5 ms·

> "I don't know why we're so hesitant to just close bars and restaurants everywhere..." because despite the fearful hype, there's no evidence restaurants are s

> "I don't know why we're so hesitant to just close bars and restaurants everywhere..." because despite the fearful hype, there's no evidence restaurants are significant sources of spread. bars, at least, are more plausible (because of social dynamics, not fluid or viral ones), but still not conclusively proven to be significant transmission localities. transmission is primarily happening in private social gatherings, not in public places like restaurants, gyms, or grocery stores where we see so much attention being misdirected. this paper, like similar others, paints a possible but unlikely picture of how a couple infection cases might be related, out of probably thousands (millions? billions?) of other possibilities. it's a classic case of availability bias--creating an explanation based on the limited observed information at our disposal, while expressly ignoring the much vaster array of information we don't, or can't, observe. it's clues tied together to create a pat narrative, not conclusive, nor even particularly persuasive, proof on how transmission happened in this scenario. it's only one possibility among many.

xapata 6y ago
I'm not familiar with the research on transmission occurring primarily in private social gatherings. In fact, I've seen some researchers suggest the opposite. Do you happen to have any helpful links or search pointers?
- clairity 6y ago
  no good pointers offhand, but the likeliest source is contact tracing programs. they understandably seem to be more focused on tracing over paper-writing. in any case, here's one published study from hunan: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/11/23/science.abe2424 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/11/23/scie... this quote sums up their findings: > "The average risk of transmission scales positively with the closeness of social interactions: the average per-contact risk is lowest for community exposures (including contacts in the public transportation system and at food and entertainment venues), intermediate for social and extended family contacts, and highest in the household. The average transmission risk in the household is further elevated when intense physical distancing is enforced, and for contacts that last longer." the intuition is also pretty straightforward--we let our guard around those closest to us, who also happen to be those we spend the most time with. those are the two primary factors (closeness and contact time) for transmission. social gatherings are that layer just beyond the household where we are most exposed on those dimensions.
  - wutbrodo 6y ago
    > The average transmission risk in the household is further elevated when intense physical distancing is enforced How is this possible? Distancing _elevates_ within-household risk?
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > How is this possible? Distancing _elevates_ within-household risk? One obvious mechanism: Enforced distancing makes it less likely you get COVID from a source outside of the household, which (since infection usually provides some period of immunity) thereby increases the risk you get it in the household, on average.
      - clairity 6y ago
        yes, that's the explanation given in the paper--the more restrictive the public measures, the more likely spread occurs at home.
        xapata 6y ago
        Perversely, it sounds like transmission occurring primarily at home suggests the government is doing a decent job at managing the problem.
        clairity 6y ago
        no, it's really the government pushing infections to the periphery, so that it gets credit for visible action rather than meaningful effect (i.e., lowering death rates permanently without throwing half the population into severe distress). that's exactly the empty effort we should hold against politicians, especially when so much harm has blindly been brought to bear along with it. it's unrealistic to expect families to social distance from each other for months on end for a pandemic of this severity (~0.5% fatality rate heavily skewed to the aged, as opposed to the 1918 flu with ~10-20% fatality rate across the age spectrum). so the most impactful, and realistic, action to materially lower infection/death rates is to alter our behaviors around private social gatherings only (distance or mask indoors). focusing our efforts there would be spending our collective goodwill budget wisely, as opposed to the pointless political theater around masks and restaurants. instead, all of the focus has been on curtailing public settings (easier for the government to control), where only a small minority of transmission is happening (moreover, public behaviors changed without needing government intervention). it'd be farcical if it weren't so tragic.

xapata 6y ago

I'm not familiar with the research on transmission occurring primarily in private social gatherings. In fact, I've seen some researchers suggest the opposite. Do you happen to have any helpful links or search pointers?

clairity 6y ago
no good pointers offhand, but the likeliest source is contact tracing programs. they understandably seem to be more focused on tracing over paper-writing. in any case, here's one published study from hunan: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/11/23/science.abe2424 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/11/23/scie... this quote sums up their findings: > "The average risk of transmission scales positively with the closeness of social interactions: the average per-contact risk is lowest for community exposures (including contacts in the public transportation system and at food and entertainment venues), intermediate for social and extended family contacts, and highest in the household. The average transmission risk in the household is further elevated when intense physical distancing is enforced, and for contacts that last longer." the intuition is also pretty straightforward--we let our guard around those closest to us, who also happen to be those we spend the most time with. those are the two primary factors (closeness and contact time) for transmission. social gatherings are that layer just beyond the household where we are most exposed on those dimensions.
- wutbrodo 6y ago
  > The average transmission risk in the household is further elevated when intense physical distancing is enforced How is this possible? Distancing _elevates_ within-household risk?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > How is this possible? Distancing _elevates_ within-household risk? One obvious mechanism: Enforced distancing makes it less likely you get COVID from a source outside of the household, which (since infection usually provides some period of immunity) thereby increases the risk you get it in the household, on average.
    - clairity 6y ago
      yes, that's the explanation given in the paper--the more restrictive the public measures, the more likely spread occurs at home.
      - xapata 6y ago
        Perversely, it sounds like transmission occurring primarily at home suggests the government is doing a decent job at managing the problem.
        clairity 6y ago
        no, it's really the government pushing infections to the periphery, so that it gets credit for visible action rather than meaningful effect (i.e., lowering death rates permanently without throwing half the population into severe distress). that's exactly the empty effort we should hold against politicians, especially when so much harm has blindly been brought to bear along with it. it's unrealistic to expect families to social distance from each other for months on end for a pandemic of this severity (~0.5% fatality rate heavily skewed to the aged, as opposed to the 1918 flu with ~10-20% fatality rate across the age spectrum). so the most impactful, and realistic, action to materially lower infection/death rates is to alter our behaviors around private social gatherings only (distance or mask indoors). focusing our efforts there would be spending our collective goodwill budget wisely, as opposed to the pointless political theater around masks and restaurants. instead, all of the focus has been on curtailing public settings (easier for the government to control), where only a small minority of transmission is happening (moreover, public behaviors changed without needing government intervention). it'd be farcical if it weren't so tragic.