Posted on 09/20/2021 10:09:37 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Scott Gottlieb, the former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), admitted during an interview on Face the Nation that the six foot social distancing rule recommended by public health officials for months on end was actually “arbitrary in and of itself,” and he noted that “nobody knows where it came from.”
Speaking with Face the Nation’s Margaret Brennan, Gottlieb discussed the rules and risks early in the pandemic, explaining that the Trump administration shifted its focus to the impact lockdowns and rules would have on the economy and children.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
you mean it wasn’t “the science”
“We are the government, and we just make stuff up.”
Overpaid ‘experts’.......
I knew it!
Could have just as easily been 6 inches.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/politics/social-distancing-coronavirus.html
And it had some unexpected detours, including a deep dive into the history of the 1918 Spanish flu and an important discovery kicked off by a high school research project pursued by the daughter of a scientist at the Sandia National Laboratories.
The concept of social distancing is now intimately familiar to almost everyone. But as it first made its way through the federal bureaucracy in 2006 and 2007, it was viewed as impractical, unnecessary and politically infeasible.
It came out of Fauci’s rear end.
7's the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 doors. 7, man, that's the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.
Why?
'Cause you're ...... fired!
The key to understanding our “COVID” response lies in two things -
The failed stewardship of Fauci during the HIV epidemic (vaccine or bust sound familiar?) when the therapeutics used now by people with HIV were roundly ignored and condemned and instead of focusing on those at risk the narrative became that “everyone was at risk.”
Orange Man Bad + Fear Porn Media + Totalitarian Government were all riding with Biden.
We have not followed the science for over a year and instead of reversing course and saving lives they double down on wrong policy.
Gezz this is sad. They made a complete mockery of the masses with this Wuhan flu bull sh*t, getting all of them to cower like sheep, following this asinine crap in lockstep cadence.
No kidding, well stated.
Fauxci simply multiplied his height by 2 and that is where the number came from
The six foot distancing was to stop people from talking about the STOLEN election.
264’ makes sense to me.
It was based on droplets falling to the ground. The WHO recommended 3 feet (1 meter) as good enough. The USA went with 6’. Other places went with 10 feet. Aerosols play a larger role with COVID than with flu, so the distance is LESS important. But it IS true that closer & longer increases the chance of spread.
But it is meaningless if the time frame is a couple of minutes. IIRC, the WHO argued distancing was good for sustained interaction of 10+ minutes. IOW, meaningless for walking through a grocery store.
Could have just as easily been 6 inches.
“Gezz this is sad. They made a complete mockery of the masses with this Wuhan flu bull sh*t, getting all of them to cower like sheep, following this asinine crap in lockstep cadence.”
And now all those shots have lost or are about to lose their “protection” factor, leaving the vaccinated all dressed up in spike proteins with nowhere to go but the hospital.
i read some where that they were basing this “social distancing” thing from a study in the 1890’s...
None of the “mandates” made any common sense, but distance made more sense than the masks to prevent “catching” the virus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.