Experts Pulled Six-Foot Social Distance Rule Out Of “Thin Air”

by Kerry Dougherty

Hmmm. Looks like the CDC — and the frequently wrong-but-never-in-doubt Dr. Fauci — have a problem.

Even The New York Times now admits what those of us who have been paying attention for more than year already knew: That three feet of social distancing provides plenty of protection against Covid-19 and six feet is overkill.

In a story headlined “Three Feet Or Six? Distance Guidelines For Schools Stir Debate,” a number of learned people pointed out that the World Health Organization has always recommended one meter (roughly three feet) of distance to protect against the spread of viruses. Yet for some reason, Fauci, The Scarf and company decreed six feet. By doing so they deprived American school children of a year or more of school.

But how does the CDC reverse course and tell schools to reopen with three feet of distancing without admitting that the six-foot “rule” they shoved own our throats for more than a year was based on, well, a combination of guesswork, pseudoscience and possibly voodoo?

Their spin doctors must be working overtime to come up with some following-the-science explanation that won’t trigger a blind rage in parents whose kids have been sitting at home for a year because social distancing rules like the unworkable ones Gov. Ralph Northam’s presented last summer guaranteed public schools couldn’t reopen.

Placing desks six feet apart meant most public schools had to remain virtual.

Beyond that, there was the school bus problem. Requiring six feet of distancing on vehicles meant that a bus that could normally carry 77 pint-sized passengers could now carry only 13.

How could thousands of kids get to school riding in their own yellow limos?

They couldn’t.

“It never struck me that six feet was particularly sensical in the context of mitigation,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health. “I wish the C.D.C. would just come out and say this is not a major issue.”

No doubt they’d like to come out and say it isn’t an issue now that they’ve seen the fruits of their arbitrary rules: suicides, mental illness, increases in child abuse and widespread academic failure due to closed schools. Problem is, how do they do that without issuing a giant mea culpa?

A virologist from Virginia Tech was even more blunt:

“The origin of the six-foot distancing recommendation is something of a mystery. ‘It’s almost like it was pulled out of thin air,’ said Linsey Marr, an expert on viral transmission at Virginia Tech University.”

Pulled out of thin air.

Chew on that for a minute while you consider the harm that has come to a generation of school children because of the conceit of public health “experts.”

The Times reported that in a study of Massachusetts school children researchers found that “social distancing strategy had no statistically significant effect on Covid-19 case rates.”

Someone ought to go to prison for what’s been done to American kids over the past 12 months.

Instead, people like Northam take a victory lap around the commonwealth a full year after schools closed, celebrating the fact that only about 19% of Virginia’s public schools have full, in-person learning.

He and the other shut-the-schools governors ought to be ashamed. What they did to children is grotesque.

Open the damn schools now. Worry about face-saving measures later.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

38 responses to “Experts Pulled Six-Foot Social Distance Rule Out Of “Thin Air””

  1. This six-foot revelation is extraordinary. That rule, pulled out of thin air, has dictated COVID lockdown policy just as Kerry describes. It was a political concoction based on nothing but speculation and slow-motion camera shots of spittle flying from peoples’ mouths. We were told to trust “the science,” trust the experts, shut up, be good sheep, and comply.

    There was a huge reservoir of distrust before this revelation — just look at the large percentage of people who distrust the COVID vaccine. After this news, why would anyone believe anything coming out of the mouths of “experts”?

    1. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      The individuals who have been the figurehead fighting this virus have done a disservice to the people and those doing the actual work. All of their disingenuous statements have done is sow seeds of distrust in actual science and made it a political hot potato.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      re: ” There was a huge reservoir of distrust before this revelation — just look at the large percentage of people who distrust the COVID vaccine. After this news, why would anyone believe anything coming out of the mouths of “experts”?”

      Maybe but not to the ones I went to, they were mobbed but now I know they apparently were all “liberals”. 😉

  2. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    so who are you going to believe ? Science that IS evolving as they gain more info or “smart people” who say they don’t believe science and they give you their interpretation of “science”?

    Funny how some purposely confuse “science” and express doubts but not so much with the vaccine.. they DEMAND IT!

    “Science” is not “thin air”. It’s their best judgement right now as they are gathering more data and trying to better understand and update their recommendations.

    Those who want complete and settled science on something we still don’t know enough about and who becomes “skeptics” and prefer judgements from bloggers.. what can you say other that stupid is as stupid does.

    1. Who are we going to believe?

      My problem is not with science, or the scientific method, it’s with the political class and commentariat that professes to tell us peasants what the science says. Politicians and their media minions in America are more mendacious than ever — and that’s saying something. The collapse in trust in the ruling class has been breathtaking in the past few years — and it’s more than justified, as the six-foot-rule revelation makes abundantly clear.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Naw…. folks are doubting and impugning the science… the CDC.. and other epidemiologists

        This distance issue is going on around the world not just the US…

    2. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      Really, Larry? Here’s social distancing sign you can buy in pounds sterling … it requires 1m of separation. I guess British viruses are just lazy and unwilling to travel 6 ft.

      https://signs-direct.biz/shop/product/1m-social-distancing-is-being-enforced-please-respect-government-guidelines-covid-19-coronavirus-signage/

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        the actual distance is STILL under investigation and some of you may actually remember the nurses who sued over Ebola over insufficient protections.

        The Red Cross and others underestimating the potential of infections in the blood supply initially.

        It’s science that evolves – not the truth on high from GOD!

        1. “…the actual distance is STILL under investigation…”

          Excellent. You have admitted that the 6 foot separation mandate was not based on science.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            He admits nothing, only that everyone else is always wrong.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            TOTALLY NOT TRUE. Science is STILL investigating the issue and the judgements may evolve based on more information they are gaining.

            This is the way that Science “works”. It’s a body of knowledge that is increasing and as more knowledge is gained, assessments can and will change.

            Where in the world do you get that “science” was not based on science to start with when epistemologists around the world and our own CDC are involved in this and provide advice?

    3. Please provide the science upon which the 6 foot distancing standard is based.

  3. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    A certain amount of this is willful ignorance , to impugn science because it does not have all the answers or that their judgements and advice are changing – as they learn more –

    then to make it worse, latch on to folks who are not scientists in epidemiology or even mouthy bloggers for THEIR “beliefs” is wacakadoodle stuff to the max.

    I give blood – to this day – yesterday to be exact, anyone who does give blood knows about the “questions” they ask about things like hepatitis , dura matter, and other things… that they are STILL learning more about – years after…. and then updating their questions as a result.

    Science does not, never did, never will, provide 100% answers and those who expect it are living in LA LA land except now days, they heap scorn on science itself like that is something ueful to do.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      Larry,

      The application of the 6 foot rule was arbitrary, the standard practice prior to last spring was 3 feet (W.H.O).

      https://qz.com/1831100/where-does-the-six-feet-social-distancing-guideline-come-from/

      Furthermore, your entire comment is hyperbole.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        the entire point is that science is still learning – AND they are changing their advice based on their best judgements –

        The idea that because they change their judgements makes them wrong is beyond ignorant.

        Science is about gathering a body of knowledge and understanding it – collectively – among many and there will be a lack of consensus early on with more consensus reached on things they start to understand better and agree on.

        Impugning science for gathering more information and reassessing their judgements is just dumb as a stump.

        and yes.. a certain amount of hyperbole… agree.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          Larry,

          Again, the 6 foot rule had nothing to do with learning. It was arbitrary and didn’t follow the previous standard established in 1930 (W.H.O.).

          “The idea that because they change their judgements makes them wrong is beyond ignorant.”

          I just can’t with statements like this, literally I can’t. It’s a board brush statement not rooted in fact.

          “Science is about gathering a body of knowledge and understanding it – collectively – among many and there will be a lack of consensus early on with more consensus reached on things they start to understand better and agree on.”

          No, no it’s really not.

          “Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.”

          Consensus isn’t a word entertained by science or scientist, it’s a word used by Politicians.

          Scientific methodology includes the following:

          “Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
          -Evidence
          -Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
          -Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
          -Repetition
          -Critical analysis
          -Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment”

          https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-science/

          No, the entire comment was hyperbole not a certain amount, all of it.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Matt.. I don’t think you really understand science.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “LarrytheG an hour ago
            Matt.. I don’t think you really understand science.”

            Interesting take, but my Bachelors of Science disagrees.

            Also, it’s noted that you didn’t bother to address anything I wrote but instead made and unfounded statement.

            Lets play the game where you tell me what you hold a degree in.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Not really. You embarrass yourself guy. “addressing ” you is an exercise in mad hatter… you think much too much of yourself… and no I don’t play your silly and immature and adolescent games.

          4. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Yes, really. The concepts you’ve been assigning to science since the day I started reading here are not parts of it.

            Consensus is not part of science, I’m not the first to say that and I will not be the last.

            “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” Michael Crichton

            https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/michael-crichton-explains-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2719747/

            “you think much too much of yourself… and no I don’t play your silly and immature and adolescent games.”

            Interesting, because you seem to claim master in all topics and dismiss others who are learned in the field.

            Also, I’ll take the fact that you won’t indicate which field, that you have none and therefore are not qualified to give an opinion on the matter.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            not like you. You do need to mature a bit.

            way too proud of your “knowledge” and “credentials”…

            “mine is bigger than yours”.

            yep

          6. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “LarrytheG 16 minutes ago
            not like you. You do need to mature a bit.

            way too proud of your “knowledge” and “credentials”…

            “mine is bigger than yours”.

            yep”

            Wow, just wow.

            So no comment on the body of my comment, which refuted your statement via an actual Physician.

            Also, I could give a flying f’ about your anatomy.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            no comment. you’re not worth the aggravation. seen you with others also.

          8. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “LarrytheG Matt Adams • 6 minutes ago
            no comment. you’re not worth the aggravation. seen you with others also.”

            I’m not worth the aggravation? I’m sorry you feel that pointing out your inaccuracies is aggravating. It’s a terrible day when you get confronted by the facts and truth that run counter to your preconceived narrative isn’t it.

            Your last line rings truth to my statements regarding you, it’s a pity that point seems lost on you.

        2. “The idea that because they change their judgements makes them wrong is beyond ignorant.”

          Changing their judgement does not mean they are wrong, it means they were wrong.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            but that’s how science works. They gather info, postulate, make judgments, gather more info, see things they did not see or understand before… and evolve.

            it’s an accumulating body of knowledge that they make their best judgements on what they do know at a point in time.

            As more info is gather, they understand more and revise accordingly.

  4. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    You can’t take away Big Foot’s title. That would be mean.
    https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/x4AAAOSwKk5eciet/s-l400.jpg

  5. Kathleen Smith Avatar
    Kathleen Smith

    How about 4 and 1/2 feet and we call it a day. As for John Kerry, maybe he had both vaccines being an important person and all, or maybe he already had Covid.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Horse hockey. The same could be true for plenty of others who would be ejected from the plane….He’s just PC, a privileged character.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      I know this is a sore subject for some but there is more science going on about kids and whether they can get it, especially the new variant and whether they can still carry and transmit it to others like bus drivers or family members.

      Science does not yet have the answers but they are more about safe than sorry than about “oh hell, we don’t know , let it all hang out”.

      When we don’t like the science what do we do?

  6. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Kind of makes one wonder about the so-called “climate science”. How much of that has been pulled out of thin air? When you commingle reasonable scientific theory with abject guesswork you practice voodoo. When you refuse to distinguish between the reasonable theories and the guesswork you practice deception.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      no secret that the climate deniers and skeptics are also the COVID science skeptics/deniers. Don’t believe the science from credentialed scientists -nope – believe the bloggers who are “smart”. Got it.

  7. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Speaking of reopening the schools, whatever happened to Northam’s declaration (on Feb 5 or thereabouts) that Virginia schools would reopen to in-person learning by March 15? By my calendar, today is March 18.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/virginia-schools-open-march-15-northam/2021/02/05/08b08f6a-67c6-11eb-8468-21bc48f07fe5_story.html

  8. The science: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab230/6167856

    but why let that get in the way of letting politicians dictate to the masses…

  9. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    But it’s science! How could they get it wrong? It was just about a year ago the big argument started about whether any of these rules would stop the spread of a microscopic viral pathogen or just make us feel better. Clearly the virus has won. Again, the science indicates probably a full third of the population has had this, and I bet 90% have gotten a snootfull of bugs but many just didn’t get sick. It spreads. Duh. That’s what viruses are damn good at.

    Great photo in the Twitterverse of John Kerry on an American Airlines plane with no mask, quietly reading a book (not in coach, of course….) What does he know that his friends won’t tell us? What will happen to me if I try the same on our trip in May?

    In May or June, two months from now, Dr. Governor thinks it might be safe for 500 people to enter the Siegel Center for a graduation….That is, what, one-tenth of the rated capacity?

  10. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    You all are over the tips of your skis on this one. Here is what GAO said last May–https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-545sp “The success of social distancing depends on factors such as the distance that infectious particles can spread from a contagious person. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) currently recommends a 2 meter (about 6 feet) separation between people, while the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends 1 meter (about 3 feet).

    The scientific basis for these recommendations comes from studies in fields such as fluid mechanics, epidemiology, and microbiology. For example, several studies estimated the velocity and distance traveled by droplets of different sizes expelled by sneezing, coughing, and breathing. These studies showed that sneezing and coughing can propel droplets more than 2 meters, with sneezing possibly propelling them further, and breathing less than 1 meter (fig. 2).

    However, these estimates of speeds and distances are not absolute maximums. Coughing and sneezing are complex phenomena that are challenging to characterize precisely. And the behavior of droplets after they are expelled depends on their size, along with environmental factors such as humidity and air currents, making it challenging to be definitive about how far they may travel. Partly as a result of this ambiguity, social distancing guidelines are often conservative, recommending minimal personal contact except when necessary, such as within one’s own household”

    1. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      Mr. O’Keefe you need to remove the May– from your link IOT make it operate properly.

  11. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Hmmm, something scientific? Well, given this is a Republican blog, I suppose they could have designed some experiments to determine safe distance for COVID. Something Auschwitzian, perhaps? At least Tuskegee-ian.

    Here, let’s do our own experiment on “safe distance”. Given the following situation:
    123X567,
    where X is a person**, circle the urinal, 1-3 or 5-7, that you would approach.

    **person because we here at BR make no assumptions that could lead to charges of gender preference.

    WayneS, no… queuing up behind X is not an appropriate response, even if you don dark glasses and carry a white cane. Funny, but not appropriate.

Leave a Reply