MIT study challenges indoor social distancing, finds 'no difference between 6 feet and 60 feet'

[ducks]

MIT professors Martin Bazant and John Bush found that people who maintain six feet of distance indoors are no more protected than if they were 60 feet apart – even when wearing a mask.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/mit-s...ial-distancing

[DarrinS]

Meh

[ElNono]

Posted here a day or two ago:
https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...1#post10489108

[hater]

MIT professors Martin Bazant and John Bush found that people who maintain six feet of distance indoors are no more protected than if they were 60 feet apart – even when wearing a mask.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/mit-s...ial-distancing

Directly from that study:


"Likewise, masks worn by both infected and susceptible persons will reduce the risk of transmission by a factor p2m, a dramatic effect given that pm≤0.1 for moderately high-quality masks (74, 75)."


Wear a ing mask

[Spurtacular]

Boom.

[lefty]

But who financed that study?

[Leetonidas]

Derp didn't actually read any of it

[coyotes_geek]

"Our analysis shows that many spaces may be safe to re-open at full occupancy, while others carry significant risk," MIT Professor Martin Bazant, who conducted the study alongside Professor John Bush, explained to Fox News, "depending on the amount of time people spend together, the ventilation rate, whether face masks are worn and other factors."

The peer-reviewed study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, focused on factors such as time spent indoors, air filtration and circulation, immunization and variant strains.

"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," he told CNBC.

So what's more practical? A uniform 6-ft social distancing requirement or "running the numbers" for every individual building depending on the amount of time people spend together, the ventilation rate, whether face masks are worn and other factors?

[Winehole23]

So what's more practical? A uniform 6-ft social distancing requirement or "running the numbers" for every individual building depending on the amount of time people spend together, the ventilation rate, whether face masks are worn and other factors?

Is it more practical for businesses to provide good ventilation and air filtration for indoor activities, or to do nothing and let the guests bear the risks?

No easy answer here, I would imagine people investing in new businesses are hedging against another respiratory pandemic by investing in filtration and ventilation or doing things more al fresco.

[hater]

More practical?


Wear a ing mask

[Spurtacular]

More practical?


Wear a ing mask

Calm down, Karen.

[coyotes_geek]

Is it more practical for businesses to provide good ventilation and air filtration for indoor activities, or to do nothing and let the guests bear the risks?

No easy answer here, I would imagine people investing in new businesses are hedging against another respiratory pandemic by investing in filtration and ventilation or doing things more al fresco.

Long term I don't think anyone is planning on a scenario that doesn't involve herd immunity. What changes, if any, occur to building codes going forward will be something interesting to keep an eye on. I took the study, well, at least Fox's presentation of it, to be a second guessing of social distancing and occupancy restrictions were put and/or still are in place this time around.