Once again, this is not only without evidence, decades of literature and research exactly on this ("risk compensation" theories for safety devices, seat-belts, helmets etc.) finds the opposite at the population level. It's a clever sounding argument without empirical support. https://twitter.com/nalepis/status/1248281035726520322 …
-
-
I mean, good, but fully reviewed science isn’t conclusive, yet complete isolation isn’t realistic, so we’re left to guess what’s credible. Is 6’ safe enough downwind of someone who’s breathing hard? Don’t think so. What about 3 sec after they’ve gone by? 15 sec?
-
Yeah, I have no epidemiology background, but do have 2 degrees in aeronautics. There’s no way “6ft” is anything other than an easy to remember general guideline. No way droplet spread is omnidirectional, consistent, or immutable wrt air currents. *I* would keep more distance :)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.