The FAKE SCIENCE of the PLANDEMIC included social distancing that is proven to provide NO PROTECTION from infections, per study
By sdwells // 2025-08-08
Copy
 
Oh, fake science. We’ve all had enough of it for a lifetime, and then some. From Fauci to Biden to Walensky, a bunch of pharma shills, hucksters, con artists and vax hacks, we all had to endure the rules, mandates, job firings, masks, lockdowns, and the hokey social distancing nightmare. It was all fake science. Research proves it. New research has revealed that the widely promoted “six-foot” social distancing rule may have provided far less protection against airborne diseases than once believed—especially in indoor waiting lines. A study published in Science Advances shows that when people queue indoors at comfortable temperatures, the stop-and-go air currents caused by human movement can trap infectious particles right at breathing level, undermining the effectiveness of distancing.
  • Six-Foot Rule Falls Short in Lines – New research shows that traditional six-foot distancing offers little protection in waiting lines, as moving crowds create air currents that keep infectious particles at breathing height.
  • Comfortable Temperatures Increase Risk – Indoor temperatures between 72–86°F allow exhaled aerosols to hover where people inhale them, while hotter or colder conditions help move particles away.
  • Walking Speed and Air Flow Matter – Faster-moving lines create stronger air currents that push particles out of breathing zones, but typical slow, stop-and-go movement in queues traps particles longer.
  • Static Guidelines Miss Dynamic Risks – Public health rules based on fixed distancing ignore complex airflow in real-life lines, meaning grocery stores, airports, and clinics may remain high-risk environments despite spacing measures.

Remember Social Distancing? It Doesn’t Really Protect You From Infections, Study Shows

The research, conducted by scientists from the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the University of Cadiz, focused on how breath particles move in dynamic environments like grocery store checkouts, airport security lines, or vaccination clinics. Using a combination of laboratory experiments and advanced computer simulations, the team found that indoor temperatures between 72°F and 86°F—common in most climate-controlled spaces—create the worst-case scenario for infection spread. At these moderate temperatures, two opposing air currents cancel each other out: the downward “downwash” created when people walk forward and the upward thermal buoyancy from warm exhaled breath. Instead of being carried away, aerosols hover at face height, ready to be inhaled by the person behind. The effect persists even when six feet of space is maintained, because the time between steps in a line is too short for particles to disperse significantly. To model these effects, researchers built a scaled-down moving line using 3D-printed human figures on a conveyor belt and tested them in a water tank, where fluorescent dye represented exhaled particles. High-speed cameras tracked how particles moved during the start-stop motion typical of queues. Computer models then extended these findings to real-world air flow conditions at different temperatures and walking speeds. The study found that faster-moving lines—closer to normal walking speed—reduced risk because stronger downwash currents carried aerosols away from breathing zones. In contrast, slow-moving lines common in crowded indoor settings trapped particles in place. Temperature also played a critical role. Conditions hotter than 86°F or cooler than 72°F reduced infection risk. In hotter air, thermal buoyancy lifted particles upward, away from faces; in cooler air, buoyancy weakened enough for downwash to push particles downward effectively. However, researchers acknowledged that operating public spaces at such extremes could be uncomfortable or impractical. Importantly, the team concluded that physical separation alone has only a “minor effect” on aerosol spread in moving lines. The study challenges pandemic-era guidance that relied heavily on static distancing, pointing instead to the need for public health policies that account for dynamic air flows and human movement. The findings have broad implications for everyday environments where people queue indoors—such as retail stores, airports, clinics, and government offices. Adjusting walking speeds, controlling temperature ranges, and improving ventilation could be more effective than relying solely on distancing markers. Senior author Varghese Mathai emphasized that there are “no hard-and-fast rules” for staying safe, as fluid dynamics are complex and counterintuitive. He stressed that guidelines must consider both space and time to truly reduce airborne transmission risk. In short, six feet apart in a slow-moving indoor line may have offered little real protection—especially in the comfortable indoor climates most people prefer. Bookmark plague.info to your favorite independent websites for updates on TWO HUNDRED new gain-of-function viruses NIH, CDC and WHO plan to release into the “wild” and then force everyone to social distance in order to “flatten out the curve.” Sources for this article include: Pandemic.news GatewayPundit.com NaturalNews.com StudyFinds.org
Copy