Six Feet Under: Social Distancing Debunked: New Study Challenges Six-Foot Rule, By Brian Simpson
A recent study published in Science Advances has cast serious doubt on the effectiveness of the six-foot social distancing rule, a cornerstone of pandemic-era public health policy. Conducted by researchers from the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the University of Cadiz, the study reveals that the widely promoted guideline offers little protection against airborne infections in dynamic indoor settings like queues. This finding upends the narrative pushed by health authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic, exposing flaws in the one-size-fits-all approach to infection control.
The research focused on how breath particles move in real-world environments such as grocery store checkouts, airport security lines, and vaccination clinics. Using a combination of laboratory experiments and advanced computer simulations, the team uncovered a critical flaw in static distancing guidelines. At comfortable indoor temperatures (72–86°F), two opposing air currents, downward "downwash" from walking and upward thermal buoyancy from warm exhaled breath, cancel each other out. This traps infectious aerosols at breathing height, where they linger and can be inhaled by the person behind, even at six feet of separation.
To model this, researchers used 3D-printed human figures on a conveyor belt in a water tank, with fluorescent dye simulating exhaled particles. High-speed cameras tracked particle movement during the stop-and-go motion typical of queues. Computer models then scaled these findings to real-world air flow conditions, testing variables like temperature and walking speed.
Key Findings1.Six-Foot Rule Ineffective in Queues: The study found that physical separation has only a "minor effect" on reducing aerosol spread in moving lines. Slow, stop-and-go movement traps particles at face height, undermining distancing efforts.
2.Temperature Matters: Indoor climates between 72–86°F create a worst-case scenario, as aerosols hover at breathing level. Hotter (>86°F) or colder (<72°F) conditions reduce risk by either lifting particles upward or allowing downwash to push them downward, but such extremes are impractical for public spaces.
3.Walking Speed Impacts Risk: Faster-moving lines generate stronger air currents that clear aerosols from breathing zones. In contrast, slow-moving queues, common in crowded settings, heighten infection risk by trapping particles.
4.Dynamic Airflow Ignored: Static distancing guidelines fail to account for complex airflow patterns driven by human movement, making environments like stores, airports, and clinics riskier than assumed.
The study challenges the dogmatic reliance on fixed distancing rules, revealing that they were based on oversimplified assumptions about aerosol transmission. Senior author Varghese Mathai stressed the complexity of fluid dynamics, noting that "there are no hard-and-fast rules" for staying safe. Instead of rigid spacing markers, the research suggests that public health strategies should focus on:
Improved Ventilation: Enhancing airflow in indoor spaces could disperse aerosols more effectively than distancing alone.
Adjusting Walking Speeds: Encouraging faster movement in queues could reduce exposure by clearing particles from breathing zones.
Temperature Control: While extreme temperatures are impractical, understanding their impact could inform targeted interventions in high-risk settings.
This research adds to growing scepticism about the scientific foundation of pandemic-era mandates. The six-foot rule, heavily promoted by figures like Anthony Fauci and Rochelle Walensky, was often presented as settled science, yet it ignored real-world complexities like airflow dynamics and human behaviour. The study's findings suggest that policies enforcing masks, lockdowns, and social distancing may have been more about control than evidence-based protection.
The revelation that comfortable indoor temperatures, common in most public spaces, heighten infection risk further underscores the disconnect between policy and reality. Grocery stores, airports, and clinics, where people were meticulously spaced six feet apart, remained high-risk environments due to unaddressed airflow dynamics.
This study serves as a wake-up call for public health authorities to adopt more nuanced, evidence-based approaches. Rather than clinging to outdated guidelines, future strategies should account for dynamic factors like air currents, movement patterns, and environmental conditions. For individuals, the takeaway is clear: rigid adherence to arbitrary rules offers no guarantee of safety in complex, real-world settings.
As we reflect on the plandemic's legacy, this research highlights the dangers of uncritical trust in centralised health directives.
"Oh, fake science. We've all had enough of it for a lifetime, and then some. From Fauci to Biden to Walensky, a bunch of pharma shills, hucksters, con artists and vax hacks, we all had to endure the rules, mandates, job firings, masks, lockdowns, and the hokey social distancing nightmare. It was all fake science. Research proves it.
New research has revealed that the widely promoted "six-foot" social distancing rule may have provided far less protection against airborne diseases than once believed—especially in indoor waiting lines. A study published in Science Advances shows that when people queue indoors at comfortable temperatures, the stop-and-go air currents caused by human movement can trap infectious particles right at breathing level, undermining the effectiveness of distancing.
Six-Foot Rule Falls Short in Lines – New research shows that traditional six-foot distancing offers little protection in waiting lines, as moving crowds create air currents that keep infectious particles at breathing height.
Comfortable Temperatures Increase Risk – Indoor temperatures between 72–86°F allow exhaled aerosols to hover where people inhale them, while hotter or colder conditions help move particles away.
Walking Speed and Air Flow Matter – Faster-moving lines create stronger air currents that push particles out of breathing zones, but typical slow, stop-and-go movement in queues traps particles longer.
Static Guidelines Miss Dynamic Risks – Public health rules based on fixed distancing ignore complex airflow in real-life lines, meaning grocery stores, airports, and clinics may remain high-risk environments despite spacing measures.
Remember Social Distancing? It Doesn't Really Protect You From Infections, Study ShowsThe research, conducted by scientists from the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the University of Cadiz, focused on how breath particles move in dynamic environments like grocery store checkouts, airport security lines, or vaccination clinics. Using a combination of laboratory experiments and advanced computer simulations, the team found that indoor temperatures between 72°F and 86°F—common in most climate-controlled spaces—create the worst-case scenario for infection spread.
At these moderate temperatures, two opposing air currents cancel each other out: the downward "downwash" created when people walk forward and the upward thermal buoyancy from warm exhaled breath. Instead of being carried away, aerosols hover at face height, ready to be inhaled by the person behind. The effect persists even when six feet of space is maintained, because the time between steps in a line is too short for particles to disperse significantly.
To model these effects, researchers built a scaled-down moving line using 3D-printed human figures on a conveyor belt and tested them in a water tank, where fluorescent dye represented exhaled particles. High-speed cameras tracked how particles moved during the start-stop motion typical of queues. Computer models then extended these findings to real-world air flow conditions at different temperatures and walking speeds.
The study found that faster-moving lines—closer to normal walking speed—reduced risk because stronger downwash currents carried aerosols away from breathing zones. In contrast, slow-moving lines common in crowded indoor settings trapped particles in place.
Temperature also played a critical role. Conditions hotter than 86°F or cooler than 72°F reduced infection risk. In hotter air, thermal buoyancy lifted particles upward, away from faces; in cooler air, buoyancy weakened enough for downwash to push particles downward effectively. However, researchers acknowledged that operating public spaces at such extremes could be uncomfortable or impractical.
Importantly, the team concluded that physical separation alone has only a "minor effect" on aerosol spread in moving lines. The study challenges pandemic-era guidance that relied heavily on static distancing, pointing instead to the need for public health policies that account for dynamic air flows and human movement.
The findings have broad implications for everyday environments where people queue indoors—such as retail stores, airports, clinics, and government offices. Adjusting walking speeds, controlling temperature ranges, and improving ventilation could be more effective than relying solely on distancing markers.
Senior author Varghese Mathai emphasized that there are "no hard-and-fast rules" for staying safe, as fluid dynamics are complex and counterintuitive. He stressed that guidelines must consider both space and time to truly reduce airborne transmission risk.
In short, six feet apart in a slow-moving indoor line may have offered little real protection—especially in the comfortable indoor climates most people prefer.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adw0985
"AbstractWaiting in a line (or a queue) is an unavoidable social interaction that occurs frequently in public spaces. Despite its wide prevalence and rich parametric variability, few studies have addressed the risks of airborne infection while waiting in a line. Here, we use a combination of laboratory experiments and direct numerical simulations to assess the flow patterns in a simplified waiting line setting. From observations of the transport of breath-like expulsions, we reveal the presence of fluid dynamical counter-currents —due to the competing effects of line kinematics and thermal gradients. Depending on the walking speed, an intermediate temperature range can potentially heighten the infection risks by allowing the breath plume to linger; however, colder and warmer ambients both suppress the spread. Current guidelines of increasing physical separation appear to have a limited impact on reducing aerosol transmission. This work highlights the need for updated transmission mitigation guidelines in settings where physical separation, interaction duration, and periodicity of movements are factors."
Comments