3 ms·

You can think that, and you were right, but it was a justifiable perspective in the absence of better data. BTW, if you start tracking the current spread of Om

You can think that, and you were right, but it was a justifiable perspective in the absence of better data. BTW, if you start tracking the current spread of Omicron, there is strong evidence that Omicron is contageous enough through close proximity even outdoors for short periods of time: Benches, ski chair lifts, playgrounds, hiking trail bottlenecks. The original COVID variants weren't that contagious, but if they were equally threatening and as infectious as Omicron, it would have been a completely correct policy.

mlyle 5y ago
> You can think that, and you were right, but it was a justifiable perspective in the absence of better data. A weakly justifiable perspective that was away from the consensus view at the time and caused harm (probably reduced compliance with the reasonable measures, in addition to all the secondary harms). I had cops threaten to give me a massive ticket for standing in the middle of a field with a telescope by myself. Said cops were 100% of my human contact outside my household in March. This probably wasn't our best enforcement bet. > there is strong evidence that Omicron is contageous enough through close proximity even outdoors for short periods of time I don't buy this. I'm in a test-100%-weekly environment and this happening any more than rarely isn't compatible with our observations. > The original COVID variants weren't that contagious, but if they were equally threatening and as infectious as Omicron, it would have been a completely correct policy. We already had a decent estimate of R0 as 2.0-3.5 even in dense environs, and consensus was already forming around a 2.4 "best guess". We also knew that indoor was the vast majority of that 2.4.
- deanCommie 5y ago
  This is extremely anecdotal, but I have a friend group who are all extremely careful (no socialization; grocery delivery only; other measures that many would consider too extreme) But we're in a mountainous region and it's winter, and we all ski. I know 3 people that got Omicron and the only close proximity to people they had in the time period was chair lift lineup and the chair lift itself.

mlyle 5y ago

> You can think that, and you were right, but it was a justifiable perspective in the absence of better data. A weakly justifiable perspective that was away from the consensus view at the time and caused harm (probably reduced compliance with the reasonable measures, in addition to all the secondary harms). I had cops threaten to give me a massive ticket for standing in the middle of a field with a telescope by myself. Said cops were 100% of my human contact outside my household in March. This probably wasn't our best enforcement bet. > there is strong evidence that Omicron is contageous enough through close proximity even outdoors for short periods of time I don't buy this. I'm in a test-100%-weekly environment and this happening any more than rarely isn't compatible with our observations. > The original COVID variants weren't that contagious, but if they were equally threatening and as infectious as Omicron, it would have been a completely correct policy. We already had a decent estimate of R0 as 2.0-3.5 even in dense environs, and consensus was already forming around a 2.4 "best guess". We also knew that indoor was the vast majority of that 2.4.

deanCommie 5y ago
This is extremely anecdotal, but I have a friend group who are all extremely careful (no socialization; grocery delivery only; other measures that many would consider too extreme) But we're in a mountainous region and it's winter, and we all ski. I know 3 people that got Omicron and the only close proximity to people they had in the time period was chair lift lineup and the chair lift itself.