5 ms·

If a more infectious variant surfaced, it might spread. But a lower absolute prevalence of flu (because of masks, social distancing, and lockdowns) means that l

If a more infectious variant surfaced, it might spread. But a lower absolute prevalence of flu (because of masks, social distancing, and lockdowns) means that low probability events - like a more virulent strain emerging - are less likely, and might not occur at all. Contrariwise this (beside basic humanity) is why the current out of control situation in India or Brazil is everyone's problem. High absolute prevalence means events that are one in a billion chance get to happen. And spread.

chrisco255 5y ago
Diseases have no trouble spreading through ordinary intimate social interactions with friends and family. In fact, you're far more likely to get sick from someone you are close to and spend hours with than someone you just pass by in a retail store. Lockdowns and mask policy are not neatly correlated with lower infection rates or death counts. Simple counterfactual example is Florida vs. California. Same results, vastly different policies. One has been open with no masking, no limits on indoor capacity, etc for over 9 months, and one has tightly restricted public congregation. Same results. Disproves the hypothesis.
- johncolanduoni 5y ago
  Unless of course you look at the city level, where different policies and different levels of compliance correlate quite clearly with cases: look at San Francisco or San Jose compared to Miami or Los Angeles.
  - chrisco255 5y ago
    Not at all, you can cherry pick cities and that proves nothing, they all have vastly different demographics, different density, different climates, etc. For example, New York City is one of the worst performing metros on the planet despite harsh restrictions (and high compliance) at the city and state level and in neighboring states. There's no discernible pattern in the data.
    - johncolanduoni 5y ago
      Okay, but then why doesn’t the “vastly different demographics, different density, different climates” apply to comparisons between states, if you’re claiming those comparisons “disprove the hypothesis” (let alone the fact that SF has much higher density that the others and a colder climate)? As far as cherry picking, why does me picking four cities count as cherry picking but you picking two states doesn’t? Also for the specific NYC case, a crucial difference is that when the restrictions started which was after there were many infections already (thanks in part to disagreement between the city and state early on and different legal powers of the city to effect them compared to elsewhere). I’m also not sure what neighboring states with high compliance you’re referring to for New York. Their most populous neighbor (PA) has consistently had very low compliance and fluctuating levels of restrictions.

chrisco255 5y ago

Diseases have no trouble spreading through ordinary intimate social interactions with friends and family. In fact, you're far more likely to get sick from someone you are close to and spend hours with than someone you just pass by in a retail store. Lockdowns and mask policy are not neatly correlated with lower infection rates or death counts. Simple counterfactual example is Florida vs. California. Same results, vastly different policies. One has been open with no masking, no limits on indoor capacity, etc for over 9 months, and one has tightly restricted public congregation. Same results. Disproves the hypothesis.

johncolanduoni 5y ago
Unless of course you look at the city level, where different policies and different levels of compliance correlate quite clearly with cases: look at San Francisco or San Jose compared to Miami or Los Angeles.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  Not at all, you can cherry pick cities and that proves nothing, they all have vastly different demographics, different density, different climates, etc. For example, New York City is one of the worst performing metros on the planet despite harsh restrictions (and high compliance) at the city and state level and in neighboring states. There's no discernible pattern in the data.
  - johncolanduoni 5y ago
    Okay, but then why doesn’t the “vastly different demographics, different density, different climates” apply to comparisons between states, if you’re claiming those comparisons “disprove the hypothesis” (let alone the fact that SF has much higher density that the others and a colder climate)? As far as cherry picking, why does me picking four cities count as cherry picking but you picking two states doesn’t? Also for the specific NYC case, a crucial difference is that when the restrictions started which was after there were many infections already (thanks in part to disagreement between the city and state early on and different legal powers of the city to effect them compared to elsewhere). I’m also not sure what neighboring states with high compliance you’re referring to for New York. Their most populous neighbor (PA) has consistently had very low compliance and fluctuating levels of restrictions.