/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12536822

138KiB, 2560x1332, socialdistancing-scaled.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 17:48:26 2021 No.12536822 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12536842 >>12536847 >>12536983 >>12536985 >>12537240 >>12537250 >>12537256 >>12537297 >>12537305

How was the "6" in 6 feet of social distancing arrived at scientifically?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 17:54:39 No.12536836 Report

Quoted By:

it 's bossing the masses to be conspicuous under the CCTV. It's about getting human N's for AI training.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 17:55:17 No.12536839 Report

Quoted By: >>12536846

/sci/ isn't your search engine

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 17:56:09 No.12536842 Report

Quoted By: >>12537202

>>12536822
>scientifically
The west abandoned science for emotion after 2005.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 17:57:16 No.12536846 Report

Quoted By: >>12536865

>>12536839
is this the cool new version of "it's not my job to educate you"

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 17:57:29 No.12536847 Report

Quoted By: >>12536873 >>12537254

>>12536822
WHO developed a 3 feet guideline based on previous studies. SARS-CoV1 showed it was not adequate.
https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/pdf/guidelines/isolation-guidelines-H.pdf
CDC gave evidence for 6 or 10 feet guideline and adopted it in 2007 for future possible pandemic.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2763852
COVID might actually spread to 23-27 feet.
6 feet is a compromise between what happened in SARS epidemic in China in 2002, what people can actually do, and studies on COVID droplet and aerosol spread. This isn't a magic number, it's just a good way to reduce probability of spread without going to the extreme which people won't be willing to do.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 18:03:21 No.12536865 Report

Quoted By: >>12536970

>>12536846
No, it means you can easily find tons of papers and vulgarization pieces just by typing the question in a search engine. People who waste online space with inane questions should be denied internet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 18:05:36 No.12536873 Report

Quoted By: >>12536878 >>12538104

>>12536847
It seems really pointless inside stores and stuff. You're still walking through everybody's dirty lung air, even if you're six feet away from other people

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 18:07:27 No.12536878 Report

Quoted By: >>12536886

>>12536873
It's not pointless. It's a way to reduce the probability of transmission. It's not enough as studies have shown but it definitely is a means to reduce likelihood.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 18:09:50 No.12536886 Report

Quoted By: >>12536898

>>12536878
Are there actual numbers for the degree of probability reduction?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 18:15:02 No.12536898 Report

Quoted By: >>12536907 >>12536917

>>12536886
That would be highly unethical because it would mean testing people at different distances and comparing transmission spread.
All we can do is compare it to the ineffectiveness of the SARS-CoV1 3-feet WHO guideline and our data on the spread of SARS-CoV2 droplets and how before/after adoption of this guideline and other lockdown measures affected the projected incidence and case fatality rate like this for example:

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 18:16:44 No.12536907 Report

Quoted By: >>12536917

>>12536898
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32878627/

sorry for some reason it thought the doi link was spam

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 18:20:50 No.12536917 Report

Quoted By: >>12536931 >>12536937

>>12536898
>>12536907
So we know it reduces the probability we just can't quantify it? That's a pretty shit study for measuring the effects of 6 feet since there is no separation of variables

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 18:25:12 No.12536931 Report

Quoted By: >>12536939

>>12536917
Tell me how we can "separate variables" in an ethical way during a pandemic with humans. If you figure it out, then publish it and everyone will use your methodology for research dealing with human subjects.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 18:26:41 No.12536937 Report

Quoted By:

>>12536917
this, how can you claim something not so self evident then have no data to back it up?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 18:28:16 No.12536939 Report

Quoted By: >>12536952

>>12536931
Why so defensive? Seems like you agree that there is no quantifiable reduction in probability

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 18:32:09 No.12536952 Report

Quoted By: >>12536963 >>12538124

>>12536939
I'm not being "defensive". I'm asking you to figure out how to do this.
There is a reduction in probability of transmission based on studies like the ones I linked you and theoretical understanding of virology. You can look up pubmed for more. Simulations can be done but they will never be without any confounding variables and "100% accurate".

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 18:35:31 No.12536963 Report

Quoted By:

>>12536952
I have no idea how you would do it, I'm a math guy who has never designed any experiment let alone an epidemiological one. I just tend to disregard statements about reduction in probability that don't come with a corresponding number because it can imply basically anything. I call you defensive because you're giving justifications for why we haven't quantified it instead of just saying it hasn't been quantified

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 18:38:13 No.12536970 Report

Quoted By: >>12537258

>>12536865
>easily find tons of papers and vulgarization pieces

prove it. I haven't found any papers on the exact origin

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1304565721185.jpg, 81KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 18:43:02 No.12536983 Report

Quoted By:

>>12536822
Same reason the earth orbit the sun at 66,666 miles per hour.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 18:43:17 No.12536985 Report

Quoted By:

>>12536822
It wasn't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 19:41:34 No.12537202 Report

Quoted By: >>12537309 >>12537999

>>12536842
What happened in 2005

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 19:55:37 No.12537240 Report

Quoted By:

>>12536822
Standing at less than 6 feet means you're a manlet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 19:58:27 No.12537250 Report

Quoted By: >>12537254 >>12537925

>>12536822
It’s roughly double arm distance so if you can touch fingertips with someone else, you’re too close. It’s easy for people to implement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 20:00:26 No.12537254 Report

Quoted By:

>>12536847
>>12537250
these

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 20:01:27 No.12537256 Report

Quoted By:

>>12536822
The virus spreads at 30meters infectable, so we ware looking for distance you will miss human contact and still get infected, to know if human contact makes some adjustments to immunity system.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 20:01:47 No.12537258 Report

Quoted By: >>12538132

>>12536970
>prove it. I haven't found any papers on the exact origin
You must be retarded, it too me all of 1 minute googling "six foot rule" to find the entire history and sources on where the six foot rule came from (measuring aerosol particle droplet distribution from people), how its outdated now as we have better understanding (and it should be more than 6 feet), etc.
If you're too stupid to find it by googling, you don't deserve to know the source
I'm not gonna spoon-feed you when its so easily google'able
sage this thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 20:16:21 No.12537297 Report

Quoted By:

>>12536822
Wrapped an intern in toilet paper, mummy style, and then got the lab together to try and spit on him from far away.
Scientifically of course.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 20:17:24 No.12537305 Report

Quoted By:

>>12536822
Carefully.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 20:18:32 No.12537309 Report

Quoted By:

>>12537202
Crazy frog.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 22:54:27 No.12537925 Report

Quoted By: >>12538062

>>12537250
so the 6 means nothing scientifically, it just makes it convenient to implement social policies?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 23:09:46 No.12537999 Report

Quoted By:

>>12537202
the xbox 360 was released

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 23:29:29 No.12538062 Report

Quoted By:

>>12537925
>hey Steve, how far apart should people stand?
>uhh, hold on a second let’s go outside
>okay
>alright, it’s pretty cold out. Take a breath
>*hooo*
>how far you’d say that steam cloud went out?
>uhh about 3 feet?
>let’s call it 6
>sounds good. Lunch?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 23:42:49 No.12538104 Report

Quoted By:

>>12536873
I'm getting use to doing curbside pickup most places. It also lets me avoid the mask issue entirely.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 23:48:57 No.12538124 Report

Quoted By:

>>12536952
The issue is that we have no idea if six feet reduces the probability by 99% or 0.00001%. Just like the magic masks, people are taking the six foot rule as some sort of guarantee. In addition, all of these rules have side effects so the rules should be worthwhile. As you've pointed out, it's difficult to find an ethical way to measure this but at the same time, is it ethical to push people to conform to a rule that might have almost no efficacy?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jan 2021 23:50:42 No.12538132 Report

Quoted By:

>>12537258
>Hey guys, I have proof but you're not in my cool kids club so I'm going to keep it to myself. But it exist, honestly!

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches