Focus. The issue is whether the six foot social distancing rule imposed by the CDC and Fauci was based on science. It was not.
you don't understand what you are talking about. I literally just showed you how stupid your argument is.
When you say science, what do you mean? what are you accepting as reasonable data to draw a conclusion on? If you are being stringent then you would have to say no it's not based on direct science (it couldn't have been for that virus, there simply wasn't any time, it's purely logistical). Is that a problem? no, we don't have studies on all kinds of things that we accept and one can use inference and a priori reasoning to make sound conclusions. If social distancing helpful for other viruses? yes of course, there was both time to do the studies on those specific viruses and the patients. Is it a reasonable assumption based on decades of research and best practice? yes. As things progressed it should of been lifted, initially it made sense due to severity.
So the question has multiple answers depending on the level of granularity- this is nuance. a yes or no misses the point.
There is an open study showing how silly the reasoning is. There currently have been no double blinded studies on whether parachutes work. Without the science we can't be certain that they do or would (we have to have that data). The problem is no one will join the placebo group. Maybe you would like to in the name of science? you prob only have like 10 years left anyway.
