3 ms·

A key point, stated elsewhere in the article, is that “[f]requent hand washing and staying at home and avoiding contacts when sick are probably very useful.” I

by Fezzik 6y ago

A key point, stated elsewhere in the article, is that “[f]requent hand washing and staying at home and avoiding contacts when sick are probably very useful.” I’m not familiar with all the data, but it seems obvious that having thousands of people traipsing through a grocery store at a distance of 6-feet likely does little-to-nothing to stymie the spread of the virus. The key is drastically reducing how often you are interacting with physical objects and spaces that a sick person could have also interacted with. Social distancing does very little in that regard. Edit: spelling

robbrown451 6y ago
I thought the idea of social distancing was that we can't know who is sick until they show symptoms, which could be many days later. And even then, they might make the irresponsible choice to go to the grocery store which is impossible for us to stop. Therefore its still best that all of us are required to wear masks and keep some distance. Is there something I'm misunderstanding here?
- timr 6y ago
  "I thought the idea of social distancing was that we can't know who is sick until they show symptoms, which could be many days later....is there something I'm misunderstanding here?" Every link of a causative argument has to work, or the argument is invalid. In this case, it's not enough to say that asymptomatic can transmit the virus, therefore we should stay six feet apart at all times. Does staying six feet apart in the grocery store do anything to reduce the spread of the virus? This editorial is claiming that there is no evidence. (The distance itself appears to be somewhat arbitrary, and varies from 1 meter in parts of Europe, to six feet in the US, which makes me doubt the scientific basis.) The same thing is true for masks -- as noted in the editorial, there's little evidence for asking the general public to wear masks. The few studies that have been done are low quality, and/or show little/no effect: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commenta... At this moment, so much of the stuff we're being asked to do boils down to theories + "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence". But you can justify literally anything with that logic. Mandatory face shields? Gloves for all? Full-body Tyvek? Remote prayer? Throwing salt over your shoulder? We can't prove they don't work, right? The "it might do some good, so therefore let's mandate it" logic eventually leads to oppression, but the line is subjective unless we base our decisions on concrete, well-documented chains of reasoning.
  - robbrown451 6y ago
    "The distance itself appears to be somewhat arbitrary, and varies from 1 meter in parts of Europe, to six feet in the US, which makes me doubt the scientific basis" This seems quite a black and white way to look at things. Would you agree that it you are more likely to catch the virus from an infectious person if your face is 6 inches from theirs, vs. being a mile away from them? A reasonable conclusion about the difference between Europe and US recommendations is not that their science is different, but that they are simply setting the threshold for acceptable risk at a different level, and that the risk increases with proximity. They are trying to give meaningful advice while keeping it somewhat simple. 6 feet away is safer than one meter away. If you come close to someone, it is safer if it is for 5 seconds rather than for 20 seconds. If you can hold your breath during that period, all the safer. It is safer if you are facing away from one another. It is safer if neither person is talking, coughing or sneezing. Whether there is a breeze and which way it is blowing is significant. And so on. There is never going to be a hard cutoff for things like this. Sometimes there is a place for common sense, reasonable inferences, and balancing of priorities and risks.

by Fezzik 6y ago

robbrown451 6y ago

I thought the idea of social distancing was that we can't know who is sick until they show symptoms, which could be many days later. And even then, they might make the irresponsible choice to go to the grocery store which is impossible for us to stop. Therefore its still best that all of us are required to wear masks and keep some distance. Is there something I'm misunderstanding here?

timr 6y ago
"I thought the idea of social distancing was that we can't know who is sick until they show symptoms, which could be many days later....is there something I'm misunderstanding here?" Every link of a causative argument has to work, or the argument is invalid. In this case, it's not enough to say that asymptomatic can transmit the virus, therefore we should stay six feet apart at all times. Does staying six feet apart in the grocery store do anything to reduce the spread of the virus? This editorial is claiming that there is no evidence. (The distance itself appears to be somewhat arbitrary, and varies from 1 meter in parts of Europe, to six feet in the US, which makes me doubt the scientific basis.) The same thing is true for masks -- as noted in the editorial, there's little evidence for asking the general public to wear masks. The few studies that have been done are low quality, and/or show little/no effect: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commenta... At this moment, so much of the stuff we're being asked to do boils down to theories + "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence". But you can justify literally anything with that logic. Mandatory face shields? Gloves for all? Full-body Tyvek? Remote prayer? Throwing salt over your shoulder? We can't prove they don't work, right? The "it might do some good, so therefore let's mandate it" logic eventually leads to oppression, but the line is subjective unless we base our decisions on concrete, well-documented chains of reasoning.
- robbrown451 6y ago
  "The distance itself appears to be somewhat arbitrary, and varies from 1 meter in parts of Europe, to six feet in the US, which makes me doubt the scientific basis" This seems quite a black and white way to look at things. Would you agree that it you are more likely to catch the virus from an infectious person if your face is 6 inches from theirs, vs. being a mile away from them? A reasonable conclusion about the difference between Europe and US recommendations is not that their science is different, but that they are simply setting the threshold for acceptable risk at a different level, and that the risk increases with proximity. They are trying to give meaningful advice while keeping it somewhat simple. 6 feet away is safer than one meter away. If you come close to someone, it is safer if it is for 5 seconds rather than for 20 seconds. If you can hold your breath during that period, all the safer. It is safer if you are facing away from one another. It is safer if neither person is talking, coughing or sneezing. Whether there is a breeze and which way it is blowing is significant. And so on. There is never going to be a hard cutoff for things like this. Sometimes there is a place for common sense, reasonable inferences, and balancing of priorities and risks.