3 ms·
lots of people following that advice would create a bullwhip effect actually. instead, the better factors to consider are age, weight[0], comorbidities, househ
by clairity 5y ago
lots of people following that advice would create a bullwhip effect actually.
instead, the better factors to consider are age, weight[0], comorbidities, household size, job duties (e.g., public-facing or not), and sociability. these also tend to be more stable and consistent, meaning you don't need to reconsider your personal mitigations very often. that'd indicate who generally needs personal mitigations and who doesn't (exceptions like a holiday family gathering would still need to be handled exceptionally).
[0]: i'd suggest 'overall health' is the more accurate (if more vague) factor, but weight tends to inversely correlate with general health (overweight ==> weaker immune system, less efficient pulmonary/cardiovascular system, lower muscle tone, more visceral fat, higher diabetes risk, etc.).
- tunesmith 5y agoMy own personal health is such that I wouldn't have to be so conservative if I were thinking only of myself. But Covid isn't just symptomatic, it's also contagious, as in, I can pass it to others who may not be able to handle it as well as I can, including those that aren't merely antivax. So the idea is more that if Covid is doubling at some rate, I limit my social activity so as not to contribute to the spread.
- clairity 5y agothat's factored in as 'sociability'. rather than limiting social activity, the exceptional mitigation could be to distance or wear a mask in indoor social situations (but no need to do so otherwise in most public spaces). you could also test beforehand if that was warranted (like visiting with elderly relatives).