4 ms·

Sounds to me like you are attacking the source and not the content of the article. Are you saying that he lied under oath and that there was scientific reasonin

Sounds to me like you are attacking the source and not the content of the article. Are you saying that he lied under oath and that there was scientific reasoning behind the social distancing directive?

Spivak 2y ago
He didn't lie under oath, but both you and the article are extrapolating quite a bit from the testimony of one guy who's not an authoritative source of anything, absence of evidence and all that. The 6ft (really the 2 meter) rule didn't come from nowhere and does have research backing -- a lot of it going back to the late 1800's. Here's a great overview of the research and history surrounding it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8504878/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8504878/ Were it gets interesting is that this model of disease transmission doesn't fit covid (and might not fit anything really) but the take-away is the opposite -- that it's actually worse and that 6ft isn't enough. It would be easier to take the criticism leveled from the anti-social distancing crowd seriously if they were arguing for more distance and isolation, not less because that's just fixing wrong with different wrong.
- SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
  Ah, so before or at the dawn of germ theory is part of your point? OK, I’ve heard enough.
defrost 2y ago
The content of article selectively quotes and frames things to suggest that advice to keep distance to reduce the rate of spread of a severe acute respiratory virus was bad advice. It was very good advice. It has been known to be good advice for decades, recent decades. The fact that this had not been specificly reproven specifically with SARS-CoV-2 during the earliest days of a global outbreak isn't relevant to the value of that advice. Sturgis, and numerous other outbreaks arising from events in the shit show that exampled the US approach to social distancing highlighted what happened as a result of not heeding such advice ... some of the highest per capita death rates in the world.

Spivak 2y ago

He didn't lie under oath, but both you and the article are extrapolating quite a bit from the testimony of one guy who's not an authoritative source of anything, absence of evidence and all that. The 6ft (really the 2 meter) rule didn't come from nowhere and does have research backing -- a lot of it going back to the late 1800's. Here's a great overview of the research and history surrounding it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8504878/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8504878/ Were it gets interesting is that this model of disease transmission doesn't fit covid (and might not fit anything really) but the take-away is the opposite -- that it's actually worse and that 6ft isn't enough. It would be easier to take the criticism leveled from the anti-social distancing crowd seriously if they were arguing for more distance and isolation, not less because that's just fixing wrong with different wrong.

SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
Ah, so before or at the dawn of germ theory is part of your point? OK, I’ve heard enough.

defrost 2y ago

The content of article selectively quotes and frames things to suggest that advice to keep distance to reduce the rate of spread of a severe acute respiratory virus was bad advice. It was very good advice. It has been known to be good advice for decades, recent decades. The fact that this had not been specificly reproven specifically with SARS-CoV-2 during the earliest days of a global outbreak isn't relevant to the value of that advice. Sturgis, and numerous other outbreaks arising from events in the shit show that exampled the US approach to social distancing highlighted what happened as a result of not heeding such advice ... some of the highest per capita death rates in the world.