Social Distancing

There is NO evidence  from disease transmission using Social distancing - ever. Social Distancing  was based on a computer simulation and environmental models. 

"Social distancing of up to 6 feet has been promoted as a means of preventing person-to-person transmission of influenza-like viruses. While one study hypothesized that infection could happen in a 6 foot range, the study explicitly states that person-to-person transfer was not tested and viability of the virus at 6 feet was not even a subject of the investigation.(source) . That did not stop the misrepresentation of the study to be used as the basis for an unverified medical counter measure of social distancing. To date, no study has established the efficacy of social distancing to modify the transmission of SARS CoV-2. Public health officials have referenced:


In contravention to established science, States, municipalities, and businesses have violated the legal requirements for the promulgation of medical counter measures during a public health emergency stating a “belief” that social distancing of a healthy population limits the spread of SARS CoV-2. To date, not a single study has confirmed that social distancing of any population prevented the transmission of, or the infection by SARS CoV-2."

- Source - Dr. David Martin (2021) : The Fauci Dossier 

There was also another study which became one of the most cited studies for proof that Social Distancing works. However, there are a few problems with said study.

1. The original author of said study was Laura Glass who was 14 when she started and 15 when she finished. Her dad, Robert Glass, who is a complex-systems analyst with Sandia National Laboratories. He had no medical training, much less an expertise in immunology or epidemiology and was the primary author.
2. They used a "model" to determine their finding. A model???

Here's the actual study from 2006 which was never peer reviewed and received plenty of criticism from actual scientists..


Here's some of the blowback from actual experts to the study..

"That explains why Dr D.A. Henderson, “who had been the leader of the international effort to eradicate smallpox,” completely rejected the whole scheme.


Says the NYTimes: "Dr Henderson was convinced that it made no sense to force schools to close or public gatherings to stop. Teenagers would escape their homes to hang out at the mall. School lunch programs would close, and impoverished children would not have enough to eat. Hospital staffs would have a hard time going to work if their children were at home.

The measures embraced by Drs Mecher and Hatchett would “result in significant disruption of the social functioning of communities and result in possibly serious economic problems,” Dr Henderson wrote in his own academic paper responding to their ideas.


The answer, he insisted, was to tough it out: "Let the pandemic spread, treat people who get sick and work quickly to develop a vaccine to prevent it from coming back."


AIER’s Phil Magness got to work to find the literature responding to the 2006 paper by Robert and Sarah Glass and discovered the following manifesto: Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza. The authors included D.A. Henderson, along with three professors from Johns Hopkins: infectious disease specialist Thomas V.Inglesby, epidemiologist Jennifer B. Nuzzo, and physician Tara O’Toole.


Their paper is a remarkably readable refutation of the entire lock-down model.


"There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods in order to slow the spread of influenza… It is difficult to identify circumstances in the past half-century when large-scale quarantine has been effectively used in the control of any disease. The negative consequences of large-scale quarantine are so extreme (forced confinement of sick people with the well; complete restriction of movement of large populations; difficulty in getting critical supplies, medicines, and food to people inside the quarantine zone) that this mitigation measure should be eliminated from serious consideration…


"Home quarantine also raises ethical questions. Implementation of home quarantine could result in healthy, uninfected people being placed at risk of infection from sick household members. Practices to reduce the chance of transmission (hand-washing, maintaining a distance of three feet from infected people, etc.) could be recommended, but a policy imposing home quarantine would preclude, for example, sending healthy children to stay with relatives when a family member becomes ill. Such a policy would also be particularly hard on and dangerous to people living in close quarters, where the risk of infection would be heightened….


"Travel restrictions, such as closing airports and screening travelers at borders, have historically been ineffective. The World Health Organization Writing Group concluded that 'screening and quarantining entering travelers at international borders did not substantially delay virus introduction in past pandemics... and will likely be even less effective in the modern era'… It is reasonable to assume that the economic costs of shutting down air or train travel would be very high, and the societal costs involved in interrupting all air or train travel would be extreme…


"During seasonal influenza epidemics, public events with an expected large attendance have sometimes been canceled or postponed, the rationale being to decrease the number of contacts with those who might be contagious. There are, however, no certain indications that these actions have had any definitive effect on the severity or duration of an epidemic. Were consideration to be given to doing this on a more extensive scale and for an extended period, questions immediately arise as to how many such events would be affected. There are many social gatherings that involve close contacts among people, and this prohibition might include church services, athletic events, perhaps all meetings of more than 100 people. It might mean closing theaters, restaurants, malls, large stores, and bars. Implementing such measures would have seriously disruptive consequences…


"Schools are often closed for one–two weeks early in the development of seasonal community outbreaks of influenza primarily because of high absentee rates, especially in elementary schools, and because of illness among teachers. This would seem reasonable on practical grounds. However, to close schools for longer periods is not only impracticable but carries the possibility of a serious adverse outcome….


"Thus, canceling or postponing large meetings would not be likely to have any significant effect on the development of the epidemic. While local concerns may result in the closure of particular events for logical reasons, a policy directing community-wide closure of public events seems inadvisable. Quarantine. As experience shows, there is no basis for recommending quarantine either of groups or individuals. The problems in implementing such measures are formidable, and secondary effects of absenteeism and community disruption as well as possible adverse consequences, such as loss of public trust in government and stigmatization of quarantined people and groups, are likely to be considerable…."


Finally, the remarkable conclusion: "Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe."

Scientific and ethical basis for social-distancing interventions against COVID-19 – The Lancet (March 23, 2020)

The observation that the greatest reduction in COVID-19 cases was achieved under the combined [social distancing] intervention is not surprising. However, the assessment of the additional benefit of each intervention, when implemented in combination, offers valuable insight. Since each approach individually will result in considerable societal disruption, it is important to understand the extent of intervention needed to reduce transmission and disease burden.

The effectiveness and societal impact of quarantine and social distancing will depend on the credibility of public health authorities, political leaders, and institutions. It is important that policy makers maintain the public’s trust through use of evidence-based interventions and fully transparent, fact-based communication.