He didn't lie under oath, but both you and the article are extrapolating quite a bit from the testimony of one guy who's not an authoritative source of anything

He didn't lie under oath, but both you and the article are extrapolating quite a bit from the testimony of one guy who's not an authoritative source of anything, absence of evidence and all that. The 6ft (really the 2 meter) rule didn't come from nowhere and does have research backing -- a lot of it going back to the late 1800's. Here's a great overview of the research and history surrounding it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8504878/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8504878/ Were it gets interesting is that this model of disease transmission doesn't fit covid (and might not fit anything really) but the take-away is the opposite -- that it's actually worse and that 6ft isn't enough. It would be easier to take the criticism leveled from the anti-social distancing crowd seriously if they were arguing for more distance and isolation, not less because that's just fixing wrong with different wrong.