accuses the other side of pathologically making up and believing in conspiracy theories.
Weird. They accuse people like me, that have all the data and authentic science of being a science denier.........because we don't use their politically generated/manufactured/fake science......which according to them, was settled 15 years ago(when they concluded that climate science knowledge had matured).
Some of us have continued to learn since then.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27864/