Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

SheltieLover

(79,666 posts)
Fri Apr 23, 2021, 02:00 PM Apr 2021

MIT researchers say you're no safer from Covid indoors at 6 feet or 60 feet in new study challenging [View all]

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/04/23/mit-researchers-say-youre-no-safer-from-covid-indoors-at-6-feet-or-60-feet-in-new-study.html

The risk of being exposed to Covid-19 indoors is as great at 60 feet as it is at 6 feet — even when wearing a mask, according to a new study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers who challenge social distancing guidelines adopted across the world.

MIT professors Martin Bazant, who teaches chemical engineering and applied mathematics, and John Bush, who teaches applied mathematics, developed a method of calculating exposure risk to Covid-19 in an indoor setting that factors in a variety of issues that could affect transmission, including the amount of time spent inside, air filtration and circulation, immunization, variant strains, mask use and even respiratory activity such as breathing, eating, speaking or singing.

Bazant and Bush question long-held Covid-19 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization in a peer-reviewed study published earlier this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America.

"We argue there really isn't much of a benefit to the six-foot rule, especially when people are wearing masks," Bazant said. "It really has no physical basis because the air a person is breathing while wearing a mask tends to rise and comes down elsewhere in the room so you're more exposed to the average background than you are to a person at a distance."

More at link.
35 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Chemical engineering, and applied mathematics gratuitous Apr 2021 #1
Actually, Many Chem Es... ProfessorGAC Apr 2021 #2
actually both of those fields would be fairly well versed in how air flows which appears to be what dsc Apr 2021 #3
These people have more expertise on how fluids and droplets move than medical people caraher Apr 2021 #22
"Fauci is such an idiot, he should have used the Bazant & Bush risk calculator" dalton99a Apr 2021 #4
Thank you for making it easier to understand. marie999 Apr 2021 #21
What I don't see is... TheRealNorth Apr 2021 #5
Yes, it does sound fishy. ananda Apr 2021 #20
Never bought 6ft. A Korean researcher early on in the pandemic JCMach1 Apr 2021 #34
How about some actual experiments? Did they do those, or just theorize? soothsayer Apr 2021 #6
Wonderful, more fuel for the lunatic's conspiracy theories! IrishAfricanAmerican Apr 2021 #7
How about 6 feet versus 1 or 2 feet? Since that's the ACTUAL POINT of the 6ft rule Hugh_Lebowski Apr 2021 #8
I think the 6' rule comes from droplet precautions elias7 Apr 2021 #11
Okay but ... Hugh_Lebowski Apr 2021 #15
Meh Sgent Apr 2021 #26
Has anyone ever seen the aerosol results of a sneeze? Of had a person sneeze in an about joetheman Apr 2021 #9
If is was 60 feet spacing that was needed then wouldn't everyone be sick now? SWBTATTReg Apr 2021 #10
Well then I'm staying at least 60 feet from everyone at MIT underpants Apr 2021 #12
I quickly reviewed the actual paper (not the cnbc unscientific analysis). Pobeka Apr 2021 #13
Yes, it's a model caraher Apr 2021 #23
Another Thing That Bugged Me ProfessorGAC Apr 2021 #28
Yep, when I think about the reality of air flows in a room. Pobeka Apr 2021 #29
I've Been Involved In Several... ProfessorGAC Apr 2021 #32
I wondered about that, too. myccrider Apr 2021 #35
See my post #30. n/t Pobeka Apr 2021 #31
After skimming the article.... TheRealNorth Apr 2021 #14
If it's a poor reading I expect the authors to raise hell and demand it's taken down Hugh_Lebowski Apr 2021 #16
Makes sense in a closed circulation environment. roamer65 Apr 2021 #17
Even Dumpy knew. He just didn't share. Kid Berwyn Apr 2021 #18
I was glad to see the 6 ft indoors recommendation and hoped it would be okay, but I wasn't brewens Apr 2021 #19
I'd tend to trust epidemiologists and immunologists more than chemical engineers harumph Apr 2021 #24
concentration in the turbulent jet at a distance of 6 ft is 30 times higher DontBelieveEastisEas Apr 2021 #25
Distance should tend to dilute the airborne cloud; drying should make the particles less infectious Klaralven Apr 2021 #27
ANALYSIS IS FOR MASKED PEOPLE: From the author's appendix, some critical info not in the cnbc piece: Pobeka Apr 2021 #30
This is not believable to me Meowmee Apr 2021 #33
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»MIT researchers say you'r...