(The replies to that are interesting too).
The replies are treating it as simple particle dispersal without considering at least two other factors:
1. The droplets are so small that they rapidly evaporate, becoming lighter as they travel away from the source
2. As the droplets dry out, they may travel further but become less infective as the virus they contain inactivates. I can't quote any papers - just earlier reports that while it was possible to recover viral rna right across test areas, it appeared to be non-viable.
Anyway, it makes the maths of dispersal distance versus infectivity rather complicated and that's before you start taking into account random air currents in real-world situations. I'm surprised that there are any distancing claims to be made to fractions of a metre differences beyond 'don't stand close to each other' but perhaps they have to be seen to quantify it in some way to show what 'close' is.