3 ms·

Staying away from me when you’re sick actually works pretty well, as everyone knows.

timr 2y ago
It literally does not work for a respiratory virus. It didn't work for Covid. I can't believe we're still having this debate.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Freedom2 2y ago
  Do you happen to have a study stating that social distancing literally didn't work? Anecdotally, all people I know who never got COVID were very remote and had little contact with others, perhaps a form of extreme social distancing one might say.
- sofixa 2y ago
  Source? Social distancing has been a proven method to combat the spread of ilnesses, including respiratory viruses, for centuries. And it still works, and it did work for Covid. A good example for that is France that did 3 lockdowns, each time when the main factor optimised for, % of hospital beds occupied, started to go up dagenrously. And in each one, the number of confirmed cases went down, and hospital tension eased (after ~1-2 weeks). Are you stating that this was some sort of... mass placebo? Something completely unrelated? What actually is your claim?
  - timr 2y ago
    > Source? Well, for starters: https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/what-is-the-evidence-to-support-the-2-metre-social-distancing-rule-to-reduce-covid-19-transmission/ https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/what-is-the-evidence-to-suppor... You'll see that there's no high-quality evidence supporting basically any of it. It's either based on bad data [1], confounded studies, or worse. ...but to be clear, you have to define "social distancing" more specifically. If you define it as "hiding it in your basement to avoid colds", then the answer is going to be different than, say, "standing on spots in the elevator", or (more to my original point) "doing alternate day in-person education because teachers want fewer students in the classroom". I'd still argue that we need a shred of decent evidence for any of it, but we should at least start by being specific about our claims. > Social distancing has been a proven method to combat the spread of ilnesses, including respiratory viruses, for centuries. And it still works, and it did work for Covid. It's pretty funny how you demand sources from other people, but then just make stuff up. [1] Classic example: asking people if they "social distanced", then asking those same people if they remember getting sick. There are so many "studies" like this in public health "science", and if you exclude them from meta-analysis on the grounds that they're total bullshit, partisans start accusing you of "cherry-picking", because that's often the full extent of the affirmative evidence for whatever thing they're advocating.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

timr 2y ago

It literally does not work for a respiratory virus. It didn't work for Covid. I can't believe we're still having this debate.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Freedom2 2y ago
Do you happen to have a study stating that social distancing literally didn't work? Anecdotally, all people I know who never got COVID were very remote and had little contact with others, perhaps a form of extreme social distancing one might say.
sofixa 2y ago
Source? Social distancing has been a proven method to combat the spread of ilnesses, including respiratory viruses, for centuries. And it still works, and it did work for Covid. A good example for that is France that did 3 lockdowns, each time when the main factor optimised for, % of hospital beds occupied, started to go up dagenrously. And in each one, the number of confirmed cases went down, and hospital tension eased (after ~1-2 weeks). Are you stating that this was some sort of... mass placebo? Something completely unrelated? What actually is your claim?
- timr 2y ago
  > Source? Well, for starters: https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/what-is-the-evidence-to-support-the-2-metre-social-distancing-rule-to-reduce-covid-19-transmission/ https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/what-is-the-evidence-to-suppor... You'll see that there's no high-quality evidence supporting basically any of it. It's either based on bad data [1], confounded studies, or worse. ...but to be clear, you have to define "social distancing" more specifically. If you define it as "hiding it in your basement to avoid colds", then the answer is going to be different than, say, "standing on spots in the elevator", or (more to my original point) "doing alternate day in-person education because teachers want fewer students in the classroom". I'd still argue that we need a shred of decent evidence for any of it, but we should at least start by being specific about our claims. > Social distancing has been a proven method to combat the spread of ilnesses, including respiratory viruses, for centuries. And it still works, and it did work for Covid. It's pretty funny how you demand sources from other people, but then just make stuff up. [1] Classic example: asking people if they "social distanced", then asking those same people if they remember getting sick. There are so many "studies" like this in public health "science", and if you exclude them from meta-analysis on the grounds that they're total bullshit, partisans start accusing you of "cherry-picking", because that's often the full extent of the affirmative evidence for whatever thing they're advocating.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]