MIT researchers say you’re no safer from Covid indoors at 6 feet or 60 feet

Re:MIT researchers say you’re no safer from Covid indoors at... by dTal on Friday April 23, 2021 @05:33PM (#26919466)

Is 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!"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:MIT researchers say you’re no safer from Covid indoors at... by blamestross on Friday April 23, 2021 @06:55PM (#26920201)

"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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:MIT researchers say you’re no safer from Covid indoors at... by cyanydeez on Friday April 23, 2021 @06:09PM (#26919777)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]