• Login
  • Register
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

No Benefit of Social Distancing and Capacity Limits, Study Shows

by Will Jones
28 April 2021 1:41 AM
(200312) -- HAWALLI GOVERNORATE, March 12, 2020 (Xinhua) -- People sit with a certain distance away from each other while waiting to receive medical tests at a makeshift medical test center in Hawalli Governorate, Kuwait, March 12, 2020. TO GO WITH "Feature: Arrivals in Kuwait rush for coronavirus tests as gov't tightens precautions" (Photo by Asad/Xinhua) -  -//CHINENOUVELLE_1.0902/2003121601/Credit:CHINE NOUVELLE/SIPA/2003121602 (Newscom TagID: sfphotosfour530454.jpg) [Photo via Newscom]

(200312) -- HAWALLI GOVERNORATE, March 12, 2020 (Xinhua) -- People sit with a certain distance away from each other while waiting to receive medical tests at a makeshift medical test center in Hawalli Governorate, Kuwait, March 12, 2020. TO GO WITH "Feature: Arrivals in Kuwait rush for coronavirus tests as gov't tightens precautions" (Photo by Asad/Xinhua) - -//CHINENOUVELLE_1.0902/2003121601/Credit:CHINE NOUVELLE/SIPA/2003121602 (Newscom TagID: sfphotosfour530454.jpg) [Photo via Newscom]

A new study published this week adds to the evidence that social distancing rules like the two-metre, one-metre-plus and six-foot rules offer no additional protection against COVID-19.

Professors Martin Bazant and John Bush from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology use mathematical modelling to show that the risk of catching the virus is unaffected by keeping your distance from infected people when in the same room because of the way the virus spreads via aerosols in the air.

Prof Bazant told CNBC that the six-foot rule “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”.

While distancing offers some protection against larger droplets, it offers none against aerosols, which are a very common mode of transmission.

The peer-reviewed study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, uses a model to calculate indoor exposure risk based on time spent inside, air filtration and circulation, immunisations, respiratory activity, variants and mask use. Their conclusion is that it’s not social distancing that reduces risk but primarily the amount of time people spend in an enclosed space. The authors advise in the paper:

To minimise risk of infection, one should avoid spending extended periods in highly populated areas. One is safer in rooms with large volume and high ventilation rates. One is at greater risk in rooms where people are exerting themselves in such a way as to increase their respiration rate and pathogen output, for example, by exercising, singing, or shouting. 

Prof Bazant explains in his CNBC interview that this means many venues that have been closed can reopen at full capacity without increasing exposure risk.

What our analysis continues to show is that many spaces that have been shut down in fact don’t need to be. Often times the space is large enough, the ventilation is good enough, the amount of time people spend together is such that those spaces can be safely operated even at full capacity and the scientific support for reduced capacity in those spaces is really not very good. 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.

The authors suggest that instead of an exposed person being defined as someone who has been within six feet of an infected person for more than 15 minutes (as per the current CDC definition), whole rooms should be considered to be exposed depending on whether or not they exceed their cumulative exposure time (CET) with the infected person.

This does seem to be a more scientifically credible definition of exposure, but it also invites the possibility of yet more public health tyranny. And indeed, the authors propose regular mass testing at a frequency regulated by the CET for the space in question – and they’ve helpfully provided an app to enable us to calculate that. They explain:

For a group sharing an indoor space intermittently, for example, office coworkers or classmates, regular testing should be done with a frequency that ensures that the CET between tests is less than the limit set by the guideline. 

The need for this mass testing arises because they assume in their model that asymptomatic infections are no less infectious than symptomatic infections, so that simply asking people to isolate when ill is not enough to prevent exposure. Yet it is well-established now that asymptomatic infection is considerably less infectious than symptomatic infection and contributes very little to spread.

It’s worth stressing, then, that this is very much a model, not a study of real world transmission data and patterns, so is highly dependent on the assumptions and parameters that go into it. Some of those assumptions are more sound than others.

The assumptions relating to masks, for instance, are highly dubious.

The model tells you that if a restaurant with 50 people in it includes one infected person then people should spend less than 40 minutes there to avoid being infected. But if they are all wearing masks then this would be 28 hours! How does it arrive at that incredible difference?

The authors state that surgical masks filter out 95-99% of aerosol droplets. To back up this claim they refer to two papers. The first says it found the mask filtered out 30-75% of aerosol droplets and concludes: “Although surgical mask media may be adequate to remove bacteria exhaled or expelled by health care workers, they may not be sufficient to remove the submicrometer-size aerosols containing pathogens to which these health care workers are potentially exposed.” The second concludes: “None of these surgical masks exhibited adequate filter performance and facial fit characteristics to be considered respiratory protection devices.” The basis of their 95-99% claim is therefore unclear.

They do not cite the Danmask randomised controlled trial (RCT) into the benefits of wearing surgical masks, which found no significant protection for the wearer from contracting COVID-19.

In defence of the massive protective value their model grants to masks they refer to “the fact that face mask directives have been more effective than either lockdowns or social distancing in controlling the spread of COVID-19”. It’s certainly welcome to have some honesty about the ineffectiveness of lockdowns and social distancing, but the claim about the effectiveness of face masks is very questionable.

They cite two modelling studies in support, both published in June 2020. One, by Zhang and colleagues, purported to show that “the difference with and without mandated face covering represents the determinant in shaping the trends of the pandemic. This protective measure significantly reduces the number of infections.” The other reported “the results of two mathematical models” that showed “that facemask use by the public could make a major contribution to reducing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic”. Yet such studies have clearly been superseded by the events of the autumn (see below) as well as by the Danmask RCT. The decline in infections they attributed to masks, while correctly not attributed to lockdowns and social distancing, should properly have been credited primarily to seasonal factors along with growing population immunity.

From Yinon Weiss
Tags: Face MasksLockdownSocial distancing

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

CDC Says Fully Vaccinated Americans Can Now Go Maskless Outside – but Not in Crowds

Next Post

News Round Up

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

17 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

DONATE

PODCAST

The Sceptic | Episode 41: David Shipley on the Rape Gangs Inquiry, Tom Jones on the Ballymena Riots and Ben Pile On Dimming the Sun

by Richard Eldred
20 June 2025
6

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

News Round-Up

22 June 2025
by Toby Young

Beware the 3.5% Rule

22 June 2025
by James Alexander

This is Why Modern Police Are So Useless at Fighting Crime

22 June 2025
by Dr David McGrogan

US Bombs Iran, Tehran Warns of “Everlasting Consequences”

22 June 2025
by Toby Young

Dominic Cummings: The British State is Fundamentally Broken

22 June 2025
by Toby Young

News Round-Up

29

Is the War Against Iran in British or European Interests?

28

NHS Could Face Cuts to Fund Assisted Suicide, Warns Streeting

30

US Bombs Iran, Tehran Warns of “Everlasting Consequences”

17

Beware the 3.5% Rule

12

Is the War Against Iran in British or European Interests?

22 June 2025
by Noah Carl

This is Why Modern Police Are So Useless at Fighting Crime

22 June 2025
by Dr David McGrogan

Beware the 3.5% Rule

22 June 2025
by James Alexander

The Last Chance to Save Britain?

21 June 2025
by Sallust

This Pride Month, Who Will Protect Us From ‘Protect the Dolls’?

21 June 2025
by Steven Tucker

POSTS BY DATE

April 2021
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  
« Mar   May »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

POSTS BY DATE

April 2021
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  
« Mar   May »

DONATE

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

News Round-Up

22 June 2025
by Toby Young

Beware the 3.5% Rule

22 June 2025
by James Alexander

This is Why Modern Police Are So Useless at Fighting Crime

22 June 2025
by Dr David McGrogan

US Bombs Iran, Tehran Warns of “Everlasting Consequences”

22 June 2025
by Toby Young

Dominic Cummings: The British State is Fundamentally Broken

22 June 2025
by Toby Young

News Round-Up

29

Is the War Against Iran in British or European Interests?

28

NHS Could Face Cuts to Fund Assisted Suicide, Warns Streeting

30

US Bombs Iran, Tehran Warns of “Everlasting Consequences”

17

Beware the 3.5% Rule

12

Is the War Against Iran in British or European Interests?

22 June 2025
by Noah Carl

This is Why Modern Police Are So Useless at Fighting Crime

22 June 2025
by Dr David McGrogan

Beware the 3.5% Rule

22 June 2025
by James Alexander

The Last Chance to Save Britain?

21 June 2025
by Sallust

This Pride Month, Who Will Protect Us From ‘Protect the Dolls’?

21 June 2025
by Steven Tucker

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

  • X

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In

© Skeptics Ltd.

wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment