[g1313]

Great point, but comes with the downside of opening up arguments about whether there is a valid rationale for regulations, particularly from those who are pre-disposed against government regulations.

I think any kind of article that emphasizes the 6 ft rule is a fairly arbitrary and simplistic rule is good, as long as it doesn't defeat any kind of social distancing.  I've been saying how simplistic it is since I first heard the recommendation in the early days.  It's particularly galling that apply it to small enclosed spaces without fresh air intake and even AC that pushes air around.

One aspect of successful regulation that is often overlooked is ease of administration. For example, any home builder will tell you that building codes are a bit arbitrary. As a matter of public safety, you don't have to have so many two-by-fours at such-and-such a distance, nailed in place with nails of a certain size. You could do with other schematas that would produce equally safe buildings. What the standardization does do is make compliance and inspection simple and easy. Whatever you might lose in terms of innovation and flexibility, you gain (and more) in the reduced burden of administration.

I have no doubt that the six foot distance (and, to some extent) masking, are an oversimplified protocol. There are probably all sorts of situations in which less distance, less masking, would work. But the six foot distance can be measured easily, the spacing designated (every store I visit has done so), and is easily understood and accepted by the public at large. The benefit of simplicity in my opinion undoubtedly outweighs any marginal benefit that might be obtained by more flexible protocols.

[g1313]

Great point, but comes with the downside of opening up arguments about whether there is a valid rationale for regulations, particularly from those who are pre-disposed against government regulations.

I think any kind of article that emphasizes the 6 ft rule is a fairly arbitrary and simplistic rule is good, as long as it doesn't defeat any kind of social distancing.  I've been saying how simplistic it is since I first heard the recommendation in the early days.  It's particularly galling that apply it to small enclosed spaces without fresh air intake and even AC that pushes air around.

One aspect of successful regulation that is often overlooked is ease of administration. For example, any home builder will tell you that building codes are a bit arbitrary. As a matter of public safety, you don't have to have so many two-by-fours at such-and-such a distance, nailed in place with nails of a certain size. You could do with other schematas that would produce equally safe buildings. What the standardization does do is make compliance and inspection simple and easy. Whatever you might lose in terms of innovation and flexibility, you gain (and more) in the reduced burden of administration.

I have no doubt that the six foot distance (and, to some extent) masking, are an oversimplified protocol. There are probably all sorts of situations in which less distance, less masking, would work. But the six foot distance can be measured easily, the spacing designated (every store I visit has done so), and is easily understood and accepted by the public at large. The benefit of simplicity in my opinion undoubtedly outweighs any marginal benefit that might be obtained by more flexible protocols.