5 ms·

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

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.
    - GeekyBear 4y ago
      At this point you sound just like the people still going on about how Ivermectin does so do something. Sorry, but following the science requires the ability to admit you're wrong in the face of new evidence.
    - keneda7 4y ago
      I don't think people are going to come to the conclusion you want. I thought I understood your position at the start but by the end I am just scratching my head here. You seem to admit covid is airborne yet at the same time are adamant 6 feet of social distancing stops covid and prevents countries from having a 4% IFR. Yet South Korea doesn't seem to have gone past a 2.5% IFR and wiki seems to imply they did not lock down and Italy was one of the first to lockdown and had the highest IFR? Wouldn't this actual data invalidate your claim without lockdowns IFR would be 4%? Wouldn't is just be easer to admit your wrong and that 6 feet social distancing does not stop covid. You were originally told incorrect information by, well everyone, and now that you know covid is airborne the 6 feet was worthless. Edit: spelling
      - Retric 4y ago
        No, I never said any individual measure was critical on it’s own. Six feet alone as in without masks etc does almost nothing. Six feet in combination with many other measures can do quite a lot near a tipping point. Shutting down schools was was huge, but you seem to want to talk about 6 feet like that’s the only thing that happened. What masks and 6 feet separation had going for them which is easy to forget is how cheap they are. Closing schools is going to have knock on effects for decades, people standing further apart is practically free by comparison.

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.
  - GeekyBear 4y ago
    At this point you sound just like the people still going on about how Ivermectin does so do something. Sorry, but following the science requires the ability to admit you're wrong in the face of new evidence.
  - keneda7 4y ago
    I don't think people are going to come to the conclusion you want. I thought I understood your position at the start but by the end I am just scratching my head here. You seem to admit covid is airborne yet at the same time are adamant 6 feet of social distancing stops covid and prevents countries from having a 4% IFR. Yet South Korea doesn't seem to have gone past a 2.5% IFR and wiki seems to imply they did not lock down and Italy was one of the first to lockdown and had the highest IFR? Wouldn't this actual data invalidate your claim without lockdowns IFR would be 4%? Wouldn't is just be easer to admit your wrong and that 6 feet social distancing does not stop covid. You were originally told incorrect information by, well everyone, and now that you know covid is airborne the 6 feet was worthless. Edit: spelling
    - Retric 4y ago
      No, I never said any individual measure was critical on it’s own. Six feet alone as in without masks etc does almost nothing. Six feet in combination with many other measures can do quite a lot near a tipping point. Shutting down schools was was huge, but you seem to want to talk about 6 feet like that’s the only thing that happened. What masks and 6 feet separation had going for them which is easy to forget is how cheap they are. Closing schools is going to have knock on effects for decades, people standing further apart is practically free by comparison.