4 ms·

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 hea

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
    - keneda7 4y ago
      You keep linking this study likes it proves your point but it does not. It has similar issues to the ones you listed above. It ignores things like repeat infections, feedback loops, and population structure. Using the same logic your study is serious flawed. Also all the authors of your study seem to have an agenda of being pro lockdowns and push that. You absolutely meant it as an attack. In fact the FIRST time I commented in a thread about 6 feet of social distancing, you jumped at me about how I only want to talk about 6 feet of social distancing. If I wanted to talk about the other stuff I probably would have commented somewhere else.
      - Retric 4y ago
        I don’t actually mind that the authors you linked have an agenda, their arguments are independent of themselves. I just thought the entire things was odd compared to any of the actually peer reviewed studies I had seen on the subject. If I wanted to attack the paper I would have pointed out their anti school lockdown examples actually locked down schools thus invalidating their argument. It’s an argument that state governments could have opened schools and restaurants more frequently, not that closing them was never useful. There are hundreds of peer review studies you can chose from and the vast majority show closing schools was useful. The better ones point out that they could have been open sooner in most areas as long as they where willing to close them should cases rise.

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
  - keneda7 4y ago
    You keep linking this study likes it proves your point but it does not. It has similar issues to the ones you listed above. It ignores things like repeat infections, feedback loops, and population structure. Using the same logic your study is serious flawed. Also all the authors of your study seem to have an agenda of being pro lockdowns and push that. You absolutely meant it as an attack. In fact the FIRST time I commented in a thread about 6 feet of social distancing, you jumped at me about how I only want to talk about 6 feet of social distancing. If I wanted to talk about the other stuff I probably would have commented somewhere else.
    - Retric 4y ago
      I don’t actually mind that the authors you linked have an agenda, their arguments are independent of themselves. I just thought the entire things was odd compared to any of the actually peer reviewed studies I had seen on the subject. If I wanted to attack the paper I would have pointed out their anti school lockdown examples actually locked down schools thus invalidating their argument. It’s an argument that state governments could have opened schools and restaurants more frequently, not that closing them was never useful. There are hundreds of peer review studies you can chose from and the vast majority show closing schools was useful. The better ones point out that they could have been open sooner in most areas as long as they where willing to close them should cases rise.