Two professors from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have argued that indoor social distancing guidelines have been unnecessary and are not in any way based on science. But we’ve been told all along that we have to listen to the “science,” right? Their study discovered that it makes almost no difference whether people are 6 or 60 feet apart when it comes to the spread of COVID-19.
MIT professors Martin Bazant and John W.M. Bush have published a study – that will probably be banned by Twitter and Facebook – where they argue that “the current revival of the American economy is being predicated on social distancing, specifically the Six-Foot Rule, a guideline that offers little protection from pathogen-bearing aerosol droplets sufficiently small to be continuously mixed through an indoor space.”
As CNBC explains, they found that, “the risk of being exposed to Covid-19 indoors is as great at 60 feet as it is at 6 feet — even when wearing a mask.”
“We argue there really isn’t much of a benefit to the 6-foot rule, especially when people are wearing masks,” Bazant told CNBC. “It 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.”
This is more than likely why blue states that still enforce draconian lockdowns are seeing spikes in cases.
“What our analysis continues to show is that many spaces that have been shut down in fact don’t need to be,” he continued. “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.”
He made the argument that the lockdown mandates enforced across the country during the coronavirus pandemic that have bankrupted small businesses and closed schools were completely unnecessary.
“This emphasis on distancing has been really misplaced from the very beginning,” he said. “The CDC or WHO have never really provided justification for it, they’ve just said this is what you must do and the only justification I’m aware of, is based on studies of coughs and sneezes, where they look at the largest particles that might sediment onto the floor and even then it’s very approximate, you can certainly have longer or shorter range, large droplets.”
Bazant continued, “The distancing isn’t helping you that much and it’s also giving you a false sense of security because you’re as safe at 6 feet as you are at 60 feet if you’re indoors. Everyone in that space is at roughly the same risk, actually.”
After reading CNBC’s piece, a Twitter user chimed in with a truth that should get them banned on social media.
“It took experts an entire year to discover that a 14 year old’s science project should not be used to guide a pandemic response plan. Social distancing is bad science.”
🚨 BREAKING NEWS 🚨
It took experts an entire year to discover that a 14 year old’s science project should not be used to guide a pandemic response plan.
— Omnipotent Moral Busybody (@OBusybody) April 23, 2021
They pointed to a post from the American Institute for Economic Research that in turn points to a New York Times piece from a year ago explaining that the idea for social distancing came from a kid during President George W Bush’s administration and “was viewed as impractical, unnecessary and politically infeasible.” Are you kidding me?
From the Times piece from April 22, 2020:
Fourteen years ago, two federal government doctors, Richard Hatchett and Carter Mecher, met with a colleague at a burger joint in suburban Washington for a final review of a proposal they knew would be treated like a piñata: telling Americans to stay home from work and school the next time the country was hit by a deadly pandemic.
When they presented their plan not long after, it was met with skepticism and a degree of ridicule by senior officials, who like others in the United States had grown accustomed to relying on the pharmaceutical industry, with its ever-growing array of new treatments, to confront evolving health challenges.
Drs. Hatchett and Mecher were proposing instead that Americans in some places might have to turn back to an approach, self-isolation, first widely employed in the Middle Ages.
How that idea — born out of a request by President George W. Bush to ensure the nation was better prepared for the next contagious disease outbreak — became the heart of the national playbook for responding to a pandemic is one of the untold stories of the coronavirus crisis.
So everything they have been doing to us came from a teenager’s science project.
I remember a story I heard in high school where there was a study done where one volunteer for the study was in a room and tied to a chair with electrodes attached to him. Through the one-way glass in another room was a doctor wearing a white lab coat holding a clipboard and writing on documents on the clipboard. In the room with the doctor was another volunteer for the study who had to listen to the person in the other room answer questions. There was a button in front of the person in the room with the doctor who told the volunteer that if the guy in the chair got a question wrong, he had to push the button which would give him a little electric shock.
For each question the guy got wrong, the doctor increased the shock level. After a while, the shock level was becoming really painful. The guy in the chair would tense up and shout, eventually talking to the glass that he couldn’t see through, that he was done and wanted to leave.
Naturally, the guy pressing the button started to question what he was doing and each time the doctor in the white lab coat would tell him that it was a very important study and that he should continue. At one point the volunteer in the chair stopped answering questions, and the doctor told the guy with the button that a non-response was considered a wrong answer so he had to shock him again.
Eventually, the doctor increased the intensity to a level that said DANGER. The guy was worried he would kill the other guy who at that point was resorting to screaming and threatening to sue the university condoning the study. But when the doctor continued to tell the volunteer that the study was of the utmost importance, every volunteer throughout the study always pushed the button that was a lethal dose of electricity.
In the end, there was only one volunteer, and it was the guy with the button. The guy in the chair was never shocked. He was an actor hired to play the part. The study was done to see if the Nazis who argued at the Nuremberg trials that they were only following orders were true.
My point to all of this is that we have listened to doctors, infectious disease specialists, political leaders that we’re supposed to trust, the CDC, the WHO, and others, and because we usually have a reverence for medical doctors, the men and women who wear the special white lab coats, infectious disease specialists and people of science, we went along with the draconian methods of mitigation that they leveled on us. The politicians used a virus that has a 99 percent survival rate to coerce us into compliance for their Great Reset of socialism for the world.
Rich is syndicated opinion columnist for David Harris Jr. and owner of Maga-Chat.com. He writes about politics, culture, liberty and faith.
MAGA-Chat.com, where free speech is still free. JOIN the revolution!