But there is no scientific evidence that social distance works. I mean, if there was, then you could cite the evidence. I mean, given what we know, it probably helps, but we don't know by how much.
I mean, there's no scientific evidence disproving it. When all else is equal, it probably helps, and probably has no costs. So it's definitely the responsible thing to do -- when all else is equal.
It's the best theory available, but it's a weak theory. A lot of social distance rules make sense, but a lot don't make sense. For eample, in my locality, they demand every other restaurant table remain empty.
...but I'm not sure it matches the theory. If a person on one table shouts or coughs, they are already 6 feet away from another table in that direction. Sure, they are only 2 feet away from the person behind them -- but they aren't facing that way.
So in answer to the following question, the answer is "no". that's data upon which a falsifiable hypothesis can be postulated, but not one that tests it. In any case, you didn't pay attention to the details.
The details of that study is that while big droplets fall within a few feet, small droplets permeate the entire room without ventilation. Thus, in a call center in a poorly ventilate room, it doesn't matter how much "social distance" you have, everyone will get infected.
Which goes on to explain the following study. Does this show that more social distancing is needed? or does it show that better indoor ventilation is needed? Maybe the answer is HEPA filters and stronger central air conditioning systems.
Whenever you see a black-and-white statement like "social distancing", it's not science. Science is always about doubt, it's always about measurement. If there was science showing this, we'd know the difference in effectiveness between 6 feet and 7 feet.
This 2-meter/6-feet rule is a social consensus construct. There are no studies showing how much better 6-feet is than 7-feet, or how much worse it is than 5-feet.
Now Laura Ingraham is a nutbag that twists everything to a predetermined political side. Social distancing is still the BEST idea we have, and when feasible, is the RESPONSIBLE thing to do. On my evening walks, I often go as far as crossing the street to distance from people.
But at the same time, I still go on my daily walks, because what scientific evidence is available, daily exercise out in the sunshine is clearly very good for you, despite the current risk of catching the covid.
BTW, the way to prove it if I was wrong is by citing things, such as in the below example. One thing these citations show is that there are different definitions of "social distancing" going on. I use "6 ft", others (possibly Ingraham) may use others.
I use "6 feet distance" as the definition because that's widely used, as in the following definition from the CDC. But others include things like school closures and isolating the sick, such as the above citation. Clearly these are different things. 
The above evidence that keeping sick home from work helps. Just because that works, and some people call it "social distancing", doesn't mean everything else people may call "social distancing" works, such as keeping well people home from work (shutting business down).
