• MotoAsh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    They “made up” the arbitrary distance of 6 feet, not the entire concept of distance making it harder for germs to spread… What the hell failure of logic is that?! Some viruses can stay potent in air much better than others and they weren’t CONFIDANT that 6 feet would be adequate or overkill. It was an educated guess for COVID specifically, not an ass pulling.

    • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      It wasnt an educated guess it was just around 2 meters and felt good. I am not saying worked or not, but there was no science behind the number.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        “no science behind the number.”

        i uhm. Are you aware of this thing, a very little, minor thing, called dispersion? Dilution? etc…

        • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yes, but that number was not related to what might work or not , it was just a number they liked based on no science.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            have you ever heard of this thing called the inverse square law? It applies to a large number of things, and while im not sure about the dissipation of molecules in a gas, im sure there is something very similar. Which would quite literally dictate the level of dispersion, or “average dilution of molecules from a source, from any given arbitrary distance” 6 feet just so happened to be enough that it was small enough to be minorly inconveniencing, and majorly helpful in reducing the significant spread of particles.

            Since you seem to know so much about this gas dispersion thing, why don’t you specifically explain to me, what it is that is involved here, and how this number is literally pulled out of someones ass, and how it’s not based on any science. And i will ignore the fact that you don’t seem to understand how science works, or how much of engineering was practiced through the pre-computer age. Nor the fact that you can’t provide anything more than “NUH UH” in response to my questions.

            And since im here, why dont you explain to me what might or not work in specific terms. Such that i can have any idea of what the ever living fuck you are talking about.

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        There is a vast difference between doing something that is proven to be generally helpful before you know if it is specifically helpful, and making up an idea.

        The fact you cannot understand that vast gulf of difference is frankly hilarious.

        • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          They had no idea if it would work or not and had no reason to believe either way. Do you believe in checking hypothesis?

          • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Do you think they didn’t or don’t continue with the new variants as budgets allow? Your ignorance is made more pathetic by your obstinance.