08-28-2020, 11:55 PM
How far away is safe?
08-29-2020, 11:39 AM
I think any kind of article that emphasizes the 6 ft rule is a fairly arbitrary and simplistic rule is good, as long as it doesn't defeat any kind of social distancing. I've been saying how simplistic it is since I first heard the recommendation in the early days. It's particularly galling that apply it to small enclosed spaces without fresh air intake and even AC that pushes air around.
I think any kind of article that emphasizes the 6 ft rule is a fairly arbitrary and simplistic rule is good, as long as it doesn't defeat any kind of social distancing. I've been saying how simplistic it is since I first heard the recommendation in the early days. It's particularly galling that apply it to small enclosed spaces without fresh air intake and even AC that pushes air around.
08-30-2020, 08:47 AM
(08-29-2020, 11:39 AM)DocSavage87 Wrote: I think any kind of article that emphasizes the 6 ft rule is a fairly arbitrary and simplistic rule is good, as long as it doesn't defeat any kind of social distancing. I've been saying how simplistic it is since I first heard the recommendation in the early days. It's particularly galling that apply it to small enclosed spaces without fresh air intake and even AC that pushes air around.One aspect of successful regulation that is often overlooked is ease of administration. For example, any home builder will tell you that building codes are a bit arbitrary. As a matter of public safety, you don't have to have so many two-by-fours at such-and-such a distance, nailed in place with nails of a certain size. You could do with other schematas that would produce equally safe buildings. What the standardization does do is make compliance and inspection simple and easy. Whatever you might lose in terms of innovation and flexibility, you gain (and more) in the reduced burden of administration.
I have no doubt that the six foot distance (and, to some extent) masking, are an oversimplified protocol. There are probably all sorts of situations in which less distance, less masking, would work. But the six foot distance can be measured easily, the spacing designated (every store I visit has done so), and is easily understood and accepted by the public at large. The benefit of simplicity in my opinion undoubtedly outweighs any marginal benefit that might be obtained by more flexible protocols.
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
(08-29-2020, 11:39 AM)DocSavage87 Wrote: I think any kind of article that emphasizes the 6 ft rule is a fairly arbitrary and simplistic rule is good, as long as it doesn't defeat any kind of social distancing. I've been saying how simplistic it is since I first heard the recommendation in the early days. It's particularly galling that apply it to small enclosed spaces without fresh air intake and even AC that pushes air around.One aspect of successful regulation that is often overlooked is ease of administration. For example, any home builder will tell you that building codes are a bit arbitrary. As a matter of public safety, you don't have to have so many two-by-fours at such-and-such a distance, nailed in place with nails of a certain size. You could do with other schematas that would produce equally safe buildings. What the standardization does do is make compliance and inspection simple and easy. Whatever you might lose in terms of innovation and flexibility, you gain (and more) in the reduced burden of administration.
I have no doubt that the six foot distance (and, to some extent) masking, are an oversimplified protocol. There are probably all sorts of situations in which less distance, less masking, would work. But the six foot distance can be measured easily, the spacing designated (every store I visit has done so), and is easily understood and accepted by the public at large. The benefit of simplicity in my opinion undoubtedly outweighs any marginal benefit that might be obtained by more flexible protocols.
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
08-31-2020, 11:47 AM
Great point, but comes with the downside of opening up arguments about whether there is a valid rationale for regulations, particularly from those who are pre-disposed against government regulations.
(08-30-2020, 08:47 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote:(08-29-2020, 11:39 AM)DocSavage87 Wrote: I think any kind of article that emphasizes the 6 ft rule is a fairly arbitrary and simplistic rule is good, as long as it doesn't defeat any kind of social distancing. I've been saying how simplistic it is since I first heard the recommendation in the early days. It's particularly galling that apply it to small enclosed spaces without fresh air intake and even AC that pushes air around.One aspect of successful regulation that is often overlooked is ease of administration. For example, any home builder will tell you that building codes are a bit arbitrary. As a matter of public safety, you don't have to have so many two-by-fours at such-and-such a distance, nailed in place with nails of a certain size. You could do with other schematas that would produce equally safe buildings. What the standardization does do is make compliance and inspection simple and easy. Whatever you might lose in terms of innovation and flexibility, you gain (and more) in the reduced burden of administration.
I have no doubt that the six foot distance (and, to some extent) masking, are an oversimplified protocol. There are probably all sorts of situations in which less distance, less masking, would work. But the six foot distance can be measured easily, the spacing designated (every store I visit has done so), and is easily understood and accepted by the public at large. The benefit of simplicity in my opinion undoubtedly outweighs any marginal benefit that might be obtained by more flexible protocols.
Great point, but comes with the downside of opening up arguments about whether there is a valid rationale for regulations, particularly from those who are pre-disposed against government regulations.
(08-30-2020, 08:47 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote:(08-29-2020, 11:39 AM)DocSavage87 Wrote: I think any kind of article that emphasizes the 6 ft rule is a fairly arbitrary and simplistic rule is good, as long as it doesn't defeat any kind of social distancing. I've been saying how simplistic it is since I first heard the recommendation in the early days. It's particularly galling that apply it to small enclosed spaces without fresh air intake and even AC that pushes air around.One aspect of successful regulation that is often overlooked is ease of administration. For example, any home builder will tell you that building codes are a bit arbitrary. As a matter of public safety, you don't have to have so many two-by-fours at such-and-such a distance, nailed in place with nails of a certain size. You could do with other schematas that would produce equally safe buildings. What the standardization does do is make compliance and inspection simple and easy. Whatever you might lose in terms of innovation and flexibility, you gain (and more) in the reduced burden of administration.
I have no doubt that the six foot distance (and, to some extent) masking, are an oversimplified protocol. There are probably all sorts of situations in which less distance, less masking, would work. But the six foot distance can be measured easily, the spacing designated (every store I visit has done so), and is easily understood and accepted by the public at large. The benefit of simplicity in my opinion undoubtedly outweighs any marginal benefit that might be obtained by more flexible protocols.
09-03-2020, 08:00 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-03-2020, 08:01 AM by JustAnotherFan.)
So this article includes a tool that helps people assess relative risk based on ventilation (and indoor vs outdoor), masking, number of people in any particular area, and duration of contact. It doesn't define terms but as a general tool I think it can help drive home the importance of getting outdoors, wearing a mask, staying away from large groups, and not lingering near others.
Basically it says that kids shouldn't be in school, k-12 or college.
![[Image: F3.large.jpg]](https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/370/bmj.m3223/F3.large.jpg)
https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/370/bmj.....large.jpg
Basically it says that kids shouldn't be in school, k-12 or college.
https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/370/bmj.....large.jpg
(This post was last modified: 09-03-2020, 08:01 AM by JustAnotherFan.)
So this article includes a tool that helps people assess relative risk based on ventilation (and indoor vs outdoor), masking, number of people in any particular area, and duration of contact. It doesn't define terms but as a general tool I think it can help drive home the importance of getting outdoors, wearing a mask, staying away from large groups, and not lingering near others.
Basically it says that kids shouldn't be in school, k-12 or college.
https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/370/bmj.....large.jpg
Basically it says that kids shouldn't be in school, k-12 or college.
https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/370/bmj.....large.jpg
09-03-2020, 08:17 AM
That's a great chart and shows why I have not been infected.
I don't wear a mask outside anymore unless I am in a downtown or city center area. If I encounter someone it is usually with more than 6 ft distance. If I go inside, it's only to stores where I am moving and not there very long anyway. I haven't gone to eat for sit down service at a restaurant, been to the gym, doctor, or dentist office since Marc. 15. Nor have I been to an airport or on a plane. The person I live with has been to a doctor's office, but otherwise pretty much same as me.
If everyone had just done this for three months, we'd have the virus under control and I'd probably be somewhere fun right now. Schools would be opening without a problem. Football would be playing played in the Pac-12 and Big Ten. And the economy wouldn't be sucking wind.
Instead, a doofus radiologist from Stanford is telling the White House everyone should stop taking precautions (as a means to help the economy), so everyone can get infected and hundreds of thousands more people die. Pennywise and pound foolish on something stronger than steroids.
I don't wear a mask outside anymore unless I am in a downtown or city center area. If I encounter someone it is usually with more than 6 ft distance. If I go inside, it's only to stores where I am moving and not there very long anyway. I haven't gone to eat for sit down service at a restaurant, been to the gym, doctor, or dentist office since Marc. 15. Nor have I been to an airport or on a plane. The person I live with has been to a doctor's office, but otherwise pretty much same as me.
If everyone had just done this for three months, we'd have the virus under control and I'd probably be somewhere fun right now. Schools would be opening without a problem. Football would be playing played in the Pac-12 and Big Ten. And the economy wouldn't be sucking wind.
Instead, a doofus radiologist from Stanford is telling the White House everyone should stop taking precautions (as a means to help the economy), so everyone can get infected and hundreds of thousands more people die. Pennywise and pound foolish on something stronger than steroids.
That's a great chart and shows why I have not been infected.
I don't wear a mask outside anymore unless I am in a downtown or city center area. If I encounter someone it is usually with more than 6 ft distance. If I go inside, it's only to stores where I am moving and not there very long anyway. I haven't gone to eat for sit down service at a restaurant, been to the gym, doctor, or dentist office since Marc. 15. Nor have I been to an airport or on a plane. The person I live with has been to a doctor's office, but otherwise pretty much same as me.
If everyone had just done this for three months, we'd have the virus under control and I'd probably be somewhere fun right now. Schools would be opening without a problem. Football would be playing played in the Pac-12 and Big Ten. And the economy wouldn't be sucking wind.
Instead, a doofus radiologist from Stanford is telling the White House everyone should stop taking precautions (as a means to help the economy), so everyone can get infected and hundreds of thousands more people die. Pennywise and pound foolish on something stronger than steroids.
I don't wear a mask outside anymore unless I am in a downtown or city center area. If I encounter someone it is usually with more than 6 ft distance. If I go inside, it's only to stores where I am moving and not there very long anyway. I haven't gone to eat for sit down service at a restaurant, been to the gym, doctor, or dentist office since Marc. 15. Nor have I been to an airport or on a plane. The person I live with has been to a doctor's office, but otherwise pretty much same as me.
If everyone had just done this for three months, we'd have the virus under control and I'd probably be somewhere fun right now. Schools would be opening without a problem. Football would be playing played in the Pac-12 and Big Ten. And the economy wouldn't be sucking wind.
Instead, a doofus radiologist from Stanford is telling the White House everyone should stop taking precautions (as a means to help the economy), so everyone can get infected and hundreds of thousands more people die. Pennywise and pound foolish on something stronger than steroids.
09-03-2020, 08:18 AM
Depends on what you can do about ventilation in school buildings and classroom density. The piece also doesn't define what "low occupancy" and "high occupancy" mean, or what "well ventilated" and "poorly ventilated" mean.
BC
BC
Depends on what you can do about ventilation in school buildings and classroom density. The piece also doesn't define what "low occupancy" and "high occupancy" mean, or what "well ventilated" and "poorly ventilated" mean.
BC
BC
09-03-2020, 09:03 AM
(09-03-2020, 08:18 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Depends on what you can do about ventilation in school buildings and classroom density. The piece also doesn't define what "low occupancy" and "high occupancy" mean, or what "well ventilated" and "poorly ventilated" mean.
BC
Right, like I said, they didn't define those terms. There are so many problems with schools. One, they are indoors. Even the best ventilation systems leave the students, teachers, and staff breathing in recycled air. Obviously by being outdoors the ventilation increases substantially. Even without wind. Another problem is occupancy. Even at 25-50% of students in the classroom, for most conventional schools that means at least 6-10 other people in the classroom. Finally, the duration is where schools really get hammered. These kids and teachers are sitting in those classrooms for upwards of 6-7 hours a day. The best ventilation systems that public school money can buy is not going to be able to offset that.
That's why, for the love of God, these schools should simply refuse to open unless they are doing so outdoors.
(09-03-2020, 08:18 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Depends on what you can do about ventilation in school buildings and classroom density. The piece also doesn't define what "low occupancy" and "high occupancy" mean, or what "well ventilated" and "poorly ventilated" mean.
BC
Right, like I said, they didn't define those terms. There are so many problems with schools. One, they are indoors. Even the best ventilation systems leave the students, teachers, and staff breathing in recycled air. Obviously by being outdoors the ventilation increases substantially. Even without wind. Another problem is occupancy. Even at 25-50% of students in the classroom, for most conventional schools that means at least 6-10 other people in the classroom. Finally, the duration is where schools really get hammered. These kids and teachers are sitting in those classrooms for upwards of 6-7 hours a day. The best ventilation systems that public school money can buy is not going to be able to offset that.
That's why, for the love of God, these schools should simply refuse to open unless they are doing so outdoors.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »