3 ms·

Yes, it is an assumption. Unfortunately, this situation is unprecedented, so everything we do has to be an educated guess. I would also note that you followed i

Yes, it is an assumption. Unfortunately, this situation is unprecedented, so everything we do has to be an educated guess. I would also note that you followed it up with an assumption of your own ;) It is well established that physical distancing limits the spread of virus transmitted via respiratory droplets. If you refute that, I would require significant peer-reviewed literature on your side. https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiaa189/5820886 https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/inf... It is also irrefutable that contracting COVID-19 carries risk - especially for high-risk individuals with comorbidities (yes, even young people) Combined, I don't see how you can come up with a hypothesis where getting people together would somehow be equally as safe as keeping people apart. Again, this is just one aspect that policy makers have to consider. There is also the economy, mental health, etc. I think having those discussions is very interesting - how much should we protect our health vs our way of life? There are very valid arguments against continuing the shut-down. But acknowledging that social practices directly impact virus transmission is a necessary step to have meaningful discussion.

timr 6y ago
I would also note that you followed it up with an assumption of your own ;) What assumption is that? I stated a fact that you can verify with a Google search. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-corona...
- room500 6y ago
  It was a snide remark. My apologies Can you respond to the rest of the comment?
ketamine__ 6y ago
> It is well established that physical distancing limits the spread of virus transmitted via respiratory droplets. If you refute that, I would require significant peer-reviewed literature on your side. The study you provided does not support your claim that physical distancing works as it is implemented in the US (6 feet of separation). > We found that the evidence base for current guidelines is sparse, and the available data do not support the 1- to 2-meter (≈3–6 feet) rule of spatial separation. Of 10 studies on horizontal droplet distance, 8 showed droplets travel more than 2 meters (≈6 feet), in some cases up to 8 meters (≈26 feet). It's also likely Covid is spread by aerosols. There needs to be more research but it is very likely based on the details of superspreader events.

timr 6y ago

I would also note that you followed it up with an assumption of your own ;) What assumption is that? I stated a fact that you can verify with a Google search. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-corona...

room500 6y ago
It was a snide remark. My apologies Can you respond to the rest of the comment?

ketamine__ 6y ago

> It is well established that physical distancing limits the spread of virus transmitted via respiratory droplets. If you refute that, I would require significant peer-reviewed literature on your side. The study you provided does not support your claim that physical distancing works as it is implemented in the US (6 feet of separation). > We found that the evidence base for current guidelines is sparse, and the available data do not support the 1- to 2-meter (≈3–6 feet) rule of spatial separation. Of 10 studies on horizontal droplet distance, 8 showed droplets travel more than 2 meters (≈6 feet), in some cases up to 8 meters (≈26 feet). It's also likely Covid is spread by aerosols. There needs to be more research but it is very likely based on the details of superspreader events.