COVIDiot Antics #6 - "Social Distancing" (Debunked by MIT)

Hello there beautiful humans!

It turns out that another "prestigious," "trustworthy," "expert," source (in this case researchers from MIT) have released a study that would get them banned from Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube.

The peer-reviewed paper is called: A guideline to limit indoor airborne transmission of COVID-19, authored by Martin Z. Bazant (Department of Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and John W. M. Bush (Department of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

The paper itself is highly math-based, and very little in it is not equations and variables. Since the link is right there, and anyone can go read it, for the momemnt let's look at some quotes from a CNBC interview with the researchers:

> “We argue there really isn’t much of a benefit to the 6-foot rule, especially when people are wearing masks” ... “It really has almost no physical basis because the air a person is breathing while wearing a mask tends to rise and comes down elsewhere in the room so you’re more exposed to the average background than you are to a person at a distance.”

> “The distancing isn’t helping you that much and it’s also giving you a false sense of security because you’re as safe at 6 feet as you are at 60 feet if you’re indoors and the air is getting well mixed. Everyone in that space is at roughly the same risk, actually.”

> “Often times the space is large enough, the ventilation is good enough, the amount of time people spend together is such that those spaces can be safely operated even at full capacity and the scientific support for reduced capacity in those spaces is really not very good,” ... “I think if you run the numbers, even right now for many types of spaces you’d find that there is not a need for occupancy restrictions.”

> “This emphasis on distancing has been really misplaced from the very beginning. The CDC or WHO have never really provided justification for it, they’ve just said this is what you must do and the only justification I’m aware of, is based on studies of coughs and sneezes, where they look at the largest particles that might sediment onto the floor and even then it’s very approximate, you can certainly have longer or shorter range, large droplets.”

> “If you look at the air flow outside, the infected air would be essentially swept away and very unlikely to cause transmission. There are very few recorded instances of outdoor transmission”