3 ms·

Your argument falls apart when you remember that the mitigations we put into place were highly effective against the Flu, which does have a droplet based spread

Your argument falls apart when you remember that the mitigations we put into place were highly effective against the Flu, which does have a droplet based spread, but were completely ineffective at stopping the spread of Covid, which continued to spread like wildfire. >CDC says seasonal flu cases hit record lows around the world https://www.nbcnews.com/health/cold-and-flu/cdc-says-seasonal-flu-cases-hit-record-lows-around-world-n1240333 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/cold-and-flu/cdc-says-seasona... > COVID may have pushed a leading seasonal flu strain to extinction https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/covid-may-have-pushed-a-leading-seasonal-flu-strain-to-extinction/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/covid-may-have-pushe...

Retric 4y ago
Being effective for the flu doesn’t prevent them from being less effective but still critical for COVID. Multiple COVID trackers shows a response to COVID mitigation strategies and their removal well outside of seasonal trends. Demonstrating unsurprisingly that transmission goes down when people spend less time around each other.
- GeekyBear 4y ago
  The thing that keeps six feet of social distancing from being effective against Covid is that the virus floats in the air for hours. The initial theory on how Covid spreads was just wrong. Following the science requires that you be capable of changing your mind when you have proof that you were wrong.
  - Retric 4y ago
    The science shows mitigation strategies worked, though they didn’t all work equally well. Here’s one literature review: “Public health interventions and non-pharmaceutical measurements were effective in decreasing the transmission of COVID-19. The included studies showed that travel restrictions, borders measures, quarantine of travellers arriving from affected countries, city lockdown, restrictions of mass gathering, isolation and quarantine of confirmed cases and close contacts, social distancing measures, compulsory mask wearing, contact tracing and testing, school closures and personal protective equipment use among health workers were effective in mitigating the spread of COVID-19.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8164261/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8164261/ As to standing six feet apart. It’s true that COVID didn’t need droplets, but it could still make use of them. There is a concept of viral load during transmission because the human immune system is much more effective stopping a single virus from infection someone than 10,000 of them. Non specific immune responses don’t provide lasting immunity but they do prevent the vast majority of infection that cross surface barriers from having a noticeable impact.
    - GeekyBear 4y ago
      Sorry, but I don't find information published before the WHO finally admitted that Covid was airborne to be all that convincing. >As 2021 drew to a close, the highly contagious Omicron variant of the pandemic virus was racing around the globe, forcing governments to take drastic actions once again. The Netherlands ordered most businesses to close on 19 December, Ireland set curfews and many countries imposed travel bans in the hope of taming the tsunami of COVID-19 cases filling hospitals. Amid the wave of desperate news around the year-end holidays, one group of researchers hailed a development that had seemed as though it might never arrive. On 23 December, the World Health Organization (WHO) uttered the one word it had previously seemed incapable of applying to the virus SARS-CoV-2: ‘airborne’. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00925-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00925-7 Social distancing by six feet cannot by definition be effective against a virus that floats in the air for hours and completely spreads through any enclosed space.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Again if you follow the science being airborne doesn’t prevent other methods of transmission. People also got COVID from sharing needles, which doesn’t mean needle exchanges would have been particularly effective but they would have stopped a tiny fraction of cases. Transmission isn’t like computer virus which can only be spread via one specific method. Close content does increase the risk of transmission from a simple density function if nothing else.
        GeekyBear 4y ago
        > Again if you follow the science being airborne doesn’t prevent other methods of transmission. No, if you follow the science you won't claim that social distancing can be effective against a virus that isn't limited to only spreading six feet before falling to the ground.
        Retric 4y ago
        Reducing transmission is useful even if you don’t stop 100% of it. There are exponential returns on each case blocked because that cases doesn’t result in new cases. If the virus is still spreading exponentially then it’s simply delaying cases, but 1.01^X is monumentally different than 0.99^X even though you blocked 2% of transmissions. Saying standing six feet apart only blocks X% of cases is therefore irrelevant on it’s own, it’s only relevant in the context of overall transmission. In the end simply delaying COVID until after vaccination has saved over 1 million American lives. We could have done more, but we could also have done vastly less. PS: I linked mounds actual peer reviewed science you have ignored so it’s clear this is just wasting time. But I home other people reading this thread may come to rational conclusions.

Retric 4y ago

Being effective for the flu doesn’t prevent them from being less effective but still critical for COVID. Multiple COVID trackers shows a response to COVID mitigation strategies and their removal well outside of seasonal trends. Demonstrating unsurprisingly that transmission goes down when people spend less time around each other.

GeekyBear 4y ago
The thing that keeps six feet of social distancing from being effective against Covid is that the virus floats in the air for hours. The initial theory on how Covid spreads was just wrong. Following the science requires that you be capable of changing your mind when you have proof that you were wrong.
- Retric 4y ago
  The science shows mitigation strategies worked, though they didn’t all work equally well. Here’s one literature review: “Public health interventions and non-pharmaceutical measurements were effective in decreasing the transmission of COVID-19. The included studies showed that travel restrictions, borders measures, quarantine of travellers arriving from affected countries, city lockdown, restrictions of mass gathering, isolation and quarantine of confirmed cases and close contacts, social distancing measures, compulsory mask wearing, contact tracing and testing, school closures and personal protective equipment use among health workers were effective in mitigating the spread of COVID-19.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8164261/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8164261/ As to standing six feet apart. It’s true that COVID didn’t need droplets, but it could still make use of them. There is a concept of viral load during transmission because the human immune system is much more effective stopping a single virus from infection someone than 10,000 of them. Non specific immune responses don’t provide lasting immunity but they do prevent the vast majority of infection that cross surface barriers from having a noticeable impact.
  - GeekyBear 4y ago
    Sorry, but I don't find information published before the WHO finally admitted that Covid was airborne to be all that convincing. >As 2021 drew to a close, the highly contagious Omicron variant of the pandemic virus was racing around the globe, forcing governments to take drastic actions once again. The Netherlands ordered most businesses to close on 19 December, Ireland set curfews and many countries imposed travel bans in the hope of taming the tsunami of COVID-19 cases filling hospitals. Amid the wave of desperate news around the year-end holidays, one group of researchers hailed a development that had seemed as though it might never arrive. On 23 December, the World Health Organization (WHO) uttered the one word it had previously seemed incapable of applying to the virus SARS-CoV-2: ‘airborne’. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00925-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00925-7 Social distancing by six feet cannot by definition be effective against a virus that floats in the air for hours and completely spreads through any enclosed space.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Again if you follow the science being airborne doesn’t prevent other methods of transmission. People also got COVID from sharing needles, which doesn’t mean needle exchanges would have been particularly effective but they would have stopped a tiny fraction of cases. Transmission isn’t like computer virus which can only be spread via one specific method. Close content does increase the risk of transmission from a simple density function if nothing else.
      - GeekyBear 4y ago
        > Again if you follow the science being airborne doesn’t prevent other methods of transmission. No, if you follow the science you won't claim that social distancing can be effective against a virus that isn't limited to only spreading six feet before falling to the ground.
        Retric 4y ago
        Reducing transmission is useful even if you don’t stop 100% of it. There are exponential returns on each case blocked because that cases doesn’t result in new cases. If the virus is still spreading exponentially then it’s simply delaying cases, but 1.01^X is monumentally different than 0.99^X even though you blocked 2% of transmissions. Saying standing six feet apart only blocks X% of cases is therefore irrelevant on it’s own, it’s only relevant in the context of overall transmission. In the end simply delaying COVID until after vaccination has saved over 1 million American lives. We could have done more, but we could also have done vastly less. PS: I linked mounds actual peer reviewed science you have ignored so it’s clear this is just wasting time. But I home other people reading this thread may come to rational conclusions.