A new study suggests 3 feet, not 6 feet, is sufficient distance for school students, with mask-wearing and other safety measures kept in place.

[Allan]

Maintaining 6 feet is hard in crowded schools so this is good news.

The new study, published last week in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, suggests public schools may be able to reopen safely for in-person instruction as long as children maintain three feet of distance between them, and with other mitigation measures maintained, such as wearing masks.

No official guidance on shortening the recommended six-foot rule has yet been issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, although Dr. Fauci said the agency is studying the data.

“What the C.D.C. wants to do is accumulate data, and when data shows ability to be three feet, they will act accordingly,” Dr. Fauci said.

Link

 

[Slartibartfast]

from what i understand, children often have a lower density of the cell receptors that COVID attaches to. I wonder if this is a factor in that new study.

 

[trouble13]

Maintaining 6 feet is hard in crowded schools so this is good news.



Link

The 3' recommendation isn't new information. This is an effort by progressives to cover their tracks by pretending the "science" has changed and it now supports their new position.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The 3' recommendation isn't new information. This is an effort by progressives to cover their tracks by pretending the "science" has changed and it now supports their new position.

wrong, read the first sentence of the brief. Its new science as most of the research was aimed towards populations hardest hit by the disease.

National and international guidelines differ about the optimal physical distancing between students for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission; studies directly comparing the impact of ≥3 versus ≥6 feet of physical distancing policies in school settings are lacking.

 

[Helix]

3 feet is not safe social distancing. they chose 3 feet so that they could pack the kids in like sardines again.

 

[Allan]

3 feet is not safe social distancing. they chose 3 feet so that they could pack the kids in like sardines again.

The research I've looked at shows that the virus travels 6 feet and small droplet particles even further and in fact can remain in the air for quite some time. So I'm not sure how they think three feet is ok. Maybe they're taking into consideration improved air filtration and physical barriers like Plexiglas.

 

[Helix]

The research I've looked at shows that the virus travels 6 feet and small droplet particles even further and in fact can remain in the air for quite some time. So I'm not sure how they think three feet is ok. Maybe they're taking into consideration improved air filtration and physical barriers like Plexiglas.

possibly. my guess is that there was a "we're reopening to full capacity come hell or high water. sell it." edict from on high.

 

[trouble13]

wrong, read the first sentence of the brief. Its new science as most of the research was aimed towards populations hardest hit by the disease.

National and international guidelines differ about the optimal physical distancing between students for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission; studies directly comparing the impact of ≥3 versus ≥6 feet of physical distancing policies in school settings are lacking.

The study may be new but the conclusions are not. Now that keeping things locked down is damaging them politically instead of Trump they are looking for ways to excuse themselves for the past and to justify the transition. I expect more of these "new" findings with each passing day.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The study may be new but the conclusions are not. Now that keeping things locked down is damaging them politically instead of Trump they are looking for ways to excuse themselves for the past and to justify the transition. I expect more of these "new" findings with each passing day.

It is impossible for the conclusions to not be new as this is a new topic of study. I am sure your feel like this is intuitive, but then again, I suspect you are not a scientist.

 

[trouble13]

It is impossible for the conclusions to not be new as this is a new topic of study. I am sure your feel like this is intuitive, but then again, I suspect you are not a scientist.

Its not new. Who has been saying it at least as far back as june of 2020

"COVID-19 advice - Know the facts | WHO Western Pacific" https://www.who.int/westernpacific/emergencies/covid-19/information/physical-distancing

 

[Slartibartfast]

Its not new. Who has been saying it at least as far back as june of 2020

"COVID-19 advice - Know the facts | WHO Western Pacific" https://www.who.int/westernpacific/emergencies/covid-19/information/physical-distancing

That is fine but doesn't address the point, but the CDC's job is to provide independent review and the more agencies reaching consensus the better.

 

[trouble13]

That is fine but doesn't address the point, but the CDC's job is to provide independent review and the more agencies reaching consensus the better.

The way the headline is titled it could mislead people into thinking this is some ground breaking revelation when in reality it only confirms what they already knew. That is what I am pointing out to you.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The way the headline is titled it could mislead people into thinking this is some ground breaking revelation when in reality it only confirms what they already knew. That is what I am pointing out to you.

I would say this title doesn't really confirm anything (in both the cases of the study or the article), so wrong again.

Effectiveness of three versus six feet of physical distancing for controlling spread of COVID-19 among primary and secondary students and staff: A retrospective, state-wide cohort study


A new study suggests 3 feet, not 6 feet, is sufficient distance for school students, with mask-wearing and other safety measures kept in place.

 

[VySky]

Maintaining 6 feet is hard in crowded schools so this is good news.



Link

Nothing new. We knew this last October

 

[Allan]

Nothing new. We knew this last October

Who is 'we'?

 

[VySky]

10/22/2020

6 feet? 3 feet? Why are school social distancing guidelines different?
The minimum of 3 feet with masks comes from recommendations by the American Academy of Pediatrics, Division of Public Health officials said. The American Academy of Pediatrics is a professional organization of more than 67,000 pediatricians.

The World Health Organization also suggests social distancing of at least a meter, which is just over 3 feet.

“In many school settings, 6 feet between students is not feasible without drastically limiting the number of students,” AAP guidance says. “In the absence of specific guidance, desks should be placed at least 3 feet apart, and ideally 6 feet apart.”

6 feet? 3 feet? Why are school social distancing guidelines different?

 

[Slartibartfast]

10/22/2020

6 feet? 3 feet? Why are school social distancing guidelines different?
The minimum of 3 feet with masks comes from recommendations by the American Academy of Pediatrics, Division of Public Health officials said. The American Academy of Pediatrics is a professional organization of more than 67,000 pediatricians.

The World Health Organization also suggests social distancing of at least a meter, which is just over 3 feet.

“In many school settings, 6 feet between students is not feasible without drastically limiting the number of students,” AAP guidance says. “In the absence of specific guidance, desks should be placed at least 3 feet apart, and ideally 6 feet apart.”

6 feet? 3 feet? Why are school social distancing guidelines different?

Reading the article, it basically says "3 feet is better than nothing since classrooms are small" it does not say the science suggests 3 feet has a positive or negative affect on transmissions rates versus 6 feet.

One is addressing a practical infrastructural difficulty and the other is an actual study on the effects on disease transmission.

So these two things are addressing two totally different questions.

did your brain stop processing once the magic phrase of 3 feet was mentioned or something?

 

[roguenuke]

10/22/2020

6 feet? 3 feet? Why are school social distancing guidelines different?
The minimum of 3 feet with masks comes from recommendations by the American Academy of Pediatrics, Division of Public Health officials said. The American Academy of Pediatrics is a professional organization of more than 67,000 pediatricians.

The World Health Organization also suggests social distancing of at least a meter, which is just over 3 feet.

“In many school settings, 6 feet between students is not feasible without drastically limiting the number of students,” AAP guidance says. “In the absence of specific guidance, desks should be placed at least 3 feet apart, and ideally 6 feet apart.”

6 feet? 3 feet? Why are school social distancing guidelines different?

That AAP guidance specifically states as its reasoning being that it simply isn't feasible to maintain 6 feet of distance between students, not that this is due to which is safe. In fact, they state "ideally 6 feet apart". Why "ideally 6 feet apart" if they believed they only needed 3 feet?

 

[VySky]

Reading the article, it basically says "3 feet is better than nothing since classrooms are small" it does not say the science suggests 3 feet has a positive or negative affect on transmissions rates versus 6 feet.

One is addressing a practical infrastructural difficulty and the other is an actual study on the effects on disease transmission.

So these two things are addressing two totally different questions.

did your brain stop processing once the magic phrase of 3 feet was mentioned or something?

As it turns out selecting the maximum vs the minimum recommendations was wrong as the recent study confirms. Majority of schools could have met the 3' guidance and stayed open

 

[Slartibartfast]

As it turns out selecting the maximum vs the minimum recommendations was wrong as the recent study confirms

Again, two different studies addressing two different questions. Keep trying though.

 

[VySky]

Again, two different studies addressing two different questions. Keep trying though.

Schools could have met the 3' criteria much easier and stayed open in many cases. By 'choosing' the 'ideal' metric caused undue harm to our children and economy

 

[Allan]

Schools could have met the 3' criteria much easier and stayed open in many cases. By 'choosing' the 'ideal' metric caused undue harm to our children and economy

The newer variants seem to have a bigger impact on children, so there's that to consider. If I was a parent I'd be concerned about the 3' allowance.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Schools could have met the 3' criteria much easier and stayed open in many cases. By 'choosing' the 'ideal' metric caused undue harm to our children and economy

At the time it was unknown what it would have done to the transmission rate as that research was not performed until just recently. The earlier studies had no comment on that specific question.

So there was no justification for a less cautious approach until this study.

 

[Allan]

There's an interesting article here reviewing tests that were done using a laser to measure the airborne life of expelled droplets. They calculated the half-life of droplets and viral load projections. Based on this test even 6 feet wouldn't be safe in a classroom as talking students and teacher would fill the space with airborne droplets throughout the class. Masks would reduce, but not completely eliminate the risk.

 

[jimbo]

It is impossible for the conclusions to not be new as this is a new topic of study. I am sure your feel like this is intuitive, but then again, I suspect you are not a scientist.

I doubt this is a new study. Somebody made up the old study which decided 6 feet was the proper distance. And if 3 feet distance doesn't work, somebody will make up a new study showing some other distance works best.

Today, many scientific studies start with a conclusion and work backward from there.