I can't understand why, but some people just have to believe the 'rona-porn that some outlets are putting out. They have to ignore Florida, Texas, and similar places, as otherwise the cognitive dissonance would be too great. They want to believe that the sky is falling.
So they won't believe this at all:
- An MIT study showed that people who maintain 60 feet of distance from others indoors are no more protected than if they socially distanced by just 6 feet.
- According to the researchers, other calculations of the risk of indoor transmission have omitted too many factors to accurately quantify that risk.
- “We need scientific information conveyed to the public in a way that is not just fear mongering but is actually based in analysis,” the author of the study said.
MIT professors Martin Z. Bazant, who teaches chemical engineering and applied mathematics, and John W.M. Bush, who teaches applied mathematics, developed a method of calculating exposure risk to Covid-19 in an indoor setting that factors in a variety of issues that could affect transmission, including the amount of time spent inside, air filtration and circulation, immunization, variant strains, mask use, and even respiratory activity such as breathing, eating, speaking or singing.
Six-feet social distancing rules that inadvertently result in closed businesses and schools are “just not reasonable,” according to Bazant...
For example, if someone infected with Covid-19 is wearing a mask and singing loudly in an enclosed room, a person who is sitting at the other side of the room is not more protected than someone who is sitting just six feet away from the infected person. This is why time spent in the enclosed area is more important than how far you are from the infected person...
As for social distancing outdoors, Bazant says it makes almost no sense and that doing so with masks on is “kind of crazy.”
Only "kind of"?