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

Hugh_Lebowski

(33,643 posts)

8. How about 6 feet versus 1 or 2 feet? Since that's the ACTUAL POINT of the 6ft rule

Reply to SheltieLover (Original post)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 01:22 PM

Apr 2021

Seems like that's the more pertinent comparison.

All in all, from what's being said here, sort of implies you can't safely be indoors with someone who's infected unless they're REALLY far from you.

Am I understanding that correctly?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

MIT researchers say you're no safer from Covid indoors at 6 feet or 60 feet in new study challenging [View all] SheltieLover Apr 2021 OP

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