Originally Posted by
Excargodog
If you are referring to:
I do not consider that to be a valid question. Effective strategy to what end? There ARE NO fixed percentages. And they answer varies within a given group due to other issues such as population density. Which goes to the point. The Draconian one size fits all policies are not justifiable. There are no sharp cutoffs. There is nothing scientific about the six foot rule any more than there is about the now thoroughly discredited 21 foot rule in policing.
WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO PROTECT? The healthy young military member? 3000 people on the USS Theodore Roosevelt got coronavirus. One (1) died from it. The “general public”? The 85 year old in a nursing home with COPD and coronary artery disease? The elementary school kid who actually DOES need an education to make his/her way in the world?
You seriously think the optimal solution for one will be an optimal solution for all?
According to my fiance's mother, who has a PhD in Epidemiology and is a professor at an Ivy League school, the 6' rule exists because that's roughly how far you expel aerosols while speaking at normal conversational volumes. Masks bring that down to less than a foot. You need a draconian one-size-fits-all policy because distancing, along with masks, do work and you have to draw the line somewhere, unless you think there should be distance rules for all situations, based on airflow, face coverings, type of coverings, etc. I elect one simple guideline.