Skip to main content may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on the site. Read our full Disclosure here.

MIT Study Says 6-Foot Social Distancing Guidelines are Pointless


Add this to the long list of studies debunking lockdowns, masks, and now social distancing.

Everything that the mainstream media and medical bureaucrats preached to us for over a year can be thrown in the garbage.

They have done absolutely nothing to curb the virus and helped devastate the lives of hard-working people around the world.

A new MIT study has taken a stab at the 6-foot social distancing guidelines that have dictated how we interact with each other in public.

Occupancy restrictions continue to stranglehold small businesses and brainwashed zombies freak out when anyone steps within a few feet of them.

And those Kindergarten stickers at every business and public transport station have been a gigantic waste of time.

Here’s more info:

Even when wearing your face diaper, you have an equal risk of getting COVID-19 at 6 feet or 60 feet from someone.

That alone should be enough to convince a reasonable person to accept the risks and practice reasonable measures to limit the spread of the virus.

-Washing your hands

-Vitamin C, D, and zinc intake

-Exercise & sunlight exposure

-Proper air filtration inside buildings

These practices would have helped millions of more people than lockdowns, face diapers, and social distancing.

Although overshadowed by busting the social distancing myth, the study simultaneously busted the lockdown myth.

They concluded that time spent indoors is a greater factor than distance.

So, that means we never needed the lockdowns that shuttered people inside their homes and restricted their ability to obtain natural Vitamin D from sunlight.

If only common sense ever prevailed during the COVID-19 hysteria.

Fox News reported:

A new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology challenges widespread social distancing guidelines, asserting that the “six-foot rule” is inadequate in mitigating indoor transmission of COVID-19.

“Our analysis shows that many spaces may be safe to re-open at full occupancy, while others carry significant risk,” MIT Professor Martin Bazant, who conducted the study alongside Professor John Bush, explained to Fox News, “depending on the amount of time people spend together, the ventilation rate, whether face masks are worn and other factors.”

The peer-reviewed study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, focused on factors such as time spent indoors, air filtration and circulation, immunization and variant strains.

“I think if you run the numbers, even right now for many types of spaces, you’d find that there is not a need for occupancy restrictions,” he told CBNC.

NATIONAL POLL: Do You Still Have Trump's Back 100%?

Both Bazant and Bush teach applied mathematics, while Bazant also teaches chemical engineering. As such, the professors developed a calculation to determine the risk of exposure to COVID-19.

“We argue that, in the context of airborne transmission in a well-mixed space, the benefits of the six-foot rule are limited,” Bazant said. “As everyone in the room is breathing the same air, they share the same risk. Social distancing may thus be giving you a false sense of security.  However, we note that the six-foot rule is valuable in limiting transmission by respiratory jets, which pose a heightened risk when people are not wearing masks.”

Pathogen-laced droplets travel through the air due to the various activities people casually engage in, even simply eating, speaking and breathing. Original guidance focused on droplets that were propelled by coughing or sneezing, but new research backs the idea that airflow will carry droplets throughout a room.

Even the type of activity mattered significantly: exercising, singing or shouting increased pathogen output, acting to decrease the time that someone can spend indoors before risking greater infection “by an order of magnitude.”

The study suggests that it could be just as effective to open windows or install new fans to keep air moving as it would to install a new filtration system – though significantly less expensive.

Total time spent indoors with others may be just as important a focus as distance when determining the risk of transmission, according to Bazant and Bush.


Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

We Love Trump
Thanks for sharing!