The first sentence of the article does imply that, as you say, but the writer got the implication wrong. Later in the article they quote the researchers: > “W

The first sentence of the article does imply that, as you say, but the writer got the implication wrong. Later in the article they quote the researchers: > “We argue there really isn’t much of a benefit to the 6-foot rule, especially when people are wearing masks” since everyone in the room is breathing the same air, Bazant said in an interview. “It really has almost no physical basis because the air a person is breathing while wearing a mask tends to rise and comes down elsewhere in the room so you’re more exposed to the average background than you are to a person at a distance.” > Without masks, however, Bazant said 6 feet would provide some additional protection against Covid-19 versus 3 feet. That’s particularly true if a person is breathing directly in your direction, creating what scientists call a “respiratory plume,” like a puff of smoke from a smoker. Their research was based on models that assume the air in the room is “well mixed” and that “the pathogen is distributed uniformly throughout,” they said in a follow-up statement to CNBC on Monday.