One of the top scientific advisers to the British Government said the two metre (6'6") social distancing rule is based on 'very fragile' evidence.So-called social distancing is a scam. So is wearing masks:
People in the UK have been urged to stay at least 2m, or six-and-a-half feet, away from anyone who they don't live with, to avoid catching or spreading COVID-19.
But the distance may be a non-scientific estimate that just caught on in countries around the world, as top researchers say there is not solid evidence to back it up.
Other nations have cut their rules down to a 1m gap, which advocates say could help businesses get back to work faster and help to kick-start the economy.
At a conference at the World Health Organization in early April, meanwhile, Mike Ryan, the executive director of WHO's Health Emergencies Program, said that there is "no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any particular benefit."The more we learn, the more it seems like politicians are just running scared--afraid they'll be blamed for deaths due to a virus. I wonder if American hospitals would have been overwhelmed if we'd done nothing, as we've done in every other pandemic in my lifetime. Probably wouldn't have been.
Some experts have claimed that new knowledge of asymptomatic transmission of the coronavirus led to public health officials radically reversing their advice on mask-wearing. Yet asymptomatic spread of the disease has been known since at least January, when a study in the New England Journal of Medicine appeared to confirm as much. Fauci himself acknowledged the results of that study on Feb. 3, over a month before he reaffirmed his opposition to general mask usage.
So what changed in between then and now? Has compelling new evidence emerged that suggests widespread mask usage is effective at slowing the spread of the coronavirus? Has such evidence ever existed? In the view of some dissenting experts, the answers are, respectively: Not much, no, and no. Yet, for now at least, a broad consensus of expert opinion continues to insist it is necessary to wear them for the duration of the pandemic, if for no other reason than to be careful.
And we'd have lost up to 50% fewer lives if we'd have protected people in nursing homes.
3 comments:
If doing nothing works, it would have worked in Wuhan. Compare the chaos there with the Australian response. They refused to listen to the "Don't worry, Covid is no different than the flu." line coming from the Chinese government, and took immediate action to institute social distancing. The result is that Australia has the virus under control and is ready to start opening schools. Then look at Italy which foolishly followed the Chinese advise and didn't social distance until it was too late.
Why do you think that doing less would cause hospitals to be less overwhelmed? NY took several steps and (even with those interventions) was still very overwhelmed!
We don't have good data. We have had conflicting advice, especially from the CDC.
In the US, about half of the deaths were in nursing homes--if you believe the data. There's plenty of evidence that deaths assigned to the virus, as opposed to "comorbidities", have been exaggerated.
This virus isn't worth the cost of the shutdowns.
New York's hospitals were not overwhelmed. The Mercy left after having treated only a few people, and that emergency hospital set up in Central Park was closed down shortly after having seen very few people.
The worst place to be during this outbreak is in a NY nursing home.
Post a Comment