2 ms·

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 infe

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.