First Masks Now Social Distancing Proven Ineffective Per New MIT Study
Last week I reported about a federal government research study and paper issued by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) which is part of the United States National Library of Medicine (NLM), a branch of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
That study and paper produced by the study were both approved and funded by the government of the United States. The study determined that the Covid-19:
“case fatality rate is considerably less than 1%. This was confirmed by the head of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from US stating, “the overall clinical consequences of COVID-19 are similar to those of severe seasonal influenza”, having a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%.”
That same study determined that the effectiveness of wearing a mask to avoid contracting the Covid-19 virus is very low. In fact close to zero if you are not wearing a N-95 mask that you change often.
This week a new study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) professors Martin Z. Bazant, professor of chemical engineering and applied mathematics, and John W.M. Bush, professor of applied mathematics found the following about social distancing:
“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”
CNBC reported that these MIT professors “developed a method of calculating exposure risk to Covid-19 in an indoor setting that factors in a variety of issues that could affect transmission, including the amount of time spent inside, air filtration and circulation, immunization, variant strains, mask use, and even respiratory activity such as breathing, eating, speaking or singing”.
One by one we are finding out what we were told to do to mitigate the spread of the virus was not true. I understand this is the nature of science, but we also know that real scientist, as opposed to the scientist motivated by politics and an agenda, for 8 months or longer have been telling us these very same findings.
The bigger problem was or political leaders destroying our economy, businesses, jobs, education, people’s lives, denied children of their milestones and rights of passage in their lives and borrowing over $5 trillion dollars by making very consequential edicts and executive orders off of these incorrect scientific assumptions.
Professor Martin Bazant stated:
“We argue there really isn’t much of a benefit to the 6-foot rule, especially when people are wearing masks…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.”
As to my point about destroying our economy, businesses, jobs, education, people’s lives, denied children of their milestones and rights of passage in their lives and borrowing over $5 trillion dollars Professor Bazant stated:
“What our analysis continues to show is that many spaces that have been shut down in fact don’t need to be. 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…I think if you run the numbers, even right now for many types of spaces you’d find that there is not a need for occupancy restrictions.”
Professor Bazant went on to say that we do not have to spend large amounts of borrowed taxpayer dollars for new filtration systems, just open a window or install new fans to keep air moving and it would be just as effective.
It gets even worse for the reputations of the CDC, NIH, WHO and Fauci when Professor Bazant said:
“This emphasis on distancing has been really misplaced from the very beginning. 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”
Due to their above findings they concluded:
“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,”
How many times have you heard the intelligent people asking for the “justification” for the “orders” that came from the CDC, WHO, Governors and Presidents?
In reference to mask they found that “even with masks on, as with smoking, those who are in the vicinity are heavily affected by the secondhand smoke that makes its way around the enclosed area and lingers”.
Professor Bazant ended with the following statement that we should all be upset with our “leaders” and TV scientist when he said:
“We need scientific information conveyed to the public in a way that is not just fearmongering but is actually based in analysis”
Most of our civil liberties were taken away, we were and still are ordered to wear masks and keep away from people all based on what? In the beginning, I can understand the rash decision making but just a few months into this virus many reputable doctors and scientists were questioning the executive orders and the “science” behind them. They were providing their own proof behind what they were saying while the government scientist provided none.
Will we allow this to happen to us again without more pushback? We will see.
Should these politicians who forced their control over our lives when science was telling them it was not needed pay the price? I certainly hope so when they are up for re-election.