Thread by @LarryBoorstein

@EricTopol @ScottGottliebMD "The [Massachusetts] study was quickly picked up by 3-feet spacing advocates. But...confidence intervals were so large in the analysis that 6 feet of distancing could have decreased case rates as much as 47 percent compared with 3 feet..."--Beth Mole, Ars Technica Mar 19

@EricTopol @ScottGottliebMD Research indicating that aerosols rather than droplets are at play with COVID-19 would tend to suggest neither 3 ft nor 6 ft distancing is adequate to protect kids in school. CDC shouldn't be jumping all over a study they claim shows not much difference in their rush to reopen.

@EricTopol @ScottGottliebMD "Districts that permitted a minimum of > or = 3 ft, even if greater distances were preferred were classified as allowing > or = 3 ft of distancing between students."- Massachusetts study
This means there are districts that "preferred" greater distances lumped into 3 ft results.

@EricTopol @ScottGottliebMD The Massachusetts study compares 3 ft and 6 ft distancing. It lumps school which call more than 3 ft "preferable" in the 3 ft group. It notes "ventilation interventions" as "highly heterogeneous" and fails to separate the impact from the distancing. The statistics have wide CI.