12 ms·

> 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 dista

> 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.
    - keneda7 4y ago
      Okay thank you that makes more sense. But from an outsider reading the conversation as is, that is not very clear at all. Do you have any proof that shutting down schools was huge? Everything I have seen says the exact opposite. Little to no benefit with massive decades long consequences. You said originally you feel that lockdowns worked but again the actual world data does not agree with you. I listed two countries that as examples in my previous comment. Here is a very comprehensive report on the lockdowns that looks at mortalities as well as economic impacts in the states: https://www.nber.org/papers/w29928 https://www.nber.org/papers/w29928 Page 18 shows no correlation between lockdowns and mortality. This is using real world data. Edit: missing words
      - Retric 4y ago
        That’s a long way from a comprehensive report, it’s not even a peer reviewed paper and has serious flaws. It aggregates things at the state level and condenses it all to a single datapoint which throws away mounds of useful data. Not just that but excludes state level data that doesn’t fit it’s conclusion and ignores cofounders like population density and feedback loops from low rates of transmission reducing the need for lockdowns. I don’t mean mean this as an attack but read up on the backgrounds of the authors they all have political backgrounds. It’s an odd collaboration, I how it came about. Here’s a vastly more rigorous study: The differences between weights estimated by common and individualized models, although present, do not lead to drastically different conclusions—indeed, both models indicate that school closing has a large impact on virus transmission https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21126-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21126-2

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.
  - keneda7 4y ago
    Okay thank you that makes more sense. But from an outsider reading the conversation as is, that is not very clear at all. Do you have any proof that shutting down schools was huge? Everything I have seen says the exact opposite. Little to no benefit with massive decades long consequences. You said originally you feel that lockdowns worked but again the actual world data does not agree with you. I listed two countries that as examples in my previous comment. Here is a very comprehensive report on the lockdowns that looks at mortalities as well as economic impacts in the states: https://www.nber.org/papers/w29928 https://www.nber.org/papers/w29928 Page 18 shows no correlation between lockdowns and mortality. This is using real world data. Edit: missing words
    - Retric 4y ago
      That’s a long way from a comprehensive report, it’s not even a peer reviewed paper and has serious flaws. It aggregates things at the state level and condenses it all to a single datapoint which throws away mounds of useful data. Not just that but excludes state level data that doesn’t fit it’s conclusion and ignores cofounders like population density and feedback loops from low rates of transmission reducing the need for lockdowns. I don’t mean mean this as an attack but read up on the backgrounds of the authors they all have political backgrounds. It’s an odd collaboration, I how it came about. Here’s a vastly more rigorous study: The differences between weights estimated by common and individualized models, although present, do not lead to drastically different conclusions—indeed, both models indicate that school closing has a large impact on virus transmission https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21126-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21126-2