zlacker

>>Robin8+(OP)
> In fact, I don't see a single story that I personally feel should not have been removed.

I don't understand why this story was removed: "It turns out the six-feet social-distancing rule had no scientific basis", >>39200511

On a forum with an overwhelmingly science-minded audience, it bothers me that an important topic like that is deemed untouchable.

>>ggdG+ib
(Shrug) I don't require scientific proof of the inverse-square law. It's self-evident to the point of being axiomatic. Standing 6 feet away from a virus source will expose you to about 44% fewer virus particles than standing 5 feet away from one, while not imposing any real hardships in most public interaction scenarios. What's controversial about that?

If you demand precise scientific rigor in all aspects of everyday life, public health is probably not the career field for you.

>>Camper+Ll
The same with masks:

Put a water hose on mist and spray someone with it. Then put a cloth over the nozzle and try to spray them. It's self evident yet people just could not grasp it.

>>Workac+AA
It's "self evident" yet a large Cochrane meta-analysis finds no benificial effect of masks whatsoever:

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...

>>ggdG+fa1
You sure?

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/article-abs...

When the medical field phases out masks because they "have no benefit" I will believe that masking was useless. Also keep in the mind that the primary reason for studies showing masks not working is that people don't wear it correctly or at all.