I like masks covering just the forehead.

Except it isn’t just me that says this is bad science - or that the dude is misrepresenting his association with Stanford.
https://i.ibb.co/5nxWHXR/67556-C3-E-...-A3-BD2252.jpg

excargo…

You need to read my post with a more open mind.

It’s about the media coverage and what people call “science.”

As your fact post states, “the paper is a hypothesis…”

And that means it has some observable data to look at.

Please drag up from the deeply buried freshman science course and remember how one gets to a “hypothesis.”

There is just one problem these days in the media, for something to be true it has to be consistently repeatable in various situations and tests with similar and close results. Most “science” claims via media and the elect ignore the repeatability factor and their “hypothesis” are basically something they pulled out of their rear end.

Good luck to us all, Biden is truly making sure his “darkest days” hypothesis come true.

Except the ‘hypothesis’ is “mask is very bad,” and what little data he gives is that a virus is so small a mask can’t stop it which - even if true - does not address his “mask is very bad” hypothesis, and to the extent that data MIGHT address his hypothesis, applies even more so to REFUTE his other claims, since the water vapor molecules, N2, O2, and CO2, are all an order of magnitude smaller than a virus. But other than that, and not even attempting to quantify “very bad,” and lying through his teeth about being Stanford associated, yeah, <sarcasm> a great ‘scientific study.’ ... probably get a Nobel Prize in biological science.</sarcasm>

And whatinhell has Biden got to do with science?

You know, none of this really matters. It is becoming clear a large segment of the USA population really could care less about anything. Just make sure Netflicks and the internet works.

Good luck to us all.

And now MIT, that bastion of conservative thought.....has destroyed the notion of social distancing:

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/17/e2018995118

​​​​​​
I only had a quick read but couldn't see where the paper "destroyed the notion of social distancing". To me it seems to say that, unsurprisingly, in indoor spaces which are not sufficiently vevtilated or where the air is not being filtered, distancing alone has no significant effect on transmission through aerosols. Transmission through larger droplets such as those emitted when singing, shouting or just "spitting" while talking are still effectively reduced by distancing, even indoors. The paper also looks at the effects of the various types of masks and mentions that they all help in reducing the spread of droplets to varying degrees. Better masks, correctly worn catch more smaller droplets of course. My take away is that distancing alone in indoor spaces with insufficient air quality management is not enough to prevent transmission. Again, I may well have missed something completely. If so then please do feel free to point that out to me.

Six feet or sixty feet doesn't matter. It destroys the notion that "social distancing" as we know it makes a lick of difference. Six feet was picked out of thin air when this ball got rolling. No science at all, just like no science behind lockdowns or masking. It proves, yet again, that a virus is gonna virus.

The best mitigation strategy is, was, and always has been, isolate the VULNERABLE, not the HEALTHY.

Sorry, I feel you didn't address my question. Where and how does it say that distancing makes no difference? It says that it alone has no effect on transmission through aerosols but some transmissios are through larger droplets. Also, indoors it's the combination of masks and distancing that works best to limit transmission. Show me where the paper says differently. I may well have missed it. Again, it also says that proper ventilation and filtration is better than distancing but without masks you would still get hit by larger droplets when in close proximity. None of this should surprise us.

‘You obviously read the report and what it was trying to answer is the question of vapor transmission distance and therefore COVID. Is there any truth to 6 feet?

After a long winded detailed study of many variables the correct answer is... wait for it...

It depends.

Simply put there is no magic minimum distance which will prevent a person’s vapor from touching others. However it made it clear that outside is the best place to be, and while it doesn’t say it directly, masking mandates outside, alone, or with substantial distance between people is rubbish.

So why have so many oppressive leaders demand such? The answer is probably not scientific.