4 ms·

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 an

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
        > only a small minority of transmission is happening [in public settings] Well, wouldn't that be because public settings are more controlled, as you said? It seems strange to suggest wearing a mask at home, in private, but not in public. Or did I misread?
        clairity 6y ago
        no, the only policy we needed is to either distance or wear masks when visiting in private with those outside your household, not at home with family (which no one would do) or in most public settings (which are already very low risk because exposure in space and time is vanishingly low). that would focus our attention and effort on the most impactful situations, not the ineffective shotgun approach we have now.
  - wutbrodo 6y ago
    Ah I see, I misinterpreted this as referring to within-household distancing (separate rooms, masking, etc). Thanks!
szc 6y ago
The way this is presented is going to be interpreted incorrectly. It is incorrect to compare percentages or probabilities like this. Here is a different example to try and illustrate the problem: Is 10% larger than 5%? It is not possible to answer this question if the basis on which the percentages are calculated are different. What if I said the 10% was 10% of whatever you last spent money on, but the 5% was 5% of Google's annual revenue. Which is larger? The same thing is happening in the above - it isn't okay to calculate the probabilities in two situations and then try to cross compare them for size. Sadly this error seems to be cropping up quite a lot! Matt Parker (Stand-up Maths) has an example of this and related to a recent election: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aokNwKx7gM8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aokNwKx7gM8. His explanation is likely better than mine.

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
        > only a small minority of transmission is happening [in public settings] Well, wouldn't that be because public settings are more controlled, as you said? It seems strange to suggest wearing a mask at home, in private, but not in public. Or did I misread?
        clairity 6y ago
        no, the only policy we needed is to either distance or wear masks when visiting in private with those outside your household, not at home with family (which no one would do) or in most public settings (which are already very low risk because exposure in space and time is vanishingly low). that would focus our attention and effort on the most impactful situations, not the ineffective shotgun approach we have now.
- wutbrodo 6y ago
  Ah I see, I misinterpreted this as referring to within-household distancing (separate rooms, masking, etc). Thanks!

szc 6y ago

The way this is presented is going to be interpreted incorrectly. It is incorrect to compare percentages or probabilities like this. Here is a different example to try and illustrate the problem: Is 10% larger than 5%? It is not possible to answer this question if the basis on which the percentages are calculated are different. What if I said the 10% was 10% of whatever you last spent money on, but the 5% was 5% of Google's annual revenue. Which is larger? The same thing is happening in the above - it isn't okay to calculate the probabilities in two situations and then try to cross compare them for size. Sadly this error seems to be cropping up quite a lot! Matt Parker (Stand-up Maths) has an example of this and related to a recent election: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aokNwKx7gM8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aokNwKx7gM8. His explanation is likely better than mine.