MIT researchers say you’re no safer from Covid indoors at 6 feet or 60 feet
1–10 of 14 posts
Re: MIT researchers say you’re no safer from Covid indoors at 6 feet or 60 feet
#2Misleading headline, as usual from any Major US News source.
If you're inside a place with a breeze, it's literally impossible to contract it if you're upwind. It's even difficult to contract it downwind if the flow rate is high enough.
* https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/19/us/gym-ventilation-covid-trnd...
* https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/China-study-suggests-...
Re: MIT researchers say you’re no safer from Covid indoors at 6 feet or 60 feet
#3Misleading headline, as usual from any Major US News source. If you're inside a place with a breeze, it's literally impossible to contract it if you're upwind. It's even difficult to contract it downwind if the flow rate is high enough. * https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/19/us/gym-ventilation-covid-trnd... * https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/China-study-suggests-...
This is in line with what we've been seeing for the last 6 months.
Re: MIT researchers say you’re no safer from Covid indoors at 6 feet or 60 feet
#4Is it just me or does the conclusion not follow from the data? They say that the 6 foot rule "has no physical basis" because 60 feet is just as dangerous/safe - but surely that's irrelevant? What about 3 feet? 1 foot? If 6 feet is safer than that, then the rule is just fine - optimal, even, if the danger plateaus!
tl;dr Headline could just as easily read "6 foot rule highly effective - just as safe as 60 feet!"
Re: MIT researchers say you’re no safer from Covid indoors at 6 feet or 60 feet
#5...assuming that everyone is wearing masks, the article eventually clarifies.
Re: MIT researchers say you’re no safer from Covid indoors at 6 feet or 60 feet
#6Is it just me or does the conclusion not follow from the data? They say that the 6 foot rule "has no physical basis" because 60 feet is just as dangerous/safe - but surely that's irrelevant? What about 3 feet? 1 foot? If 6 feet is safer than that , then the rule is just fine - optimal, even, if the danger plateaus! tl;dr Headline could just as easily read "6 foot rule highly effective - just as safe as 60 feet!"
its more like statistical reality.
if you arbitrarily take 2 random people, 6 feet is a reasonable, risk free place.
but indoors with little ventilation, and circulating people, its garunteed the whole place will have covid if a single person walked around coughing.
its realistically about how effectively fresh air replaces any given persons emissions.
Re: MIT researchers say you’re no safer from Covid indoors at 6 feet or 60 feet
#7Misleading headline, as usual from any Major US News source. If you're inside a place with a breeze, it's literally impossible to contract it if you're upwind. It's even difficult to contract it downwind if the flow rate is high enough. * https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/19/us/gym-ventilation-covid-trnd... * https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/China-study-suggests-...
Just read the article and came to say the same thing. The researchers' point was that the restrictions on indoor capacity are not helping, and should be done away with. You're no safer at 60 feet, because your safety depends a lot more on other variables besides distance. The headline could just as well have stated: "you're just as safe at 6 feet as you would be at 60 feet".
Re: MIT researchers say you’re no safer from Covid indoors at 6 feet or 60 feet
#8Is it just me or does the conclusion not follow from the data? They say that the 6 foot rule "has no physical basis" because 60 feet is just as dangerous/safe - but surely that's irrelevant? What about 3 feet? 1 foot? If 6 feet is safer than that , then the rule is just fine - optimal, even, if the danger plateaus! tl;dr Headline could just as easily read "6 foot rule highly effective - just as safe as 60 feet!"
"The 6ft rule" is probably a decent proxy for "stay out of each other's personal space".
I think people miss that public policy is 1 part science and 1 part "making rules that might actually help given that people are idiots". Rules that are too complicated, subtle or onerous just won't get followed. We have enough trouble getting people to do the 6ft thing.
Re: MIT researchers say you’re no safer from Covid indoors at 6 feet or 60 feet
#9...assuming that everyone is wearing masks, the article eventually clarifies.
No, it says:
> even when wearing a mask
Which implies it holds with or without a mask.
Re: MIT researchers say you’re no safer from Covid indoors at 6 feet or 60 feet
#10> "indoor airborne transmission associated with relatively small, micron-scale aerosol droplets plays a dominant role in the spread of COVID-19"
More reason to use an N95 mask (vs. dust filters/cloth).