3 ms·
The serial interval of SARS-CoV-2 is/was claimed to be at the start ~3 days. So the delay is very short and this is one reason why we can be so sure masks had n
by native_samples 4y ago
The serial interval of SARS-CoV-2 is/was claimed to be at the start ~3 days. So the delay is very short and this is one reason why we can be so sure masks had no effect. If they did, you would expect to see a sharp and visible inflection point in the graph three days later.
However no such inflection points are visible and this happens repeatedly.
- manwe150 4y agoWhy do you expect an inflection point? At steady-state, there should be a change of that sort described. But the hypothetical intent was to establish these masking policies while still in the early, exponential portion of the graph. When the spread is doubling every 3 days, shouldn’t we expect it to be hard to visually observe a change to the number of days it takes to double the cases? That thus rhetorically leaves us stuck with a significant difference between “no effect” and “moderate-but impossible-to-quantify effect” however
- native_samples 4y agoThe serial interval is/was three days, that's not the same thing as doubling time. Serial interval is how long it takes someone who just got infected to become infectious and pass it on. Regardless, the answer is no. Inflection points should be clearly visible because the underlying dynamic is organic, and mass-scale human intervention is inorganic/synchronized. Remember - the policy is justified exclusively on the basis of creating those inflection points. Nothing else. If no such points are visible the policy is a failure and we're left with only the downsides (of which there are many!).
- manwe150 4y agoI think you are thinking of the term discontinuities? Inflection points are notoriously not easily visible in graphs. Here’s an inflection point for example: https://www.calculushowto.com/inflection-point/ https://www.calculushowto.com/inflection-point/