Professors from the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have released a new study that flies in the face of the CDC’s 6-foot social distancing rules, even when wearing a face covering. Dictatorial Democrat governors like MI Governor Gretchen Whitmer, NY Governor Andrew Cuomo, and CA Governor Gavin Newsome used the fear created by the 6 foot rule to shut down their state’s economies. Restaurants, bars and gyms were hardest hit by their unconstitutional actions.
The study, performed by MIT Professors Martin Bazant and John Bush, was published earlier this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.Their study argues that there isn’t any “physical science” behind the decision to shut down indoor public spaces and to force people to remain 6 feet apart from each other.
Daily Mail reports – Professors Martin Bazant and John Bush say the ‘six-foot rule’ that encourages people to socially distance in public has no solid basis in science.
They explained that the risk of being exposed to the coronavirus indoors is the same whether people are six feet or 60 feet apart and that this risk is low in well-ventilated spaces.
Bazant and Bush developed a model to calculate indoor exposure risk based on time spent inside, air filtration and circulation, immunizations, respiratory activity, variants, and mask use.
The team says the six-foot rule ‘has no physical basis’ because even when people are wearing masks, air tends to rise, travel and come back down somewhere else in the room, according to CNBC.
These findings suggest, according to researchers, that if a space has proper ventilation, the facility ‘can be safely operated even at full capacity and the scientific support for reduced capacity in those spaces is really not very good.’
Because the coronavirus travels by respiratory droplets exhaled from someone who is infected, the CDC recommends people stay at least six feet apart – but MIT says the distance does not matter.
Researchers developed a model to calculate indoor exposure risk based on time spent inside, air filtration and circulation, immunizations, respiratory activity, variants, and mask use.
And they found it is not social distancing that keeps people safe; it is the amount of time they spend in an enclosed place.
‘What our analysis continues to show is that many spaces that have been shut down in fact don’t need to be,’ he continued.
‘Oftentimes 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,’ the report claims.
